2014-10-29
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of members of the Probus Club of Darwin who are visiting Parliament House today. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The amendments in this bill respond to issues about the operation of privacy provisions of the Information Act in emergency or disaster situations.
The Information Commissioner raised concerns that the Information Act may not provide public sector organisations with adequate powers to share information relating to members of the public in the event of an emergency or disaster situation.
In response to these concerns the Department of the Attorney-General released an issues paper titled Sharing of Personal Information in the Event of Disasters in or out of the Territory in July 2013. The issues paper sought comment from stakeholders and interested bodies on amending the Information Act to provide clarity about the handling of personal information by public sector organisations in the event of emergency situations.
The purpose of this bill is to implement amendments to the Information Act, as informed by the public consultation process, to establish a clear legal basis for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by public sector organisations in the event of a disaster or emergency situation in the Northern Territory.
Schedule 2 of the Information Act contains information privacy principles (IPPs) which establish rules for the reasonable handling of personal information by public sector organisations.
Although the IPPs provide for the exchange of some information in emergency situations, it is not clear that they would permit the exchange of large volumes of information or all types of situations that are necessary in the event of an emergency situation.
The Information Act contains a number of exceptions that provide for the non-application of the IPPs. The first of these is found under section 70, which provides that a law enforcement agency is not required to comply with an IPP if it believes that the non-compliance is necessary for the exercise of one of its law enforcement functions. At present, the definition of ‘law enforcement agency’ does not extend to the Northern Territory Emergency Services or the Fire and Rescue Service, meaning these agencies, which are of pivotal importance in emergency situations, are not covered by the exemption.
Part 5 of the Information Act provides additional mechanism for organisations to depart from the IPPs. These are known as Codes of Practice and Grants of Authorisation. Under section 72 of the act an organisation may prepare a draft code of practice modifying the IPPs. The current process for developing a code of practice involves the code being recommended by the Information Commissioner and put forward to the minister on behalf of the department seeking the code, then the minister submitting the code to the Administrator for approval and gazettal. This mechanism is onerous. No Codes of Practice have been made to date and would likely inhibit the ability of the public sector organisation to use a code for long-term management of emergency situations.
Section 81 of the act provides that the public sector organisations can apply for a grant of authorisation exempting them from the IPPs. At present, the section only allows exemptions from IPPs 1, 2 and 10. Exemption from these principles only is likely to be insufficient in an emergency situation and not cover situations involving data security, data integrity and cross-border information flows.
In addition, the Information Act does not make it clear that the public sector organisations are able to use, collect or disclose personal information after the immediate threat posed by the emergency situation has subsided. This is of particular concern given that the aftermath of a disaster still demands high levels of cooperation between agencies.
The particulars of the bill addressing the issues as outlined are as follows. First, the bill amends section 4 to insert a new definition of ‘emergency situation’. The definition applies the meaning of emergency situation provided in section 18 of the Emergency Management Act. That definition provides that an emergency situation exists during periods of emergency events, including a state of emergency or a state of disaster.
Second, section 4 is further amended to include ‘Northern Territory Emergency Service’ and ‘Fire and Rescue Service’ within the definition of a law enforcement agency.
Third, the Information Act is amended to remove the role of the Administrator from the Code of Practice approval process. Instead, the Codes of Practice are to be made upon approval by the Information Commissioner. This change necessitated amendments to section 73 and the repeal of sections 74 and 75.
Fourth, section 80 will be amended to alter the requirements for the keeping of a register of Codes of Practice. At present, section 80 provides that the register may be in any form and does not include any requirement that it be published. The amended section will require that the register must include a copy of each Code of Practice and the register must be published on the website of the Information Commissioner.
Fifth, section 81 will be amended so as to provide that the Information Commissioner may authorise public sector organisations to collect, use or dispose of personal information that may contravene or be inconsistent with the IPPs generally. At present, the section limits approval for the use of information that may contravene or be inconsistent with only IPP 1 (Collection), IPP 2 (Use and disclosure) or IPP 10 (Sensitive information).
Finally, the bill inserts new section 81A. This provision expressly provides authorisation for public sector organisations to collect, use or disclose personal information in a manner that otherwise would contravene or be inconsistent with the IPPs during an emergency situation if the information is to be collected, used or disclosed for a permitted purpose. The provision also allows the Information Commissioner to authorise, upon the application of public sector organisation, the organisation to use, collect or disclose personal information in a manner that would otherwise contravene or be inconsistent with the IPPs, or for a period of time after the end of an emergency situation if the information is to be collected, used or disclosed for a permitted purpose.
New section 81A identifies a permitted purpose in relation to an emergency situation as being a purpose that directly relates to the government management of response or recovery from an emergency situation. Beyond this, the provision provides a number of express permitted purposes. These include the identification of individuals who may be injured, missing or dead or otherwise involved in the emergency situation; assisting individuals who have been involved in the situation to obtain medical, financial or other services; assisting with law enforcement in relation to a situation, and coordinating and managing the situation.
The Information Amendment Bill 2014 will alleviate concerns that the privacy provisions of the Information Act are insufficient to permit public sector employee organisations to share the volume and type of information that would be required to be exchanged in an emergency or disaster situation.
The bill will establish a clear and legal basis for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in the event of an emergency, thereby ensuring the public sector is able to handle situations that pose a threat to the community as efficiently as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I also table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence of Hon Denis Burke, a previous Chief Minister, and his wife Annette, in the gallery with his guests Bill and Isobel Steller, from Sydney I hear. Nice town, but Darwin is better.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 28 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we support this bill. It allows medical practitioners and psychologists to attend general meetings of the parole board, and not just the hearings relating to life sentences for the crime of murder, which is currently the case. The opposition supports the intent and the bill.
It is appropriate that psychologists be part of the parole board in relation to the potential release of a murderer. It is equally appropriate that psychologists be part of the parole board in relation to the potential release of a serious sex offender, for example. That is essentially what this bill provides for. However, it should be noted that it is not currently the situation that parole for a sex offender is granted in the absence of a psychological assessment.
A psychologist or medical practitioner member of the parole board does not participate in the decision of the parole board. There are many cases where the participation of such a member of the parole board would be advantageous. The cases for which it is applicable could be outlined in this bill. But the best approach is the one the Attorney-General is taking in this legislation, where it is at the discretion of the Chair of the parole board.
The operations of the parole board are at the end of the justice chain. You cannot assess a parole board in isolation of other aspects of the justice system, including levels of crime and the operation of the corrections system. As the Attorney-General admitted in his own second reading speech:
In other words, the biggest changes of an operational nature are due to the increased levels of serious crime being experienced in the Northern Territory. Last year was our most violent year ever, and we a tracking towards 2014 being our second most violent year ever.
The Attorney-General also admitted this is the second time in less than a year he has had to bring legislation to this House to deal with the impact the increasing amount of serious crime in the Northern Territory is having on the parole board. The last time we held a debate on the parole board in this House it was about doubling the size of the board and increasing how often it meets. To help the parole board cope, we doubled its size and increased how often it met.
It is very simple. The more serious crime you have, the more parole board hearings you will have. That is what we are facing in the Northern Territory. The more serious, violent crime, the greater the work of the parole board.
This is legislation that deals with the situation at the end of the chain, and I fear worse is yet to come. Only last month we heard that child abuse reports in the Northern Territory have jumped by 30% in the last year. That is extremely concerning. We are also extremely concerned the minister for Child Protection, who is also the Attorney-General and Minister for Correctional Services, has cut the number of child abuse reports where investigations are finalised, and has cut the child protection budget …
Mr Elferink: You are full of it, mate. You are being a bitter, dishonest human being.
Mr GUNNER: That is based on the budget books, Attorney-General. I have discussed that with the shadow Child Protection minister, and we are bringing our concerns into this Chamber. I welcome the Attorney-General clarifying points the shadow Child Protection minister has taken, quite clearly, from the budget books and information on the public record. I am very interested to hear how the Attorney-General defends that.
The Attorney-General has also acknowledged that under his watch juvenile justice is in crisis, through the commissioning of a review into the CLP’s failures. What I find so remarkable is the CLP members have ignored the recommendations of their former parliamentary colleague, Jodeen Carney, who undertook a comprehensive review of the youth justice system.
The CLP obviously rates Ms Carney; she is the CEO of child protection. Yet for some reason her review of youth justice is being ignored. It is puzzling that the review of the CEO of child protection, a former member of the CLP and someone who has undertaken a certain amount of work in this area, is being ignored. The CLP could save considerable money and time if, rather than holding another review into youth justice, it revisited and worked through the recommendations of its now CEO of child protection.
The head of Correctional Services has said the old Berrimah gaol is fit only for a bulldozer, but the minister thinks it is fit for a juvenile prison. A rundown facility is unsuitable for the use for adults, but will be given a coat of paint and used for juveniles.
We are concerned that failures in the juvenile system will lead to failures in the adult correctional system. That will obviously result in increased pressure on the adult correctional system and the parole board. That will probably lead the Attorney-General to put forward further amendments to the parole bill to this House so the parole board can cope with the increasing workload.
This is the situation we are facing under the CLP. We have a broken child protection system with child protection notifications up by 30% in one year; the number of child protection investigations being completed is significantly down; the child protection budget has been cut; the CLP has given its former colleague a job, but ignored her report into youth justice; there is a juvenile system in crisis and now undergoing a review; violent crime is at record levels; and today we see a bill designed to cope with the increasing pressure on the parole board.
We support this bill. The parole board needs support. I thank members of the parole board for the work they do in dealing with the increased pressure. As the Attorney-General admits, it has never had a greater workload. I thank it for the work it does and I hope this bill helps.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we support this bill.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Attorney-General’s Parole Amendment Bill 2014 as the Minister for Health, but also as the Minister for Disability Services.
This amendment, contrary to what the member for Fannie Bay just told the Chamber, is not a reaction to ‘cope with an increase in pressure on the parole board’. This amendment is about improving the functioning of the parole board and the management of people on parole.
He correctly summarised that at the moment we have 10 members, I believe, of the parole board and one of those is a psychologist and/or medical professional. At the moment, only people facing imprisonment for life for the crime of murder are subjected to extra psychological or medical assessment in regard to decisions the parole board presides over.
This amendment is to broaden the psychological and medical assessment and input into the decisions of the parole board. It is a commonsense amendment which will provide better outcomes for people on parole and a more efficient parole system. The amendment will include people who have been convicted of serious crimes, including manslaughter and sex offences. But this is not to say there is an increased demand for these services; it is simply to improve the services provided.
The member for Fannie Bay went off on a tangent and used this amendment to the Parole Act to argue that there has been a substantial increase in serious crime in the Northern Territory. That is totally misleading and simply not true. The essence of this significant amendment through the Parole Amendment Bill is to provide a very professional approach to other serious crimes that are presented to the parole board.
As the Minister for Disability Services, I am only too well aware that the incidence of disability throughout the Northern Territory is very high compared to other jurisdictions. We have many people in the Northern Territory who have acquired brain injury or congenital brain disorders and conditions which can manifest in cognitive disability and all sorts of other disabilities. For example, quite often, as adults, the behaviour of people with foetal alcohol syndrome can be antisocial and that leads them into the correctional system. They commit crimes and offend and come to the notice of the police and, ultimately, the corrections system. So many people in gaol have disabilities – physical disabilities, cognitive impairment and mental disabilities -which can, by and large, go under the radar; it does not necessarily come to the attention of the authorities. To some extent, it can explain why people commit crimes in the first place.
So not only is this a commonsense approach, but it is also quite a considerate and caring approach for people who have committed serious crimes. It is about not just taking into account psychological or medical factors for people who are facing life imprisonment, but also people who have committed other serious crimes, for example, manslaughter and sex offences.
These people will be offered the same input from those specialist people already on the parole board. That means those people will have special consideration made of their disability. The disability will be assessed and the management plan around how these people are supervised will take those factors into account. Surprisingly, that has not been done to date to any great extent.
It will also enable people caring for or supervising these people to have a greater understanding of how these people function. For example, if you have a cognitive disability, suffer from a impairment through brain damage, often you simply do not understand things; your ability to understand, to comprehend, is impaired. Of course, if you are dealing with someone like that you need to know because if you are giving them instructions, trying to educate them, trying to teach them a system, a process, a way of doing things, often it is incredibly difficult.
We see that throughout the education system where, sadly, a new generation of children is coming through who have foetal alcohol syndrome. These children have problems learning and following instructions and have behavioural problems around their inability to concentrate and abide by rules. When these people become adults they offend and come to the attention of the corrections system.
This amendment will allow more specialist consideration of the needs, the particular disability, the behaviours, the mental capacity and the cognitive impairments of people who have committed serious crimes which are being reviewed by the parole board. This is a good thing; it is recognition of disability throughout the community. I imagine there is a high level of disability amongst prisoners.
It will also help to assess the likelihood of recidivism. If people are less able to control certain behaviours, have an inability to understand certain directions, rules or laws, obviously the risk of recidivism is much greater.
This is not about, as the member for Fannie Bay tried to assert, responding to an increase in demand through an alleged increase in serious crime in the Northern Territory. It is quite the contrary. Since we have been in government all areas of crime have reduced, including serious crime, and we are proud of that.
We have a conscientious Attorney-General who has been forensically going through legislation pertaining to, in this case, the parole board, looking at ways to improve systems and making them better for the criminals or the consumers, but also the people who have to implement and work with the legislation. In this case, the parole board, the corrections system and the police are people who deal with crime within the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, once again I find myself commending the Attorney-General for his vigilance, attention to detail and recognising we cannot sit on our hands like Labor did for many years. We have to reform legislation, whether it be major reforms, or minor reforms, as in this case, but significant reforms.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the bill before us today. I support what the Minister for Health said. If we are to have a parole board that does its job properly, it needs to make sure it has the right people to make the decisions. This amendment to the act will allow an authorised psychologist or medical practitioner who has already been appointed as a member to attend general meetings. Instead of being restricted to people in certain categories, these people will be allowed to give advice for a greater range of prisoners.
As the Minister for Health said, there are many people in prison for other reasons such as cognitive issues relating to alcohol and FASD and, as the minister said in his second reading speech, exposure to domestic violence at a young age, and failure to thrive. There is a range of complex issues that may occasionally slip under the radar. Unless you have the right people to assess these issues, the parole board might make the wrong decision simply because they are not given the right advice.
That is very important, not only for the prisoner but also, as the minister said, the victim and the community. People want to know, if a prisoner is being released on parole, that both the victim and the community are safe and the likelihood of any problems occurring is at a minimum simply because the board has fulfilled its role in taking into account all matters it needs to before it makes a decision.
One of the other issues raised is that the parole board needs to look at the risk of recidivism. It has to assess whether there is a fairly high risk that prisoner, if let out on parole, will come back again because they have not changed their attitudes or behaviour enough for them to stay out of gaol. They are the things parole boards have to take into consideration.
During the second reading speech, the minister said:
I know there has been some discussion to and fro about whether there is more crime in the Northern Territory, but the second reading speech said there has been an increasing number of matters. If it is not due to an increased number of people going to prison, is it that there are more people being assessed for parole? My understanding is we were tightening up on parole. It might be worth clarifying, minister, what the chairperson meant when he said there was an increase in the number of matters before the parole board each month.
The other thing I was going to ask the minister is what was the advice from the Hon Justice Stephen Southwood? Was that advice a reflection of what we are debating today in parliament? Was the advice of the Justice included in the amendments we have before parliament today? I would like clarification because when I read it I understood he was giving advice. I do not know what that advice was, whether today’s amendments reflected it, and if the Justice supported these amendments.
The amendments are very practical and make sense. If it helps the parole board make more informative decisions, there is less chance of a poor decision being made. If the parole board makes a poor decision and there is an outcome, for whatever reason, that comes back on the board, and I imagine that would not make the members happy. They want to make decisions which are the best according to the knowledge they have been given. Expanding on this and allowing a psychologist and medical practitioner to attend general meetings will help towards that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will close debate today. What I thought was to be a short debate has now been dragged out to something much longer. This is largely because of the wickedness of the member for Fannie Bay in misrepresenting the numbers surrounding a raft of issues that have stuff-all to do, quite frankly, with parole.
I will table the updated graph, which I call my favourite graph, which deals with prisoner projections created in June 2010 by the former Labor government, justifying a 30-year, $1.8bn deal to build a new prison. It was its most remarkable infrastructure project in government.
This graph contains three lines which project prisoner numbers out to December 2016. Those three lines were worst case, most likely and best case scenarios for prison numbers pushing out into the future. True to form the blue dotted line which appears on this graph followed the most likely case scenario year in, year out from the time the projections were put together in June 2010.
Curiously, after the change of government, because of some changes in policy – things like the Sentenced to a Job program and a number of policing policies at the front end – prisoner numbers not only went below the best case scenario, but have consistently stayed there since that time. Up until September 2014, according to this graph, the expected prison population today should be in the order of about 1750.
The actual prisoner numbers are 1541, 200 less than projected by the former Labor government. That is because Sentenced to a Job, amongst other programs, is producing recidivism rates members opposite, when in government, could only dream of. The current recidivism rate for prisoners who are not in the Sentenced to a Job program is 57%. I believe ROGS will report that as slightly down into the near future, at 55%.
The recidivism rate amongst Sentenced to a Job prisoners – I still qualify this figure with great caution in the sense it is not longitudinal in the study around it – is 14%. That is a substantial change in the world of prisoners coming back to prison. If that number proves to be anywhere near accurate as longitudinal studies are conducted, this jurisdiction, under a Country Liberals government, will have changed the corrections environment in this country. Other jurisdictions are sitting up and taking notice.
It is all well and good for the member for Fannie Bay to take cheap shots about the number of people in prison and coming in front of the parole board. Their only answer was to create an environment where they had to spend $1.8bn of Territory taxpayers’ money creating the prison Mahal, which we have inherited and we will make certain we never have to fill.
I have gone from having to declare in this House that I thought I may have to keep Berrimah open to deal with the overflow, to not only saying Berrimah will be closed as an adult prison, but moreover and far more importantly, the new prison will not be full on day one because prisoners who are in the system are not coming back in the numbers they used to under the Labor government because they have jobs and a future. That is something the Northern Territory government remains implacably proud of, no matter what wickedness the member for Fannie Bay wishes to engage in.
I consequently table this graph for the edification of members.
I also heard the member for Fannie Bay engage in skulduggery of the lowest order when he seemed to impute the idea that we are somehow refusing to investigate matters brought to us in the child protection environment. Once again, the member for Fannie Bay is so liberal with the truth he should seriously consider what the word ‘truth’ actually means. He has a positively Kafkaesque world view in relation to what the truth is and how it should be used.
I heard the Chief Minister earlier say that the member for Fannie Bay should engage in some Orwellian speeches. I just heard one. I cannot believe that out of the numbers in front of the member for Fannie Bay he could extrapolate the conclusion he did, unless he is engaged in a deliberate attempt to deceive Territorians in the most wicked way possible, using the vehicle of child protection as the means to get there. That is disgraceful behaviour, and I thought more of the member for Fannie Bay than to try to do that type of thing.
I draw the member for Fannie Bay’s attention to page 42 of the last Children’s Commissioner’s report in relation to child protection. On that page he will find a graph. On that graph he will see the number of police notifications for child protection matters has increased substantially because of a change in police policies. Those police policies are to notify the child protection system of emotional abuse matters at much greater numbers than they have in the past. The notifications from police over two years went from 1500 to 3500 notifications.
What happens in the real world when this occurs? The police, when attending an incident, make a determination that a child may or may not be in need of some attention from child protection authorities. As a consequence of that, where they used to not make those calls, they now do. They pick up the telephone and ring Central Intake at the child protection agency, which is in a building in the Darwin region. Who picks up the telephone at the other end? It is a child protection worker with years of experience. It is not somebody who just has the social worker degree and the other qualifications required to be a child protection worker, but somebody with years of experience. That person then goes through the initial triage phase of the child protection process and eliminates matters which are not child protection issues without proceeding to investigation.
Police have changed their policy; they now report more matters. I refer the honourable member to page 43 of the last Children’s Commissioner’s report where he made the following observation:
It goes on to say:
That means the Northern Territory government listens to what the Children’s Commissioner has to say in this instance and in other circumstances and created a domestic violence policy which is now being looked at by the rest of this country because of its insightfulness and the fact it is being rolled out on the ground where it is needed: amongst the staff who are bringing these policies to bear upon the wife beaters in our community.
We now have a domestic violence policy that did not exist under the former government. We have a police force which is highly responsive to kids being exposed to that domestic violence environment. The member opposite said the government is doing nothing and the situation is becoming worse. No, we are responding to the circumstances which exist.
Central Intake takes the telephone call, and I draw the member for Fannie Bay’s attention to page 51 of the report and point out something quite anomalous in the spurious and deceitful argument he made in this House. The number of notifications obviously goes up during the reporting period I have discussed. However, the number of matters proceeding to investigation goes down slightly – not significantly, but slightly. That means the professional child protection officer taking the phone call is able to triage those reports out as matters which do not require attention under the child protection regime of the Northern Territory. Those matters which are unable to be triaged out in that fashion are sent to investigations. Their file is then forwarded on to a person to complete an investigation, which means a child protection officer gets the file and investigates.
According to the member opposite, because of the reduction in investigations – this is the really dishonest part of his submission – it automatically follows that funding was cut to investigators. Nonsense, balderdash and untrue. If I could use the ‘L’ word I would apply it to the member for Fannie Bay for his dishonest representation of what is occurring.
We have reached the point where we have been quite aggressive and are starting to see a plateauing of the number of investigations into these matters. To support the argument of the government in this area and demonstrate how spurious and dishonest the member for Fannie Bay has been with the twist of the numbers, I draw his attention to page 51 of that report where it clearly demonstrates that the number of substantiations has fallen sharply since they were in government. That means in the year 2011-12 there were 1749 substantiations – this is where child neglect or abuse has been found – to 1356 which means that whilst the reports have gone up, professional agencies have been more careful about reporting these matters when they are finally sent off for investigation and, ultimately, those investigations lead to substantiations.
The number of substantiations has fallen. This has to be good news, but according to the member opposite it is all about funding cuts. We do not ignore these children in times of neglect, abuse and/or sexual abuse as too often sadly occurs in our community. This is the politics of the member opposite. He would go into the child protection domain and seek to achieve political pointscoring without accurately reflecting what occurs.
I also point out that this year there have been 4303 investigations finalised thus far. That is more finalised investigations than they did when they were in government. Nevertheless, they are more than happy to ignore the facts so they can spin a story. If they spin any more aggressively they will be welcome at next year’s Red CentreNATS.
This government is mindful of these matters. I take this opportunity to table the first report under section 43(2) of the Children’s Commissioner’s Act in relation to youth detention practices in the Northern Territory.
In recent months I have been visited by the Commissioner for Child Protection who has pointed out to me several matters of concern – he has spoken about these matters publicly – in relation to events which occurred in August last year, but also matters that date back a number of years which have been the subject of a number of court cases. Those matters have now been determined by the courts but, nevertheless, the Children’s Commissioner seeks to continue to raise those matters with me. I thank the Children’s Commissioner for his input. I table that report.
The Children’s Commissioner is concerned, and has demonstrated his concern, about a number of matters that have tracked back a number of years. I am surprised to have heard so little of them from him until recently. I encourage the Children’s Commissioner to raise those concerns with Mr Michael Veda, who is doing the Veda review into juvenile detention facilities in the Northern Territory, including the processes that go on in those detention facilities.
I also heard the complaints from the members opposite in relation to the quality of our youth detention facilities in the Northern Territory. We, as a government, in the last two years inherited from the former government the Don Dale Centre; a building which I identified almost immediately as pulling up well short of what should be required for the effective detention of youth in our community.
Some of the shortcomings of the Don Dale Detention Centre include dorms without lavatories in them. This means that, sometimes, rather than waking the guards at 4 am to go to the toilet, one of the boys might take a pee in the corner. The smell of urine in those places is something that affronted me when I first inspected the Don Dale centre.
Clearly, weaknesses have been found in the Don Dale custodial environment in recent times which has led to a number of incidents, including the escape of several young detainees, much to the concern of the public. There have been a number of other shortcomings identified with Don Dale centre so the government started to find a way it could deal with it.
Members opposite suggest doing exactly what they did the last time round with the adult prison: spend a gazillion dollars of taxpayers’ money because they solve these problems by just spending money. The $1.8bn gaol we have inherited from the former government is an example of their reckless spending in relation to these matters. Their solution is to say, ‘We will just build a new juvenile detention facility’. The last time I had one of those costed, it was a $150m exercise.
Considering we are the beneficiaries of a $5.5bn projected debt, handed to us by the former government, we are not in a position to borrow another $150m to build an extra gaol on top of the gaol already purchased by the former government.
The options left to us are either to revamp the Don Dale centre – to bring it up to certain standards you would have to spend many millions of dollars – or alternatively, with the expenditure of a mere $800 000, taking the old medium security section of the Berrimah prison and turning it into an effective juvenile detention facility which will meet the requirements of government into the foreseeable future. It will also enable us to deal with some of these juveniles who have caused us …
Mr Wood: You might have been able to sell the prison land and use that money.
Mr ELFERINK: … grief. Unfortunately, the sale of that land will go back to servicing the debt that we have to carry for the last gaol. This is the point. I pick up on the interjection by the member for Nelson. He said sell the prison land and you can build a new prison. The fact is that prison land will be sold to defray the costs of the new prison the member for Nelson had so much to do with prior to the change of government.
Whilst I understand the concerns of both the Children’s Commissioner and a number of other organisations in the Northern Territory, I believe the $800 000 spend on the existing custodial facility will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Northern Territory when it comes to the detention of juvenile prisoners.
I would like to see my juvenile prison population at zero. We are already taking steps to extend things like Sentenced to a Job to the juvenile prison population, where that is appropriate. We are also engaging in a number of other possibilities, currently under examination, of how we can get adult prisoners engaging with their own family members so juveniles are less likely to come into the custodial environment.
I also heard the member for Fannie Bay, once again mischievously, say we had not adopted the suggestions of the Carney review. In actual fact, he knows full well I have said on a number of occasions that policy statements will be made in the very near future in relation to the juvenile justice system in the Northern Territory.
I inherited a juvenile system from the former government which had decayed substantially, and I have been working assiduously since taking over the Correctional Services portfolio to repair it. This includes working on the problem of juvenile cells in the base of the court house in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, where juveniles are exposed to adult prisoners as a matter of regularity and course. We have a solution just about ready to come out in a way that shows imagination that was utterly lacking under the former government. They were quite happy to see juveniles exposed to adult prisoners as a matter of regularity and course. They did nothing about it other than to announce they would spend some money, but never quite got around to it.
The bill before the House, now that I can finally turn my attention to it, is quite a straightforward legislative instrument. Increasing numbers of matters are coming before the parole board, but it is not the result of an increasing criminal population. This is by virtue of the fact we have demonstrated, as a government, that crime has been reduced, particularly in the area of property offences, since coming to government. We have more than exceeded our four-year targets in two years.
The targets we have met have demonstrated that property crime has come down to levels that existed prior to the former government coming to power in 2001. In relation to crimes against the person, in the last 12 months we have also seen substantial improvements, particularly in places like Tennant Creek where, if memory serves me, there has been a reduction in offences against the person of close to 60%. This is because, unlike the former government, we have temporary beat locations (TBLs) in front of bottle shops preventing a lot of the liquor that causes the problem in our community finding its way into the hands of people who become violent drunks.
We have mandatory alcohol treatment. This means those people who are consistently turning up so drunk in our community that they cannot stand upright are subject to intervention and taken into a mandatory custodial environment so they can receive treatment for their addiction, which is so profound it decays not only themselves and their families, but also the community of which we are all a part.
We have Alcohol Protection Orders to prevent people who commit offences whilst intoxicated from committing those offences again. We serve those orders on people who commit offences where those offences are punishable by imprisonment for six months or more. We do that because we make the individual responsible for their conduct, rather than some nebulous idea, cuddled up to by the members opposite, that if you put a Banned Drinker Register in place for the whole of society, it will bring about change amongst the addicted few.
We do not, did not and will not subscribe to a policy position that believes you punish the whole of the community for the actions of a few, particularly when you refuse point blank to bring the few to account for their own conduct.
It is these changes that have seen the substantial reductions in property crime. It is these changes that have seen substantial reductions, particularly in the last 12 months, of personal crime. We have been, as a government, unafraid to go after people who commit any number of criminal acts in the name of their marital rights. We have been strident in that area, bringing people to account for beating their wives, and as a general principle, making sure they are charged with criminal offences. In the first year of this government, that has had the effect of pushing up assault rates. Those assaults were always occurring in the community; we started charging those wife beaters with the crimes they commit against their wives and children. However, because we have been firm and prepared to accept that would have the effect of pushing up those assault rates, people started to become more timid in relation to the cowardly act of beating their wives. That is now becoming apparent.
On top of that, as I said before, we are now releasing a domestic violence policy which will become the envy of this country. Therefore, the concept of the Pillars of Justice, which runs from the point of arrest to the end of the parole system, is designed to ensure we are interrupting patterns of behaviour the whole way through that process. Rather than having a discrete issue being dealt with by the police over here, and the courts, the correction system and the parole system deal with their issues, we have created a pathway through that whole system, designed with a bunch of interrupters placed into that pathway, so that at every stage a person who is cascading through all those circumstances can be interrupted and redirected away from their chosen lifestyle by being accountable for their conduct. That is what Pillars of Justice was designed to do. We continue to roll out the legislative amendments to make Pillars of Justice work.
You see before this House now the legislative amendment allowing for paperless arrests. This means a system by which the police are able to arrest people for minor street offences in a far more effective way than they have ever been able to do in the past. Currently the paperwork surrounding a minor street offence is so onerous that police, by the circumstances of that paperwork trail, are forced to use caution or move-on powers rather than apprehension powers at that point. Invariably the person who is playing up and being a bit of a dill at 10 pm is the person you are arresting at 2 am for a serious assault, a homicide or a rape. Paperless arrest will be part of that whole continuum of legislative amendments, ensuring we continue to interrupt criminal behaviour.
These amendments to the parole board are part of that process. Therefore, psychologists, who already sit on the board now anyhow, are no longer restrained from having sufficient or possible input into a parole decision. That is part of those changes. Up until now, those opinions have been reserved pretty much for the preserve of homicide-related offences. It only strikes me as being natural, sensible and straight-thinking that psychologists also are able to have input into things like sexually-related offences and criminal behaviour such as multiple or pathological house-breaking, as the case may be.
We, as a government, have continued and will continue to see the crime environment as a continuum that can be interrupted. It is quite novel; it is not done in any other jurisdiction in Australia. It has taken two years to put together. The final touches are finally coming. We have a number of other small things we need to do in relation to pre-trial disclosure for defence and the parole environment to make sure that post-release environment, particularly for Sentenced to a Job prisoners, is more amenable to that prisoner keeping their job.
Many Territorians are surprised to discover we have, as of this morning, about 150 prisoners who left prison to either go to full-time work or volunteer work. About 100 prisoners are in full-time work. Those prisoners pay tax and rent for their cells. They also pay money into the Victims Assistance Fund and have money in savings. When they leave prison, they keep the job they had while they were in prison and have, in many instances, up to $20 000 start-up money.
We are also using the parole system to parole them to keep that job. There is work we need to do with NGOs, which is under way, to create post-release environments so prisoners can step out of gaol into a post-release environment, maintain their job and continue to demonstrate to themselves more than anybody else, but also to the community, they are capable of things they never dreamed of before.
I would rather not see people go to prison in the first instance because I would rather not see people committing crimes. However, when they do, under this government they will go to prison. When they are in prison that experience will be one of self-discovery through self-assessment and work. When they get out of prison the jobs they had when in prison will continue to be their salvation into the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
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.
The Assembly suspended.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, while there is no question before the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 89 I move a reorder of the routine of business so the Assembly may immediately consider ministerial statements, and at the conclusion of ministerial statements the Assembly resumes consideration of Government Business.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the growing international investment opportunities being created in the Northern Territory by the Country Liberals government. After more than a decade of Labor Party mismanagement we have firmly re-established the Territory on the world stage and the prospects for future investment are bright indeed.
The hosting of the 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference in Darwin from 12 to 14 October 2014 delivered the most strategic and comprehensive engagement between the Northern Territory and Japan in our history. The conference attracted 177 Japanese delegates and 127 Australian delegates, all leaders in their own fields. It was a major success that has put the Northern Territory clearly on the Japanese trade and investment radar. It has encouraged direct Japanese interest in upcoming investment opportunities, including new infrastructure such as the gas pipeline, port and marine industry park developments, agribusiness, energy, mineral and tourism opportunities.
The theme of the conference was Australia and Japan, A New Era in The Relationship, and some of the key topics dealt with during the conference include economic integration opportunities under the recently signed Japan Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, improving the environment for foreign direct investment, energy security across the region and opportunities for feeding Asia.
The result was a careful analysis and discussion about the many investment opportunities that already exist in the Territory. A highlight of the conference was the Chief Minister’s welcome reception held at the Darwin Convention Centre on the evening of Sunday, 12 October. The themed restaurant showcased our unique landscapes with a particular focus on our outback regions and included a large backdrop of Uluru with changing skylines and an outback pub.
Our multicultural food experience was provided through a mini Mindil Beach market atmosphere. The feedback from our visiting Japanese delegates was that this reception gave them a memorable start to their visit to the Northern Territory, and many hope to visit Uluru again in particular.
On the morning of Monday 13 October, I hosted a boardroom breakfast for 15 leading Japanese business people, including Dr Mimura AC, Chairman of the Japan Chamber of Commerce; Mr Kojima, Chairman of the Mitsubishi Corporation; Mr Kuroda and Mr Kitamura, Chairman and President of INPEX respectively; Mr Takahashi, Executive Managing Officer of Mitsui & Co; and senior representatives from major Japanese financial institutions such as the Sumitomo Mitsubishi Banking Corporation, Mizuho Bank and the Bank of Tokyo.
I was joined by the federal minister for Industry, Mr Ian Macfarlane, and we took the opportunity to highlight many investment opportunities, including the development of a new gas pipeline connecting gas resources of the Northern Territory into the hungry gas markets of southeast Australia. We talked about the possibilities of investing in the expansion of Darwin’s existing port facilities at East Arm and Stokes Hill. We talked about the opportunity of offshore gas coming onshore to support downstream petrochemical industries. We discussed the development of a new 130 ha marine industry park on the East Arm Peninsula and the development of more than 10 000 ha of land on the Tiwi Islands for new agribusiness, aquaculture and tourism industries. I am pleased to report the feedback from minister Macfarlane in those meetings was extremely positive.
The Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation has offered to host a dedicated Northern Territory investment seminar in Tokyo for some of its major Japanese clients as part of my visit to Japan in 2015.
This is how you build an economy: you engage with your customers and investors, and build relationships that lead to new business.
For the first time in the 52-year history of the Australia Japan Joint Business Conference, its organisers chose to hold the conference in the Northern Territory. That was not an accident. I have to thank Sir Rod for assisting with the transition to the Territory. We worked very hard to attract the conference to Darwin because we knew it would lead to more business. It is another example of how we are developing the north.
That same week saw the second North Australia Defence Summit held in Darwin. An initiative of the Country Liberals, the Defence summit brings business people and Defence officers together to consider future business opportunities. I am pleased to inform the House that opportunities abound. The increase in oil and gas assets in the north of Australia and our growing relationship with Southeast Asian nations makes Australia’s defence role in the region increasingly important.
Nowhere is better placed than the Northern Territory to support those surveillance and emergency response needs. Darwin will continue to be a major staging post for deployments and exercises in the region. The arrival of new Defence platforms such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, new armoured vehicles and the expansion of the US Marines rotation to a full Air-Ground Task Force of over 2500 personnel will create many opportunities for local industry.
Defence plans to invest almost $500m in infrastructure at the RAAF Base Tindal to accommodate the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Further infrastructure development at Tindal to support other RAAF needs and enhanced US Air Force cooperation could bring the total spend to around $3bn, all being attracted by the Northern Territory government.
Our government is working with the construction industry and Defence to maximise the local business involvement in these projects. The Land Development Corporation is also working with industry to develop facilities and capability to support the Armidale Class Patrol Boats, their replacement and other vessels in facilities at the marine industry park at East Arm. A $100m project at Robertson Barracks to consolidate Joint Logistics Units North into modern new facilities is a further indication that Defence is here for the long term.
In my key note address to the summit, I mentioned unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. Defence has announced it will purchase a number of large UAVs for surveillance purposes with a primary area of operation across northern Australia.
I believe these UAVs should be based at Tindal and not Adelaide as currently proposed. I have already begun lobbying the federal Defence department and government about basing those UAVs in Katherine. Basing them at Tindal means they do not have to fly the extra four or five hours to arrive to at their areas of operations and back another four or five hours to their base. Basing these aircraft at Tindal will increase the availability of the aircraft, reduce engine and airframe hours and reduce costs. This is a strategic decision to be made by Defence that will increase capability and reduce overall, and overhead, costs. In turn, it will provide more opportunity for local industry to help grow the Territory population and workforce. It will also be a demonstration of the Commonwealth’s support for developing northern Australia.
The increased US Marine and Air Force activity in the northern Territory is likely to bring with it increased use of United States UAVs in our air space anyway, so basing the Australian UAVs at Tindal will provide even greater opportunities for joint Australian/US cooperation.
I plan to travel to the US in the coming months to meet with US Defence leaders to reinforce the strong support the Territory has for the US Marine rotations. I will also promote the capability and capacity of Territory industry to support the US Marines, Air Force and, in the future, Navy. We want to see them having more rotations through Darwin and more support locally from a logistical point of view. I will encourage the Marines to buy locally wherever possible and support a growth in their involvement.
Defence is a key industry in our plan to develop the north. It is clear that Defence investment in this region is about to increase significantly. To capture these opportunities we need to be at the front end of these discussions and the Northern Australia Defence Summit is assisting our ongoing strategic relationships.
As I mentioned earlier, the Northern Australia Defence Summit is in its second year and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the organisers have confirmed the third Northern Australia Defence Summit for October 2015. Once again, it is an example of how the Country Liberals are bringing together the key stakeholders to encourage economic participation and develop the north.
It was interesting at the Defence summit. In that keynote address I made the observation to all that Defence servicing, from a logistical point of view, is something that has been missed locally, by government and otherwise, for many a long year. The second Defence summit will grow exponentially next year, and particularly into 2016 and beyond. Some of the work the government is doing in establishing the Northern Territory as a logistical supply base presents an opportunity for us to target key markets, and not just of US Marines or US Air Force, but expanding into US Navy and other Asian nations as far as our current communications and conversations go.
Food production is another critical industry in the development of the north. The Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has been active in a wide range of traditional research, development, and extension activities while proactively pursuing, attracting, enabling and supporting agribusiness investment. I congratulate the member for Katherine, the minister for Primary Industry, for his leadership in this area.
The department has a range of research programs dedicated to adding to the capacity of the Northern Territory’s cattle, plant and fisheries sectors. Those projects include research focused on the genetic improvement of the Territory cattle herd, better understanding and managing of the rangeland resources of the NT, ongoing research into how to better manage our inshore reef resources, and ways to manipulate mango flowering and improve fruit quality.
The department is showing entrepreneurial flair by supporting agribusiness development and investment in the Territory. That is why we are actively backing the Northern Territory Farmer’s Association’s Northern Australia Food Futures Conference to be held next Tuesday on Melbourne Cup Day. It will facilitate a more informed public debate to help develop effective policy on agricultural development across northern Australia.
We need to keep a sensible perspective on what are reasonable time frames for agricultural developments. Northern development is a long-term nation building plan, and it is important we scope out clear strategies to make it happen in a way that suits the needs of the Territory. This is another way this government is bringing together the people who drive our economy, so we can build the Territory, pay back Labor’s debt and create wealth and employment for everyone now and into the future.
This government is delivering a range of priority projects that will have far-reaching consequences for our economic growth. The impact of these projects will be felt in our regional and remote areas, as well as our larger cities. We are acutely aware of the opportunities the current northern Australia development agenda presents for securing the Northern Territory’s contribution to the future prosperity of Australia as a nation.
We continue to investigate opportunities to develop and market the Northern Territory as an attractive investment and liveable destination. We are engaging with the community, business leaders, international investors and foreign governments, and we are keeping our promise to develop the north and create jobs for our kids.
The rest of Australia is taking note, as are our neighbours in the Asia Pacific.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, never have so many words been written to say so little. When I saw the subject of this ministerial statement I expected something concrete, but instead we have 17 pages of spin. There is no indication of what the next major project will be in the Territory. There is no announcement of any memorandum of understanding being signed to deliver the next major project – nothing.
The difference between the CLP and Labor is that we produced investment opportunities and then turned them into investment outcomes. Chief Minister, you are simply about hollow talk. Something you do not like to talk about is INPEX and acknowledging the all-important INPEX Total major project of Ichthys. This is because it is literally like a beacon, a testimony to Labor’s action versus the Country Liberals inaction. Labor delivered. The Ichthys project represents years of work Labor undertook, and we secured it – a $34bn project underpinning our economy.
We have seen two years of inaction from the CLP government. You have dropped the ball and have not achieved the diversification your hollow rhetoric would have people believe.
In securing the major Ichthys project, Labor has helped secure the Territory’s economic future. We ensured we became the oil and gas hub for northern Australia. We have been delivering increased numbers of jobs through major projects and business opportunities. We further cemented this with, of course, the Labor project of the Marine Supply Base.
The North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas at Charles Darwin University was created to ensure our children can obtain the education they need in Darwin to work in this leading-edge industry. The Larrakia Trade Training Centre was created to provide training to upskill and support Indigenous Territorians into the trade jobs associated with this oil and gas industry.
Chief Minister, you should be embarrassed that you have failed to deliver a single new project in two years. You are still cutting ribbons on Labor projects.
Economic growth and engineering construction work is at record levels thanks to the Ichthys project delivered by the Labor government. However, as I indicated yesterday, the Deloitte Access Economics September quarter Business Outlook has foreshadowed an end to the construction boom in the next few years. The construction spend will halve from $8bn to $4bn. The $34bn Ichthys project is expected to reach its peak construction phase into next year and beyond, where it will be employing thousands of workers. It will be one of the worlds’ largest LNG facilities. The gas and condensate reserves in the Browse Basin will last about 40 years. Gas from the Blaydin Point plant will be flowing in 2017 with 8.4 million tonnes of LNG produced each year. INPEX and Total have contributed to our economy and community.
It is incredibly pleasing that INPEX helped to bring the Japan business conference here. You, Chief Minister, can take no credit for that; it was a relationship fostered by the previous Labor government. In June 2009, then Chief Minister Paul Henderson met with Japanese government trade officials. It was at that meeting that high-level Japanese business meetings in Darwin were first proposed. Then, in September 2011, the largest business delegation of multinationals from Japan came to the Northern Territory, hosted again by the Labor government.
In October 2011, the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, flew to Kyoto, where he delivered a keynote address to the 49th Japan Australian Joint Business Conference. He then opened an NT minerals investment seminar in Tokyo. But here is the clincher! I refer to a media release issued by former Chief Minister Paul Henderson in April 2012, where Mr Henderson announced that the Territory had secured the joint Australia business conference for 2014. That is right. The conference this Chief Minister’s ministerial statement attempts to claim as his own was actually secured by Labor. Just as you have not secured one major project in two years, Chief Minister, you did not secure the conference either.
Of course, major projects need support, and Labor in government realised this. The Marine Supply Base supports the activities of ConocoPhillips at DLNG, as it supports INPEX. It is an attractive reason to entice the next major train to be developed onshore in the Northern Territory of those brownfield sites of DLNG and the INPEX site at Blaydin Point. But guess who cut the ribbon? This Chief Minister, pretending it was his when it was another Labor project. In fact, the CLP was opposed to the Marine Supply Base. Its own Renewal Management Board said it did not believe it was viable. Of course a Marine Supply Base is viable. It is clearly an important plank in the Northern Territory, with Darwin in the Top End, in particular, being the hub for oil and gas.
Darwin provides approximately $150m in services and supplies per year to support the gas industry. With the help of the Marine Supply Base this figure is expected to increase to $420m over the next 20 years. A legacy piece of infrastructure, thanks to Labor’s vision. As I said before, Labor turns opportunities into outcomes. Industry confirms the base will support further investment in Darwin, and is looking forward to accessing the infrastructure. It will improve our capacity to support offshore oil and gas developments and improve the efficiency at East Arm. Compare that to the Giles government’s contribution to the oil and gas sector.
Chief Minister, you damaged our relationship with Japan when you knifed former Chief Minister Terry Mills while he was on a trade mission in Japan. You abandoned the gas to Gove pipeline which would have seen a doubling of the domestic gas industry in the Territory. You created uncertainty for the industry with a proposed sale of Darwin port and the Wadeye airstrip. Your lack of consultation on the regional migration agreement has certainly hurt relationships.
The Chief Minister continued to beat his chest about Defence and pretend nothing occurred under the Labor government when in fact we saw significant expansion of Defence across all of our bases from Larrakeyah, Berrimah Defence Support and Tindal to Robertson Barracks. Who could forget the visit of US President Barack Obama, who visited Darwin with the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to sign and announce that all-important US/Australia alliance. That saw, under Labor, an agreement for the deployment for training purposes of US Marines in the Top End. That then brought about significant construction and investment under Labor into Larrakeyah, Robertson Barracks and Tindal particularly, with other associated infrastructure spending across RAAF Darwin and the Berrimah Defence establishment. All that occurred under Labor. We now see a pipeline of billions of dollars opened up for construction of Defence projects across the Northern Territory, secured by the Labor agreements between the US and Australia.
What this Chief Minister is incapable of doing – which is at the heart of his problem – is recognising when there is bipartisan support and effort for the delivery of all-important strategic relationships. Our industry partners, our other government partners and our allies understand it, but this Chief Minister is incapable of being a statesman and understanding how crucially important the message of bipartisanship is to investment in the Territory.
One of the things we need to do better is acknowledge the efforts that have already occurred with the Defence contract work by local companies. Sitzler took out an Engineering Australia Excellence Award for the work it did on Robertson Barracks to gear up and provide, across the Wet Season, significant new accommodation, as well as water and sewerage infrastructure at Robertson Barracks to help accommodate the Marines. Halikos has undertaken significant work at Larrakeyah in the construction of single men’s quarters and housing.
We have capability amongst existing Darwin developers to undertake the significant billions of dollars of pipeline and construction work coming through, yet I was embarrassed to hear the Chief Minister’s dismissive quips at the dinner at the Defence summit when he said he did not feel capacity was where it should be in the Territory.
Chief Minister, do not talk down the Territory’s capacity. It is your job to talk it up. It was a foolish statement to make in a room full of Territory business people who make their living off these Defence contracts and are chasing the next major Defence contract.
Also, there was no recognition in this speech that the Master Builders Association has a study under way to prove its capability to Defence in securing construction contracts with local companies. Why? Because you operate in your own bubble; you are not engaged with industry and you do not have your finger on the pulse.
Labor gave business in the Territory its greatest opportunity after the global financial crisis. At a time when conservative governments were advocating doing nothing to help the economy, the previous Labor government made sure the Territory would not suffer adversely. We made sure construction was doubled rather than grinding to a halt. We made sure jobs were preserved. In fact, we created 13 000 additional jobs during that period. We made sure Territorians had a safety net.
The Chief Minister’s statement is hollow rhetoric. On this side of the Chamber we await the day when the CLP government has something substantial to announce. I acknowledge the Food Futures Summit will be held, and am delighted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be attending that, as will the federal parliamentary representative Gary Gray, who undertook the major studies into the development of northern Australia when he was parliamentary secretary for northern Australia.
My deep and abiding concern remains that we are missing the opportunity of food production in the Douglas Daly/Katherine region because the CLP has locked up water allocations to its mates. That was done against the best scientific evidence …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Oh, really?
Ms LAWRIE: You, Minister for Land Resource Management, have been taken to the Supreme Court for your action on that. You will get your chance in the Supreme Court to defend yourself.
When you lock up the water resources you require to develop your agricultural base, where do you go? You have over-allocated the Tindall and Oolloo aquifers and it will be an impediment to the major agricultural growth we could have seen in that region.
Chief Minister, if you fail to understand that commercialising Darwin port will be a crippling blow to the livestock industry, then you will fail to understand the most basic tenets of your job. Ask the Livestock Association what it thinks about commercial rates for livestock across that port. It would cripple that industry.
Instead of delivering any positive outcomes as Chief Minister, through his foolish actions and thought bubbles he is putting in place impediments to economic investment in the Territory.
I look forward to the normal sprays we get from the government opposite because you have failed to deliver economic outcomes for the Territory. You are ribbon cutting Labor projects, claiming Labor projects as your own and even claiming a conference brought to the Territory by former Labor Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, as your own because you are so desperate.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement. It was interesting listening to the Leader of the Opposition answer the Chief Minister and hear some of the wild claims she made. My colleagues will be able to rebut just about every one of those claims, and I am sure they will do so in their contributions to this debate.
The Leader of the Opposition used the word ‘embarrassed’. ‘I am embarrassed by the Chief Minister and the government.’ I do not know what there is to be embarrassed about when the debt is going down, crime is going down, and the economy is going up. However, I am also embarrassed at the level of debt the Northern Territory has. When I talk to my children – not so much to my grandkids but my children – I explain the debt to them. They sit with their mouths open and say, ‘Wow, I did not realise I was in that much debt. I did not realise the federal government had left such a huge debt legacy.’
There are a couple of things you can do when you are in deep debt: cut spending or jack taxes up. I noted in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report yesterday that receipts are up for the Northern Territory. There are a couple of ways you can get out of debt so we are not all embarrassed about the legacy we were left by the previous Labor government. You can raise taxes or you can increase economic development.
This Giles government has chosen economic development as the way to go and also to cut out waste we found totalled tens of millions of dollars. When you are left with a debt of $5.5bn – and the opposition seem to think that is okay – that is a debt to income ratio of 98%. We have seen from other states and countries around the world that it is unsustainable; you cannot keep going in that direction. My mother understood that when she used to run our household. It is not rocket science, it is basic Economics 101.
However, Labor thought that was great. My favourite graph shows the pyramids of debt Labor created.
How do you reduce debt? You stimulate economic development by opening the doors and making sure that people have the ability. I believe there is a debate coming in this House later today on the reduction of red tape and getting rid of a cost of doing business. I heard the Chief Minister answer a question this morning saying that between 2006 and 2011 the Northern Territory government had the worst record of creating red tape which got in the way of people doing business.
That is the worst record of any government in Australia. Who was in power? The current opposition led by the Leader of the Opposition, who was the Treasurer. It was the ALP government which was in charge in the Northern Territory at that time, creating all of that red tape which is an impost on business.
I found it quite hypocritical when the Opposition Leader said the sky is falling because we are in government, and everything they did was fantastic and they claim credit. A previous Country Liberal government secured ConocoPhillips for the Northern Territory. You will hear the opposition claim all of that is their doing. They were opposed to the railway, yet when I attended the opening the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, was on the train, hanging out the window, waving to everyone, saying, ‘Aren’t we fantastic? Look what we have.’ It is a bit cute that the Opposition Leader said everything we are doing is riding on the coat-tails of a former ALP government. I do not agree with her on that, and we will probably have to agree to disagree.
The Opposition Leader claims all sorts of things, but on this side we have a different view. We are about getting on and developing the Northern Territory, and creating economic activity and opportunities. That is why you will find a record spending allocation for roads in the current budget. We understand roads, bridges and infrastructure are the economic enablers that will allow business to get on with doing what they do best. Governments are not that good at generating wealth, but we are good at spending it. But the Giles government is very careful about how we spend taxpayers’ dollars, as opposed to the other side which kept racking up the debt on credit cards. It went up almost vertically at one stage.
Seeing the debt level on coming to government, I was appalled at where Labor had taken us with no real goals and plan – it was just a matter of spending money. I have mentioned before that in the Department of Children and Family Services 192 people on the books were not budgeted for. They just kept borrowing money to pay wages.
We came into government with a huge debt. In the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report yesterday – I could stand corrected – our current projected debt to income ratio is 53%. What an achievement, all while economic activity is going on. We lead the country in so many ways.
In May this year I hosted a National Remote and Regional Transport Infrastructure and Services Forum in Alice Springs. We had representatives from around the country, and it was about what goes on in regional, rural and remote Australia. That is firmly where the Northern Territory sits. People who attended this included representatives of the Australian Trucking Association, the Australian livestock industry and the Rural Transport Association.
Those people were very grateful to hear we are spending a record amount on roads and bridges. I had people contact not only my office but also the Department of Transport about roads, bridges and other requirements. Most of those people are fairly understanding and quite grateful when you tell them we are spending a record amount this year on those issues. They understand we do not have a magic wand; we do not have billions of dollars this year to fix every road in the Northern Territory. We prioritise by consulting industry to make sure we get it as right as we can. We have had much feedback from those people I just mentioned to say we are getting it right in most cases. Obviously we would like to do more, but when you are constrained by record debt levels, both in the Territory and federally, it is an issue.
The opposition constantly says the Chief Minister goes to Canberra and does not receive much money. Every state and the Australian Capital Territory are in the same boat. I have been to Canberra seeking money, but it is difficult to get. The federal government does not have any money but has a huge debt, unlike the Rudd/Gillard government which had money when it came to power. When the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer she could go to Canberra and say, ‘I need some money’, and get it. Do you know why? Because the previous Howard/Costello government removed $96bn of Labor debt. It had paid it off and reached the point where the Australian government owed zero. I will say that again: the Australian government did not have any debt. In fact, it had $45bn in the bank when the Rudd/Gillard regime took over ...
Mr Elferink: We needed some pink batts after that, apparently.
Mr STYLES: We did. We needed some of those and TV sets. We needed to send a lot of money to China for a lot of television sets.
When the Leader of the Opposition accuses this government of not going to Canberra and getting sufficient money, I find that appalling. For those people listening or reading the Hansard I will say that again: when Rudd took over, there was $45bn in the bank. When the current Leader of the Opposition became Treasurer in the previous government just after that, the Australian government had money in the bank.
I am sure everyone in this room has gone to their parents and said, ‘Dad, can I borrow some money? Mum, can I borrow some money?’ If mum and dad have some, quite often they will lend it to you. But when I was growing up, going to mum and dad to ask for a loan, they said, ‘We cannot do that at the moment because we just do not have the cash. We have debts and we have to be a little careful.’
If you go there now and see the Australian Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and talk to him about money, you are constantly reminded of the $667bn the previous Labor government racked up on the credit card. That is a big number. I will say for those who read this that a billion seconds ago it was 1957, a billion minutes ago Jesus Christ walked the earth and a billion hours ago no one on this earth walked on two legs. So a billion is a really big figure. The Australian government and people owe 667 of them. That is a lot of $100 bills. Most people would find it very hard to imagine what size and how many football fields stacked up to about 10 stories high $667bn is.
This is the context in which we are looking at creating economic development in the Northern Territory. When I look at that, I worry about my children’s future. In fact, I worry about my grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s future because it will be a long time before they get back to the stage when the Australian government has money in the bank.
We are in a situation in the Territory where we hope to be down to a reasonable debt level by 2017-18. The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report yesterday was glowing in relation to the fiscal management of the Northern Territory.
I move on. In relation to the seminar I hosted, this is …
Mr Elferink: Six-hundred-and-fifty billion dollar coins would get you to the moon and back.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STYLES: Right. Six hundred and fifty billion dollar coins would get you to the moon and back. That is something I can give to my granddaughter and say, ‘Here, Madison, work this out’. I do not think she realises how far away the moon is yet, but she will grow up and, before we pay that debt, she will understand. In fact, her children will understand how many dollar coins it takes to get to the moon and what a big number that is.
As I said, hosting the key seminars and conferences is critical to raising our profile interstate and internationally, and exposing visitors to these events and opportunities that exist in the Northern Territory. Ministers on this side travel with clear purpose in their minds as to what they want to achieve. My colleague, the minister for Primary Industry, travels to countries extensively to help support our cattle industry after the devastating effects of the 2011 ban by Senator Ludwig. Look at what we have: 500 000 cattle to go across our wharf this time. This is what these conferences are about. This is why we go to events. It is about creating economic development.
You have to think along these lines. When I hear the opposition members talk, I often wonder where the business experience and the wealth creation is over there. As they continually demonstrate, they are very good at spending money, but I do not know if they are any good at generating wealth or being part of a team, with industry and private enterprise, to generate wealth for the Northern Territory and the people who live here.
These conferences are about creating opportunities and an environment where business can flourish, which is part of our philosophical belief. Our job is to create an environment where people who operate businesses in the Northern Territory can see them flourish because they employ people. Small business employs about 84% of people in this country. We have to create an environment for small business. That is why there is another debate coming on about the reduction of red tape so small business can do what it does well – creating jobs for people.
We often hear about opportunities for people. In fact, during Question Time this morning I told a story about economic development opportunities for Aboriginal industries. We have many trained, educated people so it is not extra training and education they want, it is job opportunities. We are changing the way we do business to create opportunities so people can use the capacity they have built so far, then increase that capacity so they do not have to become subcontractors, they can get head contracts and become managing contractors in the various works the Northern Territory government contracts out year by year.
There is a great opportunity for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to get involved in wealth creation, not only for the benefit of all Territorians, but to benefit Indigenous organisations, those they employ and also those based in the bush and rural areas where job opportunities are so desperately needed. We are working very hard to make that happen, and I was very pleased to announce that today.
I was part of a group of people who went to Jakarta in May last year. I had quite a few meetings with the minister for Housing and the minister for – I forget which development area it was. As a result of that, we have another conference coming to Darwin of all the practising architects in Indonesia. It is known as the AusIndo Arch1 Conference to be held in Darwin in the first week of November. It follows from the National Architects Awards being held that week, and will give participants from both events an opportunity to attend the presentations and the AusIndo conference.
A large number of practising architects from the majority of provinces in Indonesia will be attending, funded by the Indonesian government. Hosting both events in the same week provides an opportunity for interaction between Australian and Indonesian professionals, and possibly of intellectual property sharing and future business opportunities. This is about creating opportunities in a two-way street with our largest neighbour.
This is the first time this conference has been held in Darwin and it is happening because of the foresight of the Country Liberal government. We look at these opportunities and then we do not talk about it, we do it. I look forward to the conference and what comes out of it.
Yesterday the Department of Transport presented me with a very important strategic paper which it has been instrumental in drafting, in collaboration with other agencies. It will be part of the Northern Territory government’s response to the Green Paper on Developing Northern Australia. It is a comprehensive document that will inform development of the white paper.
There are a number of key issues in this paper and I will discuss a few of them. Northern Australia lacks the transport infrastructure to support the anticipated acceleration and economic growth in the north. We are continually in dialogue with our federal counterparts, especially our state counterparts in Western Australia and Queensland …
Mr HIGGINS A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, member for Daly. It is well known that we in the Territory are the poor cousins. In fact, I signed a couple of documents to go to Canberra today in relation to continually reminding our colleagues that the economic enablers, the transport-related roads, bridges and that type of infrastructure is what we need to get economic growth going, not only in Darwin and our major regional centres, but in the outlying rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory. The provision of such infrastructure is a priority among the range of requirements to support developments that will greatly add to the nation’s long-term prosperity.
This is not just necessarily about us, it is about the nation. Any nation that finds itself in deep debt needs to work harder and smarter. It is about getting that competitive advantage.
I recall talking to one of my colleagues in South Australia about what they might do in the future. When taking out minerals from South Australia they ship them south. It is further away from some of their markets so they travel further south. They then have to obtain a ship and travel from the Adelaide port to Darwin, which takes about 10 days. This means a return trip is nearly three weeks with extra costs of running the ship. They also load it and rail it in South Australia, and they are talking about loading it and railing it to Darwin.
These are the possibilities we are talking about. What possibilities are there in Queensland? I heard on the news this morning about the Great Barrier Reef and some of the crowding issues that Queensland has in its ports.
We are about economic development and having discussions. These are the sorts of things talked about in conferences: economic development and opportunities, the railway line from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek to join up with our north/south rail corridor and the railway line from Kununurra to Katherine. It is about looking at all of these things.
I do not have enough time this afternoon to talk about all of the things being discussed in the Transport portfolio that will contribute to the overall economic growth of the Northern Territory.
Anything we do anywhere in the country is good. We can create employment and economic development in the Northern Territory and get better infrastructure. We have the opportunity to give Australian companies and producers a competitive advantage by reducing their cost of production and getting their goods to market.
I spoke to someone recently who is in the iron ore industry – in fact, not so recently; it was before the price of iron ore dropped. I said to this person, ‘You are in the iron ore business, you mine iron ore’. He said, ‘Not really’. I said, ‘What do you do then? You dig iron ore out of the ground?’ He said, ‘Yes we do that, but we are actually in the logistics business’. I understood what he said but I asked him to explain from his perspective as to what he actually does. He said, ‘Everybody knows around the world this is the price your clients will pay unless you are locked in for long-term prices, and iron ore purchasers do not normally do that. They have shorter-term contracts. The price is X number of dollars per tonne of iron ore. If that is what they are paying, my job is to get that ore to the port of unloading at the cheapest possible price.’ His job is not about the price of the iron ore, it is about getting the competitive advantage in the transportation costs. That is what I was discussing with him.
In what we are doing in getting transport under control, the Territory government’s contribution has been a record amount spent on roads. We understand that, but it is about making sure projects come down the pipeline, like the railway connection to Mount Isa, where you can join in with what they are doing with exporting. It is about looking at what might be good for South Australia to transport those minerals. What will happen to some of the stuff close to the Western Australia border? Where will that go? These are things about which we are working extremely hard so they flow up through the Northern Territory and, in particular, through Darwin.
We will need a new port at some stage. We would like to make sure we need it now. If we needed a new port now that would be a great problem to have. I am looking forward to having that problem. My colleague, the Minister for Mines and Energy, is talking to the same people I am talking to. I feel confident he will talk about some of that when he contributes to this debate.
It is so very important that the people of the Northern Territory understand their government is working hard behind the scenes to make sure there are projects coming online. There are some significant projects being discussed. Obviously, due to commercial-in-confidence matters, I cannot talk about some of those projects. Some of those things will be, and have been, discussed in Cabinet.
I am looking forward to listening to other contributions to this debate. My comments in relation to what we have done in contributing to the development of the white aper on developing the north – there is a bright future. When my children ask me what will happen in the future for the Northern Territory, I say I would not want to be anywhere else. The Northern Territory is the place to be. We will bring debt under control because the Giles Country Liberals government has a plan that we are executing. The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report demonstrates this government is fiscally responsible and can clean up the mess we inherited from Labor.
There is no doubt the opposition will claim all sorts of things, but I ask people either reading this or listening to it to read the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. You can see what is in it and make up your own mind. You do not have to listen to me or the opposition. I ask people to have a good look at what is going on in the Territory, what went on in the Territory during the 11 years of Labor government and the years between 2006 and 2011, when the then Labor government created the largest amount of red tape to be put in front of business. Look at what we are doing to get rid of that red tape and clean up all of those little messy things that get in the way of business. Often it is unnecessary red tape. We have removed much of it so far and we will get rid of more. Where we find red tape we will reduce it, because it is impinging upon businesses’ ability to get on with business.
The nature of business in the Territory has changed from when I arrived 33 years ago. There was a lot of government involvement in things. Private industry will lead the way. I am looking forward to increases in the oil and gas industries here. The Department of Transport is looking very carefully at what we may have to do. There is planning happening to facilitate a range of industries, including new ones. It is really important people have confidence in the government, that it is open for business and we will listen to their concerns and work with them.
Andrew Liveris’ book Make it In America: The Case for Re-Inventing the Economy is a very good book about creating wealth at home and keeping things at home. When I spoke to Andrew Liveris about it he said to change the word ‘America’ to ‘Australia’ in the title, and if you follow it you cannot go wrong. It is an interesting book, and I encourage people to read it. It is about generating wealth and creating jobs for our future. Small business and big businesses like INPEX are leaders that will create economic growth.
Madam Speaker, it behoves governments to work with private industry, hand-in-hand, to ensure the opportunities are there for those businesses to flourish. They are the people who will employ locals and generate the wealth which pays the taxes that gives us the ability to be a government.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, in my contribution to the debate, all I have to work off is the Chief Minister’s words which I received at 8 am this morning. In the essence of democracy, we have had to work off what the Chief Minister is telling us. We have had a couple of hours to do it amongst all the other duties we have. I am privileged to participate and offer my contribution to the debate.
Last week I advised our young Chief Minister of an old saying, ‘You need to have a good memory to be a liar’. Today I offer our young Chief Minister another old saying, ‘Do what I do, not do what I say’. It is interesting to see that our statesman and lead minister in the Northern Territory, the person who is on the world stage representing the Northern Territory, continues to use these cheap political slaps when Territorians are screaming from the streets and from the back blocks, ‘We want a statesman’.
For such an important conference which the Chief Minister is reporting on – the Australia Japan Joint Business Conference held in Darwin – it is lucky it is not on today because I would hate to think of those esteemed Japanese delegates watching the ABC news tonight with file footage of the Northern Territory Chief Minister in complete meltdown in Question Time, screaming across the Chamber all sorts of allegations and abuse when conducting the simple objective of trying to avoid telling the truth.
Chief Minister, I can only work off what you say. This came in the second paragraph. You started off with a negative and immediately denigrated the previous Labor government. Then you went on a word search to try to convince the listeners that when Paul Henderson, the previous Chief Minister, brokered the 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference in Darwin, it was a good thing. We should be able to celebrate that together.
The Chief Minister, who started off with a very negative approach, denigrating the previous Labor government, then launched into a paragraph which said:
I will briefly talk about the Darwin Convention Centre and the Chief Minister’s spin on how there was absolutely nothing happening before and it has all happened in the last 18 months under the Country Liberal Party. Let us have a closer look: the Darwin Convention Centre; the Darwin waterfront; the major upgrade of Stokes Hill Wharf; the cruise ship terminal; bringing the Charles Darwin University CBD Campus to the waterfront; and the Greater Darwin Area Land Use Plan that showed the visionary plan to extend the waterfront right through Frances Bay, which incorporates the ribbons of green and those important public open spaces. We could go on to look at the master plan of suburbs in the greater Darwin area and those land release programs across the Northern Territory.
It is interesting to see a paragraph which said nothing is happening, yet we can start at what is a world-class precinct which would have impressed those esteemed delegates at that conference, being the Darwin waterfront and Darwin Convention Centre.
As a teacher of many years, having toured this city with many regional and remote school groups, I can still remember and tell the story of standing in ankle-deep mud at the waterfront with a rusty 44-gallon drum rolling around on the tide. I am now able to go to a world-class precinct and share with the rest of the world the potential Darwin has and envisages into the future.
Chief Minister, as our statesman, please drop the negatives and get into the real business of the statement which I received this morning under this punitive policy of a mean-spirited government to keep me in the dark and ill-informed. I heard the Chief Minister adding new components to the statement, so it is not only that I do not get this information to process honestly and with integrity from the government, I then get additions.
The Chief Minister is looking at adding downstream petrochemical industries. That slipped into a paragraph not there at 8 am, not until delivery of the speech. I would like to debate that because it sounds very interesting. It was a one-liner, not in the original statement, and I daresay the Chief Minister will provide an update for the House and the constituency of the Northern Territory on what is planned for downstream petrochemical industries.
The semantics used by the Chief Minister were unfortunate when he said it was not an accident. That links to the story about esteemed Japanese delegates in Darwin sharing the Chief Minister’s hospitality. When we heard the word ‘accident’, it was a terrible accident in Japan for the previous Chief Minister, Terry Mills. It was a most unfortunate accident for Mr Mills, who incurred a fatal political blow while on a very high-level trade mission to Japan. I am sure the Chief Minister will be remembered in history for what happened to the previous Chief Minister, how this current Chief Minister achieved the position and how the Territory is screaming out for a true statesman who will rise to the occasion and represent all Territorians across the great northern part of Australia.
There was then a move to discuss Defence. Chief Minister, I acknowledge the incredible Australian Army Remote Community Construction Project that is just completing in Canteen Creek and Epenarra. The legacy of that project is not only a bitumen road that supplies dust suppression for the small township of Canteen Creek, but also some significant infrastructure at Epenarra relating to a mechanical workshop and a community centre. There was also much ancillary work done around those communities while the Army had that capacity on-site. It was an incredible project with 120 service personnel on-site in a self-sufficient Army camp set up on Kurundi Station, working between the two remote townships of Epenarra and Canteen Creek, engaging with the community, offering training and doing a lot of good work-ready skill-type accredited training. There was a fantastic welding course which had an equal number of women participating as men. There was so much good activity going on and the Barkly was able to benefit from that, particularly these communities.
Chief Minister, I draw your attention to those micro-opportunities across the regions for engaging with our Defence services. That was another example of real mentoring on the ground with an incredible outcome of infrastructure legacy, but also the opportunity to recruit and provide regional and remote residents with a career pathway through the Defence services. I have not seen a better example of the community living, working and sharing space with our highly professionalised Defence services and seeing delivery of infrastructure and those projects.
Chief Minister, I appreciate the macro-opportunities for the Northern Territory in Defence. There is an example of some very good micro-opportunities. I encourage you to take an interest in that and possibly broaden the imagination to see what could be done, maybe even in the area of Indigenous housing.
It was interesting to then read about the Land Development Corporation and the great work it does, and the plans with its joint venture potential with the Australian Defence Force in infrastructure provision. At the same time, we have just seen legislation moved through by the Chief Minister where he is getting rid of the Board of the Land Development Corporation and setting up opportunities to handpick and take complete control while he is also dipping into the Land Development Corporation funds. I saw that as a contradictory element in this statement. Those other statements around Defence and the work he plans to do with the United States are very interesting.
I was also very interested when the Chief Minister talked about agribusiness and the investment in northern Australia, particularly about the research focus on genetic improvement of Territory cattle, better understanding and managing of rangeland resources, and research into the better management of our fisheries and reef resources.
I take this opportunity to mention the change in that industry relating to the offshore fishing industry move from traditional line and trap to trawlers. I hope you are aware of this, Chief Minister, and are taking a keen interest in this transition where the Territory is moving towards that mega outcome of trawler licences. We need to be very cognisant of the environmental impacts, especially relating to coral reefs, so we can see the ecosystems that support our fisheries. We can also see the examples on the east coast where the trawling operations can have major impacts on our coral reefs. The area we are moving into is the Timor Box. There is potential in offshore fishing areas where there is a move to this major industry approach to trawling licences. I encourage you to look at this closely and ensure we have the balance right. In your statement you talked about a research-focused approach. I hope there would be a similar level of research going into the offshore reef fish resources, as well as the inshore resources.
There is an important debate that has to happen. It relates to the Minister for Infrastructure. On one hand we heard, again, that the government is broke, and on the other hand, of record infrastructure budgets. On the one hand, we see budget papers that show there have been reductions of $98m in the infrastructure spend, but on the other hand we see where money is being spent. Once again, I debate priorities in this House.
In the Minister for Infrastructure’s contribution, he talked about a conference, such as the Chief Minister reported on, and advice from industry. That is a great way of doing business. I refer to the media release from the 28 October 2014 from the member for Daly and the Minister for Transport about a $30m government initiative to develop a regional road network. Having been advised by the industry, this money is then allocated. But it just happens to fall in CLP electorates. So I am sure the minister took away from that conference the well-balanced advice that this important $30m investment should only be spent in CLP electorates.
I will again challenge the minister, it is about supply chain logistics and the strategic economic roads package initiative.
I acknowledge the Tanami Road. As minister Styles said in the media release:
The previous government was investing just over $4m each year that allowed about 4 km of the Tanami to be sealed, so it is good to read this minister is investing $12m. That will be three times the annual spend on the Tanami.
However, the Sandover Highway is falling to pieces. The Sandover Highway degradation, because of the lack of annual repairs and maintenance funding, as well as minor new works funding, is a serious threat to development. The Sandover Highway is just like the Tanami. It is a major logistic in the supply chain, not only servicing the beef industry, a multitude of Aboriginal communities, both small town communities and outstations, and the tourist trade but also the new minerals, resources and energy exploration programs. We have a lot of exploration going on in that area.
These projects are what the Chief Minister talked about in his statement. These projects are what the Minister for Infrastructure wants to support, yet he is ignoring a very important supply chain logistic through the Northern Territory, linking into Queensland for beef, mining, communities and tourism. The irony is that this high activity and the multiple users of that infrastructure are creating the need for targeted investment. I take the Minister for Infrastructure to task there.
I can see the logic around the investment in this media release; however, it seemed to ignore other electorates and very strategic areas of the Northern Territory. I am sure the minister will acknowledge that sooner or later. We cannot afford to put another 12 km of seal on the Tanami while the Sandover Highway becomes impassable. We have a serious problem with store trucks carrying clinic supplies to the township of Alpurrulum. When store trucks are bogged in the middle of the Dry Season in major bulldust patches where the degradation has become so severe that we cannot pass on that road, we have serious problems.
I will give another example about targeted investment and a minister who said there is no money yet there is money. There is $400 000 allocated to the regional bush bus services, which is a major initiative of the previous Labor government that the Chief Minister tried to denigrate. It was interesting to see that whole area evolve – never before in the bush. When we talk about a $400 000 investment we are talking about servicing regional and remote communities in a geographic area the size of New South Wales.
However, if we go to the Treasurer’s annual statement we see the Tiwi Islands ferry service received a $924 000 investment. That is an incredible investment for the Tiwi Islands. No doubt the member for Arafura is very impressed with that and being able to communicate it to constituents on the Tiwi Islands. However, I daresay he will be be challenged by his constituents across the rest of the electorate, particularly on that top road around Maningrida, and around Gunbalanya. That area of the electorate has some great needs in transport logistics and infrastructure. There is $400 000 for bush bus services covering the majority of the Northern Territory and $924 000 for the Tiwi Islands ferry service.
Minister, once again, there is money. I challenge you on the allocation of that money. For the good people of Katherine, the latest announcement of $5.5m for the Stuart Highway bicentennial road upgrade – there was $10m, so where has the other $4.5m gone? There was $10m of federal money for heavy vehicle diversion around Katherine. The media release said $5.5m, $4.5m is the balance. Can it go to the Sandover Highway? I ask the minister once. Can it go to the Sandover Highway? I ask the minister twice. Can it go to the Sandover Highway, or maybe those important areas in the member for Arafura’s electorate? I ask the minister a third time. We need to be honest with Territorians; we need to be straight. We need a statesman up-front talking up the Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on the Chief Minister’s statement this afternoon. If you believed half the rhetoric that comes from the other side, there is no way you would invest in the Northern Territory. All you hear from the Labor opposition is negativity. The Leader of the Opposition repeatedly talks down the economy and everything else about the Northern Territory. If that is the way she approaches developers, businesses or anybody who is looking at investing in the Northern Territory, God help us! There is no way in the world they would be excited about the opportunities this place has, and will have, in not only the near future but the long-term future.
Some exciting stuff is happening. After eleven-and-a-half years of hard Labor, members have now been shown for what they are, where they spent five or six years of that eleven-and-a-half years working out how to make things tougher for business. There are a few things that have come to the fore in recent times. Yes, it has taken us a couple of years to sort out the mess but we, on this side of the House, are laying an extremely solid foundation to springboard the Northern Territory well into the future for Territorians and anybody else who wants to come from not only Australia but around the world and call themselves Territorians. They are welcome to come here and invest, live, grow and learn. The government is prepared to do that to make the hard decisions, and is laying that foundation.
I touched on the red tape because there are three things the Territory needs that this government is providing: stable government; a far better, sound base for the economy; and fixing the red tape issue. Deloitte’s Building the Lucky Country report showed that over a five-year period the Territory had the fastest growth – not in building, businesses, confidence or people coming to live here, but in red tape. How would you like that on your mantel? Are you proud of that? Pretty proud of that one. ‘How do we make it tougher for business in the Northern Territory?’ …
Mr Elferink: The biggest complaint I have heard from members opposite is we have not passed legislation in this sittings.
Mr CHANDLER: We have not passed legislation!
The fastest growth in red tape compliance in proportion to the workforce is a key indicator that regulation was also on the rise. That, according to Deloitte, cost businesses in the Northern Territory about $4bn a year. As the architect of the red tape straightjacket for local businesses, the Opposition Leader should be ashamed.
We have launched an aggressive blitz on red tape since coming into government, winning warm praise from Deloitte for our efforts. Since the Country Liberals were elected in 2012, almost 200 initiatives have been completed or are under way across government to slash red tape. I will ask again how would you like that on your mantel as your only praise of glory, that we were allowed to grow red tape in four or five years to cost businesses $4bn? They not only not released land, which sent up the prices of housing in the Northern Territory like never before, all they did was apply more and more red tape to business.
We knew where we were, we knew what we had to do, and as a government, we got on to it.
Not only that, the second thing we will talk about today is the economic footprint of the Northern Territory. Over the years it went from probably a size six to a size 13 or 14. The economic footprint, with a debt created by the Labor government, was growing. In fact, the big toe blew out of the boot.
The latest Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report shows the Giles government is successfully nursing the Territory’s finances back to health. The numbers have been mentioned today. It is testament of a fiscally sound government that it has been able to turn around the fiscal position of the Northern Territory. Every dollar we are not spending on interest can be reinvested into the Northern Territory. That is not investing into financial institutions but into people, services and growing the Northern Territory. A government should facilitate business, get out of the way of business and not add more regulation. All Labor seemed to be good at was building regulations and making things more complicated and costly. Slowly but surely we are unpacking that, dissecting it, opening the box and making the Northern Territory a place where people are proud to do business.
I cannot believe the number of people, including developers and investors, who have been knocking on our door wanting to speak to us. This is not just local developers and investors, but people from overseas looking at the Northern Territory for the very first time. When bank owners approach you, they do not need to source finance to invest; they already have the finance. Some of these people own banks and want to invest in the Northern Territory. Why? Because they can see what this government is doing and how solid we are making the foundation to build in the Northern Territory. They can see a government that is getting out of the way and helping business to grow in the Northern Territory.
When you have bank owners wanting to invest here it is surprising. I have seen that twice in recent times. It is as if a light has been shone on the Northern Territory. There is a number of factors, and as a government we should not take all the kudos. The federal government has a focus on the north. Our aim, as a government in the Northern Territory, will be to ensure the federal government backs its claims. We will chase the federal government to back its claim it wants to develop the north. With the federal and Northern Territory governments’ approach to developing the north, it is as if a bright light has begun to shine on the Northern Territory.
When you have international bankers knocking on your door wanting to invest, a couple of things have happened. The bankers and other investors wanting to invest here all want to work with local developers. I am yet to speak to somebody who wants to bring in developers from overseas to do the work. No, they want to bring their money in.
They are not looking for short-term investments but long-term investments. They are businesses looking at 20 and 30 years and beyond – long-term investments – because they see the Northern Territory is providing a solid base to build on.
It is making Australian banks look north at how they can invest because they know if they do not get in on this they will miss out. It does not matter where the money comes from in the world, it can help build the Northern Territory. That is what we need.
I have heard the Chief Minister say many times – the Minister for Infrastructure also said it – we are perhaps 100 years behind when it comes to infrastructure to support growth in the north. Yes, we need roads, bridges, new subdivisions and more land release and we need to build a solid Territory that will attract more people north. The old saying is, ‘Build it and they will come’. It is being built. There are solid investors looking at the Territory for the first time.
That is why we have a record land release program with $135m invested in it. After getting on top of the budget, getting rid of red tape and attracting business to the Northern Territory, the very next thing this government needs to do is have enough land available to develop. The government needs to have enough land available so the Minister for Housing can build more houses. Other investors can come and build houses so people have decent property to rent, buy, own or invest in. You cannot do it without land release. That is why $135m has been put aside this year.
I want to read through some of these things because I have often heard the member for Barkly suggest we have done nothing in this area. He is so wrong. I will go through some of these and he will get up and say they are all his ideas. I heard the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, say earlier ‘That was our idea’. Of course, everything we are doing on this side is their idea. They had a thought bubble at some stage but they did not get around to actually doing it.
There are nearly 6000 new residential dwellings we are in the process of working on. Kilgariff Stage 1A in Alice Springs will yield 33 lots. Member for Katherine, in Katherine East Stage 1, 180 lots and support for more than 240 dwellings. How long since land has been released in Katherine? Probably many years …
Mr Westra van Holthe: There was a very small release a few years ago and before that it was in the 1980s.
Mr CHANDLER: In the 1980s. Stage 2 is anticipated to yield 275 residential dwellings. The average price point is between $110 000 and $130 000. Zuccoli in Palmerston, Stage 2, will have 550 dwellings. Stages 3 and 4 of Zuccoli will yield 750 lots resulting in approximately 1300 dwellings. Stage 5 will deliver approximately 340 lots, enough land for about 500 dwellings. The Average price is in the range of $160 000 and $180 000. Price points are built into the contract, something the previous government did not, would not, or just did not know how to do. Berrimah Farm has land for as many as 3000 dwellings. A vibrant inner-city vibe in a suburban setting – how nice will that be? The site will go out as an englobo release with 24 ha identified for community purpose, including research facilities, education facilities and other community use. Holtze has around 1500 potential dwellings surrounding the new Palmerston Regional Hospital, expected to be released to the market in early 2015. Also released will be a bunch of industrial land to support businesses.
When I first became the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I had known about many complaints in the rural area where people were undertaking businesses on land that was not appropriately zoned to undertake those businesses. There were not just one or two, but right across. There were complaints everywhere about people using their land inappropriately in accordance with the zoning. One of the first things I thought about was if that was occurring, what did the previous government do to release industrial land in Humpty Doo?
It is one thing to say people are effectively breaking the law, but what was the previous government doing to ensure it did not have to break the law? If you have not released land in the Humpty Doo area for industrial purposes for many years, you are forcing people into a position of undertaking some of these business on their land that may be zoned Rural Residential or any other type of zone, but not zoned for that. It was a bit rough to suggest that government should be prosecuting and fining these people who were using the land this way without having land available in those areas.
In Humpty Doo there is a 37.5 ha greenfield industrial site which will be 40 industrial lots, ranging in size from 4000 m up to one block which I believe is 14 400 m. Construction works are expected to be completed by late 2015. In Berrimah, a 26.8 ha industrial site near the college will be released to the market in September with 60 industrial lots of mixed sizes. Submissions close on 1 December 2014. Other industrial works are happening at Darwin Business Park, providing additional industrial lots at Darwin Business Park north, providing access to further industrial lots by extending Muramats Road at East Arm, and continuation of works on Wishart Road.
We are also undertaking design for additional lots in Tennant Creek. That is something I thought the member for Barkly would have done when he was the Minister for Lands and Planning. I am sorry, I should not say they did not do anything about it; they had another thought bubble.
Much is happening in our regions. As I said during Question Time today, there are 23 lots in Peko Road in Tennant Creek, 20 lots in Kalkarindji and 38 lots in Borroloola. There are also a number of releases on the program in other communities – as I also said today in Question Time – such as Pine Creek, Mataranka, Timber Creek and Ti Tree. These are not just thought bubbles, this is well-planned in areas where we need to stimulate economic growth.
One of the things I have touched on today is red tape and what this government is doing in that area. I want to touch on my area of Lands, Planning and the Environment, where we have taken an axe to red tape.
What is government’s role? What should government’s role be when dealing with our business community? I see a government’s role as facilitation. It should facilitate business to do the work. The philosophy from the other side is that governments should do everything, which is fine. You can have that view, and you will always have a view about having big government which has to do all the work, provide all jobs and do everything else. You are quite welcome to that view. There are certain areas government should work in. There will always be things government should do, but equally there are so many things today where government should not be in business, particularly when the business world can do it better. It can do a better job, provide better services and usually do it at a far better cost than government.
The role of government is to facilitate business so it can get on, invest and have faith in its government to develop and strengthen the Northern Territory. We believe our role is to be enablers to allow business to get on with the job. We have introduced a number of measures so we can get out of the way and let that happen.
We have introduced the nation’s first ever online building approvals process, which has been hugely successful. In fact, 86% of all applications now coming into the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment are being done online. That is 86% for a brand-new system. No other jurisdiction has this, but there are other jurisdictions that are looking at it. It is exciting to think a jurisdiction the size of the Northern Territory is leading the way. We also have the quickest approvals process in the Northern Territory bar none. Again, we are leading the way compared to other jurisdictions in the country.
We passed legislation to allow developers to concurrently apply for rezoning and the development of land. There has been argument against that to say perhaps things are moving through too quickly and that it does not allow the community to look. I argue strongly against that. I suggest that when somebody uses a two-part process you are more likely to get away with something than doing it together, where people can see from the outset what the land will be rezoned to and what will be on the land. It is far more accountable and open than the previous system.
However, the previous system is still there if people want to use it, because the concurrent process is not for everyone. This move in itself could save around three months for any proposal. In anyone’s world in private business three months could be the difference between a successful or not-so-successful development, or a financially viable development and a non-financially sustainable development.
Last week the government put forward a planning scheme amendment to remove any restrictions on the height of buildings in Darwin’s CBD. We are going through the open process where it is out for public feedback. That could be opened up and used as a lever to fix up what, in the current planning scheme, is absolute rot that …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could I seek an extension under Standing Order 77 for the minister, please?
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly. This must be enthralling speech writing. It is not the delivery, of course, it is the speech writing and the hard work that is put into this …
Mr Higgins: It is hearing the truth.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes. Some people have criticised the suggested removal of the 90 m building heights in Darwin CBD. The current planning scheme with a 90 m building height is causing our city to grow into streets of walls. Buildings can be built so close together without any preservation of views, facilitation of breezes, or any ability for developers – who go higher into the sky, break through this arbitrary line that exists for who knows what reason – to stimulate what happens at the ground level. Let us face it, 95% of us are active at the street level; few of us are active up high …
Mr Elferink: The member supports it.
Mr CHANDLER: The local member supports it, absolutely.
If we can stimulate and invigorate our developers to that point, we can have gaps between our buildings where we preserve views, breezes can flow through, and we can have coffee shops, seats, and pathways that enliven our city. Some of the cities I have been fortunate to visit, not only around Australia but around the world, have come alive because they have people at the street level with coffee shops and walkability. Street cars or light rail systems come into the cities, where cars are frowned upon, because they are trying to turn the cities into liveable places where people can walk around freely.
That is something we could turn our Darwin CBD into, but we have to get away from creating these streets of walls which the current scheme allows. We want to break that cycle and improve our city landscape and make this into the tropical city it could be.
We would be foolish if we did not look very seriously at using the lever of building heights to do this. I encourage people to look at what we are trying to do, and have their two cent’s worth – whether they are for it or against – because the more people who put in submissions, the better the decisions we ultimately make as a government.
This is a government that has been extremely responsive to the marketplace. All the measures of red tape reduction we have been working on have not been dreamed up in some back office, they have come from business, developers and people who have skin in the game and know what the previous government caused them when it comes to overregulation within industry. Those ideas have been fleshed out, tested and, where possible, removed, and in some cases reduced, to ensure we facilitate business again so we can support them do what they do best.
We have been able to streamline the unit titles process, now requiring one service authority clearance – a massive cash flow issue for developers. We have looked at things like granny flats. As I said before, planning applications can be lodged online. The height limits are being looked at. The Development Consent Authority agendas are now available online. We are criticised for not consulting with people and not being open and accountable. For goodness sake, we have agendas now available online. People can see before meetings what will happen at them. They can get the information well before the meetings to ensure they are equipped and decide if they need to attend those meetings. We have introduced Australia’s first online building approval system. As I said before, 83% of applicants are now using that system.
Uniform subdivision and development guidelines across councils have tested us because local governments like to protect their patch. In some areas things were different in Darwin to Palmerston, Litchfield, Katherine, Alice Springs and many other areas across the Territory. Many of those things did not make sense. Whilst individual councils will always have a need for a particular guideline, in many cases there was no apparent reason why you would want to have some of the differences. It was a frustration, particularly for the building industry, developers and so forth. The guidelines they had to work with were different depending on the jurisdiction they were working in. Introducing uniform guidelines is a massive way forward.
Bonding arrangements for developers were brought to my attention when I became Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. They exist in most other jurisdictions but not the Territory. To explain to those who are not sure, titles are not issued on a building development until all the boxes have been ticked. That holds up the cash flow, delays banks allowing people who have invested in these buildings to take ownership of them and, ultimately, cash flowing through to the developer. Most other jurisdictions had bonding arrangements where the developers could pay a bond up front, get the titles, and as the boxes were ticked as they went through the process, the bond was released. It speeds up the cash flow for businesses, again a major improvement for businesses and developers in the Northern Territory.
The single dwelling densification strategy is proposing medium density residential sites to allow for smaller lots. Again, many people will criticise that but in any of the subdivisions happening in recent days, the first ones to sell are the smaller blocks …
Mr Wood: That is because they are cheaper?
Mr CHANDLER: A lot of it comes down to what people can afford. That is true. That is what people can afford. If you do not have a planning scheme that allows for this to happen, then you will force people to be pay extremely high prices for land.
It has never been possible in the Northern Territory to have individually titled homes. I will use the old terrace homes in Melbourne and Sydney as an example. You can do it through a strata title arrangement, but you could never individually title them. Again, you build in a complication that does not need to be there. We are looking at how to change that. I stress, not everyone will want to live in a dwelling like that, but people want choice. Not everyone will want to live on the 30th or 40th floor of an apartment building in the city. Some people love the northern suburbs. Some people, like the member for Nelson, love the rural area. Our planning scheme has to cater for as many needs as possible. You have to have flexibility within a planning scheme.
The Chief Minister’s statement today vindicated this government’s approach. The things I touched on today, the strong economy and a government that has its budget under control after the mess left by the previous government, on top of the fact we have severely attacked the layers of red tape the previous government focused on – we are in the process of laying a strong foundation to provide investors and Territorians with growth and ability to grow into the future with confidence. It will provide strength and diversity to our economy and will get us out of what the Chief Minister has described as the peaks and troughs that have been the basis of the economy of the Northern Territory for far too long. The broader the base we can create, the more opportunities we can create.
Madam Speaker, if we can build a lifestyle in the Northern Territory where people will want to move north, they will come.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government has a new way of cleaning up the Notice Paper: put two ministerial statements into one. We have had a discussion, I thought, about building investment opportunities, and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment has put in planning and building reforms reducing red tape at the same time. I was not ready for that one. They were combined nicely there, minister.
I will say a few words about the Chief Minister’s statement in general. Surely all governments should be trying to create investment in their own areas. We have to keep a vibrant economy, and if that means we have to look at every opportunity to do that, then that is exactly what our government should be doing. The Chief Minister has mentioned a number of strategies in relation to what he intends to do, and has given us a rundown on the opportunities he believes are the future of the Northern Territory. It is good that he at least made that statement.
My concern is sometimes the government makes these big statements and then forgets the people of the Northern Territory. I was so concerned today to hear there are something like 1000 people leaving the Territory annually, due partly to the cost of living. The other reason is people are starting to feel they are not part of the Northern Territory anymore. It worries me that government can talk up at a certain level, but if they do not bring the people along with them then people will feel this is not the Territory they believe they belong to.
The minister for Planning spoke about development. One of the major issues the government has is it is not necessarily listening to the people. I do not think I heard in the minister’s speech anything about the people. I heard about developers. There were discussions last night about business. Did I hear much about the people who work for business? Did I hear anything about businesses that perhaps rip off some customers? We have been debating over the last month or so the price of fuel. Is anyone here saying that was good business? Is that good development? No, we are saying that people are being ripped off by companies, by business, by overcharging for fuel. Thank heavens that some of that critism has come home to roost and we are starting to see a reduction in fuel prices. My concern is in that debate, people are being forgotten.
We will have a debate on TIO today and tomorrow, and I feel that part of what is missing is the people. That is what concerns me in the process of raising these big ventures the government is putting forward. Many of them are very good, but the people want to know what effect it will have on them. What are the benefits to Territorians? Many people see the Territory changing radically with new people coming into the Territory, and very little history about the Territory. That is fine, but at the same time we seem to be losing that special unique flavour we all love as Territorians: the lifestyle we live and the open space we all enjoy.
When I heard the minister for Planning talk about little houses and little blocks of land, I wondered what happened to all the discussion about sustainable housing design. You hear Troppo talking about building houses which will be less reliant on energy, yet when you start to build houses on 300 m blocks – which I call Velcro houses as they are the ones where you stand against the wall to sleep because there is not much room – I wonder where the government is coming from. Has anyone thought that perhaps they should build a three-storey house on a 900 m block? You can have that small development with a bit of open space around those buildings, just as the minister was talking about in regard to high-rises. Instead of having little houses stuck in together on 300 m blocks, you could have a 900 m block with three-storey buildings, or four-storey buildings on a 1200 m block, and use some space to create breeze around those houses.
I thought the minister was talking about townhouses with individual titles. I do not know how that will fit into the discussion we will have about unit titles. We are looking at the possibility that if a percentage of people who live in a block of flats which has become old would like those units knocked down, they should be knocked down. If you have individual titles for buildings that are side by side I am not sure the process the government is putting forward, which I am not necessarily disagreeing with, would not inhibit the redevelopment of an area of houses with individual titles.
The minister also mentioned roads and how they will look at creating a standard for roads in different council areas. That is a good idea, because it has annoyed me when developers have been able to get away – perhaps with the approval of councils – with having narrow streets. You can park two cars there, but the rubbish truck, ambulance and fire brigade cannot get through because someone has worked out the street needs to only be that wide. They want it only that wide to create more blocks. You then have cars parking on the nature strip, and some councils book you for that. I agree there has to be a logical standard applied for suburban or urban development in the Northern Territory.
Litchfield is a little different because it only has a limited amount of urban development, but it has stuck with a set size. Where a new subdivision occurs in Litchfield it will have a bitumen road 30 m wide. It is not rocket science but it is standard for Litchfield. I hope it would be standard for any other rural subdivision because at least in the tropical part of the Northern Territory, where you have higher rainfall, that is the road width you need on rural developments.
The minister talked about giving people options. Unfortunately, the options for people who would like rural land are diminishing all the time because the market for rural land is limited by private developers who are drip-feeding the land to retain the market price. This means many young people cannot afford to buy those blocks of land being turned off as they do not reflect the price of development. They are simply at a market price and well above the price of development. Instead of the government supporting more rural blocks, it is saying, ‘We will not build Weddell, it is too expensive, so we will chop up land that has really been set aside for rural development’. Young people will not have an opportunity to buy rural land.
There is not a choice, minister, because the land is either too expensive because private developers do not want to give it away at a reasonable price – they work on the market price, which is their right. But the government owns land and has an opportunity to release land at a reasonable price. But what does it want to do? It wants to turn it into a suburb. It does not show vision; it shows leaning on the ear of certain people, whether they be in planning or are developers. They seem to have the ear of the government. Once again, Territorians have been left behind in this decision-making process.
I do not know whether to switch between statements. The minister was talking about red tape, and I do not know whether we are going to get to that statement. It is on the Notice Paper as the next discussion. I would have preferred to have stuck to some of the government’s plans for the future.
The Defence area was mentioned in the statement the Chief Minister made. That is reasonable considering we now have a turnover of US Marines in and out of the Northern Territory, and they will help investment in this part of the world.
The Chief Minister talked about the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries and its work in research and extension activities. As you know, there is the agribusiness, or the food conference, on next week, some of which I will be attending. It is important and it highlights the fact that the Territory has potential to be – I used to call it the food saucer, but someone said it might be the food deli of the world. There will be specific crops grown in the Territory. Take the Ord River, for instance, where they are growing chia. Someone has got in on the market and found the climate in Kununurra is perfect for growing that crop. There will be more of that across this part of the world.
The only thing that will worry us is whether we keep getting diseases in plants as we have at present. There needs to be more money put into research and development. The Territory is small and has to work with other states like Western Australia and Queensland. If we get such a devastating disease as the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus and, on top of that, banana freckle and panama disease, it is making it hard for the Territory to move ahead in these areas.
The fact is companies have invested heavily in horticulture in the Northern Territory. It was ABC Bananas which originally came from Kununurra and moved to Lambells Lagoon, and invested heavily there. Then along came panama disease and wiped them out. They switched over to rockmelons and eventually went back to growing bananas, using tissue culture to produce clean stock. They also – and this is where a lot of the hard work came in – rotated the crops so the panama disease did not get a chance to get a hold of a new crop. That was innovative. But it has come to an end now because of banana freckle. That company has been through some pain trying to be part of the development of the Northern Territory.
I did not realise it, but the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries stated the other day that we are the second-largest producer of watermelons in Australia. That is now at risk. It is not to say all watermelon production will stop, but a large amount of production in Katherine, and at Lambells Lagoon, will cease, at least for a number of years, until we can be declared free of cucumber green mottle mosaic virus.
It is good that the government is keeping a positive approach to the development of our horticulture industries. It also has to be realised that when making these statements we have to at least be willing to say there are some serious problems at present, and we need to address those problems. It will be good to hear from the government what forward plans they have to make sure this does not happen again.
We should also mention that the mango industry is in full swing at the moment. I gather it is not quite as big a crop as last year. There are some big investment opportunities in mango plantations in the Northern Territory. Quite big companies have invested millions of dollars into the mango industry and new varieties, especially in the Katherine region and the Darwin rural region. Much of that has been done without government assistance, but by people who could see there was potential for a market and they have developed that market in a positive way. It all goes well.
The Territory has been handing out large quantities of water over the last two years. Even though the minister knows I do not agree with the methodology used for handing out water, it is good the government has promoted irrigation in the Northern Territory. It is a matter of what is sustainable, what is reasonable and whether people who have asked for the water deserve to have it or are using it in the way that has been promised.
It is time for the government to report on the water licences it has issued and give us an indication of where that water has been used. Is it being used for cropping? How far have the farmers who have received an extra or a new water licence moved to new production or expanded production using that water? That would be a good report to have.
I thank the Chief Minister for making this statement. I understand he is promoting business opportunities in the Northern Territory, but let us not forget the people who live here. Obviously they will get benefits, but there are some downsides. Anyone who has known the impact of INPEX only has to look at the traffic and know there have been big changes in the Northern Territory, such as the cost of renting a house, or hotel or motel unit in Darwin or the caravan parks. Big changes have brought benefits to some, there is no doubt about that, but for others a change has come over the Territory and some people feel that change is not to their liking.
Perhaps that is reflected in the figures mentioned on the ABC today about the number of people leaving the Territory. It may not be the case. I will not be leaving the Territory. It is a place I love and it is a great place. It would be silly to say, even in my area, life has not changed. I could go for a walk at 5.45 am along Whitewood Road and perhaps see two cars. I now see a stream of vehicles heading to work, which reflects the changes that have occurred, especially since INPEX arrived.
Sometimes I ask if it was a good thing to put the INPEX village there. Some people feel it has an effect on the rural area, and it certainly has. I wish it was not on that piece of land. I wish it was further to the north. That was not supported by either party at the time, but in the end that is history. The development is there, and hopefully the benefits to the community when INPEX leaves will outweigh some of the changes that have occurred in the rural area. INPEX has built on that site some valuable pieces of infrastructure that will be important to the development of the rural community. We should not forget that because that was one of the reasons put forward for that development to be in the rural area. It is part of the investment into the Northern Territory but it has brought changes, some for the better, some for the worse.
Madam Speaker, the government at times loses sight, in its grand statements, of the people on the ground. It needs to bring people along with some of the ideas it has. It will get support if people feel it is worthy of it, and if they do not think it is worthy at least they will have a say.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly welcome the statement by the Chief Minister titled Building Investment Opportunities. It is an absolute no-brainer for the Giles Country Liberals government about building investment opportunities. This is the land of opportunity for investment, there is no doubt about it, and this is a government that has taken that squarely by the horns and is seizing that opportunity.
It was interesting listening to the member for Barkly. He had a list he read out about all the great achievements under the previous Labor government. It was not a very long list; it did not take long to read. I went through some of my own records and found a list of Country Liberal Party achievements over the past 30 years – certainly in the first 25 years or so of government. It is a distinguished list. It is extremely impressive, and I will read out a couple of those now. In other words, member for Barkly, I see your list and I will raise you mine.
Under the previous CLP government, there was the establishment of national parks such as Litchfield, Charles Darwin and Gregory National Parks, which was no mean feat. What a great legacy left by the CLP …
Mr Elferink: How many parks did we get from Labor?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, that is right, member for Port Darwin.
There was the creation of Palmerston. The members for Drysdale, Brennan and Blain are all members of that great community of Palmerston which was created by the Country Liberals when they were in government. The opposition decried that development over many years, and the debates in the Parliamentary Record will articulate that, and reinforce that the Labor Party in opposition was no great supporter of the creation of Palmerston. Nevertheless, it has gone on to become one of the great jurisdictions of the Northern Territory.
There is Kings Canyon, Yulara, Katherine Gorge Visitor Centres, not to forget the creation of Yulara itself, one of the great tourism destinations of the world. The Gold Battery and Tourist Information Centre in Tennant Creek was a fantastic investment in the Barkly region.
The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory has already undergone some great changes and a resurrection under this current Country Liberals government.
There is Channel Island Power Station and the Masters Games. We just celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Alice Springs Masters Games. The Australian Masters Games began 28 years ago and Alice Springs will host the 30th anniversary of the games when it rolls around in 2016. That injects somewhere around $10m to $20m into the Alice Springs community. This is a wonderful event and a great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
The Territory Wildlife Park and the Alice Springs Desert Park are two of our great natural assets.
State Square, where we are today, proved to be a great initiative during a recession, employing hundreds of Territorians to build this wonderful building we are lucky enough to work in.
There is Stokes Hill Wharf. The Alice Springs Convention Centre is a terrific asset to the Centre and a great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
Marrara Sporting Complex is one of the great complexes in Australia, no doubt about it – a tremendous sporting precinct and a great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
NT University, as it was known – now, of course, Charles Darwin University – has become one of the great recognised universities in the country.
There is the V8 Supercars. Where would we be without the V8 Supercars? It is one of the marquee events of the calendar, attracting tens of thousands of people to the event over the course of that weekend. The V8 Supercars is another great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
There is the East Arm port and gas development. We are continuing to develop our gas resources.
Who can forget that other little thing called the railway? It may have been the member for Sanderson who mentioned the railway and the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who was happy to ride along in a train, waving her hand …
Mr Elferink: She called it a faded dream.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, she called it a faded dream. It was a bit like Palmerston not being a great concept. The railway was truly one of the great infrastructure projects this country has seen, and it happened under the watch of the former Country Liberals government. We did many things right and we are continuing to seize those opportunities.
I turn to my portfolio of Tourism. In the last two years we have invested some $16m in additional funding to Tourism NT. That is equipping the agency with the tools and ammunition to market the Northern Territory as the preferred holiday and business events destination above all others. We re-established the NT Tourist Commission, one of the first acts of parliament of the new Country Liberals government in 2012. It was in November 2012 when one of the very early pieces of legislation came before this House to reconstitute the NT Tourist Commission.
Our new brand campaign Do the NT markets the Northern Territory as a fun and adventurous place to holiday. It is interesting when you talk about adventure, which someone raised with me today. Sometimes, jumping on an aeroplane from Sydney to Alice Springs is adventure enough. Others require a lot more high adventure, which might be heli-fishing, quad biking, etcetera.
The Territory had an image for a long time – the previous Labor government did nothing to dispel the perception that the Territory was a place where you cannot swim or climb and where you do not touch or do this or that. We started to take ourselves way too seriously as a holiday and business events destination. It took this government, with the initiatives taken by and resources given to Tourism NT, to start to dispel those perceptions. That is slowly but surely starting to cut through. We are starting to see some of those numbers turn around. We achieved a five-year high in international visitation in the year ending June 2014. We are starting to see more numbers. It is early days, but we are on the road to recovery. What a recovery it needs to be after a decade of decline under the previous Labor government with regard to tourism.
We are well on the way to achieving our target of creating a $2.2bn visitor economy by the year 2020 through building investment opportunities. By investing in our wealth creation portfolios of tourism, primary industries, mining and resources we are seizing these investment opportunities.
Today we talked a little about housing. The Deputy Chief Minister, as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, has overseen the biggest land release strategy and program in the history of the Northern Territory. It is remarkable. Unlike the previous government, under which land release stagnated, this government is releasing land for development. As a result we not only have the biggest land release project in the Northern Territory’s history, but our Real Housing for Growth strategy will complement that by delivering 2000 affordable homes on to the market by 2016. That is an incredible achievement.
During estimates last year, the member for Nhulunbuy drew attention to the fact that we had only built 290 homes, I think it was, by the end of last year. We had delivered nearly a home a day to the market. Yet, by contrast, there was nothing from the previous government to the tune of our goal of 2000 affordable homes on the market by 2016. That is a pretty good achievement. We are well ahead of our targets. I can outline those for you. In year one, we planned to deliver 200, and we delivered 290-plus. The member for Nhulunbuy seems to think that is a failure. We are well ahead of our target. That is nearly one home a day. That is pretty good. They could not build one home a day, but we are doing it. By year two there will be 400, by year three 600, by year four 800, which will see 2000 affordable properties on the market to help ease that burden, and move people out of public housing and into the rental or home ownership market.
That is a key objective of this government. For far too long people have sat in public housing feeling it was an entitlement; they expect a house, and expect the government to provide them with a house. Well that is not the case anymore. The government will provide assistance, of course, but public housing is there to provide people with a leg-up, an opportunity to get into the rental market or the home ownership market. Public housing is not there for life. There will be some exceptions, obviously, due to certain people’s circumstances, but largely speaking, public housing is a temporary fix until they can move into the rental or home ownership market. The 2000 affordable homes on the market by 2016 will go a long way to freeing up those wait lists.
The Remote Home Ownership Scheme has been a terrific initiative for the Giles Country Liberals government. This was a policy we put together this year. We have now seen 20 expressions of interest from people in remote parts of the Northern Territory wanting to purchase their own home. That is fantastic. It will be made available to a number of communities across the Northern Territory, and people can purchase their own home from anywhere between about $50 000 to $150 000. It is a great way for people to move out of that public housing space and get into the home ownership space and the private rental market. The home ownership market is where we want people to be. It has been a terrific scheme and has been very well received. The member for Arafura has been right behind us with this, very supportive of this initiative. He has received a lot of feedback from his community on the Tiwi Islands.
I mentioned the MAGNT, or the Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, earlier with regard to the achievements of the CLP this year. Another great investment opportunity is the MAGNT statutory authority. We created a statutory authority around the MAGNT this year, cut it loose, or at least gave it a bit more distance from government. It was not something we just uncovered, as there is a long-held view that private benefactors or donors are reluctant to donate to a government entity or directly to government, but they will donate to something they see as not quite so attached to government. Hence, the statutory authority with the MAGNT.
Already we are starting to see some donations come in as a result of that. That has freed up the MAGNT to source some of its own revenue. It could be in the form of cash or artworks donated to the MAGNT. That is a real game changer for the MAGNT and the arts and culture sector in the Northern Territory.
As I said, it is a no-brainer statement about seizing these opportunities. The Giles Country Liberals government has always held a very strong belief about building investment opportunities. This statement could almost be the Country Liberals philosophy about where we stand with regard to this approach to developing northern Australia and the Northern Territory, unlike Labor, which presided over the biggest increase in red tape in the history of Australia. They loved red tape.
Crime skyrocketed with figures on the rise, particularly in Katherine and Alice Springs where the concentration is much more obvious. Crime was out of control, hospital waiting lists and elective surgery waiting lists were the worst in the country, land release had stagnated, and alcohol issues across the Northern Territory cost the taxpayer $652m a year. That was the cost of not doing anything. That is what they did, as opposed to the AMT and the APOs introduced by the Country Liberals government. We are starting to see incredible results thanks to those policies.
Labor presided over some of the greatest child protection failures in the history of the country, and that is not putting too fine a point on it. We saw what happened as a result of your child protection failures and the federal intervention as a direct result of that. The Little Children are Sacred report was the end of Clare Martin’s Chief Ministership. It was a deplorable time for the Labor government.
They slavishly supported the live cattle export ban into Indonesia. It was one of the greatest travesties and public policy failures in the history of Australia, and they supported it. They lined up with the Prime Minister and said, ‘Yes, we support it’.
Who can forget the big one, the $5.5bn projected debt? If all that was not enough, we can underline it and wrap it up with a nice little bow saying $5.5bn projected debt.
The Country Liberals government believe in building investment opportunities. I have outlined a few in my portfolios of Tourism, Housing, Arts and Sport and Recreation. It is a tremendous opportunity, particularly when you put sport and tourism together, as this government has recognised they go hand in glove. The State of Origin or the Olympic Games are not just sporting events; they are monumental tourism attractions bringing people to the door. Putting sport and tourism under the one minister creates wealth generation and seizes investment opportunities, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to provide investment opportunities for the Northern Territory. We were born to provide investment opportunities for the Northern Territory. It is in the foundation and the DNA of past Country Liberals governments and the current Country Liberals government, and will be in future Country Liberals governments. If you are not doing business in the Northern Territory, why not?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the Chief Minister’s statement on building investment opportunities, because building the type of opportunities the Chief Minister has referred to and I will refer to in my contribution, as have other government ministers, is in the DNA of the Country Liberals. It is this work we do that sits at the base of our philosophy.
I congratulate the Chief Minister on securing Darwin as the destination for the 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference held from 12 to 14 October this year. Others have said this is the first time in the 52-year history of this business conference that it has been held in Darwin. It came on the back of what we are doing on this side of the House, which is getting out of our comfort zones in the Northern Territory and going across to our trading partner nations and establishing good, sound relationships based on mutual understanding and trust.
That is what the Chief Minister did when he was in Japan. He was not doing what the Leader of the Opposition constantly says we do on this side of the House, which is put the Territory down. He was not doing that. He was in Japan spruiking the Territory, talking the Territory up, telling Japanese government officials and investors that the Northern Territory is a great place to do business.
That is something I also do when I go overseas. It is about talking the Territory up – talking up the opportunities we have in the Northern Territory. I have said before in this House that whenever the opposition members speak about development in the Northern Territory, you could be forgiven for thinking that prior to 2001 the Northern Territory was a barren wasteland ...
Mr Elferink: I remember the tumbleweed.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is the picture the Labor opposition would like to paint of the Territory prior to 2001 when they came into power, but we know that is not true. We know the previous CLP government, whose DNA is the same as the current CLP government – a DNA with all the components that represent what we need to do to build investment opportunities in the Territory – was also doing that work in Asia to build relationships and establish the Northern Territory as a sound, reliable, trusted trading partner ...
Mr Chandler: I thought that was the Labor government?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Labor government would have you think they did all that work. What they did was follow on from the good work of the CLP all those years ago. We have had a new Country Liberals government since August 2012, and thank goodness for that. We have taken up the cudgel and redoubled our efforts in this space. That is a terribly important point to make. We are not sitting here on our backsides and resting on our laurels. We are getting up, getting out and further promoting the Northern Territory as a great place to do business.
That is why we are seeing so many conferences in Darwin. We have Developing the North conferences and infrastructure conferences. Goodness me, I am sometimes a bit overwhelmed at the number of speaking engagements ministers on this side of the House have at all these conference in the Territory. It well and truly eclipses any of the work done by the former Labor government. It is a real honour to be part of a team and a government that is working so hard in this space.
Going back to the AJJBC, it was a privilege to attend the Chief Minister’s welcome reception at the 52nd conference at the Convention Centre and the formal dinner the following night. This government’s international investment strategy, as I have outlined quite broadly already, is designed to develop and support many things, including mining and exploration projects in the Northern Territory. It is foreign investment that is the lifeblood of the minerals and energy exploration program, which advances our economy and creates wealth and jobs for Territorians.
Japan is an import and export market for Australia, and the Northern Territory is proud of its links with Japan. It is a relationship that has been strengthened over the course of the last couple of years. Japan is considered to be somewhat resource poor and must rely on overseas resources for raw materials for all its processing industries. Detailed market research undertaken by my Department of Mines and Energy’s Investment Attraction and Development Unit revealed Japan as one country that is a high potential target market for the minerals the Northern Territory has to offer. In particular, Japan’s manufacturing industry needs rare metals such as tungsten, vanadium and indium for automobiles and information technology products. These are resources the Northern Territory has to offer. Since the department’s market promotions to Japan began in 2008, four investment deals in Territory exploration projects, worth $10.35m and involving Japanese companies, have been announced.
As members are aware, the major impediment to developing mining projects in the Northern Territory is the difficulty associated with raising finance. As I said before in parliament, the availability of finance can directly translate into reduced exploration. Because of global factors, we have seen a significant downturn in exploration expenditure across the country over the last 12 to 18 months.
This is why it is essential that government provides support to companies, and especially junior companies which want to get exploration projects up and running. Given that growing minerals and energy sectors to increase royalties is one of the most promising avenues for the Territory government to grow its financial independence, we need to help junior exploration companies seek alternative finance opportunities from as many sources as possible. Under the CORE program, which is creating opportunities for resource exploration, there is a suite of minerals investment attraction strategies designed to assist explorers in the Northern Territory to access potential investors and, ultimately, drive exploration and mining in the Territory.
I am very proud to be part of a government that places so much importance on this type of activity. In the 2014-15 budget, this government announced the biggest ever investment in precompetitive science acquisition, including our investment attraction strategy of somewhere in the vicinity of $25m over the next four years. No one can ever question this government’s achievements in, or its commitment to, attracting minerals exploration to the Northern Territory and supporting miners, large and small, to do what they need to do to develop and exploit our resource potential.
By joining overseas delegations, led by me as the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, local exploration companies can access top level decision-makers in an affordable way through dozens of investment meetings and opportunities to promote their products. We know this investment strategy has included our major player over many years, China. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to travel to China to lead those delegations. China is still a very important, huge opportunity for the Northern Territory in finance, notwithstanding the slowdown of the Chinese economy
Japan and countries like Korea are also very important to us. I mentioned Japan before. Earlier this year I was the first Northern Territory Mines minister to visit Japan and Korea with the purpose of leading mining delegations to attract investment to the Northern Territory. I am very proud to be part of that.
We are also forming a relationship with Taiwan. Earlier this year the member for Daly, representing me, visited Taiwan to attend the Australia-Taiwan Business Council conference. He has come back reporting great interest from the Taiwanese in Northern Territory projects. I am very much looking forward to meeting with delegates from Taiwan when they arrive here within the next week or so.
The delegations we take across with us attend seminars and business meetings, and receive direct introductions to significant international investment companies and trading houses. Ministerial trips such as these are a vital element to identifying and pursuing trade opportunities, and strengthening existing ties and establishing relationships. These meetings are also an opportunity in which Territory exploration companies can identify and directly access potential investors, as well as raise the Territory’s profile as an exciting jurisdiction for exploration for minerals and onshore oil and gas.
This government is committed to providing a responsible investor-friendly regulatory regime for companies wanting to invest here. Foreign investment brings many benefits to the Territory. It supports existing jobs, creates new jobs, and importantly, the focus – in my view a very important focus – is the development of economies in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory. Naturally, many of our resources exist in areas that are not defined by a municipal boundary. They are not sitting underneath Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Nhulunbuy, they are sitting in regional and remote parts of the Territory. That has the potential to provide jobs for Indigenous Territorians who live in those remote and regional areas.
These delegations also encourage innovation, new technologies and skills. It brings access to overseas markets and promotes competition amongst our industries. Some of the key attributes that foreign investment can bring to companies looking to develop opportunities in the Territory include supporting exploration expenditure in the Territory, increasing the chances of new minerals and energy discoveries and enabling minerals and energy projects in the NT to progress which otherwise may have stagnated. This has helped to maintain our economic strength, business activity and low unemployment.
A robust mining sector is another key element to this government’s plan to develop a strong economy in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt the mining industry is fundamentally important to the Territory. This government is committed to growing the resources sector to increase the future prosperity and development of the Territory, in particular, as I mentioned before, in our regional and remote areas. This means boosting minerals and energy exploration across the Territory in the short term so new discoveries can be made that will become the new mining projects of tomorrow.
However, mineral exploration is not cheap and it is certainly not without its risks. Our investment attraction efforts operate in a highly-competitive market for investment dollars, both nationally and internationally. When I say competitive, we are in competition to attract investment with our other states, but we are also competing with other countries for global investment. Australia being the jurisdiction it is, with quite high costs of doing business and labour, we have to convince potential investors in the Northern Territory, and Australia more generally, that our investment environment and the stable government and regulatory regime are factors they should consider over and above the cost of doing business in some of the more unstable countries of the world. I am thinking about places like some African countries.
As I said earlier, in my role as Minister for Mines and Energy I have led many Territory business delegations to Asia to promote business investment opportunities. I have travelled to China a number of times. Unfortunately, I was not able to get to China this year for the China Mining Congress which clashed with last week’s parliamentary sitting dates.
I was unable to get to China on an alternative program the week before due to the outbreaks of watermelon virus, the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, which required me to remain in the country to show leadership to the industry and spend some time talking to industry players to make sure they understood the Northern Territory government takes the issue very seriously.
While on these trips I have also promoted the Northern Territory’s pastoral and agricultural industries to help establish additional markets for local agriculture and horticultural products. As Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries I will deliver a keynote address at next week’s Food Futures conference. My message will be simple: the Northern Territory is well placed to play a role in meeting the growing demand for food and resources from Asia, but we have to act now to take full advantage of these opportunities.
The Territory’s primary industries are critically important to the future of our economy. Food exports are a key component of this government’s plan to grow our economy, and this government has prioritised Asian engagement to build links and opportunities for Territorians. The Northern Territory government has identified food exports as a key component of its plan to develop a strong economy. I repeated that because it is a critical part of what we do in the Territory.
We are also committed to building and strengthening the Northern Territory’s ties with our closest Asian neighbours, which are clearly of vital importance to our regional economy. The opportunities for increased trade between the Territory and Indonesia are great, particularly when it comes to live cattle. The Northern Territory’s pastoral industry contributes well over $330m to the economy every year, and with the recent upturn in live export figures to Southeast Asian destinations, namely Indonesia and Vietnam, all indications show this figure is likely to rise substantially over the coming years.
The Country Liberals government is a proud supporter of Northern Territory pastoralists, and we have worked hard to help restore and rebuild this iconic industry which was decimated after the 2011 decision by the then Labor federal government to ban live cattle trade into Indonesia based on a media report on Four Corners. Much has been said about that, and it is quite fortuitous, even ironic perhaps, that yesterday was the day a class action was lodged by the Brett family from Waterloo Station and a number of other plaintiffs in relation to the matter. I hope former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and former Agriculture minister, Joe Ludwig, are called and held to account for the worst decision ever made by an Australian government. It visited shame on all Australian governments.
We have been working hard to rebuild that trade and important relationship we have with Indonesia …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I ask for an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Deputy Chief Minister.
We have spent a lot of time rebuilding that trade and relationship with Indonesia. Full credit also to the Coalition federal government, which has also redoubled its efforts to rebuild that relationship as well, which we all know is critically important. I commend the efforts of our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in visiting Indonesia a number of times since elected and also the federal Agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, for his ongoing efforts in re-establishing that relationship with Indonesia.
The proof of this pudding is in the eating. When you talk about relationships and trade, the proof is the number of cattle going through our ports to our target market destinations. This year there was a new record for live cattle exports through the Darwin Port and it is absolutely staggering to see those numbers.
We are expecting that by the end of the year we could see around 500 000 head going through the Darwin Port to our destination markets. That is testament to the work of the Australian and Northern Territory governments, but also our resilient pastoralists and the live exporters who are involved in this live cattle trade.
In 2013-14 the Territory’s cattle industry contributed almost $400m to the economy, equating to more than 60% of primary production in the Territory. Recent live export sales of cattle and buffalo to Vietnam indicate the real possibility of a new long-term, robust live cattle export market.
Another element, another string in the bow for this government, is the establishment of such strong relationships with Vietnam. If my memory serves me right, some 140 000 head of cattle have gone through the Darwin Port to Vietnam in the financial year 2013-14, which is staggering given that I remember the first shipment going out in this term of government was just a few hundred head. It is staggering to see that trade booming the way it is.
I also mention buffalo, which have never been on the radar before for Vietnam. It was the efforts of this government – the Chief Minister and me – talking with a number of people in Vietnam about buffalo that brought this trade into existence. We have a feral population which we expect to be around 200 000 head of buffalo. We do not know for sure yet; it is still being assessed. It can form the basis of a sustainable buffalo industry which requires a market. The work that has gone into that has been extraordinary as well.
This new Vietnamese market, in conjunction with the recent increased live cattle quotas from the Indonesian government, is providing confidence and encouragement for the industry’s recovery, which is still ongoing after that horrific live cattle ban of 2011.
The Country Liberals government has developed a collaborative strategy in conjunction with industry partners to restore and increase our live cattle industry. In order to create diversity and greater opportunity for Territory pastoralists and increase focus on emerging markets, an additional $300 000 of funding was used to establish a Live Animal Export Market Development Unit within my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries.
The work of this new section in the department will be to build on new markets, establish new markets, and start thinking a little laterally, a little outside the box, about other opportunities that exist for live animal exports for the Northern Territory.
We are creating the macro-opportunities by establishing relationships with our overseas partners. If we have those relationships, if we spend the time – as former CLP ministers did all those years ago – in country, establishing relationships, getting to know our trading partners and the people who make the decisions in government, that can only bode well for the future or our relationships and our trade into the future.
The Country Liberals government has significant plans for developing northern Australia and we are taking a leadership role in that space. But we cannot do it unless we open up resources and create an environment that allows for the development of these industries to kick along.
I am referring to a couple of areas of policy that this government has adopted. First of all, there was the diversification under the Pastoral Land Act, which was a brainchild of this government to allow for the diversification of business on pastoral leases in the Northern Territory. There are already a number of approved permits under those new provisions, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the results of those in coming years. That is about opening up land, but we also have to open up water.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition accuse us of locking up water. What a load of bunkum! Never in my life have I heard something so ridiculous and lame. The Leader of the Opposition is so desperate she will cling to anything she can to try to denigrate the good work of this government. Let me remind members of this House that when we came to government – this in the context of locking up water – 75 water licence applications sat unattended and unaddressed from the reign of the former government. Since that time we have worked our way methodically through not only those 75 applications, but a raft of new applications for water licences across the Top End as well. It is very simple: water plus suitable soils will give you development in the agricultural sector. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
In locking up resources, the former Labor government was so hamstrung by fear and held to ransom by its green friends that it was too frightened to make any decisions that may have brought any form of criticism its way regarding our resource sector. It is almost beyond comprehension – certainly beyond any level of credibility – that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Barkly or anyone else on that side of the House could accuse us of locking up resources.
I do not know how many times I have to say it, but we are proud of our record over the last two-and-a-bit years since August 2012 in the way we have allowed the agricultural sector in the Northern Territory to grow and flourish. We will continue to do so. We will not be held to ransom by green groups or small vocal minorities. We will get on and do what we believe is right for Territorians at large. That is the thinking on this side of the House.
I will use an example in the 40 seconds remaining. It is like a small group of protestors in Borroloola who do not want the McArthur River Mine to go ahead. I have to balance decisions around that type of protest against the 700 jobs of people who work at McArthur River Mine. For me it is fairly clear. Whilst I appreciate the input from people, we have to make strong decisions for the good of all Territorians. That is what this government intends to keep on doing.
Madam Speaker, again, I commend the Chief Minister on his statement and for the work he and this government are doing to build these opportunities for investment in the Territory.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement regarding building investment opportunities in the Northern Territory. What a positive statement this is, outlining the great things the Giles government is doing for all Territorians, despite the negativity of those opposite who constantly talk the Territory down. That is in stark contrast to this side of the House. This statement proves we are a government that has a plan and is putting it into action. It is not just talk, glossy brochures and balancing the government credit card, unlike Labor and the Leader of the Opposition.
No one wants to invest in an economy that is weighed down by government debt, budget deficits, giving away public assets to union mates and slush funds. What investors look for is a robust economy and a government willing to support economic opportunities. When investors looked at the Territory three years ago, they saw an economy struggling under the weight of Labor debt and red tape. The member for Karama’s computer said no.
When the Country Liberals came to power in 2012, we opened the door to the Northern Territory budget books. What we saw was lots of red numbers, an empty bank account and an overdrawn government credit card. As usual, Liberal governments would have to clean up Labor’s mess yet again.
We are doing that. We set in place economic management strategies to restore investor and business confidence, as well as our bank account. The Country Liberals realised there was some pain for Territorians in the economic management strategy we were forced to use because of the member for Karama’s incompetence and deceitfulness.
We have taken the economic broom to the mess Labor and the member for Karama left behind, and we are kicking goals. We have achieved a general government operating balance surplus a full three years ahead of target. We have significantly reduced the fiscal balance deficit and net debt position. This is proof of our fiscal responsibility and how we are building the Territory economy for the future.
These economic strategies have reinvigorated the Territory as a place to invest. Our hard work has resulted in a swag of recent positive economic indicators for the Territory. The Northern Territory has again topped the nation in forecast economic and employment growth according to the latest Deloitte Access Economics’ Business Outlook report.
Last week’s CommSec’s State of the State report showed the Territory is leading the nation in five of the eight indicators, including economic growth, retail spending, equipment investment and employment and construction. As well, the most recent Sensis Business Index also confirmed a 33% point surge in confidence among small and medium Territory businesses. This is how you repair a rundown Labor economy. These indicators send smoke signals to investors across the globe that the Territory is a place to invest.
The Chief Minister’s statement outlined how the tide has turned for the Territory. Of course, investment is critical for the Territory because it helps grow our economy with more jobs, more revenue available for the government to support growth, lower unemployment and a future for our kids.
For people in the bush, including my electorate, these projects mean jobs. They mean an opportunity for bush people to buy their own homes. Jobs mean that families can get off welfare. They can get their kids to school to get an education. We can break the cycle of welfare and sit-down money, violence and poverty. We can change the future of families across the Territory.
Projects like the Defence upgrades of Tindal will create jobs in the northern part of my electorate. I hope Defence looks to expand and upgrade the Delamere Weapons Range because in Timber Creek Greg Kimpton and his group have been working with the Army when they have been there. They look after the Bradshaw site. They work with the Army looking after the site and caretaking whilst they are not there. People are proud to be working with and getting to know the Army. They are proud to share what they have there and to tell them about their traditional country. Aboriginal people there are willing to work whenever there is an opportunity. More workers mean local businesses and farms have more demand. That means they need to employ more locals.
I have over 60 pastoral stations in my electorate that run cattle, ranging from Ban Ban Springs in the north to Aileron and Napperby Stations in the south. These stations total over 181 000 km2 or nearly 50% of my electorate’s 384 000 km2. That is nearly three times the size of Tasmania, a quarter the size of Victoria or 75 times the size of the ACT.
Each time I visit a station I hear and witness amazing testimonies of our true bush heroes who often live in incredibly harsh environments hundreds of kilometres from the nearest neighbour or urban area. I get to see the real jobs they offer local people. The cattle stations have close contact with the families who lived with them and once worked with them. They try to encourage young people to work on the cattle stations their fathers or grandfathers worked on. We need to support the cattle stations because they know how to run the cattle stations and how to work with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people love working with them because they work in their country.
Investment in the Territory also creates the need for more minerals and resources like oil and gas. In my electorate of Stuart I have a number of mines and resource projects which employ Aboriginal people. There is Mount Todd, The Granites gold mine and the gold mines at Pine Creek, which employ Aboriginal people. It is a great opportunity because Aboriginal people are getting on and working together with the mining companies to make sure they are employed and have a job. It makes them proud when they have a job.
It is not just about cattle and mines, the Ord project is also in my electorate and has the potential to provide massive employment opportunities and to change the lives of Aboriginal people in that area. I remember when I was growing up we grew watermelons, had orchards, and our people ran piggeries, bakeries and a butcher shop. I would dearly love to see my people back on the land farming and growing produce like we did. This gives the kids a future and sets an example.
We know Labor want my people as slaves to welfare; they do not encourage my people to work. They pretend to be our friends; I think not. I want my people to have meaningful lives free of violence with access to education and real jobs just like anyone living in the northern suburbs. That is why we are developing the north. It is not a mantra or three-word slogan like those opposite love of ‘debt, deficit and doom’.
Developing the north is a reality. It is a way of life for this government. We on this side know employment leads to opportunity for all. That is why we have to fix the economy, get the Territory back on track and send the message that we are open for business.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for his leadership and vision. The results are clear for all to see. I support the motion that the Assembly note this statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I support this statement. I am glad I waited for the member for Stuart to speak because the area of the statement I wanted to address was one of concern to me: the opportunity so many Territorians will not get by virtue of a system of land management that renders investment almost unattainable for them. I speak of those people who live on the land trusts created under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.
From time to time I have cause to trawl the Internet because I have nothing better to do with my life. In my visitations I found the well-known satellite picture of the Korean Peninsula at night. I invite all honourable members to google it if they have not already done so because there has never been a clearer manifestation of what property rights mean and how they have value than that photograph. It shows the whole of the Korean Peninsula. South Korea twinkles like a jewel in the night with Seoul illuminated with the rest of the South Korean nation, including Busan, sparkling on the dark side of the planet when the satellites can see it.
Go north of that border – the 38th parallel is its general term – and you find yourself looking at the North Korean part of the peninsula. With the exception of a small dotted light which is Pyongyang, the rest of that peninsula is in absolute darkness.
Travel even further north and you will find yourself in China. If you look at China at night, you see many more lights than there used to be only a few decades ago. I was watching Anthony Mundine on television earlier today and he made a point very similar to what I had made: China in the last 20 years has raised 650 million people out of poverty.
I use the quote out of the economic history book, Commanding Heights, that Deng Xiaoping the successor to Mao Tse Tung, should have – in my opinion and the opinions of the authors of Commanding Heights – been given the Nobel Peace Prize. Even in his fairly short reign he lifted 30 million people out of poverty simply by enabling them to enjoy some property rights. As I cast my mind over that photograph of the Korean Peninsula and then my attention to Darwin Harbour, I see a very similar juxtaposition of two sides of the harbour.
On this side of the harbour we see growth, growth and continued growth. On the other side of the harbour we see the manifestation of a land rights act that continues to stifle any form of growth for the people who should own that land.
The former Labor government of the Northern Territory and the current Northern Territory government are more than happy and would be well disposed to settling the Kenbi land rights claim. Unfortunately, it continues to remain unsettled. As a consequence, the manifest poverty which is visited upon the claimants continues to go on unabated.
I found it very frustrating when I heard the member for Nelson pontificate that this statement is not about people, it is about something else. I argue and suggest to the member for Nelson that this statement is almost entirely about people.
The member for Nelson would have us believe that unless we are in some way meddling or interfering with people’s lives – as would the Labor Party – then people should not be trusted to get on with their own lives.
I hear many lamentations in this place that the Northern Territory is a changed environment. That is true. I have lived in Darwin and other parts of the Northern Territory since 1969. When we came to the Northern Territory as a young family, Darwin was only slightly larger than Alice Springs is today and there was no such thing as a television channel to be seen.
I remember 1971 when television came to Darwin. Television changed Darwin beyond recognition. I genuinely believe the introduction of television was singularly the most profoundly intrusive social change in Darwin in the time I have lived here, and that includes the destruction of Darwin through Cyclone Tracy. Frank Hardy, another noted Labor luminary, lamented coming to Darwin after the introduction of television in 1971 because of the change he saw. He was put through the indignity of having to watch a rerun of I Love Lucy rather than enjoying the lifestyle of Darwin.
But this is the great truth: change happens and continues to happen. The member for Nelson said this should be about people, but Darwin’s population now is upwards of 150 000, and that does not include the rural area, and times change. When I was a child my father drove us into town – in about 1970 – and I had the privilege of being shown this finger of humanity pointing skywards into the heavens above Darwin. It was then the T & G building, a skyscraper by Darwin’s standard at six storeys. Then, of course, the Travelodge was built, and it was a demonstration of the fact Darwin had come of age and was genuinely becoming a city.
As a government, one of the functions we have is to govern on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. It is all too often that members opposite think our function is to govern people. I find that inherently objectionable because government has the habit of standing in people’s ways as we try to rescue people from themselves. We heard the Deputy Chief Minister talking about the amount of red tape that has been lifted by this government. We will continue to lift red tape so people have better options to make choices for themselves, rather than having government making choices for them.
The member for Nelson would have us making choices on behalf of other people, because he does not like them or they do not necessarily suit his nostalgic world view. He quotes scripture in this place to tell us about the social justice aspect of the Bible and, in particular, the New Testament. I take issue with the member for Nelson on his world view, because it is one thing to speak of charity and charitable acts, but another thing to talk of the present approach of government being necessarily an extension of that charitable form.
If the member for Nelson wants to quote scripture chapter and verse, I remind him of certain passages in the Bible that we hold so dear. I am reminded of Samuel cautioning the Israelites about demanding the presence of a king, he said, amongst other things:
He went on to say:
That is how the Bible treats the collection of taxes by an oppressive overlord when you are taxed at 10%.
Look at the Islamic Zakat, which is their tithing process, and the formulaic expressions of how that is put together. The Islamic Zakat places duties upon Muslims at somewhere between 2.5% and 20% of their income and property holdings. It is also a voluntary payment and will please the eyes of Allah, rather than necessarily a sum of money which is collected by force of menaces, precisely how we, as a government, collect our taxes today. Failure to comply with the taxation law of this nation or of this jurisdiction in the Northern Territory means a punitive response. Yet, if you were to compare either the Zakat or the princely sum of a 10th as described in Samuel, we are then the local protection racket.
The member for Nelson would have us believe this is social justice. To extract money from people by menaces and then spend it unwisely is a morally challenging concept. Yet that is precisely what the members opposite would encourage us to do: collect money by way of menaces and then spend it on all sorts of things.
The most amazing thing they believe in is that you can purchase your way out of poverty. It sounds logical that if you give somebody lots of money they will no longer be poor. That is not how the real world works and is something that is fundamentally misunderstood by the members opposite in particular.
In the real world, we currently spend – and I saw some costings on it not that long ago – literally well over a $100 000 for every man, woman and child living in a remote community. If I was to do that in my family, then the order of expenditure would be about $400 000. If I had an income of $400 000 in my family then I would live particularly well, but I would then naturally be cautious of managing that income successfully.
Sadly, that is not what happens in these remote communities. We think, as members of the state, by being charitable with other people’s money we are doing a favour to the recipients of that charity. We do not. What we do, of course, is create a system of dependency which is amplified throughout the generations as greater dependency becomes manifest, and greater incapacity to deal with that dependency also grows during that period.
I read out the other night in parliament the Question on Notice – I think from Mr Fisher to Mr Hart in 1973 in this House – where a gentleman in Arnhem Land wanted to have a lease which was refused because the then Deputy Prime Minister, Jim Cairns, said we would be offering no more leases to Aboriginal people. Of course, Mr Cairns would have been thinking at the time, ‘The land rights act will be just around the corner and we have a new system of collective ownership for you’.
The Fraser government delivered on the Whitlam Labor promise to return land to Aboriginal people. We have seen the old common law ceremony reproduced in the very famous photograph of Mr Whitlam pouring the land back into the hands of Vincent Lingiari, and we all feel warm and fuzzy about that. That was going to be the rescue of Aboriginal people.
If you go through all that Parliamentary Record you will see several references to how it will take a generation, possibly two, for the educational and poverty issue surrounding Aboriginal people to be dealt with in the Northern Territory. Government was going to step up and spend lots of money and give lots of land back to Aboriginal people, and they were going to enjoy wealth and a secure future.
Then forward the clock to 1979 when Mr Viner issued a paper – and I have it in my office – describing how land rights would bring about all of these fundamental changes to Aboriginal people. One of the chapters is headed ‘The Well Spring of Economic Opportunity’.
The beliefs held by both Liberals and Labor in the 1970s of what land rights would mean and what welfare would do were misguided at best, criminally negligent at worst. I have said before and will say again that I genuinely believe the results of that welfare approach have meant that more Aboriginal people have found their way into early graves than any other policy since this nation became a federated country. History will not look kindly upon this time. To make any person dependent upon you is to enslave them. I listened to the speech by the member for Stuart very carefully, and that is precisely what she was alluding to.
Nevertheless, I heard the member for Namatjira interjecting her way through Question Time today saying we want to take Aboriginal people’s land away from them. It is the most base form of politics engaged in, in remote communities. The member for Namatjira genuinely does not believe it because she knows full well I embrace the idea of Aboriginal people owning their own land in a system where they can own their own land, or at least own a lease over their land as that gentleman wanted to do in 1973.
Nevertheless, that has been denied Aboriginal people. Unfortunately there are still people such as the member for Namatjira – evidenced by her interjections today that we will take Aboriginal land away from Aboriginal people. No, we want to do make sure Aboriginal people have the same opportunity to treat and make contracts with the general economic environment, otherwise the North Korean section of the Korean Peninsula will be reproduced in the Northern Territory every step of the way.
It is possible in the Northern Territory to step from one side of the fence from the First World to the other side of the fence of the Third World. The only difference on either side of the fence is the system of land administration applied. Aboriginal land should be a wellspring of opportunity and economic development, but for that to occur there must be an arrangement by which people can secure their investments on that land. If you do not do that you will cast the people who own that land into oblivion, the oubliette of poverty, for now until the time the land administration system changes.
If we want to create an environment where we can step into the future, there needs to be changes to way the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 is structured, administrated and overseen by the councils themselves. I do not necessarily blame the councils and the participants on the councils because they are hamstrung by the system of land they have.
The act itself could do with restructure and reform with a view to making certain the development of Aboriginal land can be achieved within a very quick and reasonable time frame. I would like to see a land council system which reflects the aspirations of Aboriginal people who no longer want to sit there with their hands out having favours sprinkled upon them by the centralised government of this country.
The continued operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in its current fashion means people will not be able to take a step forward. I find it frustrating in the extreme that when I talk to many Aboriginal people living in remote communities, they want to develop businesses but there is scant available to them for that development. I express my ongoing frustrations because I am sick of seeing poverty based on a racial world view.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House because it speaks of a future for the Northern Territory ...
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the member for Katherine’s observation with regard to the Labor Party. You would swear between 1978 and 2001, if you were listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that our roads were dirt with tumbleweed upon them, our skies were dark and bleak and there was nothing but thunder claps and sunless days under ominous leaden clouds. I recall that immediately after the 2001 election rainbows were everywhere, the sky was a technicolour blue and birds chirped on my window sill. When the government was finally defeated in 2012, once again the tumbleweeds were instantly replaced.
I have acknowledged in the past the work of Clare Martin in securing the INPEX gas deal for the Northern Territory. I heard what the Leader of the Opposition had to say of future development, but that is what an onshore gas industry is all about.
It is what the pipeline that will be built between Darwin and the eastern seaboard is all about. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition would blanch at our successes in this area because she would resent them deeply.
I remember when the former Leader of the Opposition, Clare Martin, announced to all Australians that the railway was a faded dream. I remember watching on television that night as she rode the train into Darwin and thinking there was no small irony that she was riding a faded dream into Darwin.
As time passes, different governments achieve different things. I note the former Labor government did well with the Ichthys project and bringing INPEX to Darwin. We seek to expand on that and we encourage further gas development.
One of the challenges we face as a government is making sure gas comes onshore. Between ConocoPhillips and INPEX not so much as a cigarette lighter’s worth of gas has been secured for onshore purposes. However, because of ConocoPhillips, a CLP-driven investment opportunity, and INPEX, we now have a gas industry which ultimately will lead to an onshore industry. Of that we are confident. Moreover, we will also enjoy, hopefully, the last missing and fundamental piece of our economy in the Northern Territory: a decent manufacturing industry.
We continue to travel into Southeast Asia and down south, and to work on making certain there will be a pipeline that takes us from the Northern Territory into the rest of the national gas grid.
I hope and encourage companies like Dow Chemicals to seriously look at Darwin as a place to launch their Southeast Asian investments from. Dow Chemicals has looked at Darwin. Andrew Liveris, the head of Dow Chemicals International, is a former Darwin boy and knows the capacity of Darwin as a potential place in which to insert his company into Southeast Asia. The challenges are that he will still try to secure ethane. I know he has upset INPEX and other companies with some of his observations in relation to the reservation of ethane for the purposes of plastics manufacture.
There will come a time, I am certain, when securing the materials companies like Dow need will become reality and people will inexorably be drawn to Darwin. That will mean a population that will grow to 200 000, then 500 000 and possibly even within the lifetime of my children, to a city of a million people – in fact, almost certainly. Times will change. That will be a city of a million people of which more than 500 000 people will have jobs. They will need places to live and will require services, electricity, water, power and all number of things.
I remind the member for Nelson – and I come to where I started – this is about people. It is about people with jobs, with roofs over their heads and with something else the member for Nelson and the members opposite have no regard for: it is about people with choice and the freedom to make decisions for themselves so they can determine what is right without having any master bearing down on them and causing them great grief because we are busy running their lives for them, because we know best.
Mr Deputy Speaker, going back to that quote I started off with from the Book of Samuel:
That is not the type of government I would like to be part of.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Sale of Public Assets
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to sell public assets – TIO, Power and Water and the port – without a mandate, in order to fund their unfunded election commitments, and that the Legislative Assembly asserts that the government must halt any actions to sell public assets and take their policy to sell public assets to the 2016 Territory election.
It is important this Legislative Assembly sends the Chief Minister a message today. He and the government need to be condemned for wanting to sell our public assets without a mandate. TIO, Power and Water and the port do not belong to the CLP; they belong to every Territorian.
Without a mandate the CLP has no right to sell what is not theirs. The Legislative Assembly asserts that the government must halt any actions to sell public assets, and must take their policy to sell these assets to the 2016 Territory election to seek a mandate.
Front and centre in this debate is our TIO. I thought it would be pertinent to see what TIO says about itself. On its website it says:
Chief Minister, in government hands our TIO is a great Territory institution and corporate citizen. It seriously concerns me that all this may be lost with privatisation. TIO’s role as the insurer of choice in the Territory is what makes it worth keeping in government hands. Northern Australia, our landscape and our people are unique as are, at certain times of the year, our weather patterns.
I lived through Cyclone Tracy; I remember the devastation. Our TIO was established to make sure weather events like Cyclone Tracy or the huge floods that hit Katherine and the storm surges we experience do not completely shatter people’s lives. TIO is there as a safety net.
Government insurers like TIO not only cover these events, but pay out in a timely fashion. Unless you have been through a natural disaster it is hard to understand the critical importance of payment in a timely fashion. I know you do not like to hear this, Chief Minister, but the federal parliament’s inquiry into northern Australia, headed by someone from your side of politics, Warren Entsch, spelled out just why TIO must not be sold.
In its submission to the Entsch inquiry, the city of Townsville said this:
Yet the Chief Minister tells us the competition will keep premiums down.
Mr Nick Behrens has been with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Queensland since 2007. He stated in part:
What Mr Behrens has identified was an apparent market failure occurring in north Queensland with insurance companies seeking to withdraw from that market either by discontinuing insurance policies or by ratcheting up insurance prices and premiums to the point where it is no longer affordable for business to reinsure. Mr Behrens stated:
Chief Minister, I urge you to think again. Today I received news of a Katherine resident who, given this TIO debate, contacted insurers. They found only one insurer willing to cover them for flood, and that insurance premium would cost $8500 a year above their normal insurance premiums. This is not an ideological debate, this is a debate based on the harm it will wreak on Territory families and businesses.
Do you really want Territorians priced out of the insurance market, leaving their homes and businesses uninsured? That is what is happening in Queensland where there is no government insurer.
Warren Entsch’s inquiry made it clear that our TIO is gold standard. He said it is the model which should be adopted across all the areas of northern Australia which are prone to cyclonic weather conditions and flooding. If you will not listen to us, at least listen to the experts and the experience of people in northern Queensland.
Like TIO, our port is too important to our future to sell or lease, which is a sneaky, tricky way of sale. Selling it would be a quick cash grab which would cost Territorians into the future. Any privatisation of the Darwin Port would be an attack on jobs and an escalation on the cost of living in the Territory. A commercial port would deliver higher costs for port users, and all Territorians would pay more as a result of these increased freight costs. Our port is a lever of our economy; it is not something to play with. It certainly should not be sacrificed to pay for your unfunded election commitments.
Listen to the stakeholders. There are more than 100 businesses in the Territory which rely on the port. They range in size from the biggest exporters of raw materials to our smallest importers. The CLP need only listen to the oil and gas sector, an incredibly important industry to the future of our Territory. In their submissions on developing the north, members of the oil and gas industry have called for the port to stay public.
Workers of the port face the real prospect of job losses and erosion of conditions. It will be yet another broken promise. We remember those promises the CLP made to the public service in the past, that their jobs would be safe. Port workers right now are our public servants. Chief Minister, at least keep this promise. Keep your hands off a sale or lease of our port.
It is time to come clean on your intentions with Power and Water assets. Structural separation was never about a greater competition in our tiny electricity market; it was about getting ready to hive off the profitable parts of Power and Water, which we see in Jacana Energy and Territory Generation. We have seen you fatten it up in preparation for sale, and it is under way.
The TAFR belled the cat on this yesterday. On page 29 of the TAFR, the public non-financial corporation sector cash flow statement showed that in 12 months the receipts from sales of goods and services has increased by $230m. That is just $20m shy of a $0.25bn windfall. We know this has come from the pockets of businesses and families across the Territory through your tariff increases. It was a slug on all Territorians. Household budgets were crippled. Businesses were left with no alternative but to increase that flow-on effect increasing the cost of everything we buy and everything we do – bread, milk, clothing and service stations have all had significant hikes in price because of this tariff increase.
You have had the chance to deny that the Power and Water assets are for sale but you refuse to. This is a serious matter about which you say you want a mature conversation with Territorians, yet you do not give them the opportunity to have their say on whether they support the sale of public assets. It has been a cynical exercise. You waited until after the Casuarina by-election to put a full page ad in the Northern Territory News espousing your ambitions around the sale of TIO. You created a website that allows people to put suggestions in on what they would like to see any sale money spent on. Why will you not be enough of a leader to put on that website a simple question: do you support the sale of TIO, yes or no?
What is wrong with giving Territorians a say on whether or not they support the sale of their asset? You can mount all the arguments you want. You can have motions in parliament to debate all you want. The reality is Territorians know in flood zones like Katherine, in the storm surge zones of Rapid Creek and other areas of Darwin and in the event of a natural disaster like a cyclone, they rely on the government insurer for timely payment of insurance, for our lives going forward and affordable premiums.
You can turn a cloth ear to many things, but surely the evidence of what has occurred in northern Queensland, which has been elicited through the developing the north inquiry, sends a very clear, strong message: it would be a disaster for Territorians to sell TIO.
I listened carefully, Chief Minister to your comments attributed to the CEO of TIO, Richard Harding, today in Question Time. He made it clear that TIO would operate well with or without sale. That is the reality. It operates well now within prudential standards. If anything could test that it was the global financial crisis. As we saw major insurers around the globe fall, TIO weathered the worst of the insurance storm and came through well. The board has been appropriately cautious in its reinsurance practices and it is positioned extremely well.
If the CLP had gone to the last election saying, ‘We stand for the sale of TIO, the port and of our utility assets’, you would have a mandate. You did not. Territorians fully and reasonably would have gone to the last election believing the CLP policy was staunchly against the sale of TIO. You campaigned and issued media releases against it. The CLP has been front and centre of the campaign not to sell TIO. Why now do a complete change without giving Territorians the chance to have their say? These are not your assets, Chief Minister, they are public assets.
If the consequences of sale were not so dire there is no ideological barrier, but the consequences of sale of each of these important public assets are dire. The sale of TIO would leave Territorians exposed to escalations in premiums way beyond the 30% you have quoted Chief Minister – 2500% in northern Queensland. For many it would mean they do not get the insurance coverage they need. These are homes and businesses. You are literally hanging Territorians out to dry, to fend for themselves, yet you have no mandate to do that.
Is it that you intend to sell the banking arm only of TIO? If that is the case, then be clear and come clean with Territorians. If you only intend to sell the banking arm of TIO, be honest in this debate and say that. Put to rest any concerns and great angst our community has of the insurance. If that is your intention then come clean in this debate. But you have not been honest with Territorians to date and we will not hold our breath waiting for you to become honest with Territorians. That is not your style.
If you see an aspect of the port you would sell, what aspect? Again, you have not been honest with Territorians in saying the future crane or the extension of hardstand for a particular part of industry could be privately operated. You will not even be that honest with Territorians.
Industry is saying do not sell or tricky-sneaky lease the port. If you cannot heed the call of our critical oil and gas sector, then who on earth will you heed the call of? When they are making submissions saying do not sell the port or tricky-sneaky lease it, how on earth can you say you have any economic credibility when you will not heed their call?
We know – and knowledge is an interesting thing – that when you do port pricing reviews and get some analysis around what the port prices are and the sectors to which commercial port rates would apply, the key targeted commercial increases would be in our most vulnerable sectors: livestock; resources; household goods; and motor vehicles.
What is industry saying to you, Chief Minister? Have you called a forum? Have you written to them? Have you sought their response? Have you been up front in any way? If you have, state in this debate all the industries and businesses you have consulted and let us know what they had to say.
I am basing my argument on all the advice I received over the years from industry. I am going on my knowledge of industry directly eyeballing me when I was a government minister and saying not to sell the port or impose commercial rates as it would impact on business.
By all means if that has so dramatically changed, Chief Minister, explain it. Explain who you have consulted with and what they had to say. All I can see on the public record is our largest industry, which has a greater capacity to pay than our small- and medium-sized businesses relying on the port, is saying it cannot support the sale.
Do not worry, Chief Minister, I will do what you do not seem to have done, which is consult. I will write to the 100 businesses seeking their advice on the port. They have been open and frank with me in the past. I am going to refresh that relationship and give them another opportunity to say whether or not something magically has changed for them to be able to withstand commercial port pricing. You would make it a cost-of-living hell for Territorians in the oncosts as a result of commercial port pricing.
Regarding the experience of utility sales and privatisation, I know you like to espouse that Labor has done it elsewhere. Well, we are here. We are Labor in the Northern Territory and we stand strong, and have always stood strong, against privatisation of our utility, because we get it about Power and Water.
There is much to do in Indigenous Essential Services in delivering improved water, sewerage and power across the Northern Territory. Yes, that work is cross-subsidised by our major users that sit in the system paying commercial rates – no apology about that. We subsidise small businesses and households because, as we have seen with the escalation in the cost of living with your increase in tariffs, you would otherwise literally price people out of the Territory. We are seeing people leave in their thousands because they cannot afford to live here. You have hit them too hard and too deep.
If we see major uses cherry-picked out of Jacana Energy by a competitor, where does that leave small and large households and small businesses – those vulnerable tranches – in pricing? You are creating an economic disaster, Chief Minister, by putting our utility assets up for sale. If you will categorically rule out the sale of any of our utility assets – be it Jacana, elements of the Jacana business, any element of Territory Generation or any element of Power and Water -then rule it out. This is your chance to come clean with Territorians.
While you are at it, talk about what you are doing with the gas sitting within networks at Power and Water. Say whether or not you are selling gas to General Electric, for what price, and whether or not it went out to tender in the open marketplace. However, that is not your style is it, Chief Minister? You will do everything to cover anything up because, exposed to scrutiny, it has dire consequences for Territorians, both households and businesses.
You do not have a mandate. You were not elected as the Chief Minister; Terry Mills was. Territorians have not backed you and they do not like what they see you doing. They do not want their assets sold. If you had any integrity or conscience you would put the question to Territorians. If you are in a rush to sell then hold a referendum and ask us now. Put the question to Territorians. If there is no mad rush in the fire-sale approach you are taking, take it to the 2016 general election and stake your leadership on it.
Listen to Territorians. They will not be blinded by the shopping list you are promoting. They understand the importance of insurance premiums to their households and businesses. They have seen what has happened elsewhere in Australia and in northern Queensland. They understand they do not have affordable alternatives.
The Katherine resident has done his homework – only one insurer prepared to touch him for $8500 a year above the premium he currently pays. I would like to hear the member for Katherine talk about how he supports the TIO sale, how he has held community meetings in Katherine and now, as far as he is concerned, as the elected member representative of the township of Katherine, it is all good. Join this debate, member for Katherine, and let us know what consultation has occurred in Katherine, because residents there understand what dire consequences the sale of TIO would have for them, just as those of us who have been through Cyclone Tracy here understand what dire consequences it would have.
Chief Minister, meet with the residents who live along Rapid Creek in that storm surge zone and find out what they have to say about the sale of TIO. You will not do that; you are known for not listening to Territorians. You will put more money into the government PR spin machine and create more glossy brochures and websites, waiting for the television advertisements to roll out the spin. That is why you already pumped $33m into the Department of the Chief Minister while taking the axe to education and health. It was so you could spin your way through actions which would have dire consequences for Territorians.
You were not elected as the Chief Minister; you knifed the one who was. You have no mandate to do this. Members opposite might sit there in some kind of strange comfort zone and think, ‘Oh, well, we will not be blamed for it. The Chief Minister will be.’ You are wrong. Each of you will be held to account in your own electorates for this. Each of you will have to front a general election and explain why you exposed people to unaffordable premiums and utility prices that are going through the roof because you have sold key assets, and to a cost of living that is escalating because the freight costs across our port have gone up to commercial rates.
Madam Speaker, the chickens will come home to roost on this if the CLP proceeds with the sale. It is a simple request: halt your planned asset sales and take your plans to Territorians if they are so good and the right thing to do. You have your $33m spend machine in the Department of the Chief Minister. We do not have as a war chest to fight back on the glossy ads and brochures. If everything you want to do is so good, get the yes vote on the sale of public assets. Territorians will not be fooled.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. I will not concentrate too much on TIO because the Chief Minister highlighted the fact he will have a debate on this tomorrow. However, I will say a couple of things because the motion is more about whether these issues should be taken to the next election. I believe that is the case because they were not taken to the last election.
I was just reading an article in relation to Prime Minister Tony Abbott travelling to Tasmania in a bid to convince the state to change its mind on selling its energy assets. I note that the Premier, Will Hodgman, said they were not going to sell the assets they had promised they would not sell at the election. I quote from the article. I am not sure which newspaper this is from – ABC media:
Further, it said that is exactly what the state government told Mr Hockey. The Tasmanian government went to its election saying it would not sell off state-owned assets.
It is not just about the economics, it is about people having a say in what is, basically, theirs. When we say government-owned assets, they are the people’s assets, especially TIO. TIO has a shareholding minister. That shareholdering minister represents us. TIO has always advertised itself as ‘Our TIO’. That has been one of the consistent messages it has been sending to the people for many years.
I will go back one step. If the government does not agree the issue should be taken to the next election as a fundamental issue, it will have put a very good argument why.
There is no panic, except for Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey offering a 15% asset bonus. If he did not have that asset bonus hanging, the question would be whether there is a hurry to even be discussing this matter. If you are thinking of selling these assets, especially TIO, and if the company is healthy and has a good bank account, there would be no harm in taking this debate to the next election.
It is interesting that the Chief Minister tabled TIO’s media release today. He quoted from it regarding Chairman of the Board, Bruce Carter, who talked about TIO’s briefing to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia.
The Chief Minister pulled out a couple of things which caught his eye in relation to whether TIO should diversify its risks. However, there was a second page. At the end of that second page Mr Carter said:
Then he said:
He has not made a definitive statement, as chairman of the board, that it should be sold. He might have given an opinion about expanding its global outlook. I repeat what he said at the end of this media release:
It seems strange to me that the chairman of the board, if he really believed there was no other path for this insurance company to go down than to be sold, would clearly state that on behalf of the board. Yet, when you read the 2012-13 annual report – I hope by tomorrow we have the new annual report tabled before we have a discussion. That is the only way we can look at the financial situation of TIO. In the chairman’s report in 2013 by Mr Bruce Carter, he said:
He said further on:
The Chief Executive, Richard Harding, also wrote quite glowingly about TIO and said some issues needed to be looked at. He said in his report:
That is pretty clear. He summed up:
You can see there is a commitment moving into the future of the Northern Territory which reflects what I do not believe any other insurance company could do. The Territory is a special place and needs a unique type of insurance company. That is why the Northern Territory government has to step back a little. Forget Mr Abbott’s 15% bonus, let us look at the long term. If you get rid of this asset there is no more asset.
Who loves insurance companies? Obviously you will get people who do not have a great love of insurance companies. But when 15 000 people sign up to support an insurance company, you have to say there is something a bit different. I do not reckon you would get 15 000 people sign to save QBE. In a small constituency like the Northern Territory, for 15 000 people to say they want TIO as their insurance company sends a message.
The Chief Minister probably was not around when that petition was presented in parliament. Terry Mills was the Opposition Leader. He and I and a lady from TIO, one of the employees, worked across the Northern Territory as far as we could in an attempt to find out what people wanted. The way we found out what the people wanted was to ask, ‘Will you sign a petition to keep TIO?’
I remember we had tables and chairs outside the grand final in the AFL in 2006. We were outside the Marrara TIO Stadium and people queued up and signed because they saw the benefits of having not just an insurance company or a banking company, not just MAC, but a company that had a little heart and soul that made it special.
I will probably hear from the economic rationalists. We argued this in 2006 with Syd Stirling who was then Treasurer. We honestly believe it was the economic rationalists who were driving the agenda. I do not think the economic rationalists take into account the other benefits because they do not necessarily have a dollar sign to them.
The government has a duty to find out what the people think. This asset of ours is not the asset of the Chief Minister or of the CLP, it is our asset. It has been with us for something like 39 years. TIO was established under section 4 of the Territory Insurance Office Act 1979. It has been going a good length of time and commenced operations on 1 July 1979.
I do not think it could be replaced by another company. Yes, we could probably keep the logo. I do not believe we will keep all our employees, because the reality is you will get a bigger company come in which might keep the brand and some of the policies TIO has, but I believe they will rationalise their staff. They will not need to keep that many staff. They will get hold of an insurance company, pay big bickies for it, then to recover some of those costs, quite a number of TIO staff will lose their jobs. That will be an economic reality and we will have no way to do anything about it.
Chief Minister, if it was good enough for the Premier of Tasmania to make a promise – and you were not Chief Minister at the last election – when he went to the polls, telling the people of Tasmania he would not sell off their government-owned assets, then why is it not good enough for you to follow in Mr Will Hodgman’s steps and take this to the next election? You could put the issue of asset sales to the people.
I have not spoken too much on the port. I do not claim to be a golden oracle of economics in this place; I try to bring a type of logic. For instance, if the port is creating revenue for the Northern Territory, you need to say why selling it is better for Territorians. If a company takes over the port it obviously has to recover the amount of money paid for either a 99-year lease or the port. How is that money recouped? It will be recouped by charges over the wharf for inwards and outwards goods. Will the charges for those goods be dearer or cheaper than what people pay now? That is a fundamental question the government has to answer.
The government might say there will be more efficiencies with a bigger company and there may be more trade over the wharf. However, there needs to be some clear evidence of a financial benefit to the users of the port, which then relates to the customers who purchase from people who provide or move goods across the port. Will it cost more to shift a moo cow going to Indonesia or Vietnam? What is the cost to move one cow over the port at present? If you sell the port or lease it to a company what will the price be then? That might be simplistic, but that is what it is all about. Will the cattlemen and pastoralists of the Northern Territory be better off under a privatised port than I a government owned one?
It is the same with TIO. Can someone show me the figures for storm surge policies in the Darwin region if QBE decides to take over? Can someone tell me what flood insurance premiums will be compared to what the Chief Minister says they will go up to if TIO retains it? Can someone give me a definitive statement to say how much the premiums will be in the flood-risk areas of Katherine if QBE takes over TIO? Will they even provide them with insurance? Will an interstate company provide insurance for people in the surge zone in Darwin? They are the basic questions to which people need answers from the Chief Minister. They might sound simplistic, as I said, but they are fundamental to the debate.
Getting back to the premise of the debate, because these assets are the people’s assets, they are valuable assets. If you sell these assets without asking the people, you are treating them very poorly.
Once sold, these assets are sold for good. We sold the NT bus service with not even a debate about it. The member for Barkly asked where the cost-benefit analysis for selling the Darwin Bus Service was. We were not even allowed to see a cost-benefit analysis. You would have thought for the government to sell an asset it would have to come back to parliament for debate.
There were two assets sold: the Government Printing Office and the Darwin Bus Service. If you recall, there was a statement made by the Minister for Transport one day before parliament went into recess, with no mention of selling the Darwin Bus Service. The next day the media release was issued saying, ‘We are selling the Darwin Bus Service’. Surely you would have thought if you wanted to sell an asset and you had a good reason to sell it, you would come back to parliament and at least sit something on the table for a while and discuss it. No, none of that.
We have to work on the theory, ‘Trust us, we are from the government’. People in the Northern Territory are a bit more mature than that. They would like to find out the benefits and the downside of this sale of assets proposed by the government.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I put to the government that the sale of assets is something the Public Accounts Committee should look at. This is exactly the type of thing it has been set up for. It could come back to this parliament in about six months’ time after having travelled the width and breadth of the Northern Territory, asking the people who own these assets what they think – the businesses that use the port and TIO, the sporting groups, CareFlight and all the people who benefit from these government assets. The Public Accounts Committee would at least be able to make a bipartisan recommendation or recommendations about these assets. It would show the government is fair dinkum about finding out what the people of the Northern Territory think about the sale of these assets.
As I said at the beginning, it is important that government has a mandate for the sale of these very important assets. I hope the government listens to that. I know it can pass it off because it has the numbers, but this is a serious enough issue for the government to not rush and to think carefully about it.
As it did not receive a mandate at the previous election to sell these things, it should at least wait and ask the people to decide after they have had a chance to hear all the pros and cons about these matters. In fact, if people want to hear some pros and cons they can turn up for a meeting at the Mal Nairn Auditorium at Charles Darwin University next Thursday at 6 pm. Everybody is invited to attend.
I will give you an indication why that meeting will happen. A couple of panel beaters came to see me. It is not me organising it, but a couple of panel beaters. One is in my electorate and the other one is in Palmerston. They were concerned about what would happen. They asked what they could do. We worked as a group to get out amongst the people and pass on as much information as we could. I have asked Richard Harding from TIO if he would like to come. If anyone here wants to come and say something, we are not putting out lots of invitations to anyone. We are trying to hear what the people have to say and find out what they think about this whole matter. That is what we need to be doing.
If we need to hold a meeting in Katherine, I am quite happy to do that as well to find out what the Katherine people think. We may need to hold meetings further down the track. We only have a limited amount of time before the next sittings.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave at that. I hope the government will not move on this until it has a mandate to do so.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, in joining the debate, it is obvious the main points are being raised not only by the Territory opposition but also the Independent member for Nelson. It is General Business Day, the chance for the opposition to represent the people, and to hold the government to account. The issue of the sale of public assets is very important.
It is a very veiled approach by the government. There has been much movement behind the scenes, but there has not been the transparency and open and accountable dialogue. Where do the members of the government stand? Do they stand shoulder to shoulder with Territorians on this major issue of the sale of public assets, or do they stand within their own self-appointed fallacy that the CLP was born to rule? I remember that statement made in this House. I have great concerns that members opposite may be blinded by that fallacy.
I remind them that the Territory’s major public assets of TIO, our public utilities of power, water and sewerage, and Darwin port belong to the people and the transaction of their sale needs the people’s vote. Good arguments have been put forward and there has been a clear resolution for any government: take it to an election and use the ultimate democratic process. A strong part of the debate is that there are clear alternatives. It could be a referendum. The member for Nelson introduced analysis by the Public Accounts Committee. Or the ultimate is taking it to an election and letting the people decide.
What is the rush? I find it interesting that in 2014 we are having this debate because there seems to be urgency from the current government. There seems to be a concern which has been crafted into an infrastructure story. Let us debate that story. We heard from Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss at a regional economic development conference recently in Alice Springs that mega-regional infrastructure projects are planned to be delivered by the federal Liberal Coalition government, but unfortunately none are in the Northern Territory.
We have seen budget appropriations where this current government equates the Ord River Stage 3 with the same budget appropriation to the Alice Springs Golf Club. There are many contradictions in what this government says and what it does.
If we are left in the dark and are to come to our own decisions representing Territorians, I have grave concerns around what this decision is based on to sell off what belongs to the people together as Territorians in an important part of the Territory’s development historically, with the emerging economy and opportunity. Darwin is the emerging capital of northern Australia.
Yet, large ‘L’ Liberals want to sell off the moneymakers. That is what confuses me. With the free market economy and all that rhetoric around economic rationalist debate, you want to sell off the moneymakers in a period in history where we ain’t seen nothing yet. These utilities of insurance and the port have the potential to be really significant revenue raisers on the way forward as the Territory develops.
If we take the recommendations of the federal Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia by the Liberal Coalition, surely you would acknowledge that contribution to the debate, ‘The TIO is the important insurer for NT flood and cyclone’. It is an important statement and a reputable reference. I encourage members opposite to take notice of that and ask why that would be put. If you listen to the language of insurers there is concern that the government, in selling off TIO, would be ignoring the storm surge risk. It is an open market insurer in Darwin offering that cover at the moment. What would it be? We do not seem to have any economic modelling or empirical evidence at this stage other than a Chief Minister who has been making statements about ‘mature conversations’, ‘it is lined up for sale’ and ‘it is a good thing to sell’.
Ironically, the Chief Minister seemed to be running down TIO during to the last three Question Times. I am wondering about a Chief Minister who is telling the Northern Territory the TIO needs to be sold; we need to offload it and get rid of it. It is like a used car. I am thinking to myself, ‘Hang on a minute, if it is so bad then who is going to buy it?’
When we dig into a bit of detail and look at the outcomes of the TIO making a $60m profit, being a very loved and cherished institution within the Territory and insurance company operating on the open market that targets specific insurance products and outcomes for Territorians, we have a good outcome and a good company that will grow and flourish as the economy develops in the Northern Territory. I do not get this sense of irony that is emerging from the Chief Minister’s excuses and sheer determination to bully this through.
The Leader of the Opposition made a very important point about members on that side. If there is one member on that side who needs to reflect on the constituency they represent, it is the member for Katherine. I cannot understand how the member for Katherine will go home and sell this to a large percentage of the population in Katherine who have already incurred devastating floods, have survived and acknowledge the support of the TIO in that total recovery. Member for Katherine, it will be very interesting to hear your take on this because your constituency will have a very powerful argument.
If we look at Power and Water, then any of the bush members should be very concerned about the changes that are taking place. The Chief Minister, in carrying 13 portfolios, is a very busy minister. The other day in parliament he talked about Power and Water carrying the $77m liability – or subsidy – which is required each year to keep the bush going.
I am very concerned. When you look at the power and water utilities in the Northern Territory you see the moneymaker is generation within the greater Darwin area. Of course, that network link to Katherine is the moneymaker.
What has the CLP done? They have split the Power and Water Corporation. They are lining up the generation component as the saleable item, the part that makes money for the Territory, which will then be sold, hot on the lot, to an interstate company or concern. That troubles me. Any member from the bush should also be concerned because we cost the Territory money. The people who live in the bush in regional and remote communities need a subsidy. We have seen the impact on cost of living for our rural, regional and remote constituents already with the massive price hikes under this government.
I have that articulated regularly in my bush travels about power cards that used to last four days only lasting two days. The conversations say to me that it relates to the necessities of life such as storing food. It relates to food security. The majority of the constituents I am talking about are on fixed incomes. They do not have the latitude to absorb increasing costs. This cost-of-living pressure directly coming from utility tariff increases has seriously impacted on very important aspects of their lives, like keeping food safe in a fridge. We can get away without the lights and the cooking, but if the power goes off, which it does now more frequently, than we are risking the basic element of food security.
The retail sector of Power and Water is another good business arm. It is another business component that would be seen as a good company to buy. If we sell the generation and retail components we are seriously impacting on the revenue-raising capacity. Power and Water will be left with the liability. The Chief Minister has already outlined a $77m liability, which is what it costs to look after the bush, the generation, the networks and the people. I am very concerned that, once again, this is being bullied and pushed through with no real analysis.
Members of the Territory opposition who recently participated in the governmentowned corporations briefing came back very concerned. They briefed Caucus that there were far more questions than answers, that this has been rushed through and officials were not able to give the Territory opposition details in that hearing. That is of grave concern to a person who lives in the bush.
The other aspect of these public asset sales is the port. As I have said before, I am very privileged to be able to say I worked side by side with the Darwin Port Corporation. It was a great learning curve. In that job I was part of an incredible team that was on the hunt for new customers. I brought to the table many conversations about these customers emerging in the regions. That said it is not a matter of if but when, because in our supply chain logistics the Darwin Port is the gateway to Asia. It is also the gateway from Asia to the Territory.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries told us about these huge increases in the sale of live cattle exports. It is a great story, and we are moving forward. The Darwin Port Corporation is putting in enormous work, through a master plan that was set up and launched by the previous government into preparing for this boom which, once again, represents a major moneymaker. It is a very good institution to keep, because the Territory is booming. There will be an incredible escalation in the export of minerals, resources and energy, as well as pastoral products.
I cannot understand why this has been lumped into this rushed, bullied rhetoric around asset sales. Why? We can guess it is about the delivery of infrastructure. It is quite ironic that you would sell a major component of the supply chain logistics to support Territory development – which is essentially the development within the northern Australia plan – to purchase and develop infrastructure. What infrastructure?
The member for Blain was the only one on that side to give me any idea. He talked about higher producing infrastructure and his example was a swimming pool. We sell off a port, the gateway to and from Asia, and the example from the member for Blain was that we can then go into the community and build a swimming pool. I would love a swimming pool, as would Elliott and Ali Curung. Tennant Creek is getting a new swimming pool thanks to the federal Labor government. Yes, people benefit from swimming pools, and they would love swimming pools. But, honestly …
Mr Wood: To make money.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, they cost a lot of money.
I cannot really get the argument of the sale of major public assets. I cannot see the sense.
The Chief Minister may be acting with an unhealthy element of urgency. There is a sense of irony in the timing of the comment, because it seemed that after the Casuarina by-election the story started to emerge. The CLP government cannot get away from the accusation of, ‘What do you have to hide?’ If it was not good enough to be talked about and aired before the Casuarina by-election, is there some problem? Is there a hidden agenda? Are you really being honest with Territorians? Are you being straight?
Chief Minister, you are the leader, the one who has carriage of all the unfunded election commitments that were made in the 2012 election. They relate to the bush. Not only have you enormous pressure from Alice Springs and your urban members, you have set up very large expectations within the regional remote areas. I believe this urgency is being driven from that pressure and, on top of that, the pressure from your own members.
We see the member for Arafura, with an allocation of $924m for a Tiwi ferry, yet there is a $400 000 allocation to bush bus services, servicing a constituency covering a geographic area bigger than the area of New South Wales. We can see there is an unhealthy political agenda emerging, a number crunch.
It was all good for a short time, but the member for Fong Lim is now operating on the fence. He is sitting on the top rail. He is watching what is happening in the yards, and he is not quite sure whether he is going to be part of the next muster.
Once again, without accurate information, a serious debate and honesty within the Territory then I am left in the dark to make up my own mind. This is not a healthy place to be.
As the opposition members and the Independent member have said, treat this seriously. As Territorians, we are all in this together. Let us look at the economic modelling. Let us look at what we have today and be very cognisant of what is around the corner in the Territory’s growth and development. Be very careful about selling the farm, members of the CLP. Be very careful in your own discussions; you should be questioning this. I hope you will seek the wisdom of your constituency. The member for Katherine would be leading in that aspect of the research.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope this argument is rationalised back to a position where we can judge it fairly in the essence of the benefit for Territorians – the real benefit for the future of Territorians, not what it looks like as a sense of urgency, a cash grab, a pure political agenda for personal political survival. I do not think that will auger well in the history books of the Northern Territory for any members opposite.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion to condemn the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to sell public assets – the Territory Insurance Office, Power and Water and the port – without a mandate, in order to fund their unfunded election commitments.
This is a hot topic at the moment and Territorians are deeply concerned about what they are hearing, especially with regard to TIO. It is a big issue in the community and people are coming to me thick and fast to say they do not believe selling TIO is a good idea and they do not want to see TIO sold.
People are also disappointed with this government because they see the government has no mandate to sell TIO. They had no warning, prior to the 2012 election, of the government’s intention to go down this path. They are feeling the government should have been up front with them and consulted with them prior to the election, and at the moment it seems the government has already well and truly made up its mind.
Power and Water is another issue. There was no discussion around the time of the Territory election and going forward to separate Power and Water.
Territorians were also not told that upon voting in the CLP – which promised so dearly to reduce people’s cost of living as one of its key election commitments – that one of its first actions in government would be to jack up people’s power, water and sewerage bills, and put them right through the roof. We now know the average Territory family is paying an extra $2000 a year to keep the lights on and the water running. It has been a huge cost-of-living increase for families who are now paying around $8000 a year in power and water bills, thanks to the CLP.
We have seen with Power and Water, due to the huge tariff increases, a $260m net profit after tax. We saw that in the latest Statement of Corporate Intent. The government is directly taking money out of the pockets of Territorians despite the fact it promised to reduce the cost of living.
We have also heard many statements with regard to some of the subsidies in place for Power and Water and wanting to see those completely eliminated. Like the member for Barkly, that raises alarm bells for me. We know the cost of delivering power, water and sewerage services in the bush is extremely high. We are talking about people on some of the lowest incomes in the country who have a right to have power and water. The last thing we want to see is it becomes unaffordable for them so they have problems keeping the lights on, washing their clothes or having safe and hygienic places to have a shower.
To hear the constant banter from the government about not wanting to subsidise Power and Water Corporation makes me wonder what on earth will happen in the bush in the future if that is the direction it intends to take. What will people end up paying for power and water in the bush?
It has been interesting watching what has happened with Power and Water under the CLP. When the government first came to power we saw huge power and water price increases. It then announced it would split Power and Water. Again, it did not tell Territorians going into the 2012 election it would be splitting the Power and Water Corporation. We then saw it try to ram the split through this parliament. First it was an attempt to cognate the bills to minimise scrutiny through the parliamentary process. The government wanted to push those bills through with very little scrutiny with regard to committee work or consultation with Territorians.
The only reason they were unable to achieve that was because during that sittings they had an extreme crisis with numbers. At that time we saw huge instability in the CLP. We saw members walk away and join the Palmer United Party. The government was no longer able to ram through the split of Power and Water as intended. Leading into that its members were being awfully friendly with the member for Nelson. I remember questions around numbers and a General Business Day when the member for Nelson moved some self-referral powers to the PAC. The government gladly supported it. As a result, at least the PAC was able to hold an inquiry into the bills to separate Power and Water so we could look at what it meant and try to get more detail on what the government was doing and, most importantly, try to understand whether or not there was any benefit to Territorians. That was a huge question because if the government was going to ram through, with very little scrutiny, the split of Power and Water without being able to show any real benefit to Territorians, what was the point?
It is deeply concerning that where we have seen structural separation in other jurisdictions, we have seen that lead down the path towards privatisation. When that happens it consistently shows prices go up, reliability goes down and jobs are cut. It is a fact. It has happened time and time again in other jurisdictions where governments have ventured down this path.
The PAC was able to have its inquiry. Unfortunately we were able to get absolutely no data, no figures from any of the government agencies. We were not able to get any information from NewCo – which is part of the Department of the Chief Minister, responsible for managing the separation of Power and Water, Treasury or anything from Power and Water about whether or not there was any cost-benefit to Territorians. If they had any figures to demonstrate any cost benefit they were not able to provide it, which is staggering when you think they are dealing with billions of dollars of Territory assets. They are also dealing with a utility, use of which is a major bill every Territorian has to pay.
To go through the process to see there was very little evidence to support what the government was doing and there appeared to very little thought around what the government was doing, was quite concerning. Despite the PAC, in getting its work done, finding there was very little evidence to support the separation of Power and Water, demonstrating it was being rammed through at a pace that was too fast, the legislation was rammed through. They did not have the grace to let the PAC report be tabled, let alone debated, in this Chamber of parliament. The split happened on 1 July. We now have Jacana Power, Territory Generation and Power and Water Corporation.
We went into estimates and put some questions to the government, wanting to get a better understanding of how things were going in this new world of having these three new corporations. The answer we received was that they had no complete financial data around their assets, and Territory Generation and Jacana Energy were unable to complete Statements of Corporate Intent, and the strategic plans for these two new government owned corporations were still being worked on.
They still have no clear idea of where they are going, but one thing they did make very clear to the Estimates Committee was they are there to drive profits and ensure they are making as much money as possible. This leads to some very big concerns about how they will do this. What will this cost Territorians? Will we see Territorians paying even more? We already know that on 1 January Territorians will be paying a further 5% for their power. That is another price hike coming their way.
What will we see in those strategic plans when they are released, particularly for Jacana Energy and Territory Generation? What will we see in those new documents when they have some idea of where their finances and assets are?
We know Jacana Energy has a very attractive group of customers who are their contestable customers. We know somewhere between 70 and 80 of their customers reflect about 34% of their revenue. Around 90 000 other customers reflect the rest of their revenue. That is a very small group of customers making them a fair bit of money.
Through the separation of Power and Water, one thing the government continually said was this was about creating competition to drive prices down for Territorians. In the retail game, it is very clear there are no competitors targeting households. Our constituents, those people in normal households across the Territory, are not being targeted by those retailers; they are after the big business end of town. They are not even chasing small businesses. What will happen? Will Jacana look at those contestable customers and what they can do with them? We know Jacana is looking to partner with a private retailer. That was something the former Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, let us know during the estimates process in June. It was something we had not heard before, but we know they were looking to partner them with another private retailer. Effectively, part-privatisation is on the books right now and is something they are looking at.
With regard to generation, again we are waiting to see what their strategic plan will ultimately look like, once they have a crystal clear picture of their finances and assets. You would think that would have been resolved before splitting Power and Water, but that was never done. They have some very new equipment such as the Weddell Power Station and Owen Springs Power Station, which are very attractive assets to sell. It is very concerning; we do not know where they are going at this point, because they do not even know what they have.
Let us see which way it goes, but if we are to look at what has happened in other jurisdictions that have gone through structural separation, it leads to privatisation. When we see our utilities privatised that means higher prices. Reliability goes down, because less is invested into repairs and maintenance. It also means fewer people on the job to make sure power, water and sewerage services are running the way we need them to.
I turn to TIO. As we said, the government has no mandate to go down the path of selling TIO. Territorians do not want to see happen. They are saying loud and clear that TIO should not be sold. They are signing petitions thick and fast. They do not want to see their insurer sold; they have so much trust in TIO because it has been there for them through thick and thin. It has been there for them through floods and cyclones, and provides excellent insurance products people believe they can rely on. Most importantly, it does it at an affordable price. TIO employs Territorians and invests back into the community. It is not just about providing an insurance product; it is about an organisation that gives back to the community as well.
The government keeps saying any sale of TIO would be on the basis of ensuring Territory jobs are protected, the brand of TIO is protected and people can still access those very important insurance products of cyclone and flood cover to maintain that level of protection. The government keeps saying that, but it is little wonder Territorians struggle to trust the government on that. You are basically leaving people at the mercy of the private market. Let us see what happens with insurance prices then. They have very little trust in the government. When the government went to them at the last election it said, ‘We are delivering a key commitment in reducing your cost of living’. However, one of the first actions the CLP took in government was to jack the price of power, water and sewerage through the roof.
This week we have seen another example to do with bus drivers. When the bus service was privatised, drivers were told their conditions would not change and they would be on the same wicket. Instead, what have we seen? After the bus service was privatised, drivers have lost conditions and will be losing wages.
So it is little wonder people have little trust in the government when you say you will keep premiums down. People have little faith that Territorians will keep their jobs if you sell off TIO. TIO is a great insurer. People have a lot of trust in it. They want to keep TIO in the hands of Territorians. They do not want to see it sold. The government should at least get a mandate if they are going to go down this path of selling. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. All you will end up doing is lining your pockets with a quick cash grab to fund your election commitments. As I said, once it has gone, it is gone.
By the tone of the government, it sounds as if they have already made their decision about selling TIO. It is a shame they did not test this by going to the Casuarina by-election and at least telling people they had plans to go down this path. Instead, straight after the Casuarina by-election, we heard they are venturing down this path of selling TIO, and they want to have ‘mature debate and discussion’ about it. It would have been a lot more mature if you were up front and open with Territorians, since you have been discussing this since March. That is what you have put on the record, telling people you were looking at selling it.
The government’s tone has been quite interesting so far in this debate. When it has been asked about it, nothing is on or off the table. Then the Casuarina by-election happened and we saw full-page advertisements about it. You should have been a bit more up front with those voters.
We are also seeing work around the port the government is undertaking to look at the potential leasing or privatisation. It is something people really struggle to believe. How on earth will you keep prices down if you privatise services at the port?
We hear the government repeatedly talking about the development of northern Australia, and we all know the port is critical to the economic development of the Territory, particularly of our resources sector. You would think this time is not the moment to be going down this path, especially if you cannot show Territorians any benefits from doing this. It is like the Power and Water situation, where we asked very simple questions about the cost-benefit to Territorians, and not one government agency could demonstrate that. It makes you wonder. There has been a total failure to articulate any real benefits to Territorians of venturing down this path. It is something you should have a mandate to do. You should take it to an election.
There has been huge debate about the sell-off of Territory assets. People know and understand that once they are gone, they are gone forever. They do not want to see their assets sold off and see, as a result, an increase to their cost-of-living pressures.
There is a lot of merit in what the member for Nelson said with regard to going through a committee process to look at TIO so we can at least have further scrutiny regarding this, rather than the government’s very selective consultation process. There will be lot more debate in this House about it.
The government should be going through the ultimate consultation process of taking the decision to sell off public assets –TIO, Power and Water Corporation, and the port – or any privatisation path to Territorians at an election. Let them have a say on this in 2016. Do not be so shortsighted to sell them or privatise them straightaway with some very shortsighted cash grab initiatives. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I hope the government listens to the voice of Territorians.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of Opposition in this motion that this Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to sell public assets – the Territory Insurance Office, Power and Water and the port – without a mandate, in order to fund their unfunded election commitment, and that the Legislative Assembly asserts that the government must halt any actions to sell public assets and must take their policy to sell public assets to the 2016 Territory election.
This is one of the better motions which has come to this parliament. It is important that this side of the House makes our view, and the view of our electorates, known regarding the sale of public assets when you do not have a mandate. If you want to do that, you should take it to the 2016 election. These are Territory assets. One of the most important roles of the opposition is to hold the government to account. As shadow minister for government accountability, it is a role I take extremely seriously.
In August 2012, Territorians weighed up the choice of a CLP or ALP government. While the choice of a CLP government was disappointing to everyone on this side of the House, it was a decision we accepted and one we are learning from.
Territorians are entitled to expect the commitment the CLP gave at the last election to be honoured. They are also entitled to expect the CLP be up front and honest about government plans, particularly ones which involve the sale of valuable assets which belong to all of us. The list of broken CLP promises is so long I could spend this whole contribution detailing them. From the massive power hikes to the savage cuts to teachers and education, to failing to deliver for the bush, it is clear this government places little store in being faithful, open and accountable to all Territorians. What is becoming increasingly clear is the CLP did not intend to keep its commitment not to sell our public assets, hid its plans to do so, and deliberately and audaciously deceived Territorians at the last election.
It is clear the CLP always intended to flog off our public assets to pay for its unfunded election commitments. It is clear it had a plan to do so before the last election, and it deliberately hid this plan from Territorians because it knew it had no chance of winning the election if it came clean.
Territorians will recall the hundreds of millions of dollars of promises the CLP made to Indigenous Territorians and bush communities leading up to the 2012 election. No wish was too big or too small to receive a pledge from the then Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, to deliver it in full. Often these commitments came in the form of a signed contract, and what a cynical ploy that turned out to be. He was ably abetted by none other than the current Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who was instrumental in what I like to call operation fairy dust. We had the spectacle of the current and former Chief Ministers floating across the Territory from community to community sprinkling fairy dust, promising everything to everyone and signing contracts which were not worth the glossy cardboard they were written on.
Territorians in the bush where entitled to take the CLP on its word, to believe these commitments had been carefully costed and the CLP had a plan to deliver them. They were entitled to believe they were being dealt with in good faith. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
The CLP knew full well the only way to pay for these unfunded commitments would be to slash health and education spending and to flog off our public assets. Straight out of the conservative play book, that is what is unfolding before us.
It is no coincidence this plan of attack on all Territorians, particularly paid conditions of those who work for government owned corporations which the CLP intends to sell, seems familiar. It is the same ideological crusade run by the same people being waged at a federal level and across the border in Queensland. The plan of attack is clear: lie your way into office with unfunded commitments; set up a commission of audit – in our case the Renewable Management Board – giving them bucket loads of cash for a few hours’ work every week; slash funding on vital government services in health and education; raise taxes; and flog off public assets to pay for your unfunded commitments.
In my electorate of Johnston there is a funding commitment of $1.5m for flood mitigation works. We would like to say it is Rapid Creek but the residents of Millner are deeply affected, and were deeply affected by flood a few years ago. The then CLP candidate promised, along with Terry Mills the then Opposition Leader, $1.5m for flood mitigation works with a promise that more would be delivered if they won the election. We are over two years into that 2012 election commitment and not one cent – I repeat, not one cent – has been spent on flood mitigation works in Millner for Rapid Creek flooding.
We have a Chief Minister who is using as a political tool and ploy the Millner residents and the people affected by the floods in Rapid Creek, saying, ‘If you do not sell TIO we will not do the work for you; if we sell TIO there is a possibility.’ Every time he mentions it in the media or in this parliament, he mentions Rapid Creek flood mitigation works. You do not hold Territorians to ransom. You do not sell off a public asset that is owned by Territorians through saying, ‘Sell this, agree to this or we will not do your work’. It is the government’s job. It is what this CLP in 2012, when in opposition, promised the residents of Millner and Rapid Creek: they would fix the flooding using $1.5m, with more to come.
As I have said in previous debates, I have residents coming to me irate that the Chief Minister and this government is using flood mitigation works in Millner and Rapid Creek as a political tool. These are people’s lives. This is what you promised. As I said last week, if you promise to do something and get into government, it is your job to deliver on that promise.
I will spell it out for this government. The issue we have in regard to the Millner or Rapid Creek residents affected by the flooding is that with TIO – as an insurer, as our public asset – we took a hit around the costing to keep the flood premiums down for Katherine and Millner residents who were flooded. If TIO was to be sold and privatised, it would individually assess each case and the flood risk on each property, and the premiums would go through the roof. As I said, we all take a hit on TIO for Katherine, parts of Millner and other parts of the Territory which are flooded.
If we were to privatise TIO these premiums will go through the roof as we have seen in Queensland where it was $5000 more. The member for Karama mentioned in her contribution somebody in Katherine who has checked the figures and it is going to be $8500 more for insurance premiums. This is the reality. We have already seen this in Queensland with $5000 extra. It is $8500 extra straightaway trying to get flood insurance for Katherine. We will have the same issue in Millner and other areas around the Territory that occasionally flood.
This is why we need to protect our public asset. We need to protect TIO. I know you guys do not own up to it, but Warren Entsch is one of your blokes; he is one of the Liberal Nationals. He said, ‘Keep it’.
We saw in Queensland what happens; people are not insured because they cannot afford it. They cannot afford to insure their own properties because of the increased risk and the money it is costing them now.
The Renewal Management Board, the CLP promises, and the ideological crusade were run by the same people at federal level, in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. No one should have been surprised when the name James McGrath appeared in documents recently tabled in this parliament, detailing e-mail exchanges regarding Foundation 51. Incidentally, the item ‘debt reduction strategy’ also featured in the list of expenses for Foundation 51. This is the same James McGrath who ran the same strategy in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. It is the same James McGrath who, in his first speech as a Senator for Queensland, listed, as his policy nirvana, the sale of the ABC, an increase in the GST to 15% and the abolition of the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Education.
At its core, these policy objectives represent a fundamentalism, a belligerent belief in smaller government and a view that those less well off in our community should fend for themselves. It is an ideology that has scant evidence to support its claims to provide for a healthier, wealthier and fairer community. It represents a mean-spiritedness that those of us on this side of the House categorically reject.
All of us in this House are ultimately accountable to the good people of the Northern Territory for our policies and the values they represent, our conduct and delivering on our promises. We should all be in the ideas business.
It is clear that Territorians were denied the opportunity to cast judgment on what is now a clear plan of the CLP to sell assets that belong to all of us. Territorians deserve this choice. The challenge is now with the Chief Minister. If he really believes these asset sales are in the best interest of Territorians he should man up, make his case and take it to the people to decide. Or he could squib it, take the coward’s way and ram these sales through without the mandate such important decisions require. It is a test of his leadership and of whether the interests of all Territorians have any chance of competing with the interest of him and his mates.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a couple of things have been raised in this debate, particularly the lies about Queensland …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister needs to withdraw ‘lies’. This is under Standing Order 62. Madam Speaker was very clear about that in her advice in the Chamber. She would not accept that language.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam Speaker yesterday talked about the word ‘lie’ and said that it is important we not call each other liars in this place. You may refer to certain things that are published as lies, but be careful not to call anybody in this House a liar. Please proceed.
Mr GILES: I follow that guidance, so it is good to see those rules are being replicated in the commentary in the Chamber. Getting back to the lies that were raised about Queensland, I know there is concern being raised and peddled …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62; following the advice of Mr Acting Deputy Speaker in the accusation of lies, the Chief Minister has repeated it, so I ask that he withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He was referring to the situation as a lie, as opposed to a person or a body.
Ms LAWRIE: He was referring to lies spoken in this Chamber, so I ask him to withdraw.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition has admitted to lying within this Chamber she should reflect on how she is commenting.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My ruling is that he was talking about the situation, not of any person or things that have occurred here.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know there is talk about increases in prices, as they occurred in Queensland, so I have done some research and I am happy to provide some information.
There is a belief being peddled by the Labor Party and the Labor opposition that the reason prices are lower here and could be lower there is around TIO’s ownership structure. It is raised in the Pivot North report by the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia. Unfortunately, what is raised is completely untrue. There is a very simple reason why insurance is cheaper here and why prices will not skyrocket after an event like the Queensland floods in the Northern Territory. It is the nature of underwriting the risk.
North Queensland’s exposure to highly-intense cyclones and large catastrophic insurance losses is significantly higher than in the Northern Territory. It is pretty simple why. It has a very long east-facing coastline exposed to cyclone, and is home to numerous cities and towns, which means they are riskier to insure; that is, the border of Queensland is really long and faces the Pacific Ocean where the cyclones come from. On top of that, there is a whole lot of urbanisation up and down the coastline which presents an even greater risk …
Ms Fyles: And we face the Arafura Sea. Do you know that? Oh, he is from Alice Springs.
Mr GILES: We sat here quietly while you debated, so it is only fair that you hear another side of the story.
That can very easily be witnessed by the size of the losses which arose out of Cyclone Yasi and Cyclone Larry, which were in excess of $1bn each. We do not have that level of infrastructure here – the resorts, the big hotels, the high rises, the population or the coastline facing the Pacific Ocean.
In addition – which is very important to note – the Territory’s Building Code is significantly stronger than Queensland’s as a result of Cyclone Tracy. The Building Code – and I am happy to be corrected on the dates – came into effect in about 1979, six or so years before the Building Code was in place in Queensland. We had almost complete or 90% reconstruction in Darwin and the Top End by then, which meant that most of the reconstructed buildings in the Territory were cyclone coded, as opposed to what occurred in Queensland. Hence the reason many of the buildings and structures there are not cyclone coded to date and many face the Pacific Ocean. This is a simplistic but factual way of looking at it, particularly how things work around the Building Code.
While government owned TIO operates on a commercial basis, its prices are not set by government and it is not subsidised in any way – just to make that clear. There is nothing in the ownership structure or role of TIO which would result in the differences between insurance costs in these two markets, to put it quite simply. TIO said if it covered north Queensland it would be charging exactly the same for premiums as other companies there charge right now. While the debate on the future ownership structure of TIO is under way it needs to be understood that it is a separate debate to pricing, which is determined only by risk profile.
One thing I also clarify is this question of mandate which Labor seems to be fixated on. When the people of the Northern Territory elected the Country Liberals government to govern in August 2012, it gave the government a mandate to govern ...
Ms Fyles: To the elected Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: It gave the government a mandate to fix the debt-ridden mess Labor left behind. Your Opposition Leader was not voted in either, member for Nightcliff.
The mandate was to take action ...
Ms Fyles: Oh, touchy, touchy!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, you have had plenty of warnings this morning. I do not plan on giving you anymore.
Ms Fyles: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr GILES: The mandate was to take what action was deemed necessary to not only address the debt issue, but to embark on a plan to rebuild and re-establish the Northern Territory’s economic growth and its potential into the future. The May budget made it clear where our priorities lie: securing our children’s and their children’s future. To that end two issues were at the forefront: the cost of living and the boom and bust economic cycles.
The Country Liberals government is tackling the cost of living through the most generous Back to School voucher scheme, sport and recreational voucher scheme, childcare funding and seniors scheme in the nation. We have tackled fuel prices head on, something Labor failed to do when in government.
Our land releases put downward pressure on the challenges on housing and rental costs, and already real estate people are starting to say that is having effect. Our promise to slash red tape is being delivered, with more than 20 pieces of red tape already removed, taking action on the $4bn red tape industry that was created by Labor between 2006 and 2011. We have taken massive steps to fix the disastrous mess left by the Labor Party with such things as the ban on live cattle exports.
The task at hand now is to continue to deliver on our mandate to fix Labor’s mess and address the challenges of a boom and bust cycle. We have a duty of care to ensure the building blocks are in place when the construction phase of the INPEX project comes to an end.
We are planning for the future, unlike Labor. There are a number of ways we are going about this. One of the solutions is to borrow more money and put us further into debt. That is the Labor way of doing business: borrow, go into debt and ruin our children’s future. The Labor Party and its Opposition Leader believe in the fallacy that in government you can borrow forever; you can keep increasing big credit card limits. That is simply not achievable. Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics can understand if you continue to spend more than you have, in the end you will go bankrupt. It is a simple lesson for the Opposition Leader.
This is the same course the current Opposition Leader embarked on when in government and continues to advocate for today. Only yesterday, her deputy, the member for Barkly, advocated wholesale cuts to taxes when commenting on the TAFR, the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. Interestingly, he did not say where the tax cuts should be made or how the revenue shortfalls and the impacts on servicing government debt – Labor debt – and continuing to grow the Territory economy would be achieved. Needless to say it was, ‘Bugger the debt, let us just borrow more for tomorrow’. The other solution for government to deliver on its mandate to fix Labor’s mess is to recycle assets in line with the federal government’s asset recycling program.
I remind members of the Labor opposition that selling government assets started in 1993 and included Labor’s great national leader – no, not Gough Whitlam – Paul Keating, who sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. All other states and territories, including the Labor states, did it as well. They did it to stimulate economic growth, investment in infrastructure and jobs for the future, which ultimately leads to productivity gains which helps economic growth.
There will be roughly $0.5bn injected into local and community projects should the NT government recycle TIO and port assets. There is no discussion about Power and Water assets. Recycling government assets is the NT government’s plan to ensure sustained economic activity in the short to medium term, and it ties in with its medium- to longer-term growth through the north Australia strategy.
The Territory Insurance Office, TIO, was established in 1979 to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. It is interesting to note that today workers compensation cover now sees TIO holding a market share of 35%; that is, 65% of policy holders are not with TIO.
Since 1979 TIO has evolved into a general insurance company providing a wide range of insurance products as well as a banking business providing, primarily, home loans and holding customer deposits. The strategic imperatives for the creation of TIO no longer exist.
The Territory insurance industry is a vibrant and competitive one with in excess of 15 insurers competing for customers. Most large national and international insurers offer products in the Northern Territory. I note the Leader of the Opposition indicated earlier in this debate that she would be keen to see the banking side of TIO sold.
The Territory is also well served by the banking industry, with the four big banks and a raft of …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I did not indicate that at all. That would be an incorrect statement in the Chamber.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition feels she has been misrepresented she has the opportunity to make a personal explanation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: The Leader of the Opposition quite willingly supports the sale of the banking side of TIO …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Hansard record is very clear. I did not say that. I did not indicate that. That is wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition feels she has been misrepresented, she can make a personal explanation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, if you feel you need to make a personal explanation, you can. You can seek approval through the Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I do not have to, but thank you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Thank you …
Ms Lawrie: Keep lying.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you were told about ‘lying’ this morning. If I hear that again, you will be out. That is really pushing it. Chief Minister, you have the floor.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, the mendacious nature of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to debate in this Chamber is challenging at the best of times. I do not know what the Hansard will reveal when read word for word, but I was sitting in this Chamber when she quite wilfully indicated through the smile on her face, the glint in her eye, the tickle of the belly, that she was very keen on selling the banking sector ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was offensive? I did not hear it.
Ms FYLES: The comments the Chief Minister made about the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr GILES: I am happy to withdraw. I withdraw.
All right, there was no twinkle in the eye at selling the banking side of TIO. Let me get back to the point I was making before …
Ms Lawrie: You can laugh now but you will lose your seat. Gone!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! She continues to use the ‘L’ word.
Ms Lawrie: I did not. I said, ‘You will lose your seat’.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, I do not like to labour the point but if the Leader of the Opposition says these things she should at least have the decency to own up to it. This is parliament ...
Ms Lawrie: Seriously?
Mr Elferink: Yes, seriously.
Mr GILES: You just …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have a bit of order with the debate, please. Members of the opposition, everyone was quiet while you spoke, the least you can do is be quiet while the Chief Minister speaks.
The next person who opens their mouth when I feel it is inappropriate will be out. Chief Minister, that excludes you opening your mouth, thank you.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, what I am about to say is not offensive. We are talking about TIO, a fantastic institution in the Northern Territory. We are talking about ‘T’ standing for the Territory and always standing for the Territory and TIO always remaining part of the Territory. I will get back to the notes I have crafted here ...
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: Sorry, what was that, member for Nightcliff? You will not own up to that one either?
The Territory is also well served by the banking industry with the big four banks and a raft of second tier banks and credit unions also providing services. This reflects the true global nature of the finance and insurance industry in the Northern Territory. When you go through some of those big four banks and credit unions in the Territory it is no wonder the Leader of the Opposition is so supportive to see the banking sector of TIO sold.
All insurers operating …
Ms Lawrie: Absolute rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I beg your pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Absolute rubbish.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You need to move a substantive motion if you wish to use that language in this Chamber.
Ms Lawrie: Come on! At least be honest in this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, cease interjecting!
Mr GILES: All insurers operating in the Territory offer cyclone cover and all but one offer flood insurance. Even in the area of cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest. Its prices actually sit in the middle of the market, albeit it provides a fantastic service, particularly the level of customer service, something any likely suitor for the organisation is very keen to keep. Not only does TIO hold a large market share it also holds high levels of goodwill and respect from Territory consumers.
TIO now exists in a market where it is no longer providing what would have been a unique service. It is also no longer keeping competitors’ prices low by being a market leader from when it first penetrated into the market in 1979.
TIO remains the last government owned insurer and bank in Australia, with other states having privatised theirs in the 1980s and 1990s, including Labor states. TIO is limited by its legislation to offer services within the Territory. This means it is one of the smallest insurance companies in Australia, competing against national and multinational corporations.
No final decision has been made, but selling TIO and leasing parts of the port will provide significant funds to rebuild, and build, the Territory in the future. I have said before we would like to see those funds given back to Territorians and put into community infrastructure, and, importantly, economic infrastructure to grow the Territory of tomorrow.
The federal government’s asset recycling initiative also offers a 15% financial incentive for us to sell eligible assets and reinvest the proceeds in new economy growing infrastructure.
I will digress for a moment. I noted the member for Nelson made some disparaging comments about government being motivated by the 15% asset recycling initiative to do this. That is far from the truth. In March, when Cabinet considered TIO and how it was to be supported to grow into the future, it was about TIO. The 15% component came in well after that; I think it was in the federal May budget or even after that point in time when this was first talked about. It plays in our favour, but it is not the purpose of why we are having this debate …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I ask that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: We are not only talking about TIO, we are also talking about the port. The government is also looking at ways to attract private investment in the Port of Darwin so we can make it more efficient, improve economies of scale and bring down freight costs into the future. That does not mean there will not be CPI increases and increasing costs in the future. It means we can put downward pressure on those costs so they do not increase as much as they could in the future.
There is another way we could drive down the cost of living for Territorians. Detailed investigations into potential options are in progress. As I have previously announced, Flagstaff Partners has been appointed to advise the NT government on alternative investment propositions, including the possibility of the long-term lease of port assets, not sales. We do not support the sale of the port.
The Office of Major Infrastructure and Investment has been tasked with identifying economic and community infrastructure projects that might be pursued. It has put forward some of the government’s ideas to start that conversation. I stress that these ideas are not concrete, but we have started talking about them. We have also received ideas from the community.
The government’s ideas to help a mature conversation about how we may reinvest include things such as – I am sure the member for Johnston would appreciate this if he was here – amelioration and flood mitigation works around Rapid Creek to help those in his electorate who suffer, at times, flooding or storm water surge etcetera, and roadworks to remove the bottleneck at the end of Tiger Brennan Drive, near Dinah Beach where it approaches Darwin city. Currently we have the Dave Tollner, former member for Solomon, funding pool, which is assisting the duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive all the way through to the Stuart Highway, but it stops at Dinah Beach. We need to find support for the section from Dinah Beach into the city. Identifying funds to remove that traffic bottleneck is a very important element.
An Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs has been raised as a potential investment opportunity. It would support Indigenous culture in the Northern Territory, the cultural heart of Australia being in Central Australia, Alice Springs. There is also the opportunity to not just share cultural excellence and expertise with our Aboriginal Territorians, but to look at how we get an economic generator out of that from a tourism perspective.
A second port at Glyde Point has been raised, as have new sporting venues for Darwin. The minister for Sport and I have discussed how we might be able to invest in a new rectangle oval for the likes of big rugby league, soccer – or football as it is generally called these days – and rugby union in the Top End in the Northern Territory, and what that might mean for some of the bigger teams, but importantly, what it means for community events and community sporting teams participating here.
Of course, I am very supportive of a new long-term infrastructure development fund for the Northern Territory to finance the building of the Territory into the future. The idea is that funds realised from the potential TIO sale and port long-term lease would go into a Territory future fund and assist the building of the Northern Territory, with all funds dedicated towards economic-generating infrastructure into the future.
I have tasked Treasury to draw up legislation to identify the operation of that future fund. We have already started identifying who board members of that future fund would be, making sure we have experts sitting on that future fund who are sound in investment and in judgment about where those funds should be spent into the future, making sure it is not a fire sale and putting in place protection so in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time. should Labor, heaven forbid, get back into government, they cannot just raid the piggy-bank to spend it willy-nilly.
These are some of the ideas we are talking to the public about with regard to how Territorians would like us to pursue a reinvestment into the Territory, should we go down this path.
We have launched a new website – www.buildingourterritory.nt.gov.au – where the community can propose infrastructure projects that could be funded through any future sale or lease of public assets. The response to that website has been more than we expected. We have had a public website for the Office of Northern Australia now for many months and have called for ideas through that website. What we have seen come back through this Building Our Territory website has roughly been tenfold, with people putting forward some fantastic ideas.
I have no hesitation in saying I question some of those ideas. Some of them I question a lot. But some of them are good ideas. Some of them are about community infrastructure, some economic. We have received one idea which talked about a proper Olympic swimming pool in the Top End. We do not have a swimming pool of the official Olympic size in the Top End. It has been put forward, and they are the ideas we want to see.
People have spoken to me of a future equestrian centre that can house all equestrian events for northern Australia. Madam Speaker, I am not verballing you and I do not mean to cause offence as I did with the Leader of the Opposition, but I saw a glint in your eye when I spoke about equestrian. It is a very important community sporting event in the Top End. If we can realise the value of the asset of the TIO and keep it Territorian, but put that value back into the community, it is good.
The last point I make is about where we take our advice on some of these things. Yes, there was a lot of pressure and advice coming to us when we first came to government with that enormous cloud of debt, saying ‘Let us sell TIO, realise some of that value and pay back Labor debt’. The decision at the time by Cabinet was, ‘Let us not do that. Let us take our time and take a good look at that’. I note the member for Araluen, who was Treasurer at the time, came under enormous pressure for these things. We took a sensible approach to how we do this, and have been having a very detailed look at making sure TIO and any future sale is about protecting TIO, and not just about Labor debt.
Of course Labor debt comes into it. We have just seen, through good fiscal management by the members for Araluen and Fong Lim and Cabinet, how we can be very frugal with the way we manage our money, and with the way we raise income in the Northern Territory. We are now at a point where the Labor debt has decreased from $5.5bn to $3.1bn. We are now three full years ahead of our target for operational surplus. We are on an operational surplus of $119m It is a fantastic pat on the back for a government that is keen to get into a good fiscal position. Labor has not congratulated us on that.
When we came to government we set up an economic development strategy panel consisting of Ian Smith from Bespoke; Doug McTaggart, former Under Treasurer from Queensland, and a gentleman who has just been appointed to the Federation review panel by the federal government; and former Chief Minister Paul Henderson. The report had a couple of recommendations, two in particular from the former Labor Chief Minister which support the debate today. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would hate hearing this commentary. The report recommended two things in particular. One was the port should be sold. I have said we will not sell it and believe we should be moving to a long-term lease, and we are well advanced in that process. It also said TIO should be sold off.
That would not be news to the Leader of the Opposition because, of everyone in this Chamber, the Leader of the Opposition was the only person in the parliament present at the time the former Labor government sought to sell TIO. She agreed it should be done. No one on this side of the Chamber was there at the time, but the Leader of the Opposition was in government supporting the concept.
She likes to say, ‘We supported it a bit but I have changed my mind. I voted against it inside the secrecy of the room. Trust me, cross my heart, hope to die, I will never tell another lie.’ That was the approach you took in the media. Now you say, ‘No, it was not me, I was against it. It was Syd Stirling, Clare Martin, Paul Henderson and the other crew around the table at the time.’ You stood against it despite all the support for it. It is easy to have a bob each way, flip the burger over and decide you do not want to support it when the government is trying to act in the best interests of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, we will not be supporting this Labor motion. We think it is important to have a mature debate about TIO and the port. Yes, we are seeking final offers for TIO. When the final offer comes in we will move extremely quickly if we decide to make the sale.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that was a very telling end to the contribution from the Chief Minister, ‘We are seeking final offers and will move very quickly’. A call to Territorians: this is a government that has no intention of seeking your views on your assets. This is a government that will move very quickly to sell TIO, an admission from the Chief Minister. We are debating a motion to stop the sale of public assets and take it to Territorians for their view and the Chief Minister said, ‘We are seeking final offers for TIO and we will move very quickly to sell’. That is an outrage. You have a motion before parliament tomorrow but have already decided because you are in the final stage of offers, you are seeking final offers and will move very quickly to sell.
That is the hallmark of this government: crash through, move quickly and do not tell the public what you are doing until it is exposed by others, then when exposed, move as quickly as you can and do not give Territorians a say. Territorians will ultimately have their say when you go to the ballot boxes. You will be judged.
God forbid, I hope there is not a significant natural disaster because people will discover that insurance premiums go through the roof if the company is in private hands. We heard the Chief Minister dismiss that out of hand saying it lies, but is not, it is fact. A resident of Katherine has done his homework and called insurers. You say there are 12 or 15 competitors in the market. No, Chief Minister, that resident in Katherine found only one insurer prepared to insure them for $8500 a year more.
We quoted the Chambers of Commerce and the mayors of those north Queensland towns who talked about the fact that businesses cannot get insurance because they cannot afford it. The Chief Minister’s response was, ‘Well we have a different coastline, it is not as long. They have lots of resorts and hotels.’
Have you seen Darwin? Have you looked out the window and understood how significant our city of Darwin has become? Have you even sat down with anyone who went through Cyclone Tracy and heard what it was like to try to rebuild after complete and total devastation? Do you sit there in your fool’s paradise and think because we have a Building Code and we build to Category 4 standard, it is all good? Arrant nonsense! There are many homes across Darwin that are pre-Tracy that have been repaired. There are many businesses that will need insurance post a catastrophic cyclone.
God forbid that happens, because if it does and TIO has been sold, the people will bear the brunt of your decision. You have clearly decided, with the Chief Minister ending his contribution in debate today, ‘We are seeking final offers for TIO and it will be sold quickly’.
The people of Katherine do not get a look in with a government that is meant to be representing them. Member for Katherine, what are you doing on this? It is extraordinary. Why? Because the Commonwealth has a recycling program? Recycle? No, it is a public asset sale scheme not a recycle. Do not throw jargon at people, it is nonsense. It is cash for public asset sales. It is an incentive for public asset sales. Why? Because the Commonwealth does not want to fork out infrastructure funding to states and territories.
That is not the form of Liberal National Coalitions. Under 10 years of Howard, states and territories were starved of infrastructure funding. This is an admittance of complete and utter failure by the CLP to achieve Commonwealth funding for infrastructure. You have to find your own, sell assets, take your 15% top-up and there you go, you could fix some more roads.
We leveraged $400m from the Commonwealth for roads. You cannot get a cent. It is an extraordinary admittance of failure. The problem with this failure is the consequences are dire for families and businesses.
You do not even have the decency to give Territorians a say. They will judge you. Member for Brennan, I interjected that you will lose your seat. Member for Sanderson, you will lose your seat. Member for Port Darwin, you will lose your seat. We do not know what is happening with the member for Fong Lim. Maybe he will be gone before the others. I do not know that any of you necessarily know what is happening with the member for Fong Lim. You have a vacant seat in Cabinet. You have a Chief Minister carrying 13 portfolios.
You have had two years of chaos and dysfunction and now you will crash through for a cash grab, blinding yourselves to the dire consequences for Territorians. That is not responsible, mature government; it is reckless and dangerous and it needs to stop. The ridiculous, spurious arguments led by the Chief Minister today are that our coastline is not as long as Queensland’s and we are not as built up with hotels and buildings. If you are so sure of those arguments put them in the public domain, have the debate and then take it to a referendum.
Even you know what you are doing is wrong. However, you will do it because you are desperate for money to pork barrel and try to buy your way out of the disaster of a government you are, with votes at the next election. That does not work. Territorians will not, and do not, accept that.
I heard the most appalling things come from the mouth of the Chief Minister. He heard what I had to say and he knows I did not support the sale of the banking arm of TIO, but he said it time and time again to be provocative. How about being honest? How about stumping up and debating it from a basis of honesty? You cannot do that. It is disgraceful. Born and raised in the Territory, I have never seen a government this bad. I have had to live through many years of CLP governments, so this is not a case of, ‘We are all good and you are all bad’. You are the worst ever; we know that because people who are CLP to their boot heels are saying that.
Businesses get it; they understand the impact of their insurance premiums on them. Householders in vulnerable pre-Cyclone Tracy homes, storm surge zones and the entire area of Katherine get it. However, you guys will turn a deaf ear and blind eye to it and you will crash though, because that is your style.
I doubt you will find a buyer for the port. In our interests I hope you do not find a buyer; it does not stack up to sell it now for any reason. It would escalate the cost of living, create crippling costs in doing business across the port and we would be selling our best asset – or the sneaky-lease CLP formula that follows the LNP in Queensland. We would be trying to get rid of it when it is at the apex of its growth. It is the worst time to sell.
I know I am talking to people who have whipped themselves into a bit of fever about it and who have little competitions, ‘Let us see who can sit in the Chamber and stare at Delia’. I do not know what is going on but it is weird.
It is okay because I will be holding you to account every day. Even if we have reduced sitting days I will hold you to account. I am okay with the fact Territorians will hold you to account for this crash through. You will lose your seats by trashing the trust. Did you not hear the debates? Do you not understand what has happened in other jurisdictions when governments have irretrievably broken the trust of their constituents, irrespective of their political colours? They have lost, and that is what you will do ...
Mr Conlan: You should be hoping we sell it.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the ridiculous member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Greatorex. He said we should be hoping they sell it. That is the difference between us, member for Greatorex. I want what is best for the Territory and Territorians. I am not here for a self-serving purpose. I am here to say this will hurt too many Territorians. Do not sell it. If it means you will win the next election, so be it, but do not sell something that will hurt Territorians – families and businesses.
That is fundamentally the difference. You will fly into the Territory, live here for a few years and fly out, but I will still be here. I was born and raised here, and I will be here my entire life. That is the difference ...
Mr Conlan: That makes you so much better than everyone else, does it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: It was your stupid interjection, member for Greatorex.
Some people in this Chamber will never get it. They will never understand how important it is to Territorians to have the security of affordable insurance which will pay in a timely manner ...
Mr Conlan: You just insulted everyone in the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE: You will never get that, member for Greatorex?
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: interjections from that side of the House interrupting debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Barkly. Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Plenty of people get it, sadly. Anyone who has been through a natural disaster understands this debate. People who live in Katherine who went through the floods understand this debate. People who live in regional areas of the Territory are vulnerable. The Chief Minister talking about our coastline completely ignored his ambition to have home ownership and the like across the remote communities. Guess where the big cyclones hit? But do not worry about that. Good luck finding an insurer on the Tiwi Islands when you are in the cyclone path. Good luck to the remote communities which have already seen the disruptive forces of Category 5 and Category 4 cyclones come through. Good luck with that.
You will need it. The residents of Katherine will need it because they already know today – they have done their research – it will cost them $8500 more to find comparable insurance, and there is only one private insurer willing to touch them. It is extraordinary that members whose own constituents would be the most adversely affected are prepared to support the crash through money grab so this government can try to buy itself out of the host of woe it is in.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this Legislative Assembly condemns the CLP government for failing to properly fund and resource Territory schools by slashing $125m from our education budgets and forcing global school budgets on to schools, which is cost shifting and putting resource burdens onto our schools. The Legislative Assembly calls on this government to reinstate teachers and teacher assistants and properly resource our Territory schools.
I will read a relevant quote:
Some 12 months later it seems the complete opposite is happening in our education system as we plunge into more chaos and confusion with the rushed introduction of global school budgets.
More recently we have seen the member for Brennan seize the day and grab the prize position of Deputy Chief Minister, but he has also told the ABC of his desire to retain his Education portfolio to continue his reforms. Can the Territory afford to keep him as Education minister given the deep damage he is doing to our schools and education system? These reforms are driven by ideology and the need to impress his colleagues that he is a can-do action man rather than focusing on the evidence in forming progressive improvements to our education system.
The minister likes to portray a grounded grassroots understanding of education, what works and what does not, but the truth is he is overseeing unprecedented chaos and confusion in our Territory education system, fed by ideology not facts or experience.
Under his watch hundreds of teacher positions have been cut from our schools, support staff have been cut and there are fewer subjects and less subject choice in our schools. Under his watch our students are receiving less individual attention. Perhaps the only saving grace is the professionalism and dedication of our education workforce – our teachers, teacher assistants, principals and school councils of dedicated parents who believe in their children’s education and give up their time to ensure schools have the support they need.
The minister implied that teachers are lazy where it is the hard work and dedication of these teachers in our classrooms day in day out that is holding our education system together. These are the people who struggle to have their concerns about changes in their school work environment as part of the EBA negotiations. It is unprecedented that eight out of 10 teachers voted no to the government’s EBA offer. These people we trust to care for our kids day in and day out were prompted by their alarm to the changes in our classrooms, practice and education resourcing. This has been their key concern on top of their separate struggle to have their wages stay abreast of the ever-increasing cost of living under the CLP.
This minister has overseen the biggest squeeze on an Education budget: a reduction of $125m since the CLP was elected and a loss of over 185 teachers and support staff in our schools last year alone. Minister, are you still saying it is 35?
He is now overseeing the second wave of the big squeeze on education: the introduction of global school budgeting to our local schools. Minister, I urge you to rethink this. Our schools cannot take anymore; there is nothing more to trim. Our schools and staff are already reeling with budget cuts and changes brought into effect in 2013-14 and now have the new formula and budget to work with in 2015. Our schools are at an all-time low.
In justifying the deep cuts the minister likes to retreat into his mantra that more investment has not led to better outcomes, ‘We cannot keep spending the way we have been doing the same things’. Minister, I remind you that education is a long-term investment in our children; it is giving them life skills. Where is the evidence that a global budget will improve educational outcomes? We need to invest in our children. We need to continually invest in our teachers, our schools and their resources. But, no, we have a minister who seems blind to the impact of his budget cuts and his ideologically-driven administrative changes on the quality of our education provided by our teachers and support staff to our kids, our future.
These global school budget cuts are causing chaos and huge stress in our communities. I have even had principals tell me they cannot sleep. School council members are struggling to get their heads around what these new budgets mean and what their role is. There is so much confusion in so many aspects of this new funding model.
The Education minister is clearly out of touch if he thinks sacking teachers and having more overcrowded classrooms with less individual attention for our students will somehow help our education system. This is not the proper investment our children deserve.
Principals should be leading educators in our schools, not business managers struggling to find funds, pay bills and balance budgets that are underfunded to start with. But that is what your government’s policies are forcing them to do.
Now you have launched your new smoke-and-mirrors policy of global school budgeting for our schools. It is not a simple as you say:
Schools tell us they enough autonomy. What they need is support, not extra burden. The minister described the new approach as allowing schools to customise their services to meet the different needs of families and communities across the Territory, and assist greater community governance and local ownership of education.
It all sounds so neat, but how incorrect that impression is. Schools are struggling with the education cuts and now they are expected to do more with fewer resources. Now you are offloading responsibility for meeting an impossible budget target on to our schools.
It is also concerning that new arrangements come on top of changes to the school staffing formula. Sadly, it appears on the evidence available that most schools are losing staff and staff resources under the changed allocation formula.
I remind the minister that this global budget funding model was brought in with a promise that it would be nice and slow and there would be transitional funds available for schools. Further, it was claimed that schools would have three years to get their budget point, indicating it would be nice and slow with no rush. We are seeing the exact opposite take place. Everything is urgent, as soon as possible. Where is the transition funding? Where is the calm and orderly change to the new approach?
Parents and school staff were assured $16.5m would be available over the next three years to assist with implementation of the new budget arrangements. Concerns continue about how these funds will be disbursed. Will they be spent on support for school councils, school principals in their new business management roles, or will it be swallowed up in administrative costs? Minister, have you changed this model? Have you put pressure on the agency to deliver on urgency?
Our schools are in chaos. Schools were promised repeatedly throughout the year that they would not receive their global budgets in Term 4. Well, they did not get them in Term 4 but they got pretty close: week 9 of Term 3. It has also been brought to my attention that school principals have been told not to show their budgets to school councils yet, and when they do it is their responsibility to keep their school council members quiet. Principals have been told to put a positive spin on these budgets. It sounds a bit more like a threat than a request.
Minister, you may not be making these directions but you should be made aware they are taking place. Our schools are concerned and principals are stressed. They are concerned about their budgets. Some have not had time to take them to their school councils, others who have, have raised concerns. I am sure you have spoken to schools in recent days, but in case you have not, they are telling me the global budgets are so stressful that some principals are losing sleep. Some school council members have seen their budgets, some have not. The ones who have seen them are most concerned. It is causing a huge amount of stress at a particularly busy time for our schools.
I remind you that school councils are the governing bodies that sign off their school budgets. The fact that they are halfway through the last term and some have not seen next year’s budget is concerning. One person said to me, ‘The council and the principal have not really had the chance to meet and we have not been able to tell them very much. We are still trying to ‘get it nailed’ as we were very clearly told we must put a positive spin on the process and we agreed we cannot discuss fully with the finance committee or the school council until we put a positive spin on it.’
This is the pressure that our schools are under. I am also hearing that some schools are taking their budget back to the department, not once or twice but three times, and each time they are getting a different formulation with different budget figures. What does this represent? A well-considered policy or something that is being rushed and pushed on schools?
These are only the schools and the school principals that have the courage and the ability to talk to us. What about our remote schools? What about our principals who are afraid to speak up? What does all this say about the disarray and chaos of your policy of global school budgets on our schools?
Your department said the budgets would be the same as this year plus 1%. All the evidence indicates that is not the case. Schools are telling us there have been a number of errors in the spreadsheet. They seem to have to re-enter information repeatedly, which they are finding frustrating. Schools are trying to run their school. Term 4 is already a busy time of the year and now they are struggling to cope with budgets. They feel as if the department and the government do not understand, ‘We have a school to run, as well as all this extra work’.
The budget figures we have had for about three or four weeks are very hard to reconcile. It is not a case of the 2014 school budget plus 1%. Schools are quoting different figures within different areas. I urge you to immediately look into this and provide some clarity. You may say school principals are being provided with professional development, but from what I understand from what I have been hearing, it has not been useful. One person explained to me that it was all new and raw, and after they have had a PD session it took a while to sink in. Another session was needed to consolidate information. They also went on to say, ‘I do not believe the PD sessions we attended gave us the information needed to work with the spreadsheet, for instance. We did not receive instructions on populating the staff level and what to do if you make changes.’
There are so many questions around this formulation, how it is meant to be implemented and how staff are meant to work within the formulation spreadsheets. It goes on, and there are many human resource questions. When I had a briefing on global school budgets the department was unable, at that point, to answer them. I have spoken before with the minister during estimates and sittings, so maybe he could clarify some of the basis for staffing formulation. What happens around staff leave entitlements, maternity leave and sick leave? These are all genuine questions our schools are struggling to deal with.
One of the issues the union and school councils are talking about is the basis for staffing formulation. How did you arrive at that? Did you add up every teacher in the Territory, all levels they were on, and equate it that way? Is it just that everyone across the Territory was based on a teacher six or seven? We want to know the formulation. Was it a blended formula? What was the formulation? These are the smoke and mirrors people are concerned about.
I have heard a story of one principal openly saying they will encourage their Level 9 teachers to move on so they can create flexibility in their budget. I urge you to put parameters in place so that does not happen. We cannot afford to lose experienced teachers, particularly in the Territory, purely to save money. We have a unique teaching environment. Yes, a less experienced teacher is not as expensive, but who will provide guidance to young teachers? Schools should have a mix, a blend of teachers, but should not be choosing teachers purely for financial reasons.
Some of the feedback I received was that staff salaries attached to school budgets creates uncertainty; there are so many variables. If you have a school with a bunch of experienced teachers it will be at a higher level. If you have a school where three or four teachers go on maternity leave it will create unfair balances in the budget. I am not sure of the parameters with sick leave. At the moment, if someone goes on sick leave for more than three weeks you can apply to have that position refunded by the department. These are the questions concerning schools at the moment.
What is the impact of reduced funding for the backfilling of staff who are unwell and on leave, particularly as stress levels rise? What about the impact of the increasing loss of dedicated and experienced staff? An increasingly high turnover of school staff is likely.
Not only are schools saying they want more instructions for business managers to help them understand their spreadsheets, they also express frustration at the time the corrections and changes take place. Schools are saying this should have been trialled at a few schools before being pushed out in a hurry, so problems could have been identified first. That is one message coming across loud and clear. In evidence from interstate and overseas, the one message was take it slowly. Yet, we are implementing this in 11 weeks.
Our bush schools could lose a huge amount from their budget. That is what these Excel spreadsheets and the formulations are showing them. This is why we have principals and staff so stressed wondering what further cuts they are expected to make. These arrangements are meant to be seen as an opportunity, but in the majority of our schools there is dismay about the changes, how they will affect school resourcing into the future and the blame-shifting to teachers and principals for expected budget cuts.
There are many questions about support staff. For example, our Transition level teacher aides play such an important role in our classrooms in the early years, something you should be investing in, minister. This program can disappear as the budget for it may be used to prop up other areas. We urge it to be placed in the targeted program so it cannot be shifted.
This highlights some of the ongoing problems with the global school budgets. Is it a sneaky way to cut the funding? Schools have raised concerns, particularly our remote schools, that there are staff members who might work at a number of schools across a region, but it has been tagged to their school. In some cases they see the staff regularly and could understand that allocation to them, but in other cases that staff member has nothing to do with their school and they feel this is unfair. This shows the unfairness of a global school budget.
I heard that a school in Central Australia does not have enough in its allocated budget for the mobile preschool program, which is such an important and vital program. I have also heard that one of our preschools in an urban area does not have an allocation of funding.
There have been questions raised about some of the support programs and the schools that provide the refugee support programs, etcetera. What is happening with the funding for those programs?
The minister might say these are glitches in the system. That is why this should have been taken slowly. I urge you to look into them and come back to the House with responses. We should not be having global school budgets rushed out in Term 4 and being pushed onto schools.
You clearly promised things and they have not been delivered, such as transition funding to allow schools and school staff to work slowly towards this model of funding in our schools, and perhaps some trial schools. I remind you that education in the Territory is already starting at an extremely low base. It is shrinking. We have lost $125m from our Education budget, so it is disappointing we have to push further cuts.
In relation to schools’ individual budgets, perhaps you can clarify tonight that schools will not be forced to accept significant budget cuts, that they will receive their budget plus 1%. Can they have confidence they do not have to plan towards cuts? Some schools are concerned they might receive funding next year, but have been told their 2016 figure will be this, and they will need to work towards it. They need to make the cuts now. I understand the department is encouraging schools to work towards budget cuts based on loss of student numbers, but schools were told they could get used to the model and receive the same level of funding.
This also goes against what the Chief Minister said in a recent statement and what he said in 2008. Schools need stable funding. I remind the Chief Minister that this is his Cabinet, the government he leads, and at the moment schools are not receiving it.
Interestingly, today we heard that the Minister for Public Employment is directing the Education department to put in place a 6% pay rise for teachers, followed by a further 3% at some point next year. I am not 100% certain of those figures, I heard a couple of variations. That is without teachers having agreed to an EBA. Has the Minister for Public Employment taken these matters into his own hands or did this go to Cabinet and you knew the whole time?
What is most concerning about that allocation is it has not been budgeted for. Schools which are already struggling are now hearing they have to budget for an extra 7% to 9% on staff wages. Some of the principals I have spoken to cannot even contemplate that. For schools which are trying to make a budget work, it is $90 000 in the red off their staff wages and they are looking to dip into other areas to make that up. They now have to find up to an extra 9% which will equate to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What are schools meant to do? What will they cut? Will it be special education programs or will they dip into their base and equity funding just to cover the basics? These are the questions coming from schools, school principals and the council members that understand.
In the minister’s maiden speech, he said:
That is one of the areas we are hearing about regarding these allocations of funding: they do not know if they have jobs next year. I remind the minister of this and ask what he has done for certainty in our schools. At the moment our schools feel there is no certainty ahead of the 2015 school year with these global budgets.
Territorians are concerned. They are not fooled by the apparent veneer of this shiny new product that might give them a little more local decision-making. They feel they have autonomy and they make decisions in their schools. Schools currently decide what methods of learning they want to implement. There is a core curriculum which they obviously have to deliver. Schools want to get on with the job of educating. They are sick of the government’s cuts and budget pressures. It has been most surprising seeing principals’ reactions to this. They are struggling and have no extra room within their budgets, and now they have to find further cuts.
In our previous censure of your government the minister talked about the administrative burden on schools today and said it was unbelievable:
Administrative workload on principals and support staff is increasing rapidly under this model of funding. Principals are being forced to become entrepreneurs and business managers; they are not educating. They are being forced to become budgeting and Excel spreadsheet gurus and are spending so much of their day focused on this and not worrying about educating. You said we need to streamline administrative processes. Dumping the burden from the department onto schools is not a way to achieve that.
There are concerns in the bush that principals will be forced to cut local employment then bear the blame for that. Some bush principals are concerned that they are on six-month contracts. If they cannot manage this process will they be blamed and moved on? Some feel they are being kept on a short leash with a six-month contract so if they rock the boat they can be quickly dealt with. How does this engage a dedicated and forward-looking workforce? They are pushing the hard decisions on staff and budget allocations down the line. At the same time the Chief Minister is putting $33m into his department. That would go a long way in our schools. Chief Minister, what about our kids? What about our future?
I have given examples on the impact on teachers, parents and school councils already dealing with rising costs. They see rising costs to utilities which they have to budget for at the moment.
We are not going to see higher rates of retention, we will see reduced rates of retention of quality staff. There are some questions around this. What is happening with the department’s CDU graduate recruitment plan in 2015? It is an important program ensuring we get CDU graduates into our schools. There are many questions in education at the moment. I am privileged, as shadow Education minister, to be able to ask questions in this House.
The minister has maintained for months that only 35 teacher positions were cut, yet the estimates figures show it was far higher, with 125 teacher and 60 additional support staff numbers cut. What will be the case with global budgets when you claim one thing but another happens?
We feel you are not qualified to push such a huge change onto Territory schools. You say you will fight to improve educational outcomes whether students are in Darwin, Alice Springs or Katherine, but government is providing more uncertainty. People have a distrust of the government and are frustrated by the global budget process.
What are the Minister for Education and Chief Minister doing about the projected loss of $312m from federal government funding to the Territory over the next decade? Can you disclose to the parliament and the parents, teachers and principals the exact figures for students at NT schools from the federal government under new arrangements at COAG? We have a significant loss and that is disappointing.
We are seeing so many changes in our education system being rushed through before reports are even finalised. Some of my other colleagues will speak this evening about the boarding school model. It is important to note that students do best when they are supported by their family, their friends and are surrounded by community. Your government is taking that opportunity away from a cohort of our students.
The minister failed to explain cutting school support positions and school programs like GEMS, which was cut a year ago. Opportunities for community engagement enhance our schools and our schools’ performance.
While we are talking about GEMS, I heard a story the other day. I travelled a little. I will not reveal the location because I know schools are particularly upset at being identified. In my travels a school talked about the GEMS program, which was cut from their school at the end of last year. They mentioned two young ladies who have, sadly, fallen off the bandwagon; their studies are suffering. The school commented that if GEMS was still in place those girls would be focused, achieving and getting academic results through that support.
Chief Minister, that is the story of two. I am sure there are tens of young ladies across the Territory, maybe even hundreds, who are not benefiting as much from our schools as they should be. This is directly as a result of a program cut, which was GEMS. Where is our girls’ mentoring program? What is happening? It is already week 4 of Term 4 and we have nothing put in place. Even if we hear an announcement quickly it is going to be a struggle to put in place for the 2015 school year. Our girls are being let down once again.
Minister, why are you pushing this funding model onto our schools? Are you hiding behind a smoke screen of numbers and confusion? Can you answer some of the questions? Why would you not simply compare apples with apples and be up front with Territorians?
Why people are leaving the Territory has been discussed in the media over the last few days. I think it was on the ABC News tonight. Obviously the cost of living is a huge issue and a key reason, but time and time again people are telling me families are leaving because of their concern for their children’s education. Under this new scheme there is a real risk the gap will get wider and our children will suffer.
I understand that COGSO, the Council of Government Schools Organisation, is surveying schools and school councils on the implementation of the new school budgets model. I look forward to a commitment from you to take account of that survey and the views of COGSO. I know you pride yourself on being sincerely open to consultation, but those are the people affected most, not just the departmental staff trying to keep their own jobs and interpret as best they can. If you can give us a guarantee that survey will be listened to and acknowledged that will be most appreciated.
Minister, these huge changes do not secure our children’s future. Your CLP budget mantra was securing our children’s future. This is simply pushing our education system further into chaos.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, we will not support this motion because it shows what a fantastic job the member for Nightcliff does in scaremongering. She has made it an art form. If we had thought any of the things she said in this House over the last 12 months would come true, what we would see today is schools closed, teachers leaving and students failing. Of course, none of that is true.
She talked about ideology tonight. It is ideology if you have your head so stuck in the sand you thought everything Labor did over all those years, after throwing so much money at education and not seeing any improvement in results, is the right way to go. Madam, you need to get your head out of the sand.
Recently we saw Labor trying to get COGSO on board to fight global funding. You will find that COGSO was getting quite a lot of feedback from schools saying they were supportive of global funding because it will do exactly what they wanted in their schools: give them control.
In the lead-up to the Casuarina by-election, because COGSO would not come out and wave the flags, they had to call on their old mates at the teachers’ union, who quickly put together a rally outside what just happened to be a polling booth. It was a couple of days before the by-election. That was not so long after being told by Jarvis Ryan that he was apolitical and would not be involved in the politics of the day. He wanted to keep out of it. However, the opposite happened before the Casuarina by-election.
The member for Nightcliff continued the scare campaign tonight. She mentioned things tonight again – schools are already quite aware of what is and is not included in global funding. In fact, there are many areas the department will continue to pay for. She listed a number of things tonight suggesting that schools had not been informed, and she is totally wrong again.
I will read the list that was provided to all schools so they were clear on what things are being funded centrally and not included in global school budgets. These include: the remote incentive allowance; freight allowance; remote retention allowances; motor vehicles; principals’ salaries; principals’ vehicles; long service leave; study leave; maternity leave; paternity leave; leave airfare entitlements; workers compensation; fares out of isolated locations; highly accomplished and lead teacher allowances; specific maintenance; cyclical maintenance and urgent minor repairs – that is repairs and maintenance; capital works; teacher housing costs; teacher housing electricity costs; relocation costs; and Back to School grants – funding is allocated to schools for distribution to parents.
That list was provided to every school and is on the website. If the member for Nightcliff wanted to do a little research into it, instead of writing rubbish we would be so much further ahead than we are. It looks like we will be in the same place this year as last year.
According to the member for Nightcliff, one of the schools used during the Casuarina by-election was to be closed down. That was part of the scare campaign last year. I was standing outside that school, and it looked like a school to me. It was all there. We just had to keep it open because we needed a polling booth – maybe that is what it was. We knew the member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis …
Mr Elferink: Another cunning plan.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, another cunning plan.
This is a continuation of the same fear campaign the opposition was running with the Australian Education Union last year before it lost all steam, resulting in the cancellation of planned industrial action. That was a real win for students and teachers that day.
Let me unpack the reality for you. The Education budget handed down in May showed an increase in the overall agency budget of $20.5m, a 2.5% increase on last year. The government Education budget increased by $22.3m, a 3.3% increase on last year. There was an overall school education increase of $20.1m, a 2.4% increase on last year. In 2014, we are spending 97% of the Education budget on schools. Compare that with 95% under Labor. It means we are spending less money on the Mitchell Centre and more in the classroom ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, my God, no. We are out of control.
Mr CHANDLER: I know. We are out of control.
If you listen to the member for Nightcliff you would think the sky is falling in. However, Labor cannot count. The Leader of the Opposition could not even count the members in this House last week. She could not count as the Treasurer. It looks like her protg, the member for Nightcliff, is following very closely in her footsteps.
Last year we heard horror stories from those opposite that schools were to close and children would be wandering the streets looking for a teacher, all because the big, bad Country Liberals decided to tighten the belt buckle a little. Excuse me for trying to take a different approach. Under Labor, the Education budget exploded. Over 700 extra staff were hired in the last few years, and what happened to results? There was no change.
There were over 700 staff, while at the same time, if memory serves me correctly, there were around 280 additional students. The student cohort grew by around 280 yet the department, under the former Labor government, employed an extra 700 staff members. In fact, some of our figures went backwards, as did attendance. How can you advocate that approach? It is insane. Not only did you waste money, you wasted an opportunity to have a lasting change. Simply spending money might make you feel good, member for Nightcliff, but what makes you feel good sometimes does not make a difference.
Making a difference is the new schools at Bellamack, Henbury and Zuccoli and a new Northern Territory Open Education Centre, which brings me to your next rubbish claim that the global school budgets were forced on schools with no consultation and are a cost-shifting exercise. This is complete balderdash. Schools will have no extra expenses in their budgets. They will simply have the control over the expenses they already have.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say schools will now have to meet capital works and urgent minor repairs. Rubbish! You just make it up on the run. I have given you a list of things that included what was in the global budget. Urgent minor repairs and capital works are certainly not part of the global budget scene. But it does not stop you and the Leader of the Opposition running off at the mouth, stirring the pot, trying to stir the community, rubbish our education system and run people out of town because you are scaring them away. It is not coming from this side of the House. If you bothered to get your own education in order – I know what is involved in that topic. There have been many opportunities for you to get your head around it.
We have been talking with schools and school organisations about this since the start of last year. You tell us we have not consulted. I will share with you some of the comprehensive consultation that happened prior to the public announcement of global school budgets:
a Principal’s Reference Committee has been meeting fortnightly to inform the direction and development of global school budgets
consultation and briefings with principals through the Regional Business Days held each term across six regions and four terms – 24 days total
the Annual Leadership Forum was two days, and online sessions with principals NT-wide by REACT link.
extensive consultation with the Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations (COGSO) including monthly meetings between the Chief Executive and the President of COGSO
forums with open invitations for school councils in June
attendance at school council meetings on request by the executive departmental staff
regional sessions for parents held in Palmerston on 23 August attended by the Deputy Chief Executive Organisational Services; Darwin on 27 August attended by Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive School Education, member for Nightcliff; Katherine on 30 August attended by Executive Director Schools North; Alice Springs on 14 September attended by Executive Director of Schools South; Arnhem, Nhulunbuy on 20 September attended by Executive Director Schools North ...
A member interjecting.
Mr CHANDLER: Thought you were going to miss out. But the member for Nightcliff said we have not consulted:
COGSO shared information with parents and school communities through social media, e-mails to council chairs and newspaper advertisements
In regard to communications:
stakeholder groups including COGSO, AEU, the Community and Public Sector Union and the Association of Northern Territory School Educational Leaders, ANSL, were provided in-depth briefings in September by the Chief Executive and Professor Lamb of Victoria University, Australia’s leading authority on needs-based school resourcing who contributed to the development of the funding model
But we have not consulted:
a regular school autonomy newsletter was issued to all school and corporate staff
information on the department’s public website
But we have not consulted:
advertisements placed in the NT News and Centralian Advocate referring readers to the website
But we have not consulted:
But we have not consulted:
But we have not consulted:
media activity generated by ministerial announcements
But again we have not consulted if you listen to the member for Nightcliff and her scaremongering campaign, the one thing she is good at.
Ongoing support:
Regional workshops have been delivered intensely over five weeks in September and October providing principals and business managers hands-on experience to frame their budgets in 2015.
But we have not been working with the schools on budgets according to the member for Nightcliff:
The department is working with COGSO to deliver ongoing financial and governance training to schools and school councils.
But we are not working with the school according to the member for Nightcliff.
Ongoing advice and support is being provided by departmental staff.
Let us move to why this is good for schools. Why are school global budgets a good thing for our schools? For the first time you have the people with the knowledge of the school and the students making decisions that matter. These are decisions about staffing, equipment they may like or programs they may want to implement – what you can do when you have control over your own budget.
This is based on evidence, not plucked out of thin air. It is not my idea, experts are telling us this. The OECD and Melbourne University have both done research which supports increasing school autonomy. To quote Professor Brian J Caldwell of Melbourne University:
If you want practical evidence look at the NAPLAN results in Western Australia which are on the up. They are the leaders in school autonomy. Schools in Western Australia have had an increase in school autonomy since 2010 and are seeing the benefits in spades, with more schools wanting to become independent public schools than they can handle.
I quote Western Australia’s Education minister, Peter Collier, from 15 October this year, who said the independent schools initiative:
School autonomy is about trusting principals and school communities to know what is right for their students and their needs. What do you have to be worried about, member for Nightcliff? Why does Labor not trust the school communities? Why do you think someone in Mitchell Street offices knows more about schools or the people in schools than the people on the ground?
Member for Nightcliff, what will you do? Will you go to Nightcliff Primary School and tell them their head office knows more about their needs than they do? Will you go to Nightcliff Middle School and state they are not competent enough to handle their own budget? Will you stand in front of those schools, member for Nightcliff, in your own electorate, and tell them you do not trust them to do the job, to understand their own needs? You do not trust your community schools. Will you tell them you do not trust them? If you do not support school autonomy and global budgets then you are telling them you do not trust them. You think someone in the Mitchell Centre is in a far better place to make decisions for them. You do not trust them if that is your position.
You are playing a dangerous game, member for Nightcliff. In your heart of hearts you know this is a good initiative. Instead, you are playing politics with this just as you have over the last 12 months.
The sky is not falling. I will stand by those 35 teachers. The member for Nightcliff fails to tell people – and she knows the truth – that the Country Liberals policy and our changes led to a reduction of 35 teachers in the system. We said from the outset that would occur and it did. The member for Nightcliff fails to tell people it was the old Labor model of working out teachers in schools that led to a reduction of teachers in certain schools.
We were using the model put together by Labor for the number of teachers in our schools. Using that model, some school teacher numbers went up, some went down. The bottom line is, under the changes we introduced, there was a reduction of 35 teachers and we were honest, open and up front about that.
The previous government spent a lot of money in education, no doubt about that. Have we spent as much or more? The truth is yes. Have we refocused where that money is spent? Yes, we have. Are we trying different approaches to what the previous government used? Yes, we are. Do we have a different direction we want to take remote students? Yes, we do. Why do we want to do that? Because the results we are getting, particularly in our remote schools, are a miserable failure. While we have glitters of gold in certain areas, particularly in our urban schools, in our remote schools the results are mostly pretty tragic. It comes down to many things. It comes down to school attendance but also to the scattergun approach the previous government took in the Northern Territory to education.
When I hear, even today, that schools for the very first time are trying a whole school approach to a certain program, I shiver and wonder what were we doing before. What we were doing before is exactly where the member for Nightcliff wants us to do again – go back to what we were doing before. What we were doing before got us the results we have today. I have said before if you are happy with those results, fine, let us give up and do exactly that. Let us continue to throw buckets of money in that are not challenged, not measured, not tested to see if they are going to improve results. Or we can start to focus on results.
In the member for Nightcliff’s little rant tonight she never used the word ‘result’ once. She used ‘money’ many times. She did not talk about results once.
This government, the Country Liberals government, is focused on results, improving those results and providing focused resources with a dedicated Department of Education and wonderful schools and school staff using the methods we are talking about right now, to improve results.
That is the resolve of this government: improving results. It is not about how much or how little money you spend in education, it is about how the money is spent. It all should be focused on improving results. Every child, no matter where they live in the Northern Territory, deserves that. They deserve to have a minister and a government that is interested in them, not in the department or the member for Nightcliff spreading rumours and innuendo, but interested in them – focusing on them and giving them every opportunity.
That means doing what we can, as a government, to improve their results. Without that, they do not get an opportunity. That is why we are working so hard, as a government, not only in education but in other areas, stimulating the economies in our regions so Aboriginal children have access to a job. Why are we educating them if we do not get them ready for jobs?
I have heard the Chief Minister talk before about land rights. It is about time we speak about Indigenous economic rights. It is about time we talk about the rights of these children to have a government that is focused on them and improving their results to give them every opportunity. Their opportunity needs to be jobs. They need to have an opportunity to grow and prosper in this world, like every other child does, wherever you come from in Australia or around the world. We need to offer them what we can.
If we do what the member for Nightcliff wants us to do – go back to the dark old ages where you are putting on 700 extra staff every time you put on 230 students – then I am …
Mr Elferink: That way you can announce you spent more money.
Mr CHANDLER: Announcing they spent more money is all they did. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin, which is right. It is not about how much; it is about how, what it is spent on and what it is focused on. It has to be focused on improving results.
My only advice to the member for Nightcliff is to stop spreading rumours, making it up, scaring people about education in the Northern Territory and rubbishing education in the Northern Territory and start focusing on things that matter. If there are serious things that matter in schools across the Northern Territory that I can help with, I am there to help. That is my job. Do not make up rubbish that scares the community. As I said earlier, if we believed you – you are losing credibility every day you make it up. You are following the footsteps of the Leader of the Opposition.
Where are the schools that have closed across the Northern Territory? Just name one. Twelve months ago you were crying from the rooftops, ‘They will close schools. Children will be walking the streets, looking for a teacher.’ It just did not happen. Every time the member for Nightcliff speaks of these things she loses credibility because they are not happening.
I am open to offering a briefing again on school autonomy and global budgets. I am happy to help provide the right information to the member for Nightcliff, but please, for goodness sake, stop scaring people with stories of horror that are not happening.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support the motion brought forward by the shadow minister for Education in relation to the CLP government’s cuts to education and concerns about cost shifting through global school budgeting. As somebody educated in the Territory, this is an issue that is very close to my heart.
A total of 125 teachers, 60 support staff and $125m has been lost from Territory education in two years despite the promise that no frontline jobs would be lost. This was before the $312m cut to Territory education over 10 years announced by Tony Abbott. The CLP government has not stood up for the Territory against these cuts.
This is about getting to the core of debates held and decisions made in this House. It is about the future of the Territory, keeping it strong and thriving, and ensuring Territorians have the best possible chance in whatever endeavours they choose in life ...
Mrs Price: Not the kids out bush. They are not strong and thriving; they are sick.
Mr Elferink: You need to tell the truth.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A number of interjections are coming across the floor, and I would like to hear the member.
Madam SPEAKER: I agree.
Mr Elferink: I would like to hear her tell the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Ms MOSS: Education is a basic right, and we all agree our aim should be to give Territory children the best access to education we can, regardless of location or background.
On a local level, teacher cuts equate to five teachers lost at Dripstone Middle School, seven at Casuarina Senior College and many more support workers.
Our schools locally are also experiencing the impacts of the loss of support staff, a concern for parents and those who have been providing one-on-one time the students so desperately need. I have witnessed the support and passion of these support workers firsthand. Whether for students with behavioural or learning difficulties or other reasons, these workers provide individual attention to students at risk.
I also invite, again, the Minister for Education to talk about the time lines around building Henbury School, which I am sure all of us are very interested in.
Over the last two years we have seen teachers, support staff, parents, students and concerned community members stand together on a number of occasions outside this parliament, in the hope the CLP government would listen to those who are on the front line in education every day and rethink these cuts. It is a fight we will continue to have.
I have been a student in the Territory and I have worked in a local school. Most of my family members have gravitated towards the profession. As I walk around my local schools I continue to be struck by the dedication of students, teachers and staff. They take on the individual needs of our young people.
In some cases, teachers are the only cheerleaders some of our young people have in life. This is extremely important. Education is a protective factor for young people in a multitude of areas and it deserves our full attention. If we are to develop the north, surely first we should be investing in the education of those who will one day inherit it.
The impacts of these cuts will not only be felt now but, if something is not done, well into the future. When we want our school staff to be innovators and nurturers, to be leading the way and preparing our young people for the rest of their lives, we should be listening to those at the forefront. Our schools are essentially being told every day to do more with less, to achieve better outcomes with less support, fewer teachers, less time and fewer resources. Morale is understandably low and schools are struggling.
It should not be lost on us that we talk to this motion ahead of World Teachers’ Day this Friday, during which many of us will be spending time with the teachers and students in our local schools. It is mind-boggling that the CLP government sees logic in reducing teacher numbers as a way of addressing educational needs in the Northern Territory.
It is a vital part of government’s role to provide access to quality public education. While doorknocking in Casuarina, rarely a day went by when residents did not raise education as an issue important to them. It is not just parents and school workers, the waves caused by these cuts are felt right through our community, far and wide. It was an issue that resonated. Parents are anxious about the changes being made and what impacts they will have on their children’s education. People told me how much they love their local schools, which do an incredible job and are a vital part of our community, and they are worried about these changes.
We have heard much from those across the Chamber about the benefits of global school budgeting. However, many questions still remain. Where is the evidence this method is a good fit for Territory schools? Leading education academic, Stephen Dinham, was quoted in yesterday’s The Australian on global measures saying:
At a COGSO question and answer session I attended last month, many questions were still being raised about global school budgeting. These included questions from parent and teacher bodies, and tended to pertain to the same thing: if a budget is mismanaged one year, what happens in the next? Many of these questions remain unanswered. The response that this is then the responsibility of the school does little to quell their concerns. It opens the door to further questions that must be addressed, such as whether we will see the loss of more experienced teachers due to the additional costs of retaining them, as opposed to a teacher with less experience.
As the member for Nightcliff said, we need a good mix of teachers with experience and newer teachers coming through. We do not want to see a trade-off system, nor do we want to see schools having to make the decision in a year’s time or two years’ time on keeping a staff member or addressing their other needs such as the equipment and programs the Minister for Education talked about.
Principals should be focused on achieving the best possible outcomes educationally for our children and young people. That is what they are employed to do and what makes them educational leaders. Global school budgeting requests that our principals also now become financial managers, and that their school councils manage budgets instead on focusing on how to get the best for their children. Our schools are not businesses and our principals and school councils are not bean counters.
Worse still, this responsibility is passed on to schools at a time when budgets have been slashed. While the CLP government paints this as a positive move for schools, it is understandable, with the record in educational cuts over the last two years, that there is a level of scepticism about what this will mean in real educational terms. There are still many concerns and questions that are not addressed by simply stating autonomy.
In addition, on the issue of independent schools, the Department of Education’s independent schools fact sheet mentions that school boards may include representation from local business and industry. This has raised concerns in education for which there has not yet been a satisfying answer. How will the CLP government safeguard our schools to ensure that any business or industry involvement in a school is purely to improve educational outcomes and operations?
Madam Speaker, I support the motion to condemn the CLP government on its cuts to education and cost shifting through global budgeting.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what an opportune time to stand up. Member for Fannie Bay, you have the opportunity to do the numbers again. I am not sure if the leader and deputy have been kicked out but you can start working the room. Member for Fannie Bay, you need to start working the room.
Maybe the member for Johnston wants to have a crack. We are all wondering why the member for Nhulunbuy has been so quiet the last few days. Perhaps she is trying to work the room. We have all heard her stories. She could do it; maybe she is the one. The member for Nightcliff is not going to duck in; the five are here. They are what we call Michael’s five; they are in the room. Michael’s five are the members for Wanguri, Johnston, Casuarina and Nhulunbuy …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am flattered by the Chief Minister’s man crush, but he is digressing from the subject and perhaps we could return to business of the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, speak to the ministerial statement.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I take your point and your guidance. I note, however, that wide-ranging topics were discussed, particularly from the other side of the Chamber. This side stuck to the importance of growing the Northern Territory and investment opportunities. However, it is important when we talk about the future of the Northern Territory that people know the member for Fannie Bay can potentially be Leader of the Opposition. He has his five. Three are gone and now is the time to strike ...
Ms Walker: Get on with it, Adam, you fool. You cannot even work out who to elevate into the Cabinet.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr GILES: Hang on, the member for Nhulunbuy is coming in trying to lay her claim. She is saying to the member for Fannie Bay, ‘Get out of my way, I am coming through. I want to do the job.’ Maybe you could put a ticket together, member for Nhulunbuy.
Why does Labor always claim everybody else’s achievements? It is because they do not have any ideas of their own. Everything stipulated in this statement today Labor said it owns. But it did not say it owned $5.5bn worth of debt or the deficit of the former Labor government. It did not say it owned the crime rate or higher unemployment. It said it owned everything else the Country Liberals have done in the two years since being in government. It is amazing.
The 52nd Australia Japan …
A member: They are all leaving.
Mr GILES: They have all turned their backs on Michael. He is down to three and will not be able to get the numbers. There are only three on your side, member for Fannie Bay; it is a challenge now.
The 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference will be held in Darwin for the first time this year. You did not organise it. I was in Japan last year talking about coming to the Northern Territory. Arrangements were made and facilitated through the Office of Asian Engagement and Trade; the office which has been moved to the Department of the Chief Minister which has an increase in budget that you keep referring to. That included the extra staff from the Department of Business, hence a reduction in the budget for the Department of Business.
Jeff, Brian O’Gallagher and the team in the Office of Asian Engagement and Trade facilitated, along with DCM, the AJBCC and the successful outcomes achieved throughout that conference. It is not just what was achieved throughout that conference, but what will be achieved into the future including achievements with companies such as Mitsui.
The member for Arafura is keen to hear about Mitsui because that is the Japanese giant which signed a forestry deal with the Tiwi Land Council, something Labor is completely opposed to. I provided the introduction, we have an MOU, we have done the deal, but Labor will own that as well.
The Leader of the Opposition claims no new initiatives have been found by this government. What about the Tellus Holdings Chandler salt mine on Maryvale Station at Titjikala in Central Australia? What about securing the supply base for the Shell Prelude floating gas facility in Darwin? What about securing some of those projects?
You do not talk about any of those things in regard to the Leader of the Opposition. I have a few notes here but I do not think it is worthwhile me going through them to recant many of the negatives the Labor opposition has provided.
The contributions provided by this side of the House were positive. They produced good debate, came up with a range of ideas, congratulated the successes of the Country Liberals government two years in and provided a positive platform for the future about how we work together for the interests of jobs for our kids.
That is what it is all about on this side: what will be around tomorrow, not what is around today, and not what we are doing as individuals. We are not talking about politicians, we are talking about the Territory and Territorians. That is the difference in governance within this Chamber of the Legislative Assembly.
We are an excited government which talks about Territorians. The opposition talks about themselves, and the two members of the PUP Party cannot seem to turn up to parliament for more than an hour and cannot work in an iron lung. Anyway ..
Ms Walker: Where is the member for Fong Lim?
Mr GILES: He provided a good contribution against your slurs about Foundation 51 the other day, and you hiding behind your claims against what he called the ‘midnight pegger’, member for Nhulunbuy.
Madam Speaker, I commend this fantastic statement to the Assembly. It talks about what we are doing, what we have done and what we will do in the future. It also pointed out that Labor left a $5.5bn debt legacy. They can try to hide from the fact and say it was not them, but it was Labor. The Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer, was the person who sent the Territory into the biggest debt it has ever been in. It is up to us to fix it and we are doing that.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the quarterly fuel report for members who have a government issued car.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, last night I was joined by the member for Nhulunbuy at the Independent Schools Excellence Awards Night. Hon Austin Asche AC QC gave a wonderful speech. I asked him whether I could read his speech into Hansard tonight and he was very obliging and thought it was a wonderful idea.
I am going to read the speech Hon Austin Asche read last night. It is for teachers. I will not be able to read it out as he did last night. He is quite the orator.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that was read last night by Hon Austin Ashe, and I thought it was a great speech.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I enlighten the House on a couple of good news stories. I acknowledge the efforts of a young man from Maningrida in the local remote jobs program. His name is Shannon. He is 21 years of age and is a resident of Maningrida. Shannon is a participant in the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation Remote Jobs Community Program. The RJCP participants were recently offered an opportunity through the Department of Community Services to supply workers for an asbestos removal project in Maningrida.
One of the job seekers, Shannon, completed the asbestos removal course and went to work with a company called De-Construct. He worked for 51.5 hours over four days in the heat, in a personal protection asbestos suit. That is over 12 hours per day, quite an effort. I am told he enjoyed the work and was disappointed to see it end.
However, the contractor, De-Construct, spoke with the make good contractors, Ant Constructions, to arrange other opportunities. Shannon met with the potential new employer, and during the conversation Shannon asked about the starting time. When the reply was 8 am Shannon asked if it would be okay if he started at 6.30 am or 7 am. This is a classic example of changing work ethics. The work ethic of this young person is of someone who wants to go places. He is to be commended for his efforts and his leadership in this area.
In the past three weeks, Shannon has completed two courses – asbestos removal and obtaining his white card. He is currently applying for a birth certificate and the next step is a driver’s licence. The RJCP is referring Shannon to other more permanent positions in Maningrida.
Mrs Jenny Davis, the manager of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation RJCP, had this to say about Shannon:
It is very encouraging when you go into Aboriginal communities. In relation to the champions program the Chief Minister has implemented, it is terrific to meet these young people. We have to ensure we create economic development in these communities so people who may choose to follow Shannon and his example have jobs to go to.
I was recently there with my colleague, the member for Arafura. We were looking at all sorts of job opportunities and how we can create economic activity. We are looking at what we can do to assist the community to produce mud bricks. We toured a mud brick factory. When you go around Maningrida you will see the school, the art centre and numerous houses are of mud brick construction. The whole idea is to give Shannon a permanent job in something like that.
When they are manufacturing mud bricks, Aboriginal people get on a front-end loader or truck and drive to a gravel pit where they extract gravel. They load it onto the truck and Aboriginal people drive it down to the factory where they then dump it into a stockpile at the rear of the factory. Aboriginal people with a bobcat load it on to a conveyer belt operated by Aboriginal people. It then goes into a machine that punches out bricks which are then stacked by Aboriginal people onto pallets; the pallets are loaded onto a truck by Aboriginal people and driven to a building site by Aboriginal people to be laid on the construction site prepared by Aboriginal people. The bricks are laid by Aboriginal people then painted and sealed by Aboriginal people. The resident plumbers, electricians and air conditioning people, who are now permanently in Maningrida, then commence their trade work on the place and it is handed over to someone, for instance to the Bawinanga Corporation, which is managed by Aboriginal people.
It is easy to see if you want economic development you have to get people like Shannon to be role models for others and their children and get up in the morning, go to work and earn money. This is real money and then they can go home and their children can see the benefits of economic development.
I congratulate Shannon for being a brilliant young leader in his community and a role model to his peers. I also thank my colleague, the member for Arafura, for introducing me to some of the key people there so we can work closely to create economic development for some fine Aboriginal people who do not want a handout; they want a hand up and to work.
I have been in the Territory for 33 years. I do not know whether I qualify to be a Territorian as per the Leader of the Opposition’s definition that if you were not born here you are not here to do good for the Territory. I find it offensive that if you were not born here you are not doing good for the Territory and will leave when you have finished doing whatever you are doing.
We work as a team on this side of the House with the intention of creating economic development so these people can do what they want to do: help themselves, their families and their children. The people who do that are role models for everyone else in the community.
Moving to another issue, last Sunday I had the great fortune of being invited to participate in an event called Jog for Jugs. It is about breast cancer research and raising money for that cause. It was very enjoyable and I thank Katrina Fong Lim, the Lord Mayor of Darwin, for co-starting this event. I pay particular thanks to Peta Burton, founder of Jog for Jugs. It is refreshing to not only see the volunteers, but people like Peta Burton, who is full of energy and enthusiasm I cannot describe. It is difficult to describe in words this woman who has put some time in. This was the first Jog for Jugs here. We had 300-plus people attend. Together we raised $2010 from a quick fun run at 7 am on a Sunday morning. It was a fantastic effort that Peta was responsible for organising.
I particularly thank Karen Stark, who is a breast cancer survivor. She is also a nurse at the Royal Darwin Hospital and a Breast Cancer Network Australia representative. I also thank her daughter Kate who was there. She stood side by side with her mother while she told the story of nearly passing from this world. Kate is only a young girl; she was such a brave young lady to stand with her mum. They supported each other in what was a very emotional description of their personal journey.
I also thank Karen Dempsey from the Breast Cancer Voice in the Northern Territory, and the lady who supplied my pink T-shirt, which there are, unfortunately, photos of. It was great. It was a little small for me, but thank you, Karen, for supplying the T-shirt so I could participate in the Jog for Jugs.
My particular thanks also goes to Alison Montgomery from Mindil Beach Surf Life Saving Club.
Ladies, you all did a fantastic job. I sincerely thank you for contributing to what is very close to my heart, that being cancer research.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise the good work the Giles government is doing in Maningrida and all remote communities.
Early this month Cabinet met at Maningrida. While they were there I joined with the Chief Minister in announcing a $100 000 grant to the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation and the Djukuriti Development Corporation.
The grant will go towards the Welcome Precinct that links the airport, accommodation and the arts centre. I also announced, alongside the Minister for Infrastructure, funding to seal the road which runs adjacent to the accommodation centre near the airport.
Bawinanga and Djukuriti are both looking to increase visitation to the area, and plans under consideration by local operators include day tours, car hire, a performance area and museum. The work will help develop tourism and transport-related businesses. That means more jobs for people in Maningrida.
The Country Liberals government wants to help communities in Arafura develop thriving economies. Creating community pride is an important first step. Creating and growing economies in remote Indigenous communities provides job opportunities.
I have said in this place countless times that the education of our young people is key to closing the gap. Creating jobs in remote communities gives young people a reason to go to school and study, because they can see in their own home towns what the result of education can be – earning an income, and having a job.
When we develop remote economies and create remote jobs we give our kids permission to dare to achieve and dream. It allows our kids and all people in remote communities to aspire to more.
I look to my home on the Tiwi Islands and the work being done in partnership with traditional owners which is stimulating and creating a vibrant economy. The potential for new business enterprise is enormous.
Early this year an MOU between the Tiwi Land Council and the Mitsui Corporation was signed. This MOU covers the export of woodchips from Tiwi forests to the rest of the world. It is expected the deal could generate up to $200m worth of business and create 100 jobs on the island over the next five years, with the first shipload of woodchips leaving port on Melville Island in March or April next year.
This is one of many new business ventures either under way or in the planning and development phases. By encouraging new investment and growing existing businesses, Tiwi Islanders are confident of creating new jobs and future prosperity. I have seen what this approach can do. We need to create more opportunities like these for Maningrida, Warruwi and all other communities in my electorate. I encourage those communities to seriously consider economic development that will benefit them and, as always, I am only too happy to assist them in any way I can.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk on a religious-type activity in my electorate which is very enjoyable and, surprisingly, not onerous. Indeed, it is very pleasant and comforting. The event was called the Blessing of the Animals, which was held at the Anglican Good Shepherd (carport) Church at Bees Creek on Sunday 12 October 2014, under the careful all-seeing and all-knowing eyes of Reverend Ian McDonald. Attendance included regular churchgoers plus a new audience who had attended especially for the blessing of the animals.
The reason behind the blessing of the animals is to celebrate the life of the patron saint of animals, Francis of Assisi. He had a very interesting life. In 1182, Pietro di Bernardone returned from a trip to France to find his wife had given birth to a son. Far from being excited or apologetic because he had been gone for so long, Pietro was furious because she had named the new son and baptised him Giovanni, after John the Baptist. The last thing Pietro wanted in his son was a man of God. He wanted a man of business, a cloth merchant like he was. He especially wanted a son who would reflect his infatuation with France, so he renamed him Francesco, which is equivalent to calling him ‘Frenchman’. Francis enjoyed a very rich, easy life growing up, because of his father’s wealth and the permissiveness of the times.
From the beginning, everyone – and I mean everyone – loved Francis. He was constantly happy, charming and a born leader. If he was picky people excused him, if he was ill people took care of him, if he was so much of dreamer he did poorly in school no one minded. In many ways he was too easy to like for his own good. No one tried to control or teach him and he liked it that way. As he grew up Francis became the leader of a crowd of young people who spent their nights in wild parties. Francis said, ‘I lived in sin during that time’. He sounds like a nice kind of fellow to know.
Francis fulfilled every hope of Pietro’s, even falling in love with France. He loved the songs and romance of France, especially its free, adventurous troubadours who wandered through Europe. Despite his dreaming he was married. Francis was also good at business but he wanted more. He wanted more than wealth, but not holiness. Francis wanted to be a knight. Battle was the best place to win the glory and prestige he longed for. He had his first chance when Assisi declared war on its long-time enemy, the nearby town of Perugia.
Many troops from Assisi were butchered in the fight; clearly they were good at partying, but useless at fighting. Only those wealthy enough to expect to be ransomed were taken prisoner. At last, Francis was among the nobility, like he always wanted to be, but was chained in a harsh, dark dungeon. All accounts say he never lost his happy manner in that horrible place. Finally, after a year in the dungeon he was ransomed. Strangely, the experience did not seem to change him; he gave himself to partying with much joy and abandon, as he did before the battle. The experience did not change what he wanted from life either: glory.
Finally, a call for knights for the Fourth Crusade gave him a chance for his dream Before he left Francis had to have a suit of armour and a horse. This was no problem for the son of a wealthy father. Not just any suit of armour would do, but one decorated with gold, with a magnificent cloak. Any relief we feel in hearing Francis gave the cloak to a poor knight would be destroyed by the boast he would return a prince. Francis never got further than one day’s ride from Assisi. There he had a dream in which God told him it would all be wrong and that he should return home.
Francis returned home. What must it have been like to return without even making it to battle? The boy who wanted nothing more than to be liked was humiliated, laughed at, called a coward by the village, and raged at by his father for the money he wasted on his armour.
Francis’ conversion did not happen overnight. God had waited for him for 25 years – those naughty 25 years of partying. Now it was Francis’ turn to wait. One day when he was riding through the countryside Francis, the man who loved beauty, was so picky about food and who hated deformity, came face-to-face with a leper. Repelled by the appearance and smell of the leper Francis nevertheless jumped down from his horse and kissed his hand. When his kiss of peace was returned, Francis was filled with joy. As he rode off, he turned around for a last wave and saw the leper had disappeared. He always looked upon it as a test from God and that he had passed.
His search for conversion lead him to the ancient church of San Damiano. While he was praying there, he heard Christ on the crucifix speak to him, ‘Francis, repair my church’. Francis assumed this meant church with a small ‘c’, the crumbling building he was in. Acting again in his impetuous way, he took fabric from his father’s shop and sold it to get money to repair the church.
His father saw this as an act of theft, and together with Francis’ cowardice, waste of money and his growing disinterest in money, it made Francis seem more like a madman than his son. Pietro dragged Francis before the Bishop and in front of the whole town demanded that Francis return the money and renounce all rights as his heir. The Bishop was very kind to Francis. He told him to return the money and said, ‘God would provide’. That was all Francis needed to hear. He not only gave back the money but stripped off all his clothes – the clothes his father had given him – until he was only wearing a very skimpy shirt. In front of the crowd that had gathered, he said, ‘Pietro di Bernardoneis no longer my father’. Wearing nothing but cast-off rags he went off into the freezing woods singing.
When robbers beat him later and took what clothes he had left and left him for dead in a ditch, sometime later he climbed out and went off merrily singing. From then on, Francis had nothing and everything, so the story goes.
Where did the animals come into the picture of Saint Francis of Assisi? In one famous story, Francis preached to hundreds of birds about being thankful to God for their wonderful clothes, their independence and God’s care. The story tells us the birds stood still as he walked amongst them, only flying off when he said they could leave.
Another famous story involves a wolf that had been eating human beings. Francis intervened when the town wanted to kill the wolf and talked the wolf into never killing again. The story goes that the wolf became a pet of the townspeople who made sure he always had plenty to eat.
Over the years, Francis travelled and preached with his followers, and I am sure had many adventures in his country and other countries of the age. With so much time passing and so many troubles during his time, years of poverty and wandering had made Francis ill. When he began to go blind, the Pope ordered that his eyes be operated on. This meant cauterising his face with a hot iron. Francis spoke to Brother Fire:
Francis reported that Brother Fire had been so kind and that he felt nothing at all. Francis never recovered from this illness and he died on 4 October 1226 at the age of 45.
Francis is considered the founder of the Franciscan Order of monks and the patron saint of ecologists, merchants and all animals. His saints day is on 4 October.
Back to the special blessing. Ian McDonald conducted the service and Reverend Margaret from Kormilda College and Arnold Beazley from the Salvation Army Chapel helped with the blessing of the animals. There must have been something special in the air as the horses did not tread on the dogs, the pet snake did not try to eat the pet rats and the dogs did not try to chase and belt each other up, especially my dog, Musket, the American Staffordshire Terrier which hates little fluffy floor slipper rats. It was wonderful to see the beautiful horses belonging to Karen Duminski and Jenny James stand so quietly, and the many dogs sit so peacefully and well behaved. And the snake? Well, he did have to stay in his bag until the blessing time, more for the churchgoers’ benefit than the pet rats’.
Mary McDonald played the organ and everyone sang, All Creatures Great and Small as you would expect.
There was a morning tea at the conclusion of the service, and I extend a big thank you to the Litchfield Lions Club’s Glenn and Robyn McLeod who provided cooked snags and onions, cool drinks and a happy smile. It was a pretty humid morning but they put their collective shoulders to the grindstone and turned out a real treat for everyone. Thank you to Glenn, Robyn, and other Lions supporters for their involvement. Thank you to Ian and Mary McDonald. Thank you to Arnold Beazley and Reverend Margaret for their involvement and support. It was lovely to see them there.
Thank you also to Luang from the Cambodian community who attended to represent them, as they had all been invited along with other churches in the rural area. Thank you to Carol Lynch and Trish O’Hehir from my office for their work in pulling together an event, and to their well-behaved dogs that also attended. To everyone who attended with their pets, thank you. To Lisa from Humpty Doo Vet Clinic and Paws, thank you for the work you do to help all pets that are abandoned or orphaned. Your rehoming service is appreciated.
Finally, thank you to Musket for not growling, snorting, snoring, licking parts of you in public that you should not, or trying to bite any fluffy floor slipper rats; that would most likely embarrass me. I put it down to you being blessed by Francis himself.
It was a good morning, Mr Deputy Speaker, one I hope to repeat next year on or as close to 4 October as possible.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to place on the record a number of good and very positive events that continue to occur in Nhulunbuy.
I will start with Rotary Beach Volleyball, an event that has been held in Nhulunbuy for years. I am blessed to have sought information from Rotary. Sharon Norris, a hard-working member of the Rotary committee, has prepared something for me to read out this evening. A special thanks to Sharon, a very talented published writer.
In a small remote town like Nhulunbuy which has no cinemas or golden arches, and has atmospheric conditions that sometimes play havoc with television reception, is it any wonder sport is worshipped by the locals? One event the locals look forward to every year is the annual Rotary Beach Volleyball Tournament held every September on a date chosen around the tides to provide the maximum use of the venue, Middle Beach. This tournament brings together the community in a way unlike any other.
This year’s event was the 25th anniversary beach volleyball tournament so it was a special day in Nhulunbuy. Overseen by volunteers from NT Volleyball in Darwin, 30 teams battled it out for the ultimate prize, the beach volleyball crown. That honour went to the aptly name team Some Spike it Hot, one of the hottest teams on the sand. In fact, the sand is so hot most people wear a pair of socks. The proceeds raised from the event went to a fabulous local cause, Gove CareFlight, in recognition of the tireless work this important medivac service does in our remote location.
Nhulunbuy Rotary, one of Australia’s northern-most serviced clubs, has less than 20 members, yet every year manages to stage an awesome day of beach volleyball with the support of other community and sporting groups, as well as local businesses.
The Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club patrolled the surf break at Middle Beach enabling competitors, spectators and families visiting the beach to swim in safety. Gove Junior Golf kept children amused with face painting and golfing games on the sand. Behind the scenes, inmates from the Datjala work camp, supervised by Department of Correctional Services staff, helped prepare the beach and set up the mini tent city that housed the event’s administration and the food and drink pavilion. They also fielded a very good team in the competition.
Local community radio station Gove FM broadcast live from the beach all day with its amusing running commentary of the action, especially for those locals who could not attend or were listening at home or online.
Events like beach volleyball which bring the whole community together demonstrate that small communities like Nhulunbuy can show us exactly what it means to be Territorians: Territory tough, Territory fit, Territory focused and utterly sports mad. It was organised by Nhulunbuy Rotary President Sean ‘Ocker’ O’Connor with the support of the hard-working volunteers on the Rotary committee.
A range of support and sponsorship from many local businesses and individuals was also integral to the staging and ultimate success of this event. Those sponsors include Rio Tinto Alcan, Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited, Airnorth, Datjala work camp crew and the Department of Correctional Services, me as the local member, Toll, Transpacific, Walkabout Lodge, YBE, Dhimurru, Gove FM, NT Volleyball, Gove Volleyball, Arnhem Squadron NORFORCE, Sodexo, Kamayan Caf, John and Estelle Carter and the Nhulunbuy Bakery, Gove Tackleworld and Outdoors, Gove Junior Golf, Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club, Arnhem Physiotherapy Services, St John Ambulance, East Arnhem Real Estate, Endeavour Medical Centre, and if there are any others left off the list I apologise.
The winning team was Some Spike It Hot and team members included Donna-Marie Grieve, Tash Grant, Brett Martin, Erica Sims, Hayden Chrzanowski, and Gerry Ryan, one of the prisoners. The winnings paid his fees for indoor volleyball which he plays each week and also bought him a couple of Billabong shirts. I thought that was a nice touch to the story. That was the Nhulunbuy Rotary Beach Volleyball Competition.
I will now talk about the RALPA graduation which was held last week. Unfortunately, because I was in parliamentary sittings I was unable to attend.
The seventh RALPA Work Readiness Program has recently concluded with nine trainees graduating in a ceremony that was attended by about 100 family and guests at the ALERT facility last week in Nhulunbuy. The RALPA program is supported by Rio Tino Alcan and delivered by its ALERT team. I wish to place on the public record the names of the graduates from last week’s graduation ceremony who completed the program. They included Zowie Bromot, Lenny Snape, Reynolds Wunungmurra, Paukl Munyarryan, Sharee Yunupingu, Vernon Gurruwiwi, Ainsley Gumbula, Alfred Burarrwanga and Kristy Dhurrkay.
Zowie Bromot received an award for achieving 100% attendance and Vernon Gurrawiwi and Lenny Snape achieved 97% attendance. Gary Barnes, who is a very hard-working employee on the ALERT program and a senior adviser to it, said attendance averaged 80%, which is fantastic.
The RALPA program focuses on strengthening relevant working skills, therefore increasing the opportunities for graduates to secure employment. Upon completion, graduates also have the opportunity to move into the RALPA Community Extension Scheme, which is an eight-week program which aims to transition trainees into real jobs with Arnhem Land businesses.
The last item for the evening I will talk about is a luncheon that was held on Saturday 11 October to raise funds in conjunction with Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We decided to title the lunch ‘Who is still here’. There are, obviously, many people who are leaving Nhulunbuy, sadly, but we had a fantastic turnout.
I thank Jennifer Kerr for organising this event. She approached me a few weeks before October to ask, ‘What do you reckon? It is coming up to October, time we did another luncheon?’ It was during that conversation she came up with the title. ‘Let us call the lunch “Who is still here.”’ Jennifer is a survivor of breast cancer, a very strong advocate for women, a great organiser and emcee. She is very entertaining.
The luncheon raised a total of $3661.50, which is a pretty awesome effort for the women who attended the luncheon and dug deep into their wallets to purchase raffle tickets or buy auction items.
I acknowledge the support provided by Judy and Bernie Carter from Nhulunbuy Newsagency; Jeff and Kelly Murray from Gove Tackle World and Outdoors; Darryl Stewart and his team, including Teresa Holdsworth, for their contribution from Nhulunbuy Amcal Pharmacy; Kirrilee McLennan from Norwex products; Alana Thomas from Mishe Accessories, and Megan Niven, who is one of the best cake makers and decorators you will ever find and has recently set up a little business called Megnivacentcakes. She donated two cakes. I will let you use your imagination what shape you think these cakes might have been for a breast cancer awareness raffle. There were two of them and it involved pairs.
Thanks also to Woolworths – Marion Adams is our fabulous manager for Woolworths – for their support; Linda Alexander for her support – she is our breast care nurse in Nhulunbuy and a former Nurse of the Year recognised a couple of years ago in the Northern Territory; Jill Stephens from Nutrimetics; Maria Slatter from PartyLite; and finally Paula Thompson and her wonderful staff at the Arnhem Club for their great support, which they always provide for community events – the wonderful menu they provided, the great service they always provide and a very generous donation of prizes for auction. All of that support and sponsorship – I was a sponsor as well donating some prizes – allowed us to raise $3661.50.
Importantly, all of this money will be staying locally in Nhulunbuy. We have set up a special account with four of us signatory to it so two people could sign cheques at any one time. This fund will be called the Boob Account and will be administered by our breast care nurse and community health nurse, Linda Alexander, who will make recommendations to us as to who she believes is worthy or in need of some financial support. This is for women who are going through breast cancer and treatment. It is not a huge sum of money, but it was important to us that the money stays locally for the support of local women.
Madam Speaker, my thanks to everybody involved. It was a very special day. It started at lunchtime and went to well after dinner for some of the local ladies. Gove women know how to support local causes and how to party as well.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of members of the Probus Club of Darwin who are visiting Parliament House today. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 101)
(Serial 101)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The amendments in this bill respond to issues about the operation of privacy provisions of the Information Act in emergency or disaster situations.
The Information Commissioner raised concerns that the Information Act may not provide public sector organisations with adequate powers to share information relating to members of the public in the event of an emergency or disaster situation.
In response to these concerns the Department of the Attorney-General released an issues paper titled Sharing of Personal Information in the Event of Disasters in or out of the Territory in July 2013. The issues paper sought comment from stakeholders and interested bodies on amending the Information Act to provide clarity about the handling of personal information by public sector organisations in the event of emergency situations.
The purpose of this bill is to implement amendments to the Information Act, as informed by the public consultation process, to establish a clear legal basis for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by public sector organisations in the event of a disaster or emergency situation in the Northern Territory.
Schedule 2 of the Information Act contains information privacy principles (IPPs) which establish rules for the reasonable handling of personal information by public sector organisations.
Although the IPPs provide for the exchange of some information in emergency situations, it is not clear that they would permit the exchange of large volumes of information or all types of situations that are necessary in the event of an emergency situation.
The Information Act contains a number of exceptions that provide for the non-application of the IPPs. The first of these is found under section 70, which provides that a law enforcement agency is not required to comply with an IPP if it believes that the non-compliance is necessary for the exercise of one of its law enforcement functions. At present, the definition of ‘law enforcement agency’ does not extend to the Northern Territory Emergency Services or the Fire and Rescue Service, meaning these agencies, which are of pivotal importance in emergency situations, are not covered by the exemption.
Part 5 of the Information Act provides additional mechanism for organisations to depart from the IPPs. These are known as Codes of Practice and Grants of Authorisation. Under section 72 of the act an organisation may prepare a draft code of practice modifying the IPPs. The current process for developing a code of practice involves the code being recommended by the Information Commissioner and put forward to the minister on behalf of the department seeking the code, then the minister submitting the code to the Administrator for approval and gazettal. This mechanism is onerous. No Codes of Practice have been made to date and would likely inhibit the ability of the public sector organisation to use a code for long-term management of emergency situations.
Section 81 of the act provides that the public sector organisations can apply for a grant of authorisation exempting them from the IPPs. At present, the section only allows exemptions from IPPs 1, 2 and 10. Exemption from these principles only is likely to be insufficient in an emergency situation and not cover situations involving data security, data integrity and cross-border information flows.
In addition, the Information Act does not make it clear that the public sector organisations are able to use, collect or disclose personal information after the immediate threat posed by the emergency situation has subsided. This is of particular concern given that the aftermath of a disaster still demands high levels of cooperation between agencies.
The particulars of the bill addressing the issues as outlined are as follows. First, the bill amends section 4 to insert a new definition of ‘emergency situation’. The definition applies the meaning of emergency situation provided in section 18 of the Emergency Management Act. That definition provides that an emergency situation exists during periods of emergency events, including a state of emergency or a state of disaster.
Second, section 4 is further amended to include ‘Northern Territory Emergency Service’ and ‘Fire and Rescue Service’ within the definition of a law enforcement agency.
Third, the Information Act is amended to remove the role of the Administrator from the Code of Practice approval process. Instead, the Codes of Practice are to be made upon approval by the Information Commissioner. This change necessitated amendments to section 73 and the repeal of sections 74 and 75.
Fourth, section 80 will be amended to alter the requirements for the keeping of a register of Codes of Practice. At present, section 80 provides that the register may be in any form and does not include any requirement that it be published. The amended section will require that the register must include a copy of each Code of Practice and the register must be published on the website of the Information Commissioner.
Fifth, section 81 will be amended so as to provide that the Information Commissioner may authorise public sector organisations to collect, use or dispose of personal information that may contravene or be inconsistent with the IPPs generally. At present, the section limits approval for the use of information that may contravene or be inconsistent with only IPP 1 (Collection), IPP 2 (Use and disclosure) or IPP 10 (Sensitive information).
Finally, the bill inserts new section 81A. This provision expressly provides authorisation for public sector organisations to collect, use or disclose personal information in a manner that otherwise would contravene or be inconsistent with the IPPs during an emergency situation if the information is to be collected, used or disclosed for a permitted purpose. The provision also allows the Information Commissioner to authorise, upon the application of public sector organisation, the organisation to use, collect or disclose personal information in a manner that would otherwise contravene or be inconsistent with the IPPs, or for a period of time after the end of an emergency situation if the information is to be collected, used or disclosed for a permitted purpose.
New section 81A identifies a permitted purpose in relation to an emergency situation as being a purpose that directly relates to the government management of response or recovery from an emergency situation. Beyond this, the provision provides a number of express permitted purposes. These include the identification of individuals who may be injured, missing or dead or otherwise involved in the emergency situation; assisting individuals who have been involved in the situation to obtain medical, financial or other services; assisting with law enforcement in relation to a situation, and coordinating and managing the situation.
The Information Amendment Bill 2014 will alleviate concerns that the privacy provisions of the Information Act are insufficient to permit public sector employee organisations to share the volume and type of information that would be required to be exchanged in an emergency or disaster situation.
The bill will establish a clear and legal basis for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in the event of an emergency, thereby ensuring the public sector is able to handle situations that pose a threat to the community as efficiently as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I also table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr Denis and Mrs Annette Burke
Mr Denis and Mrs Annette Burke
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence of Hon Denis Burke, a previous Chief Minister, and his wife Annette, in the gallery with his guests Bill and Isobel Steller, from Sydney I hear. Nice town, but Darwin is better.
Members: Hear, hear!
PAROLE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 96)
(Serial 96)
Continued from 28 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we support this bill. It allows medical practitioners and psychologists to attend general meetings of the parole board, and not just the hearings relating to life sentences for the crime of murder, which is currently the case. The opposition supports the intent and the bill.
It is appropriate that psychologists be part of the parole board in relation to the potential release of a murderer. It is equally appropriate that psychologists be part of the parole board in relation to the potential release of a serious sex offender, for example. That is essentially what this bill provides for. However, it should be noted that it is not currently the situation that parole for a sex offender is granted in the absence of a psychological assessment.
A psychologist or medical practitioner member of the parole board does not participate in the decision of the parole board. There are many cases where the participation of such a member of the parole board would be advantageous. The cases for which it is applicable could be outlined in this bill. But the best approach is the one the Attorney-General is taking in this legislation, where it is at the discretion of the Chair of the parole board.
The operations of the parole board are at the end of the justice chain. You cannot assess a parole board in isolation of other aspects of the justice system, including levels of crime and the operation of the corrections system. As the Attorney-General admitted in his own second reading speech:
- The biggest changes of an operational nature are the increasing number of matters before the parole board for its consideration.
In other words, the biggest changes of an operational nature are due to the increased levels of serious crime being experienced in the Northern Territory. Last year was our most violent year ever, and we a tracking towards 2014 being our second most violent year ever.
The Attorney-General also admitted this is the second time in less than a year he has had to bring legislation to this House to deal with the impact the increasing amount of serious crime in the Northern Territory is having on the parole board. The last time we held a debate on the parole board in this House it was about doubling the size of the board and increasing how often it meets. To help the parole board cope, we doubled its size and increased how often it met.
It is very simple. The more serious crime you have, the more parole board hearings you will have. That is what we are facing in the Northern Territory. The more serious, violent crime, the greater the work of the parole board.
This is legislation that deals with the situation at the end of the chain, and I fear worse is yet to come. Only last month we heard that child abuse reports in the Northern Territory have jumped by 30% in the last year. That is extremely concerning. We are also extremely concerned the minister for Child Protection, who is also the Attorney-General and Minister for Correctional Services, has cut the number of child abuse reports where investigations are finalised, and has cut the child protection budget …
Mr Elferink: You are full of it, mate. You are being a bitter, dishonest human being.
Mr GUNNER: That is based on the budget books, Attorney-General. I have discussed that with the shadow Child Protection minister, and we are bringing our concerns into this Chamber. I welcome the Attorney-General clarifying points the shadow Child Protection minister has taken, quite clearly, from the budget books and information on the public record. I am very interested to hear how the Attorney-General defends that.
The Attorney-General has also acknowledged that under his watch juvenile justice is in crisis, through the commissioning of a review into the CLP’s failures. What I find so remarkable is the CLP members have ignored the recommendations of their former parliamentary colleague, Jodeen Carney, who undertook a comprehensive review of the youth justice system.
The CLP obviously rates Ms Carney; she is the CEO of child protection. Yet for some reason her review of youth justice is being ignored. It is puzzling that the review of the CEO of child protection, a former member of the CLP and someone who has undertaken a certain amount of work in this area, is being ignored. The CLP could save considerable money and time if, rather than holding another review into youth justice, it revisited and worked through the recommendations of its now CEO of child protection.
The head of Correctional Services has said the old Berrimah gaol is fit only for a bulldozer, but the minister thinks it is fit for a juvenile prison. A rundown facility is unsuitable for the use for adults, but will be given a coat of paint and used for juveniles.
We are concerned that failures in the juvenile system will lead to failures in the adult correctional system. That will obviously result in increased pressure on the adult correctional system and the parole board. That will probably lead the Attorney-General to put forward further amendments to the parole bill to this House so the parole board can cope with the increasing workload.
This is the situation we are facing under the CLP. We have a broken child protection system with child protection notifications up by 30% in one year; the number of child protection investigations being completed is significantly down; the child protection budget has been cut; the CLP has given its former colleague a job, but ignored her report into youth justice; there is a juvenile system in crisis and now undergoing a review; violent crime is at record levels; and today we see a bill designed to cope with the increasing pressure on the parole board.
We support this bill. The parole board needs support. I thank members of the parole board for the work they do in dealing with the increased pressure. As the Attorney-General admits, it has never had a greater workload. I thank it for the work it does and I hope this bill helps.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we support this bill.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Attorney-General’s Parole Amendment Bill 2014 as the Minister for Health, but also as the Minister for Disability Services.
This amendment, contrary to what the member for Fannie Bay just told the Chamber, is not a reaction to ‘cope with an increase in pressure on the parole board’. This amendment is about improving the functioning of the parole board and the management of people on parole.
He correctly summarised that at the moment we have 10 members, I believe, of the parole board and one of those is a psychologist and/or medical professional. At the moment, only people facing imprisonment for life for the crime of murder are subjected to extra psychological or medical assessment in regard to decisions the parole board presides over.
This amendment is to broaden the psychological and medical assessment and input into the decisions of the parole board. It is a commonsense amendment which will provide better outcomes for people on parole and a more efficient parole system. The amendment will include people who have been convicted of serious crimes, including manslaughter and sex offences. But this is not to say there is an increased demand for these services; it is simply to improve the services provided.
The member for Fannie Bay went off on a tangent and used this amendment to the Parole Act to argue that there has been a substantial increase in serious crime in the Northern Territory. That is totally misleading and simply not true. The essence of this significant amendment through the Parole Amendment Bill is to provide a very professional approach to other serious crimes that are presented to the parole board.
As the Minister for Disability Services, I am only too well aware that the incidence of disability throughout the Northern Territory is very high compared to other jurisdictions. We have many people in the Northern Territory who have acquired brain injury or congenital brain disorders and conditions which can manifest in cognitive disability and all sorts of other disabilities. For example, quite often, as adults, the behaviour of people with foetal alcohol syndrome can be antisocial and that leads them into the correctional system. They commit crimes and offend and come to the notice of the police and, ultimately, the corrections system. So many people in gaol have disabilities – physical disabilities, cognitive impairment and mental disabilities -which can, by and large, go under the radar; it does not necessarily come to the attention of the authorities. To some extent, it can explain why people commit crimes in the first place.
So not only is this a commonsense approach, but it is also quite a considerate and caring approach for people who have committed serious crimes. It is about not just taking into account psychological or medical factors for people who are facing life imprisonment, but also people who have committed other serious crimes, for example, manslaughter and sex offences.
These people will be offered the same input from those specialist people already on the parole board. That means those people will have special consideration made of their disability. The disability will be assessed and the management plan around how these people are supervised will take those factors into account. Surprisingly, that has not been done to date to any great extent.
It will also enable people caring for or supervising these people to have a greater understanding of how these people function. For example, if you have a cognitive disability, suffer from a impairment through brain damage, often you simply do not understand things; your ability to understand, to comprehend, is impaired. Of course, if you are dealing with someone like that you need to know because if you are giving them instructions, trying to educate them, trying to teach them a system, a process, a way of doing things, often it is incredibly difficult.
We see that throughout the education system where, sadly, a new generation of children is coming through who have foetal alcohol syndrome. These children have problems learning and following instructions and have behavioural problems around their inability to concentrate and abide by rules. When these people become adults they offend and come to the attention of the corrections system.
This amendment will allow more specialist consideration of the needs, the particular disability, the behaviours, the mental capacity and the cognitive impairments of people who have committed serious crimes which are being reviewed by the parole board. This is a good thing; it is recognition of disability throughout the community. I imagine there is a high level of disability amongst prisoners.
It will also help to assess the likelihood of recidivism. If people are less able to control certain behaviours, have an inability to understand certain directions, rules or laws, obviously the risk of recidivism is much greater.
This is not about, as the member for Fannie Bay tried to assert, responding to an increase in demand through an alleged increase in serious crime in the Northern Territory. It is quite the contrary. Since we have been in government all areas of crime have reduced, including serious crime, and we are proud of that.
We have a conscientious Attorney-General who has been forensically going through legislation pertaining to, in this case, the parole board, looking at ways to improve systems and making them better for the criminals or the consumers, but also the people who have to implement and work with the legislation. In this case, the parole board, the corrections system and the police are people who deal with crime within the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, once again I find myself commending the Attorney-General for his vigilance, attention to detail and recognising we cannot sit on our hands like Labor did for many years. We have to reform legislation, whether it be major reforms, or minor reforms, as in this case, but significant reforms.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the bill before us today. I support what the Minister for Health said. If we are to have a parole board that does its job properly, it needs to make sure it has the right people to make the decisions. This amendment to the act will allow an authorised psychologist or medical practitioner who has already been appointed as a member to attend general meetings. Instead of being restricted to people in certain categories, these people will be allowed to give advice for a greater range of prisoners.
As the Minister for Health said, there are many people in prison for other reasons such as cognitive issues relating to alcohol and FASD and, as the minister said in his second reading speech, exposure to domestic violence at a young age, and failure to thrive. There is a range of complex issues that may occasionally slip under the radar. Unless you have the right people to assess these issues, the parole board might make the wrong decision simply because they are not given the right advice.
That is very important, not only for the prisoner but also, as the minister said, the victim and the community. People want to know, if a prisoner is being released on parole, that both the victim and the community are safe and the likelihood of any problems occurring is at a minimum simply because the board has fulfilled its role in taking into account all matters it needs to before it makes a decision.
One of the other issues raised is that the parole board needs to look at the risk of recidivism. It has to assess whether there is a fairly high risk that prisoner, if let out on parole, will come back again because they have not changed their attitudes or behaviour enough for them to stay out of gaol. They are the things parole boards have to take into consideration.
During the second reading speech, the minister said:
- I have taken advice from the Hon Justice Stephen Southwood, chairperson of the parole board. The chairperson identifies that there are an increasing number of matters before the parole board each month …
- … which involve complexities that I have referred to, and where the parole board would be assisted by those members of the board who have specialised training experience in dealing with these complexities.
I know there has been some discussion to and fro about whether there is more crime in the Northern Territory, but the second reading speech said there has been an increasing number of matters. If it is not due to an increased number of people going to prison, is it that there are more people being assessed for parole? My understanding is we were tightening up on parole. It might be worth clarifying, minister, what the chairperson meant when he said there was an increase in the number of matters before the parole board each month.
The other thing I was going to ask the minister is what was the advice from the Hon Justice Stephen Southwood? Was that advice a reflection of what we are debating today in parliament? Was the advice of the Justice included in the amendments we have before parliament today? I would like clarification because when I read it I understood he was giving advice. I do not know what that advice was, whether today’s amendments reflected it, and if the Justice supported these amendments.
The amendments are very practical and make sense. If it helps the parole board make more informative decisions, there is less chance of a poor decision being made. If the parole board makes a poor decision and there is an outcome, for whatever reason, that comes back on the board, and I imagine that would not make the members happy. They want to make decisions which are the best according to the knowledge they have been given. Expanding on this and allowing a psychologist and medical practitioner to attend general meetings will help towards that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the amendments.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will close debate today. What I thought was to be a short debate has now been dragged out to something much longer. This is largely because of the wickedness of the member for Fannie Bay in misrepresenting the numbers surrounding a raft of issues that have stuff-all to do, quite frankly, with parole.
I will table the updated graph, which I call my favourite graph, which deals with prisoner projections created in June 2010 by the former Labor government, justifying a 30-year, $1.8bn deal to build a new prison. It was its most remarkable infrastructure project in government.
This graph contains three lines which project prisoner numbers out to December 2016. Those three lines were worst case, most likely and best case scenarios for prison numbers pushing out into the future. True to form the blue dotted line which appears on this graph followed the most likely case scenario year in, year out from the time the projections were put together in June 2010.
Curiously, after the change of government, because of some changes in policy – things like the Sentenced to a Job program and a number of policing policies at the front end – prisoner numbers not only went below the best case scenario, but have consistently stayed there since that time. Up until September 2014, according to this graph, the expected prison population today should be in the order of about 1750.
The actual prisoner numbers are 1541, 200 less than projected by the former Labor government. That is because Sentenced to a Job, amongst other programs, is producing recidivism rates members opposite, when in government, could only dream of. The current recidivism rate for prisoners who are not in the Sentenced to a Job program is 57%. I believe ROGS will report that as slightly down into the near future, at 55%.
The recidivism rate amongst Sentenced to a Job prisoners – I still qualify this figure with great caution in the sense it is not longitudinal in the study around it – is 14%. That is a substantial change in the world of prisoners coming back to prison. If that number proves to be anywhere near accurate as longitudinal studies are conducted, this jurisdiction, under a Country Liberals government, will have changed the corrections environment in this country. Other jurisdictions are sitting up and taking notice.
It is all well and good for the member for Fannie Bay to take cheap shots about the number of people in prison and coming in front of the parole board. Their only answer was to create an environment where they had to spend $1.8bn of Territory taxpayers’ money creating the prison Mahal, which we have inherited and we will make certain we never have to fill.
I have gone from having to declare in this House that I thought I may have to keep Berrimah open to deal with the overflow, to not only saying Berrimah will be closed as an adult prison, but moreover and far more importantly, the new prison will not be full on day one because prisoners who are in the system are not coming back in the numbers they used to under the Labor government because they have jobs and a future. That is something the Northern Territory government remains implacably proud of, no matter what wickedness the member for Fannie Bay wishes to engage in.
I consequently table this graph for the edification of members.
I also heard the member for Fannie Bay engage in skulduggery of the lowest order when he seemed to impute the idea that we are somehow refusing to investigate matters brought to us in the child protection environment. Once again, the member for Fannie Bay is so liberal with the truth he should seriously consider what the word ‘truth’ actually means. He has a positively Kafkaesque world view in relation to what the truth is and how it should be used.
I heard the Chief Minister earlier say that the member for Fannie Bay should engage in some Orwellian speeches. I just heard one. I cannot believe that out of the numbers in front of the member for Fannie Bay he could extrapolate the conclusion he did, unless he is engaged in a deliberate attempt to deceive Territorians in the most wicked way possible, using the vehicle of child protection as the means to get there. That is disgraceful behaviour, and I thought more of the member for Fannie Bay than to try to do that type of thing.
I draw the member for Fannie Bay’s attention to page 42 of the last Children’s Commissioner’s report in relation to child protection. On that page he will find a graph. On that graph he will see the number of police notifications for child protection matters has increased substantially because of a change in police policies. Those police policies are to notify the child protection system of emotional abuse matters at much greater numbers than they have in the past. The notifications from police over two years went from 1500 to 3500 notifications.
What happens in the real world when this occurs? The police, when attending an incident, make a determination that a child may or may not be in need of some attention from child protection authorities. As a consequence of that, where they used to not make those calls, they now do. They pick up the telephone and ring Central Intake at the child protection agency, which is in a building in the Darwin region. Who picks up the telephone at the other end? It is a child protection worker with years of experience. It is not somebody who just has the social worker degree and the other qualifications required to be a child protection worker, but somebody with years of experience. That person then goes through the initial triage phase of the child protection process and eliminates matters which are not child protection issues without proceeding to investigation.
Police have changed their policy; they now report more matters. I refer the honourable member to page 43 of the last Children’s Commissioner’s report where he made the following observation:
- Table 1 shows that Professionals account for 79% of the notifications. As previously mentioned, Police are the largest category, followed by education and health professionals. Given the roles of these personnel and the contact they have with … families, it is logical that they account for most notifications.
It goes on to say:
- In previous reports it was noted that the Police were increasingly making notifications, often for emotional abuse, where the children were witnesses to domestic violence.
That means the Northern Territory government listens to what the Children’s Commissioner has to say in this instance and in other circumstances and created a domestic violence policy which is now being looked at by the rest of this country because of its insightfulness and the fact it is being rolled out on the ground where it is needed: amongst the staff who are bringing these policies to bear upon the wife beaters in our community.
We now have a domestic violence policy that did not exist under the former government. We have a police force which is highly responsive to kids being exposed to that domestic violence environment. The member opposite said the government is doing nothing and the situation is becoming worse. No, we are responding to the circumstances which exist.
Central Intake takes the telephone call, and I draw the member for Fannie Bay’s attention to page 51 of the report and point out something quite anomalous in the spurious and deceitful argument he made in this House. The number of notifications obviously goes up during the reporting period I have discussed. However, the number of matters proceeding to investigation goes down slightly – not significantly, but slightly. That means the professional child protection officer taking the phone call is able to triage those reports out as matters which do not require attention under the child protection regime of the Northern Territory. Those matters which are unable to be triaged out in that fashion are sent to investigations. Their file is then forwarded on to a person to complete an investigation, which means a child protection officer gets the file and investigates.
According to the member opposite, because of the reduction in investigations – this is the really dishonest part of his submission – it automatically follows that funding was cut to investigators. Nonsense, balderdash and untrue. If I could use the ‘L’ word I would apply it to the member for Fannie Bay for his dishonest representation of what is occurring.
We have reached the point where we have been quite aggressive and are starting to see a plateauing of the number of investigations into these matters. To support the argument of the government in this area and demonstrate how spurious and dishonest the member for Fannie Bay has been with the twist of the numbers, I draw his attention to page 51 of that report where it clearly demonstrates that the number of substantiations has fallen sharply since they were in government. That means in the year 2011-12 there were 1749 substantiations – this is where child neglect or abuse has been found – to 1356 which means that whilst the reports have gone up, professional agencies have been more careful about reporting these matters when they are finally sent off for investigation and, ultimately, those investigations lead to substantiations.
The number of substantiations has fallen. This has to be good news, but according to the member opposite it is all about funding cuts. We do not ignore these children in times of neglect, abuse and/or sexual abuse as too often sadly occurs in our community. This is the politics of the member opposite. He would go into the child protection domain and seek to achieve political pointscoring without accurately reflecting what occurs.
I also point out that this year there have been 4303 investigations finalised thus far. That is more finalised investigations than they did when they were in government. Nevertheless, they are more than happy to ignore the facts so they can spin a story. If they spin any more aggressively they will be welcome at next year’s Red CentreNATS.
This government is mindful of these matters. I take this opportunity to table the first report under section 43(2) of the Children’s Commissioner’s Act in relation to youth detention practices in the Northern Territory.
In recent months I have been visited by the Commissioner for Child Protection who has pointed out to me several matters of concern – he has spoken about these matters publicly – in relation to events which occurred in August last year, but also matters that date back a number of years which have been the subject of a number of court cases. Those matters have now been determined by the courts but, nevertheless, the Children’s Commissioner seeks to continue to raise those matters with me. I thank the Children’s Commissioner for his input. I table that report.
The Children’s Commissioner is concerned, and has demonstrated his concern, about a number of matters that have tracked back a number of years. I am surprised to have heard so little of them from him until recently. I encourage the Children’s Commissioner to raise those concerns with Mr Michael Veda, who is doing the Veda review into juvenile detention facilities in the Northern Territory, including the processes that go on in those detention facilities.
I also heard the complaints from the members opposite in relation to the quality of our youth detention facilities in the Northern Territory. We, as a government, in the last two years inherited from the former government the Don Dale Centre; a building which I identified almost immediately as pulling up well short of what should be required for the effective detention of youth in our community.
Some of the shortcomings of the Don Dale Detention Centre include dorms without lavatories in them. This means that, sometimes, rather than waking the guards at 4 am to go to the toilet, one of the boys might take a pee in the corner. The smell of urine in those places is something that affronted me when I first inspected the Don Dale centre.
Clearly, weaknesses have been found in the Don Dale custodial environment in recent times which has led to a number of incidents, including the escape of several young detainees, much to the concern of the public. There have been a number of other shortcomings identified with Don Dale centre so the government started to find a way it could deal with it.
Members opposite suggest doing exactly what they did the last time round with the adult prison: spend a gazillion dollars of taxpayers’ money because they solve these problems by just spending money. The $1.8bn gaol we have inherited from the former government is an example of their reckless spending in relation to these matters. Their solution is to say, ‘We will just build a new juvenile detention facility’. The last time I had one of those costed, it was a $150m exercise.
Considering we are the beneficiaries of a $5.5bn projected debt, handed to us by the former government, we are not in a position to borrow another $150m to build an extra gaol on top of the gaol already purchased by the former government.
The options left to us are either to revamp the Don Dale centre – to bring it up to certain standards you would have to spend many millions of dollars – or alternatively, with the expenditure of a mere $800 000, taking the old medium security section of the Berrimah prison and turning it into an effective juvenile detention facility which will meet the requirements of government into the foreseeable future. It will also enable us to deal with some of these juveniles who have caused us …
Mr Wood: You might have been able to sell the prison land and use that money.
Mr ELFERINK: … grief. Unfortunately, the sale of that land will go back to servicing the debt that we have to carry for the last gaol. This is the point. I pick up on the interjection by the member for Nelson. He said sell the prison land and you can build a new prison. The fact is that prison land will be sold to defray the costs of the new prison the member for Nelson had so much to do with prior to the change of government.
Whilst I understand the concerns of both the Children’s Commissioner and a number of other organisations in the Northern Territory, I believe the $800 000 spend on the existing custodial facility will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Northern Territory when it comes to the detention of juvenile prisoners.
I would like to see my juvenile prison population at zero. We are already taking steps to extend things like Sentenced to a Job to the juvenile prison population, where that is appropriate. We are also engaging in a number of other possibilities, currently under examination, of how we can get adult prisoners engaging with their own family members so juveniles are less likely to come into the custodial environment.
I also heard the member for Fannie Bay, once again mischievously, say we had not adopted the suggestions of the Carney review. In actual fact, he knows full well I have said on a number of occasions that policy statements will be made in the very near future in relation to the juvenile justice system in the Northern Territory.
I inherited a juvenile system from the former government which had decayed substantially, and I have been working assiduously since taking over the Correctional Services portfolio to repair it. This includes working on the problem of juvenile cells in the base of the court house in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, where juveniles are exposed to adult prisoners as a matter of regularity and course. We have a solution just about ready to come out in a way that shows imagination that was utterly lacking under the former government. They were quite happy to see juveniles exposed to adult prisoners as a matter of regularity and course. They did nothing about it other than to announce they would spend some money, but never quite got around to it.
The bill before the House, now that I can finally turn my attention to it, is quite a straightforward legislative instrument. Increasing numbers of matters are coming before the parole board, but it is not the result of an increasing criminal population. This is by virtue of the fact we have demonstrated, as a government, that crime has been reduced, particularly in the area of property offences, since coming to government. We have more than exceeded our four-year targets in two years.
The targets we have met have demonstrated that property crime has come down to levels that existed prior to the former government coming to power in 2001. In relation to crimes against the person, in the last 12 months we have also seen substantial improvements, particularly in places like Tennant Creek where, if memory serves me, there has been a reduction in offences against the person of close to 60%. This is because, unlike the former government, we have temporary beat locations (TBLs) in front of bottle shops preventing a lot of the liquor that causes the problem in our community finding its way into the hands of people who become violent drunks.
We have mandatory alcohol treatment. This means those people who are consistently turning up so drunk in our community that they cannot stand upright are subject to intervention and taken into a mandatory custodial environment so they can receive treatment for their addiction, which is so profound it decays not only themselves and their families, but also the community of which we are all a part.
We have Alcohol Protection Orders to prevent people who commit offences whilst intoxicated from committing those offences again. We serve those orders on people who commit offences where those offences are punishable by imprisonment for six months or more. We do that because we make the individual responsible for their conduct, rather than some nebulous idea, cuddled up to by the members opposite, that if you put a Banned Drinker Register in place for the whole of society, it will bring about change amongst the addicted few.
We do not, did not and will not subscribe to a policy position that believes you punish the whole of the community for the actions of a few, particularly when you refuse point blank to bring the few to account for their own conduct.
It is these changes that have seen the substantial reductions in property crime. It is these changes that have seen substantial reductions, particularly in the last 12 months, of personal crime. We have been, as a government, unafraid to go after people who commit any number of criminal acts in the name of their marital rights. We have been strident in that area, bringing people to account for beating their wives, and as a general principle, making sure they are charged with criminal offences. In the first year of this government, that has had the effect of pushing up assault rates. Those assaults were always occurring in the community; we started charging those wife beaters with the crimes they commit against their wives and children. However, because we have been firm and prepared to accept that would have the effect of pushing up those assault rates, people started to become more timid in relation to the cowardly act of beating their wives. That is now becoming apparent.
On top of that, as I said before, we are now releasing a domestic violence policy which will become the envy of this country. Therefore, the concept of the Pillars of Justice, which runs from the point of arrest to the end of the parole system, is designed to ensure we are interrupting patterns of behaviour the whole way through that process. Rather than having a discrete issue being dealt with by the police over here, and the courts, the correction system and the parole system deal with their issues, we have created a pathway through that whole system, designed with a bunch of interrupters placed into that pathway, so that at every stage a person who is cascading through all those circumstances can be interrupted and redirected away from their chosen lifestyle by being accountable for their conduct. That is what Pillars of Justice was designed to do. We continue to roll out the legislative amendments to make Pillars of Justice work.
You see before this House now the legislative amendment allowing for paperless arrests. This means a system by which the police are able to arrest people for minor street offences in a far more effective way than they have ever been able to do in the past. Currently the paperwork surrounding a minor street offence is so onerous that police, by the circumstances of that paperwork trail, are forced to use caution or move-on powers rather than apprehension powers at that point. Invariably the person who is playing up and being a bit of a dill at 10 pm is the person you are arresting at 2 am for a serious assault, a homicide or a rape. Paperless arrest will be part of that whole continuum of legislative amendments, ensuring we continue to interrupt criminal behaviour.
These amendments to the parole board are part of that process. Therefore, psychologists, who already sit on the board now anyhow, are no longer restrained from having sufficient or possible input into a parole decision. That is part of those changes. Up until now, those opinions have been reserved pretty much for the preserve of homicide-related offences. It only strikes me as being natural, sensible and straight-thinking that psychologists also are able to have input into things like sexually-related offences and criminal behaviour such as multiple or pathological house-breaking, as the case may be.
We, as a government, have continued and will continue to see the crime environment as a continuum that can be interrupted. It is quite novel; it is not done in any other jurisdiction in Australia. It has taken two years to put together. The final touches are finally coming. We have a number of other small things we need to do in relation to pre-trial disclosure for defence and the parole environment to make sure that post-release environment, particularly for Sentenced to a Job prisoners, is more amenable to that prisoner keeping their job.
Many Territorians are surprised to discover we have, as of this morning, about 150 prisoners who left prison to either go to full-time work or volunteer work. About 100 prisoners are in full-time work. Those prisoners pay tax and rent for their cells. They also pay money into the Victims Assistance Fund and have money in savings. When they leave prison, they keep the job they had while they were in prison and have, in many instances, up to $20 000 start-up money.
We are also using the parole system to parole them to keep that job. There is work we need to do with NGOs, which is under way, to create post-release environments so prisoners can step out of gaol into a post-release environment, maintain their job and continue to demonstrate to themselves more than anybody else, but also to the community, they are capable of things they never dreamed of before.
I would rather not see people go to prison in the first instance because I would rather not see people committing crimes. However, when they do, under this government they will go to prison. When they are in prison that experience will be one of self-discovery through self-assessment and work. When they get out of prison the jobs they had when in prison will continue to be their salvation into the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
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.
The Assembly suspended.
REORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, while there is no question before the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 89 I move a reorder of the routine of business so the Assembly may immediately consider ministerial statements, and at the conclusion of ministerial statements the Assembly resumes consideration of Government Business.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Building Investment Opportunities
Building Investment Opportunities
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the growing international investment opportunities being created in the Northern Territory by the Country Liberals government. After more than a decade of Labor Party mismanagement we have firmly re-established the Territory on the world stage and the prospects for future investment are bright indeed.
The hosting of the 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference in Darwin from 12 to 14 October 2014 delivered the most strategic and comprehensive engagement between the Northern Territory and Japan in our history. The conference attracted 177 Japanese delegates and 127 Australian delegates, all leaders in their own fields. It was a major success that has put the Northern Territory clearly on the Japanese trade and investment radar. It has encouraged direct Japanese interest in upcoming investment opportunities, including new infrastructure such as the gas pipeline, port and marine industry park developments, agribusiness, energy, mineral and tourism opportunities.
The theme of the conference was Australia and Japan, A New Era in The Relationship, and some of the key topics dealt with during the conference include economic integration opportunities under the recently signed Japan Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, improving the environment for foreign direct investment, energy security across the region and opportunities for feeding Asia.
The result was a careful analysis and discussion about the many investment opportunities that already exist in the Territory. A highlight of the conference was the Chief Minister’s welcome reception held at the Darwin Convention Centre on the evening of Sunday, 12 October. The themed restaurant showcased our unique landscapes with a particular focus on our outback regions and included a large backdrop of Uluru with changing skylines and an outback pub.
Our multicultural food experience was provided through a mini Mindil Beach market atmosphere. The feedback from our visiting Japanese delegates was that this reception gave them a memorable start to their visit to the Northern Territory, and many hope to visit Uluru again in particular.
On the morning of Monday 13 October, I hosted a boardroom breakfast for 15 leading Japanese business people, including Dr Mimura AC, Chairman of the Japan Chamber of Commerce; Mr Kojima, Chairman of the Mitsubishi Corporation; Mr Kuroda and Mr Kitamura, Chairman and President of INPEX respectively; Mr Takahashi, Executive Managing Officer of Mitsui & Co; and senior representatives from major Japanese financial institutions such as the Sumitomo Mitsubishi Banking Corporation, Mizuho Bank and the Bank of Tokyo.
I was joined by the federal minister for Industry, Mr Ian Macfarlane, and we took the opportunity to highlight many investment opportunities, including the development of a new gas pipeline connecting gas resources of the Northern Territory into the hungry gas markets of southeast Australia. We talked about the possibilities of investing in the expansion of Darwin’s existing port facilities at East Arm and Stokes Hill. We talked about the opportunity of offshore gas coming onshore to support downstream petrochemical industries. We discussed the development of a new 130 ha marine industry park on the East Arm Peninsula and the development of more than 10 000 ha of land on the Tiwi Islands for new agribusiness, aquaculture and tourism industries. I am pleased to report the feedback from minister Macfarlane in those meetings was extremely positive.
The Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation has offered to host a dedicated Northern Territory investment seminar in Tokyo for some of its major Japanese clients as part of my visit to Japan in 2015.
This is how you build an economy: you engage with your customers and investors, and build relationships that lead to new business.
For the first time in the 52-year history of the Australia Japan Joint Business Conference, its organisers chose to hold the conference in the Northern Territory. That was not an accident. I have to thank Sir Rod for assisting with the transition to the Territory. We worked very hard to attract the conference to Darwin because we knew it would lead to more business. It is another example of how we are developing the north.
That same week saw the second North Australia Defence Summit held in Darwin. An initiative of the Country Liberals, the Defence summit brings business people and Defence officers together to consider future business opportunities. I am pleased to inform the House that opportunities abound. The increase in oil and gas assets in the north of Australia and our growing relationship with Southeast Asian nations makes Australia’s defence role in the region increasingly important.
Nowhere is better placed than the Northern Territory to support those surveillance and emergency response needs. Darwin will continue to be a major staging post for deployments and exercises in the region. The arrival of new Defence platforms such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, new armoured vehicles and the expansion of the US Marines rotation to a full Air-Ground Task Force of over 2500 personnel will create many opportunities for local industry.
Defence plans to invest almost $500m in infrastructure at the RAAF Base Tindal to accommodate the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Further infrastructure development at Tindal to support other RAAF needs and enhanced US Air Force cooperation could bring the total spend to around $3bn, all being attracted by the Northern Territory government.
Our government is working with the construction industry and Defence to maximise the local business involvement in these projects. The Land Development Corporation is also working with industry to develop facilities and capability to support the Armidale Class Patrol Boats, their replacement and other vessels in facilities at the marine industry park at East Arm. A $100m project at Robertson Barracks to consolidate Joint Logistics Units North into modern new facilities is a further indication that Defence is here for the long term.
In my key note address to the summit, I mentioned unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. Defence has announced it will purchase a number of large UAVs for surveillance purposes with a primary area of operation across northern Australia.
I believe these UAVs should be based at Tindal and not Adelaide as currently proposed. I have already begun lobbying the federal Defence department and government about basing those UAVs in Katherine. Basing them at Tindal means they do not have to fly the extra four or five hours to arrive to at their areas of operations and back another four or five hours to their base. Basing these aircraft at Tindal will increase the availability of the aircraft, reduce engine and airframe hours and reduce costs. This is a strategic decision to be made by Defence that will increase capability and reduce overall, and overhead, costs. In turn, it will provide more opportunity for local industry to help grow the Territory population and workforce. It will also be a demonstration of the Commonwealth’s support for developing northern Australia.
The increased US Marine and Air Force activity in the northern Territory is likely to bring with it increased use of United States UAVs in our air space anyway, so basing the Australian UAVs at Tindal will provide even greater opportunities for joint Australian/US cooperation.
I plan to travel to the US in the coming months to meet with US Defence leaders to reinforce the strong support the Territory has for the US Marine rotations. I will also promote the capability and capacity of Territory industry to support the US Marines, Air Force and, in the future, Navy. We want to see them having more rotations through Darwin and more support locally from a logistical point of view. I will encourage the Marines to buy locally wherever possible and support a growth in their involvement.
Defence is a key industry in our plan to develop the north. It is clear that Defence investment in this region is about to increase significantly. To capture these opportunities we need to be at the front end of these discussions and the Northern Australia Defence Summit is assisting our ongoing strategic relationships.
As I mentioned earlier, the Northern Australia Defence Summit is in its second year and I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the organisers have confirmed the third Northern Australia Defence Summit for October 2015. Once again, it is an example of how the Country Liberals are bringing together the key stakeholders to encourage economic participation and develop the north.
It was interesting at the Defence summit. In that keynote address I made the observation to all that Defence servicing, from a logistical point of view, is something that has been missed locally, by government and otherwise, for many a long year. The second Defence summit will grow exponentially next year, and particularly into 2016 and beyond. Some of the work the government is doing in establishing the Northern Territory as a logistical supply base presents an opportunity for us to target key markets, and not just of US Marines or US Air Force, but expanding into US Navy and other Asian nations as far as our current communications and conversations go.
Food production is another critical industry in the development of the north. The Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has been active in a wide range of traditional research, development, and extension activities while proactively pursuing, attracting, enabling and supporting agribusiness investment. I congratulate the member for Katherine, the minister for Primary Industry, for his leadership in this area.
The department has a range of research programs dedicated to adding to the capacity of the Northern Territory’s cattle, plant and fisheries sectors. Those projects include research focused on the genetic improvement of the Territory cattle herd, better understanding and managing of the rangeland resources of the NT, ongoing research into how to better manage our inshore reef resources, and ways to manipulate mango flowering and improve fruit quality.
The department is showing entrepreneurial flair by supporting agribusiness development and investment in the Territory. That is why we are actively backing the Northern Territory Farmer’s Association’s Northern Australia Food Futures Conference to be held next Tuesday on Melbourne Cup Day. It will facilitate a more informed public debate to help develop effective policy on agricultural development across northern Australia.
We need to keep a sensible perspective on what are reasonable time frames for agricultural developments. Northern development is a long-term nation building plan, and it is important we scope out clear strategies to make it happen in a way that suits the needs of the Territory. This is another way this government is bringing together the people who drive our economy, so we can build the Territory, pay back Labor’s debt and create wealth and employment for everyone now and into the future.
This government is delivering a range of priority projects that will have far-reaching consequences for our economic growth. The impact of these projects will be felt in our regional and remote areas, as well as our larger cities. We are acutely aware of the opportunities the current northern Australia development agenda presents for securing the Northern Territory’s contribution to the future prosperity of Australia as a nation.
We continue to investigate opportunities to develop and market the Northern Territory as an attractive investment and liveable destination. We are engaging with the community, business leaders, international investors and foreign governments, and we are keeping our promise to develop the north and create jobs for our kids.
The rest of Australia is taking note, as are our neighbours in the Asia Pacific.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, never have so many words been written to say so little. When I saw the subject of this ministerial statement I expected something concrete, but instead we have 17 pages of spin. There is no indication of what the next major project will be in the Territory. There is no announcement of any memorandum of understanding being signed to deliver the next major project – nothing.
The difference between the CLP and Labor is that we produced investment opportunities and then turned them into investment outcomes. Chief Minister, you are simply about hollow talk. Something you do not like to talk about is INPEX and acknowledging the all-important INPEX Total major project of Ichthys. This is because it is literally like a beacon, a testimony to Labor’s action versus the Country Liberals inaction. Labor delivered. The Ichthys project represents years of work Labor undertook, and we secured it – a $34bn project underpinning our economy.
We have seen two years of inaction from the CLP government. You have dropped the ball and have not achieved the diversification your hollow rhetoric would have people believe.
In securing the major Ichthys project, Labor has helped secure the Territory’s economic future. We ensured we became the oil and gas hub for northern Australia. We have been delivering increased numbers of jobs through major projects and business opportunities. We further cemented this with, of course, the Labor project of the Marine Supply Base.
The North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas at Charles Darwin University was created to ensure our children can obtain the education they need in Darwin to work in this leading-edge industry. The Larrakia Trade Training Centre was created to provide training to upskill and support Indigenous Territorians into the trade jobs associated with this oil and gas industry.
Chief Minister, you should be embarrassed that you have failed to deliver a single new project in two years. You are still cutting ribbons on Labor projects.
Economic growth and engineering construction work is at record levels thanks to the Ichthys project delivered by the Labor government. However, as I indicated yesterday, the Deloitte Access Economics September quarter Business Outlook has foreshadowed an end to the construction boom in the next few years. The construction spend will halve from $8bn to $4bn. The $34bn Ichthys project is expected to reach its peak construction phase into next year and beyond, where it will be employing thousands of workers. It will be one of the worlds’ largest LNG facilities. The gas and condensate reserves in the Browse Basin will last about 40 years. Gas from the Blaydin Point plant will be flowing in 2017 with 8.4 million tonnes of LNG produced each year. INPEX and Total have contributed to our economy and community.
It is incredibly pleasing that INPEX helped to bring the Japan business conference here. You, Chief Minister, can take no credit for that; it was a relationship fostered by the previous Labor government. In June 2009, then Chief Minister Paul Henderson met with Japanese government trade officials. It was at that meeting that high-level Japanese business meetings in Darwin were first proposed. Then, in September 2011, the largest business delegation of multinationals from Japan came to the Northern Territory, hosted again by the Labor government.
In October 2011, the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, flew to Kyoto, where he delivered a keynote address to the 49th Japan Australian Joint Business Conference. He then opened an NT minerals investment seminar in Tokyo. But here is the clincher! I refer to a media release issued by former Chief Minister Paul Henderson in April 2012, where Mr Henderson announced that the Territory had secured the joint Australia business conference for 2014. That is right. The conference this Chief Minister’s ministerial statement attempts to claim as his own was actually secured by Labor. Just as you have not secured one major project in two years, Chief Minister, you did not secure the conference either.
Of course, major projects need support, and Labor in government realised this. The Marine Supply Base supports the activities of ConocoPhillips at DLNG, as it supports INPEX. It is an attractive reason to entice the next major train to be developed onshore in the Northern Territory of those brownfield sites of DLNG and the INPEX site at Blaydin Point. But guess who cut the ribbon? This Chief Minister, pretending it was his when it was another Labor project. In fact, the CLP was opposed to the Marine Supply Base. Its own Renewal Management Board said it did not believe it was viable. Of course a Marine Supply Base is viable. It is clearly an important plank in the Northern Territory, with Darwin in the Top End, in particular, being the hub for oil and gas.
Darwin provides approximately $150m in services and supplies per year to support the gas industry. With the help of the Marine Supply Base this figure is expected to increase to $420m over the next 20 years. A legacy piece of infrastructure, thanks to Labor’s vision. As I said before, Labor turns opportunities into outcomes. Industry confirms the base will support further investment in Darwin, and is looking forward to accessing the infrastructure. It will improve our capacity to support offshore oil and gas developments and improve the efficiency at East Arm. Compare that to the Giles government’s contribution to the oil and gas sector.
Chief Minister, you damaged our relationship with Japan when you knifed former Chief Minister Terry Mills while he was on a trade mission in Japan. You abandoned the gas to Gove pipeline which would have seen a doubling of the domestic gas industry in the Territory. You created uncertainty for the industry with a proposed sale of Darwin port and the Wadeye airstrip. Your lack of consultation on the regional migration agreement has certainly hurt relationships.
The Chief Minister continued to beat his chest about Defence and pretend nothing occurred under the Labor government when in fact we saw significant expansion of Defence across all of our bases from Larrakeyah, Berrimah Defence Support and Tindal to Robertson Barracks. Who could forget the visit of US President Barack Obama, who visited Darwin with the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to sign and announce that all-important US/Australia alliance. That saw, under Labor, an agreement for the deployment for training purposes of US Marines in the Top End. That then brought about significant construction and investment under Labor into Larrakeyah, Robertson Barracks and Tindal particularly, with other associated infrastructure spending across RAAF Darwin and the Berrimah Defence establishment. All that occurred under Labor. We now see a pipeline of billions of dollars opened up for construction of Defence projects across the Northern Territory, secured by the Labor agreements between the US and Australia.
What this Chief Minister is incapable of doing – which is at the heart of his problem – is recognising when there is bipartisan support and effort for the delivery of all-important strategic relationships. Our industry partners, our other government partners and our allies understand it, but this Chief Minister is incapable of being a statesman and understanding how crucially important the message of bipartisanship is to investment in the Territory.
One of the things we need to do better is acknowledge the efforts that have already occurred with the Defence contract work by local companies. Sitzler took out an Engineering Australia Excellence Award for the work it did on Robertson Barracks to gear up and provide, across the Wet Season, significant new accommodation, as well as water and sewerage infrastructure at Robertson Barracks to help accommodate the Marines. Halikos has undertaken significant work at Larrakeyah in the construction of single men’s quarters and housing.
We have capability amongst existing Darwin developers to undertake the significant billions of dollars of pipeline and construction work coming through, yet I was embarrassed to hear the Chief Minister’s dismissive quips at the dinner at the Defence summit when he said he did not feel capacity was where it should be in the Territory.
Chief Minister, do not talk down the Territory’s capacity. It is your job to talk it up. It was a foolish statement to make in a room full of Territory business people who make their living off these Defence contracts and are chasing the next major Defence contract.
Also, there was no recognition in this speech that the Master Builders Association has a study under way to prove its capability to Defence in securing construction contracts with local companies. Why? Because you operate in your own bubble; you are not engaged with industry and you do not have your finger on the pulse.
Labor gave business in the Territory its greatest opportunity after the global financial crisis. At a time when conservative governments were advocating doing nothing to help the economy, the previous Labor government made sure the Territory would not suffer adversely. We made sure construction was doubled rather than grinding to a halt. We made sure jobs were preserved. In fact, we created 13 000 additional jobs during that period. We made sure Territorians had a safety net.
The Chief Minister’s statement is hollow rhetoric. On this side of the Chamber we await the day when the CLP government has something substantial to announce. I acknowledge the Food Futures Summit will be held, and am delighted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be attending that, as will the federal parliamentary representative Gary Gray, who undertook the major studies into the development of northern Australia when he was parliamentary secretary for northern Australia.
My deep and abiding concern remains that we are missing the opportunity of food production in the Douglas Daly/Katherine region because the CLP has locked up water allocations to its mates. That was done against the best scientific evidence …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Oh, really?
Ms LAWRIE: You, Minister for Land Resource Management, have been taken to the Supreme Court for your action on that. You will get your chance in the Supreme Court to defend yourself.
When you lock up the water resources you require to develop your agricultural base, where do you go? You have over-allocated the Tindall and Oolloo aquifers and it will be an impediment to the major agricultural growth we could have seen in that region.
Chief Minister, if you fail to understand that commercialising Darwin port will be a crippling blow to the livestock industry, then you will fail to understand the most basic tenets of your job. Ask the Livestock Association what it thinks about commercial rates for livestock across that port. It would cripple that industry.
Instead of delivering any positive outcomes as Chief Minister, through his foolish actions and thought bubbles he is putting in place impediments to economic investment in the Territory.
I look forward to the normal sprays we get from the government opposite because you have failed to deliver economic outcomes for the Territory. You are ribbon cutting Labor projects, claiming Labor projects as your own and even claiming a conference brought to the Territory by former Labor Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, as your own because you are so desperate.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the Chief Minister’s statement. It was interesting listening to the Leader of the Opposition answer the Chief Minister and hear some of the wild claims she made. My colleagues will be able to rebut just about every one of those claims, and I am sure they will do so in their contributions to this debate.
The Leader of the Opposition used the word ‘embarrassed’. ‘I am embarrassed by the Chief Minister and the government.’ I do not know what there is to be embarrassed about when the debt is going down, crime is going down, and the economy is going up. However, I am also embarrassed at the level of debt the Northern Territory has. When I talk to my children – not so much to my grandkids but my children – I explain the debt to them. They sit with their mouths open and say, ‘Wow, I did not realise I was in that much debt. I did not realise the federal government had left such a huge debt legacy.’
There are a couple of things you can do when you are in deep debt: cut spending or jack taxes up. I noted in the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report yesterday that receipts are up for the Northern Territory. There are a couple of ways you can get out of debt so we are not all embarrassed about the legacy we were left by the previous Labor government. You can raise taxes or you can increase economic development.
This Giles government has chosen economic development as the way to go and also to cut out waste we found totalled tens of millions of dollars. When you are left with a debt of $5.5bn – and the opposition seem to think that is okay – that is a debt to income ratio of 98%. We have seen from other states and countries around the world that it is unsustainable; you cannot keep going in that direction. My mother understood that when she used to run our household. It is not rocket science, it is basic Economics 101.
However, Labor thought that was great. My favourite graph shows the pyramids of debt Labor created.
How do you reduce debt? You stimulate economic development by opening the doors and making sure that people have the ability. I believe there is a debate coming in this House later today on the reduction of red tape and getting rid of a cost of doing business. I heard the Chief Minister answer a question this morning saying that between 2006 and 2011 the Northern Territory government had the worst record of creating red tape which got in the way of people doing business.
That is the worst record of any government in Australia. Who was in power? The current opposition led by the Leader of the Opposition, who was the Treasurer. It was the ALP government which was in charge in the Northern Territory at that time, creating all of that red tape which is an impost on business.
I found it quite hypocritical when the Opposition Leader said the sky is falling because we are in government, and everything they did was fantastic and they claim credit. A previous Country Liberal government secured ConocoPhillips for the Northern Territory. You will hear the opposition claim all of that is their doing. They were opposed to the railway, yet when I attended the opening the then Chief Minister, Clare Martin, was on the train, hanging out the window, waving to everyone, saying, ‘Aren’t we fantastic? Look what we have.’ It is a bit cute that the Opposition Leader said everything we are doing is riding on the coat-tails of a former ALP government. I do not agree with her on that, and we will probably have to agree to disagree.
The Opposition Leader claims all sorts of things, but on this side we have a different view. We are about getting on and developing the Northern Territory, and creating economic activity and opportunities. That is why you will find a record spending allocation for roads in the current budget. We understand roads, bridges and infrastructure are the economic enablers that will allow business to get on with doing what they do best. Governments are not that good at generating wealth, but we are good at spending it. But the Giles government is very careful about how we spend taxpayers’ dollars, as opposed to the other side which kept racking up the debt on credit cards. It went up almost vertically at one stage.
Seeing the debt level on coming to government, I was appalled at where Labor had taken us with no real goals and plan – it was just a matter of spending money. I have mentioned before that in the Department of Children and Family Services 192 people on the books were not budgeted for. They just kept borrowing money to pay wages.
We came into government with a huge debt. In the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report yesterday – I could stand corrected – our current projected debt to income ratio is 53%. What an achievement, all while economic activity is going on. We lead the country in so many ways.
In May this year I hosted a National Remote and Regional Transport Infrastructure and Services Forum in Alice Springs. We had representatives from around the country, and it was about what goes on in regional, rural and remote Australia. That is firmly where the Northern Territory sits. People who attended this included representatives of the Australian Trucking Association, the Australian livestock industry and the Rural Transport Association.
Those people were very grateful to hear we are spending a record amount on roads and bridges. I had people contact not only my office but also the Department of Transport about roads, bridges and other requirements. Most of those people are fairly understanding and quite grateful when you tell them we are spending a record amount this year on those issues. They understand we do not have a magic wand; we do not have billions of dollars this year to fix every road in the Northern Territory. We prioritise by consulting industry to make sure we get it as right as we can. We have had much feedback from those people I just mentioned to say we are getting it right in most cases. Obviously we would like to do more, but when you are constrained by record debt levels, both in the Territory and federally, it is an issue.
The opposition constantly says the Chief Minister goes to Canberra and does not receive much money. Every state and the Australian Capital Territory are in the same boat. I have been to Canberra seeking money, but it is difficult to get. The federal government does not have any money but has a huge debt, unlike the Rudd/Gillard government which had money when it came to power. When the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer she could go to Canberra and say, ‘I need some money’, and get it. Do you know why? Because the previous Howard/Costello government removed $96bn of Labor debt. It had paid it off and reached the point where the Australian government owed zero. I will say that again: the Australian government did not have any debt. In fact, it had $45bn in the bank when the Rudd/Gillard regime took over ...
Mr Elferink: We needed some pink batts after that, apparently.
Mr STYLES: We did. We needed some of those and TV sets. We needed to send a lot of money to China for a lot of television sets.
When the Leader of the Opposition accuses this government of not going to Canberra and getting sufficient money, I find that appalling. For those people listening or reading the Hansard I will say that again: when Rudd took over, there was $45bn in the bank. When the current Leader of the Opposition became Treasurer in the previous government just after that, the Australian government had money in the bank.
I am sure everyone in this room has gone to their parents and said, ‘Dad, can I borrow some money? Mum, can I borrow some money?’ If mum and dad have some, quite often they will lend it to you. But when I was growing up, going to mum and dad to ask for a loan, they said, ‘We cannot do that at the moment because we just do not have the cash. We have debts and we have to be a little careful.’
If you go there now and see the Australian Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and talk to him about money, you are constantly reminded of the $667bn the previous Labor government racked up on the credit card. That is a big number. I will say for those who read this that a billion seconds ago it was 1957, a billion minutes ago Jesus Christ walked the earth and a billion hours ago no one on this earth walked on two legs. So a billion is a really big figure. The Australian government and people owe 667 of them. That is a lot of $100 bills. Most people would find it very hard to imagine what size and how many football fields stacked up to about 10 stories high $667bn is.
This is the context in which we are looking at creating economic development in the Northern Territory. When I look at that, I worry about my children’s future. In fact, I worry about my grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s future because it will be a long time before they get back to the stage when the Australian government has money in the bank.
We are in a situation in the Territory where we hope to be down to a reasonable debt level by 2017-18. The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report yesterday was glowing in relation to the fiscal management of the Northern Territory.
I move on. In relation to the seminar I hosted, this is …
Mr Elferink: Six-hundred-and-fifty billion dollar coins would get you to the moon and back.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STYLES: Right. Six hundred and fifty billion dollar coins would get you to the moon and back. That is something I can give to my granddaughter and say, ‘Here, Madison, work this out’. I do not think she realises how far away the moon is yet, but she will grow up and, before we pay that debt, she will understand. In fact, her children will understand how many dollar coins it takes to get to the moon and what a big number that is.
As I said, hosting the key seminars and conferences is critical to raising our profile interstate and internationally, and exposing visitors to these events and opportunities that exist in the Northern Territory. Ministers on this side travel with clear purpose in their minds as to what they want to achieve. My colleague, the minister for Primary Industry, travels to countries extensively to help support our cattle industry after the devastating effects of the 2011 ban by Senator Ludwig. Look at what we have: 500 000 cattle to go across our wharf this time. This is what these conferences are about. This is why we go to events. It is about creating economic development.
You have to think along these lines. When I hear the opposition members talk, I often wonder where the business experience and the wealth creation is over there. As they continually demonstrate, they are very good at spending money, but I do not know if they are any good at generating wealth or being part of a team, with industry and private enterprise, to generate wealth for the Northern Territory and the people who live here.
These conferences are about creating opportunities and an environment where business can flourish, which is part of our philosophical belief. Our job is to create an environment where people who operate businesses in the Northern Territory can see them flourish because they employ people. Small business employs about 84% of people in this country. We have to create an environment for small business. That is why there is another debate coming on about the reduction of red tape so small business can do what it does well – creating jobs for people.
We often hear about opportunities for people. In fact, during Question Time this morning I told a story about economic development opportunities for Aboriginal industries. We have many trained, educated people so it is not extra training and education they want, it is job opportunities. We are changing the way we do business to create opportunities so people can use the capacity they have built so far, then increase that capacity so they do not have to become subcontractors, they can get head contracts and become managing contractors in the various works the Northern Territory government contracts out year by year.
There is a great opportunity for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to get involved in wealth creation, not only for the benefit of all Territorians, but to benefit Indigenous organisations, those they employ and also those based in the bush and rural areas where job opportunities are so desperately needed. We are working very hard to make that happen, and I was very pleased to announce that today.
I was part of a group of people who went to Jakarta in May last year. I had quite a few meetings with the minister for Housing and the minister for – I forget which development area it was. As a result of that, we have another conference coming to Darwin of all the practising architects in Indonesia. It is known as the AusIndo Arch1 Conference to be held in Darwin in the first week of November. It follows from the National Architects Awards being held that week, and will give participants from both events an opportunity to attend the presentations and the AusIndo conference.
A large number of practising architects from the majority of provinces in Indonesia will be attending, funded by the Indonesian government. Hosting both events in the same week provides an opportunity for interaction between Australian and Indonesian professionals, and possibly of intellectual property sharing and future business opportunities. This is about creating opportunities in a two-way street with our largest neighbour.
This is the first time this conference has been held in Darwin and it is happening because of the foresight of the Country Liberal government. We look at these opportunities and then we do not talk about it, we do it. I look forward to the conference and what comes out of it.
Yesterday the Department of Transport presented me with a very important strategic paper which it has been instrumental in drafting, in collaboration with other agencies. It will be part of the Northern Territory government’s response to the Green Paper on Developing Northern Australia. It is a comprehensive document that will inform development of the white paper.
There are a number of key issues in this paper and I will discuss a few of them. Northern Australia lacks the transport infrastructure to support the anticipated acceleration and economic growth in the north. We are continually in dialogue with our federal counterparts, especially our state counterparts in Western Australia and Queensland …
Mr HIGGINS A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, member for Daly. It is well known that we in the Territory are the poor cousins. In fact, I signed a couple of documents to go to Canberra today in relation to continually reminding our colleagues that the economic enablers, the transport-related roads, bridges and that type of infrastructure is what we need to get economic growth going, not only in Darwin and our major regional centres, but in the outlying rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory. The provision of such infrastructure is a priority among the range of requirements to support developments that will greatly add to the nation’s long-term prosperity.
This is not just necessarily about us, it is about the nation. Any nation that finds itself in deep debt needs to work harder and smarter. It is about getting that competitive advantage.
I recall talking to one of my colleagues in South Australia about what they might do in the future. When taking out minerals from South Australia they ship them south. It is further away from some of their markets so they travel further south. They then have to obtain a ship and travel from the Adelaide port to Darwin, which takes about 10 days. This means a return trip is nearly three weeks with extra costs of running the ship. They also load it and rail it in South Australia, and they are talking about loading it and railing it to Darwin.
These are the possibilities we are talking about. What possibilities are there in Queensland? I heard on the news this morning about the Great Barrier Reef and some of the crowding issues that Queensland has in its ports.
We are about economic development and having discussions. These are the sorts of things talked about in conferences: economic development and opportunities, the railway line from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek to join up with our north/south rail corridor and the railway line from Kununurra to Katherine. It is about looking at all of these things.
I do not have enough time this afternoon to talk about all of the things being discussed in the Transport portfolio that will contribute to the overall economic growth of the Northern Territory.
Anything we do anywhere in the country is good. We can create employment and economic development in the Northern Territory and get better infrastructure. We have the opportunity to give Australian companies and producers a competitive advantage by reducing their cost of production and getting their goods to market.
I spoke to someone recently who is in the iron ore industry – in fact, not so recently; it was before the price of iron ore dropped. I said to this person, ‘You are in the iron ore business, you mine iron ore’. He said, ‘Not really’. I said, ‘What do you do then? You dig iron ore out of the ground?’ He said, ‘Yes we do that, but we are actually in the logistics business’. I understood what he said but I asked him to explain from his perspective as to what he actually does. He said, ‘Everybody knows around the world this is the price your clients will pay unless you are locked in for long-term prices, and iron ore purchasers do not normally do that. They have shorter-term contracts. The price is X number of dollars per tonne of iron ore. If that is what they are paying, my job is to get that ore to the port of unloading at the cheapest possible price.’ His job is not about the price of the iron ore, it is about getting the competitive advantage in the transportation costs. That is what I was discussing with him.
In what we are doing in getting transport under control, the Territory government’s contribution has been a record amount spent on roads. We understand that, but it is about making sure projects come down the pipeline, like the railway connection to Mount Isa, where you can join in with what they are doing with exporting. It is about looking at what might be good for South Australia to transport those minerals. What will happen to some of the stuff close to the Western Australia border? Where will that go? These are things about which we are working extremely hard so they flow up through the Northern Territory and, in particular, through Darwin.
We will need a new port at some stage. We would like to make sure we need it now. If we needed a new port now that would be a great problem to have. I am looking forward to having that problem. My colleague, the Minister for Mines and Energy, is talking to the same people I am talking to. I feel confident he will talk about some of that when he contributes to this debate.
It is so very important that the people of the Northern Territory understand their government is working hard behind the scenes to make sure there are projects coming online. There are some significant projects being discussed. Obviously, due to commercial-in-confidence matters, I cannot talk about some of those projects. Some of those things will be, and have been, discussed in Cabinet.
I am looking forward to listening to other contributions to this debate. My comments in relation to what we have done in contributing to the development of the white aper on developing the north – there is a bright future. When my children ask me what will happen in the future for the Northern Territory, I say I would not want to be anywhere else. The Northern Territory is the place to be. We will bring debt under control because the Giles Country Liberals government has a plan that we are executing. The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report demonstrates this government is fiscally responsible and can clean up the mess we inherited from Labor.
There is no doubt the opposition will claim all sorts of things, but I ask people either reading this or listening to it to read the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. You can see what is in it and make up your own mind. You do not have to listen to me or the opposition. I ask people to have a good look at what is going on in the Territory, what went on in the Territory during the 11 years of Labor government and the years between 2006 and 2011, when the then Labor government created the largest amount of red tape to be put in front of business. Look at what we are doing to get rid of that red tape and clean up all of those little messy things that get in the way of business. Often it is unnecessary red tape. We have removed much of it so far and we will get rid of more. Where we find red tape we will reduce it, because it is impinging upon businesses’ ability to get on with business.
The nature of business in the Territory has changed from when I arrived 33 years ago. There was a lot of government involvement in things. Private industry will lead the way. I am looking forward to increases in the oil and gas industries here. The Department of Transport is looking very carefully at what we may have to do. There is planning happening to facilitate a range of industries, including new ones. It is really important people have confidence in the government, that it is open for business and we will listen to their concerns and work with them.
Andrew Liveris’ book Make it In America: The Case for Re-Inventing the Economy is a very good book about creating wealth at home and keeping things at home. When I spoke to Andrew Liveris about it he said to change the word ‘America’ to ‘Australia’ in the title, and if you follow it you cannot go wrong. It is an interesting book, and I encourage people to read it. It is about generating wealth and creating jobs for our future. Small business and big businesses like INPEX are leaders that will create economic growth.
Madam Speaker, it behoves governments to work with private industry, hand-in-hand, to ensure the opportunities are there for those businesses to flourish. They are the people who will employ locals and generate the wealth which pays the taxes that gives us the ability to be a government.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, in my contribution to the debate, all I have to work off is the Chief Minister’s words which I received at 8 am this morning. In the essence of democracy, we have had to work off what the Chief Minister is telling us. We have had a couple of hours to do it amongst all the other duties we have. I am privileged to participate and offer my contribution to the debate.
Last week I advised our young Chief Minister of an old saying, ‘You need to have a good memory to be a liar’. Today I offer our young Chief Minister another old saying, ‘Do what I do, not do what I say’. It is interesting to see that our statesman and lead minister in the Northern Territory, the person who is on the world stage representing the Northern Territory, continues to use these cheap political slaps when Territorians are screaming from the streets and from the back blocks, ‘We want a statesman’.
For such an important conference which the Chief Minister is reporting on – the Australia Japan Joint Business Conference held in Darwin – it is lucky it is not on today because I would hate to think of those esteemed Japanese delegates watching the ABC news tonight with file footage of the Northern Territory Chief Minister in complete meltdown in Question Time, screaming across the Chamber all sorts of allegations and abuse when conducting the simple objective of trying to avoid telling the truth.
Chief Minister, I can only work off what you say. This came in the second paragraph. You started off with a negative and immediately denigrated the previous Labor government. Then you went on a word search to try to convince the listeners that when Paul Henderson, the previous Chief Minister, brokered the 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference in Darwin, it was a good thing. We should be able to celebrate that together.
The Chief Minister, who started off with a very negative approach, denigrating the previous Labor government, then launched into a paragraph which said:
- A highlight of the conference was the Chief Minister’s welcome reception held at the Darwin Convention Centre.
I will briefly talk about the Darwin Convention Centre and the Chief Minister’s spin on how there was absolutely nothing happening before and it has all happened in the last 18 months under the Country Liberal Party. Let us have a closer look: the Darwin Convention Centre; the Darwin waterfront; the major upgrade of Stokes Hill Wharf; the cruise ship terminal; bringing the Charles Darwin University CBD Campus to the waterfront; and the Greater Darwin Area Land Use Plan that showed the visionary plan to extend the waterfront right through Frances Bay, which incorporates the ribbons of green and those important public open spaces. We could go on to look at the master plan of suburbs in the greater Darwin area and those land release programs across the Northern Territory.
It is interesting to see a paragraph which said nothing is happening, yet we can start at what is a world-class precinct which would have impressed those esteemed delegates at that conference, being the Darwin waterfront and Darwin Convention Centre.
As a teacher of many years, having toured this city with many regional and remote school groups, I can still remember and tell the story of standing in ankle-deep mud at the waterfront with a rusty 44-gallon drum rolling around on the tide. I am now able to go to a world-class precinct and share with the rest of the world the potential Darwin has and envisages into the future.
Chief Minister, as our statesman, please drop the negatives and get into the real business of the statement which I received this morning under this punitive policy of a mean-spirited government to keep me in the dark and ill-informed. I heard the Chief Minister adding new components to the statement, so it is not only that I do not get this information to process honestly and with integrity from the government, I then get additions.
The Chief Minister is looking at adding downstream petrochemical industries. That slipped into a paragraph not there at 8 am, not until delivery of the speech. I would like to debate that because it sounds very interesting. It was a one-liner, not in the original statement, and I daresay the Chief Minister will provide an update for the House and the constituency of the Northern Territory on what is planned for downstream petrochemical industries.
The semantics used by the Chief Minister were unfortunate when he said it was not an accident. That links to the story about esteemed Japanese delegates in Darwin sharing the Chief Minister’s hospitality. When we heard the word ‘accident’, it was a terrible accident in Japan for the previous Chief Minister, Terry Mills. It was a most unfortunate accident for Mr Mills, who incurred a fatal political blow while on a very high-level trade mission to Japan. I am sure the Chief Minister will be remembered in history for what happened to the previous Chief Minister, how this current Chief Minister achieved the position and how the Territory is screaming out for a true statesman who will rise to the occasion and represent all Territorians across the great northern part of Australia.
There was then a move to discuss Defence. Chief Minister, I acknowledge the incredible Australian Army Remote Community Construction Project that is just completing in Canteen Creek and Epenarra. The legacy of that project is not only a bitumen road that supplies dust suppression for the small township of Canteen Creek, but also some significant infrastructure at Epenarra relating to a mechanical workshop and a community centre. There was also much ancillary work done around those communities while the Army had that capacity on-site. It was an incredible project with 120 service personnel on-site in a self-sufficient Army camp set up on Kurundi Station, working between the two remote townships of Epenarra and Canteen Creek, engaging with the community, offering training and doing a lot of good work-ready skill-type accredited training. There was a fantastic welding course which had an equal number of women participating as men. There was so much good activity going on and the Barkly was able to benefit from that, particularly these communities.
Chief Minister, I draw your attention to those micro-opportunities across the regions for engaging with our Defence services. That was another example of real mentoring on the ground with an incredible outcome of infrastructure legacy, but also the opportunity to recruit and provide regional and remote residents with a career pathway through the Defence services. I have not seen a better example of the community living, working and sharing space with our highly professionalised Defence services and seeing delivery of infrastructure and those projects.
Chief Minister, I appreciate the macro-opportunities for the Northern Territory in Defence. There is an example of some very good micro-opportunities. I encourage you to take an interest in that and possibly broaden the imagination to see what could be done, maybe even in the area of Indigenous housing.
It was interesting to then read about the Land Development Corporation and the great work it does, and the plans with its joint venture potential with the Australian Defence Force in infrastructure provision. At the same time, we have just seen legislation moved through by the Chief Minister where he is getting rid of the Board of the Land Development Corporation and setting up opportunities to handpick and take complete control while he is also dipping into the Land Development Corporation funds. I saw that as a contradictory element in this statement. Those other statements around Defence and the work he plans to do with the United States are very interesting.
I was also very interested when the Chief Minister talked about agribusiness and the investment in northern Australia, particularly about the research focus on genetic improvement of Territory cattle, better understanding and managing of rangeland resources, and research into the better management of our fisheries and reef resources.
I take this opportunity to mention the change in that industry relating to the offshore fishing industry move from traditional line and trap to trawlers. I hope you are aware of this, Chief Minister, and are taking a keen interest in this transition where the Territory is moving towards that mega outcome of trawler licences. We need to be very cognisant of the environmental impacts, especially relating to coral reefs, so we can see the ecosystems that support our fisheries. We can also see the examples on the east coast where the trawling operations can have major impacts on our coral reefs. The area we are moving into is the Timor Box. There is potential in offshore fishing areas where there is a move to this major industry approach to trawling licences. I encourage you to look at this closely and ensure we have the balance right. In your statement you talked about a research-focused approach. I hope there would be a similar level of research going into the offshore reef fish resources, as well as the inshore resources.
There is an important debate that has to happen. It relates to the Minister for Infrastructure. On one hand we heard, again, that the government is broke, and on the other hand, of record infrastructure budgets. On the one hand, we see budget papers that show there have been reductions of $98m in the infrastructure spend, but on the other hand we see where money is being spent. Once again, I debate priorities in this House.
In the Minister for Infrastructure’s contribution, he talked about a conference, such as the Chief Minister reported on, and advice from industry. That is a great way of doing business. I refer to the media release from the 28 October 2014 from the member for Daly and the Minister for Transport about a $30m government initiative to develop a regional road network. Having been advised by the industry, this money is then allocated. But it just happens to fall in CLP electorates. So I am sure the minister took away from that conference the well-balanced advice that this important $30m investment should only be spent in CLP electorates.
I will again challenge the minister, it is about supply chain logistics and the strategic economic roads package initiative.
I acknowledge the Tanami Road. As minister Styles said in the media release:
- Minister Styles said the continued sealing of the Tanami Road will support local industry and economic development in Australia.
‘This funding will provide three times the regular annual seal of the Tanami ...
The previous government was investing just over $4m each year that allowed about 4 km of the Tanami to be sealed, so it is good to read this minister is investing $12m. That will be three times the annual spend on the Tanami.
However, the Sandover Highway is falling to pieces. The Sandover Highway degradation, because of the lack of annual repairs and maintenance funding, as well as minor new works funding, is a serious threat to development. The Sandover Highway is just like the Tanami. It is a major logistic in the supply chain, not only servicing the beef industry, a multitude of Aboriginal communities, both small town communities and outstations, and the tourist trade but also the new minerals, resources and energy exploration programs. We have a lot of exploration going on in that area.
These projects are what the Chief Minister talked about in his statement. These projects are what the Minister for Infrastructure wants to support, yet he is ignoring a very important supply chain logistic through the Northern Territory, linking into Queensland for beef, mining, communities and tourism. The irony is that this high activity and the multiple users of that infrastructure are creating the need for targeted investment. I take the Minister for Infrastructure to task there.
I can see the logic around the investment in this media release; however, it seemed to ignore other electorates and very strategic areas of the Northern Territory. I am sure the minister will acknowledge that sooner or later. We cannot afford to put another 12 km of seal on the Tanami while the Sandover Highway becomes impassable. We have a serious problem with store trucks carrying clinic supplies to the township of Alpurrulum. When store trucks are bogged in the middle of the Dry Season in major bulldust patches where the degradation has become so severe that we cannot pass on that road, we have serious problems.
I will give another example about targeted investment and a minister who said there is no money yet there is money. There is $400 000 allocated to the regional bush bus services, which is a major initiative of the previous Labor government that the Chief Minister tried to denigrate. It was interesting to see that whole area evolve – never before in the bush. When we talk about a $400 000 investment we are talking about servicing regional and remote communities in a geographic area the size of New South Wales.
However, if we go to the Treasurer’s annual statement we see the Tiwi Islands ferry service received a $924 000 investment. That is an incredible investment for the Tiwi Islands. No doubt the member for Arafura is very impressed with that and being able to communicate it to constituents on the Tiwi Islands. However, I daresay he will be be challenged by his constituents across the rest of the electorate, particularly on that top road around Maningrida, and around Gunbalanya. That area of the electorate has some great needs in transport logistics and infrastructure. There is $400 000 for bush bus services covering the majority of the Northern Territory and $924 000 for the Tiwi Islands ferry service.
Minister, once again, there is money. I challenge you on the allocation of that money. For the good people of Katherine, the latest announcement of $5.5m for the Stuart Highway bicentennial road upgrade – there was $10m, so where has the other $4.5m gone? There was $10m of federal money for heavy vehicle diversion around Katherine. The media release said $5.5m, $4.5m is the balance. Can it go to the Sandover Highway? I ask the minister once. Can it go to the Sandover Highway? I ask the minister twice. Can it go to the Sandover Highway, or maybe those important areas in the member for Arafura’s electorate? I ask the minister a third time. We need to be honest with Territorians; we need to be straight. We need a statesman up-front talking up the Territory.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak on the Chief Minister’s statement this afternoon. If you believed half the rhetoric that comes from the other side, there is no way you would invest in the Northern Territory. All you hear from the Labor opposition is negativity. The Leader of the Opposition repeatedly talks down the economy and everything else about the Northern Territory. If that is the way she approaches developers, businesses or anybody who is looking at investing in the Northern Territory, God help us! There is no way in the world they would be excited about the opportunities this place has, and will have, in not only the near future but the long-term future.
Some exciting stuff is happening. After eleven-and-a-half years of hard Labor, members have now been shown for what they are, where they spent five or six years of that eleven-and-a-half years working out how to make things tougher for business. There are a few things that have come to the fore in recent times. Yes, it has taken us a couple of years to sort out the mess but we, on this side of the House, are laying an extremely solid foundation to springboard the Northern Territory well into the future for Territorians and anybody else who wants to come from not only Australia but around the world and call themselves Territorians. They are welcome to come here and invest, live, grow and learn. The government is prepared to do that to make the hard decisions, and is laying that foundation.
I touched on the red tape because there are three things the Territory needs that this government is providing: stable government; a far better, sound base for the economy; and fixing the red tape issue. Deloitte’s Building the Lucky Country report showed that over a five-year period the Territory had the fastest growth – not in building, businesses, confidence or people coming to live here, but in red tape. How would you like that on your mantel? Are you proud of that? Pretty proud of that one. ‘How do we make it tougher for business in the Northern Territory?’ …
Mr Elferink: The biggest complaint I have heard from members opposite is we have not passed legislation in this sittings.
Mr CHANDLER: We have not passed legislation!
The fastest growth in red tape compliance in proportion to the workforce is a key indicator that regulation was also on the rise. That, according to Deloitte, cost businesses in the Northern Territory about $4bn a year. As the architect of the red tape straightjacket for local businesses, the Opposition Leader should be ashamed.
We have launched an aggressive blitz on red tape since coming into government, winning warm praise from Deloitte for our efforts. Since the Country Liberals were elected in 2012, almost 200 initiatives have been completed or are under way across government to slash red tape. I will ask again how would you like that on your mantel as your only praise of glory, that we were allowed to grow red tape in four or five years to cost businesses $4bn? They not only not released land, which sent up the prices of housing in the Northern Territory like never before, all they did was apply more and more red tape to business.
We knew where we were, we knew what we had to do, and as a government, we got on to it.
Not only that, the second thing we will talk about today is the economic footprint of the Northern Territory. Over the years it went from probably a size six to a size 13 or 14. The economic footprint, with a debt created by the Labor government, was growing. In fact, the big toe blew out of the boot.
The latest Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report shows the Giles government is successfully nursing the Territory’s finances back to health. The numbers have been mentioned today. It is testament of a fiscally sound government that it has been able to turn around the fiscal position of the Northern Territory. Every dollar we are not spending on interest can be reinvested into the Northern Territory. That is not investing into financial institutions but into people, services and growing the Northern Territory. A government should facilitate business, get out of the way of business and not add more regulation. All Labor seemed to be good at was building regulations and making things more complicated and costly. Slowly but surely we are unpacking that, dissecting it, opening the box and making the Northern Territory a place where people are proud to do business.
I cannot believe the number of people, including developers and investors, who have been knocking on our door wanting to speak to us. This is not just local developers and investors, but people from overseas looking at the Northern Territory for the very first time. When bank owners approach you, they do not need to source finance to invest; they already have the finance. Some of these people own banks and want to invest in the Northern Territory. Why? Because they can see what this government is doing and how solid we are making the foundation to build in the Northern Territory. They can see a government that is getting out of the way and helping business to grow in the Northern Territory.
When you have bank owners wanting to invest here it is surprising. I have seen that twice in recent times. It is as if a light has been shone on the Northern Territory. There is a number of factors, and as a government we should not take all the kudos. The federal government has a focus on the north. Our aim, as a government in the Northern Territory, will be to ensure the federal government backs its claims. We will chase the federal government to back its claim it wants to develop the north. With the federal and Northern Territory governments’ approach to developing the north, it is as if a bright light has begun to shine on the Northern Territory.
When you have international bankers knocking on your door wanting to invest, a couple of things have happened. The bankers and other investors wanting to invest here all want to work with local developers. I am yet to speak to somebody who wants to bring in developers from overseas to do the work. No, they want to bring their money in.
They are not looking for short-term investments but long-term investments. They are businesses looking at 20 and 30 years and beyond – long-term investments – because they see the Northern Territory is providing a solid base to build on.
It is making Australian banks look north at how they can invest because they know if they do not get in on this they will miss out. It does not matter where the money comes from in the world, it can help build the Northern Territory. That is what we need.
I have heard the Chief Minister say many times – the Minister for Infrastructure also said it – we are perhaps 100 years behind when it comes to infrastructure to support growth in the north. Yes, we need roads, bridges, new subdivisions and more land release and we need to build a solid Territory that will attract more people north. The old saying is, ‘Build it and they will come’. It is being built. There are solid investors looking at the Territory for the first time.
That is why we have a record land release program with $135m invested in it. After getting on top of the budget, getting rid of red tape and attracting business to the Northern Territory, the very next thing this government needs to do is have enough land available to develop. The government needs to have enough land available so the Minister for Housing can build more houses. Other investors can come and build houses so people have decent property to rent, buy, own or invest in. You cannot do it without land release. That is why $135m has been put aside this year.
I want to read through some of these things because I have often heard the member for Barkly suggest we have done nothing in this area. He is so wrong. I will go through some of these and he will get up and say they are all his ideas. I heard the member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, say earlier ‘That was our idea’. Of course, everything we are doing on this side is their idea. They had a thought bubble at some stage but they did not get around to actually doing it.
There are nearly 6000 new residential dwellings we are in the process of working on. Kilgariff Stage 1A in Alice Springs will yield 33 lots. Member for Katherine, in Katherine East Stage 1, 180 lots and support for more than 240 dwellings. How long since land has been released in Katherine? Probably many years …
Mr Westra van Holthe: There was a very small release a few years ago and before that it was in the 1980s.
Mr CHANDLER: In the 1980s. Stage 2 is anticipated to yield 275 residential dwellings. The average price point is between $110 000 and $130 000. Zuccoli in Palmerston, Stage 2, will have 550 dwellings. Stages 3 and 4 of Zuccoli will yield 750 lots resulting in approximately 1300 dwellings. Stage 5 will deliver approximately 340 lots, enough land for about 500 dwellings. The Average price is in the range of $160 000 and $180 000. Price points are built into the contract, something the previous government did not, would not, or just did not know how to do. Berrimah Farm has land for as many as 3000 dwellings. A vibrant inner-city vibe in a suburban setting – how nice will that be? The site will go out as an englobo release with 24 ha identified for community purpose, including research facilities, education facilities and other community use. Holtze has around 1500 potential dwellings surrounding the new Palmerston Regional Hospital, expected to be released to the market in early 2015. Also released will be a bunch of industrial land to support businesses.
When I first became the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I had known about many complaints in the rural area where people were undertaking businesses on land that was not appropriately zoned to undertake those businesses. There were not just one or two, but right across. There were complaints everywhere about people using their land inappropriately in accordance with the zoning. One of the first things I thought about was if that was occurring, what did the previous government do to release industrial land in Humpty Doo?
It is one thing to say people are effectively breaking the law, but what was the previous government doing to ensure it did not have to break the law? If you have not released land in the Humpty Doo area for industrial purposes for many years, you are forcing people into a position of undertaking some of these business on their land that may be zoned Rural Residential or any other type of zone, but not zoned for that. It was a bit rough to suggest that government should be prosecuting and fining these people who were using the land this way without having land available in those areas.
In Humpty Doo there is a 37.5 ha greenfield industrial site which will be 40 industrial lots, ranging in size from 4000 m up to one block which I believe is 14 400 m. Construction works are expected to be completed by late 2015. In Berrimah, a 26.8 ha industrial site near the college will be released to the market in September with 60 industrial lots of mixed sizes. Submissions close on 1 December 2014. Other industrial works are happening at Darwin Business Park, providing additional industrial lots at Darwin Business Park north, providing access to further industrial lots by extending Muramats Road at East Arm, and continuation of works on Wishart Road.
We are also undertaking design for additional lots in Tennant Creek. That is something I thought the member for Barkly would have done when he was the Minister for Lands and Planning. I am sorry, I should not say they did not do anything about it; they had another thought bubble.
Much is happening in our regions. As I said during Question Time today, there are 23 lots in Peko Road in Tennant Creek, 20 lots in Kalkarindji and 38 lots in Borroloola. There are also a number of releases on the program in other communities – as I also said today in Question Time – such as Pine Creek, Mataranka, Timber Creek and Ti Tree. These are not just thought bubbles, this is well-planned in areas where we need to stimulate economic growth.
One of the things I have touched on today is red tape and what this government is doing in that area. I want to touch on my area of Lands, Planning and the Environment, where we have taken an axe to red tape.
What is government’s role? What should government’s role be when dealing with our business community? I see a government’s role as facilitation. It should facilitate business to do the work. The philosophy from the other side is that governments should do everything, which is fine. You can have that view, and you will always have a view about having big government which has to do all the work, provide all jobs and do everything else. You are quite welcome to that view. There are certain areas government should work in. There will always be things government should do, but equally there are so many things today where government should not be in business, particularly when the business world can do it better. It can do a better job, provide better services and usually do it at a far better cost than government.
The role of government is to facilitate business so it can get on, invest and have faith in its government to develop and strengthen the Northern Territory. We believe our role is to be enablers to allow business to get on with the job. We have introduced a number of measures so we can get out of the way and let that happen.
We have introduced the nation’s first ever online building approvals process, which has been hugely successful. In fact, 86% of all applications now coming into the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment are being done online. That is 86% for a brand-new system. No other jurisdiction has this, but there are other jurisdictions that are looking at it. It is exciting to think a jurisdiction the size of the Northern Territory is leading the way. We also have the quickest approvals process in the Northern Territory bar none. Again, we are leading the way compared to other jurisdictions in the country.
We passed legislation to allow developers to concurrently apply for rezoning and the development of land. There has been argument against that to say perhaps things are moving through too quickly and that it does not allow the community to look. I argue strongly against that. I suggest that when somebody uses a two-part process you are more likely to get away with something than doing it together, where people can see from the outset what the land will be rezoned to and what will be on the land. It is far more accountable and open than the previous system.
However, the previous system is still there if people want to use it, because the concurrent process is not for everyone. This move in itself could save around three months for any proposal. In anyone’s world in private business three months could be the difference between a successful or not-so-successful development, or a financially viable development and a non-financially sustainable development.
Last week the government put forward a planning scheme amendment to remove any restrictions on the height of buildings in Darwin’s CBD. We are going through the open process where it is out for public feedback. That could be opened up and used as a lever to fix up what, in the current planning scheme, is absolute rot that …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could I seek an extension under Standing Order 77 for the minister, please?
Motion agreed to.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly. This must be enthralling speech writing. It is not the delivery, of course, it is the speech writing and the hard work that is put into this …
Mr Higgins: It is hearing the truth.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes. Some people have criticised the suggested removal of the 90 m building heights in Darwin CBD. The current planning scheme with a 90 m building height is causing our city to grow into streets of walls. Buildings can be built so close together without any preservation of views, facilitation of breezes, or any ability for developers – who go higher into the sky, break through this arbitrary line that exists for who knows what reason – to stimulate what happens at the ground level. Let us face it, 95% of us are active at the street level; few of us are active up high …
Mr Elferink: The member supports it.
Mr CHANDLER: The local member supports it, absolutely.
If we can stimulate and invigorate our developers to that point, we can have gaps between our buildings where we preserve views, breezes can flow through, and we can have coffee shops, seats, and pathways that enliven our city. Some of the cities I have been fortunate to visit, not only around Australia but around the world, have come alive because they have people at the street level with coffee shops and walkability. Street cars or light rail systems come into the cities, where cars are frowned upon, because they are trying to turn the cities into liveable places where people can walk around freely.
That is something we could turn our Darwin CBD into, but we have to get away from creating these streets of walls which the current scheme allows. We want to break that cycle and improve our city landscape and make this into the tropical city it could be.
We would be foolish if we did not look very seriously at using the lever of building heights to do this. I encourage people to look at what we are trying to do, and have their two cent’s worth – whether they are for it or against – because the more people who put in submissions, the better the decisions we ultimately make as a government.
This is a government that has been extremely responsive to the marketplace. All the measures of red tape reduction we have been working on have not been dreamed up in some back office, they have come from business, developers and people who have skin in the game and know what the previous government caused them when it comes to overregulation within industry. Those ideas have been fleshed out, tested and, where possible, removed, and in some cases reduced, to ensure we facilitate business again so we can support them do what they do best.
We have been able to streamline the unit titles process, now requiring one service authority clearance – a massive cash flow issue for developers. We have looked at things like granny flats. As I said before, planning applications can be lodged online. The height limits are being looked at. The Development Consent Authority agendas are now available online. We are criticised for not consulting with people and not being open and accountable. For goodness sake, we have agendas now available online. People can see before meetings what will happen at them. They can get the information well before the meetings to ensure they are equipped and decide if they need to attend those meetings. We have introduced Australia’s first online building approval system. As I said before, 83% of applicants are now using that system.
Uniform subdivision and development guidelines across councils have tested us because local governments like to protect their patch. In some areas things were different in Darwin to Palmerston, Litchfield, Katherine, Alice Springs and many other areas across the Territory. Many of those things did not make sense. Whilst individual councils will always have a need for a particular guideline, in many cases there was no apparent reason why you would want to have some of the differences. It was a frustration, particularly for the building industry, developers and so forth. The guidelines they had to work with were different depending on the jurisdiction they were working in. Introducing uniform guidelines is a massive way forward.
Bonding arrangements for developers were brought to my attention when I became Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. They exist in most other jurisdictions but not the Territory. To explain to those who are not sure, titles are not issued on a building development until all the boxes have been ticked. That holds up the cash flow, delays banks allowing people who have invested in these buildings to take ownership of them and, ultimately, cash flowing through to the developer. Most other jurisdictions had bonding arrangements where the developers could pay a bond up front, get the titles, and as the boxes were ticked as they went through the process, the bond was released. It speeds up the cash flow for businesses, again a major improvement for businesses and developers in the Northern Territory.
The single dwelling densification strategy is proposing medium density residential sites to allow for smaller lots. Again, many people will criticise that but in any of the subdivisions happening in recent days, the first ones to sell are the smaller blocks …
Mr Wood: That is because they are cheaper?
Mr CHANDLER: A lot of it comes down to what people can afford. That is true. That is what people can afford. If you do not have a planning scheme that allows for this to happen, then you will force people to be pay extremely high prices for land.
It has never been possible in the Northern Territory to have individually titled homes. I will use the old terrace homes in Melbourne and Sydney as an example. You can do it through a strata title arrangement, but you could never individually title them. Again, you build in a complication that does not need to be there. We are looking at how to change that. I stress, not everyone will want to live in a dwelling like that, but people want choice. Not everyone will want to live on the 30th or 40th floor of an apartment building in the city. Some people love the northern suburbs. Some people, like the member for Nelson, love the rural area. Our planning scheme has to cater for as many needs as possible. You have to have flexibility within a planning scheme.
The Chief Minister’s statement today vindicated this government’s approach. The things I touched on today, the strong economy and a government that has its budget under control after the mess left by the previous government, on top of the fact we have severely attacked the layers of red tape the previous government focused on – we are in the process of laying a strong foundation to provide investors and Territorians with growth and ability to grow into the future with confidence. It will provide strength and diversity to our economy and will get us out of what the Chief Minister has described as the peaks and troughs that have been the basis of the economy of the Northern Territory for far too long. The broader the base we can create, the more opportunities we can create.
Madam Speaker, if we can build a lifestyle in the Northern Territory where people will want to move north, they will come.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the government has a new way of cleaning up the Notice Paper: put two ministerial statements into one. We have had a discussion, I thought, about building investment opportunities, and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment has put in planning and building reforms reducing red tape at the same time. I was not ready for that one. They were combined nicely there, minister.
I will say a few words about the Chief Minister’s statement in general. Surely all governments should be trying to create investment in their own areas. We have to keep a vibrant economy, and if that means we have to look at every opportunity to do that, then that is exactly what our government should be doing. The Chief Minister has mentioned a number of strategies in relation to what he intends to do, and has given us a rundown on the opportunities he believes are the future of the Northern Territory. It is good that he at least made that statement.
My concern is sometimes the government makes these big statements and then forgets the people of the Northern Territory. I was so concerned today to hear there are something like 1000 people leaving the Territory annually, due partly to the cost of living. The other reason is people are starting to feel they are not part of the Northern Territory anymore. It worries me that government can talk up at a certain level, but if they do not bring the people along with them then people will feel this is not the Territory they believe they belong to.
The minister for Planning spoke about development. One of the major issues the government has is it is not necessarily listening to the people. I do not think I heard in the minister’s speech anything about the people. I heard about developers. There were discussions last night about business. Did I hear much about the people who work for business? Did I hear anything about businesses that perhaps rip off some customers? We have been debating over the last month or so the price of fuel. Is anyone here saying that was good business? Is that good development? No, we are saying that people are being ripped off by companies, by business, by overcharging for fuel. Thank heavens that some of that critism has come home to roost and we are starting to see a reduction in fuel prices. My concern is in that debate, people are being forgotten.
We will have a debate on TIO today and tomorrow, and I feel that part of what is missing is the people. That is what concerns me in the process of raising these big ventures the government is putting forward. Many of them are very good, but the people want to know what effect it will have on them. What are the benefits to Territorians? Many people see the Territory changing radically with new people coming into the Territory, and very little history about the Territory. That is fine, but at the same time we seem to be losing that special unique flavour we all love as Territorians: the lifestyle we live and the open space we all enjoy.
When I heard the minister for Planning talk about little houses and little blocks of land, I wondered what happened to all the discussion about sustainable housing design. You hear Troppo talking about building houses which will be less reliant on energy, yet when you start to build houses on 300 m blocks – which I call Velcro houses as they are the ones where you stand against the wall to sleep because there is not much room – I wonder where the government is coming from. Has anyone thought that perhaps they should build a three-storey house on a 900 m block? You can have that small development with a bit of open space around those buildings, just as the minister was talking about in regard to high-rises. Instead of having little houses stuck in together on 300 m blocks, you could have a 900 m block with three-storey buildings, or four-storey buildings on a 1200 m block, and use some space to create breeze around those houses.
I thought the minister was talking about townhouses with individual titles. I do not know how that will fit into the discussion we will have about unit titles. We are looking at the possibility that if a percentage of people who live in a block of flats which has become old would like those units knocked down, they should be knocked down. If you have individual titles for buildings that are side by side I am not sure the process the government is putting forward, which I am not necessarily disagreeing with, would not inhibit the redevelopment of an area of houses with individual titles.
The minister also mentioned roads and how they will look at creating a standard for roads in different council areas. That is a good idea, because it has annoyed me when developers have been able to get away – perhaps with the approval of councils – with having narrow streets. You can park two cars there, but the rubbish truck, ambulance and fire brigade cannot get through because someone has worked out the street needs to only be that wide. They want it only that wide to create more blocks. You then have cars parking on the nature strip, and some councils book you for that. I agree there has to be a logical standard applied for suburban or urban development in the Northern Territory.
Litchfield is a little different because it only has a limited amount of urban development, but it has stuck with a set size. Where a new subdivision occurs in Litchfield it will have a bitumen road 30 m wide. It is not rocket science but it is standard for Litchfield. I hope it would be standard for any other rural subdivision because at least in the tropical part of the Northern Territory, where you have higher rainfall, that is the road width you need on rural developments.
The minister talked about giving people options. Unfortunately, the options for people who would like rural land are diminishing all the time because the market for rural land is limited by private developers who are drip-feeding the land to retain the market price. This means many young people cannot afford to buy those blocks of land being turned off as they do not reflect the price of development. They are simply at a market price and well above the price of development. Instead of the government supporting more rural blocks, it is saying, ‘We will not build Weddell, it is too expensive, so we will chop up land that has really been set aside for rural development’. Young people will not have an opportunity to buy rural land.
There is not a choice, minister, because the land is either too expensive because private developers do not want to give it away at a reasonable price – they work on the market price, which is their right. But the government owns land and has an opportunity to release land at a reasonable price. But what does it want to do? It wants to turn it into a suburb. It does not show vision; it shows leaning on the ear of certain people, whether they be in planning or are developers. They seem to have the ear of the government. Once again, Territorians have been left behind in this decision-making process.
I do not know whether to switch between statements. The minister was talking about red tape, and I do not know whether we are going to get to that statement. It is on the Notice Paper as the next discussion. I would have preferred to have stuck to some of the government’s plans for the future.
The Defence area was mentioned in the statement the Chief Minister made. That is reasonable considering we now have a turnover of US Marines in and out of the Northern Territory, and they will help investment in this part of the world.
The Chief Minister talked about the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries and its work in research and extension activities. As you know, there is the agribusiness, or the food conference, on next week, some of which I will be attending. It is important and it highlights the fact that the Territory has potential to be – I used to call it the food saucer, but someone said it might be the food deli of the world. There will be specific crops grown in the Territory. Take the Ord River, for instance, where they are growing chia. Someone has got in on the market and found the climate in Kununurra is perfect for growing that crop. There will be more of that across this part of the world.
The only thing that will worry us is whether we keep getting diseases in plants as we have at present. There needs to be more money put into research and development. The Territory is small and has to work with other states like Western Australia and Queensland. If we get such a devastating disease as the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus and, on top of that, banana freckle and panama disease, it is making it hard for the Territory to move ahead in these areas.
The fact is companies have invested heavily in horticulture in the Northern Territory. It was ABC Bananas which originally came from Kununurra and moved to Lambells Lagoon, and invested heavily there. Then along came panama disease and wiped them out. They switched over to rockmelons and eventually went back to growing bananas, using tissue culture to produce clean stock. They also – and this is where a lot of the hard work came in – rotated the crops so the panama disease did not get a chance to get a hold of a new crop. That was innovative. But it has come to an end now because of banana freckle. That company has been through some pain trying to be part of the development of the Northern Territory.
I did not realise it, but the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries stated the other day that we are the second-largest producer of watermelons in Australia. That is now at risk. It is not to say all watermelon production will stop, but a large amount of production in Katherine, and at Lambells Lagoon, will cease, at least for a number of years, until we can be declared free of cucumber green mottle mosaic virus.
It is good that the government is keeping a positive approach to the development of our horticulture industries. It also has to be realised that when making these statements we have to at least be willing to say there are some serious problems at present, and we need to address those problems. It will be good to hear from the government what forward plans they have to make sure this does not happen again.
We should also mention that the mango industry is in full swing at the moment. I gather it is not quite as big a crop as last year. There are some big investment opportunities in mango plantations in the Northern Territory. Quite big companies have invested millions of dollars into the mango industry and new varieties, especially in the Katherine region and the Darwin rural region. Much of that has been done without government assistance, but by people who could see there was potential for a market and they have developed that market in a positive way. It all goes well.
The Territory has been handing out large quantities of water over the last two years. Even though the minister knows I do not agree with the methodology used for handing out water, it is good the government has promoted irrigation in the Northern Territory. It is a matter of what is sustainable, what is reasonable and whether people who have asked for the water deserve to have it or are using it in the way that has been promised.
It is time for the government to report on the water licences it has issued and give us an indication of where that water has been used. Is it being used for cropping? How far have the farmers who have received an extra or a new water licence moved to new production or expanded production using that water? That would be a good report to have.
I thank the Chief Minister for making this statement. I understand he is promoting business opportunities in the Northern Territory, but let us not forget the people who live here. Obviously they will get benefits, but there are some downsides. Anyone who has known the impact of INPEX only has to look at the traffic and know there have been big changes in the Northern Territory, such as the cost of renting a house, or hotel or motel unit in Darwin or the caravan parks. Big changes have brought benefits to some, there is no doubt about that, but for others a change has come over the Territory and some people feel that change is not to their liking.
Perhaps that is reflected in the figures mentioned on the ABC today about the number of people leaving the Territory. It may not be the case. I will not be leaving the Territory. It is a place I love and it is a great place. It would be silly to say, even in my area, life has not changed. I could go for a walk at 5.45 am along Whitewood Road and perhaps see two cars. I now see a stream of vehicles heading to work, which reflects the changes that have occurred, especially since INPEX arrived.
Sometimes I ask if it was a good thing to put the INPEX village there. Some people feel it has an effect on the rural area, and it certainly has. I wish it was not on that piece of land. I wish it was further to the north. That was not supported by either party at the time, but in the end that is history. The development is there, and hopefully the benefits to the community when INPEX leaves will outweigh some of the changes that have occurred in the rural area. INPEX has built on that site some valuable pieces of infrastructure that will be important to the development of the rural community. We should not forget that because that was one of the reasons put forward for that development to be in the rural area. It is part of the investment into the Northern Territory but it has brought changes, some for the better, some for the worse.
Madam Speaker, the government at times loses sight, in its grand statements, of the people on the ground. It needs to bring people along with some of the ideas it has. It will get support if people feel it is worthy of it, and if they do not think it is worthy at least they will have a say.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly welcome the statement by the Chief Minister titled Building Investment Opportunities. It is an absolute no-brainer for the Giles Country Liberals government about building investment opportunities. This is the land of opportunity for investment, there is no doubt about it, and this is a government that has taken that squarely by the horns and is seizing that opportunity.
It was interesting listening to the member for Barkly. He had a list he read out about all the great achievements under the previous Labor government. It was not a very long list; it did not take long to read. I went through some of my own records and found a list of Country Liberal Party achievements over the past 30 years – certainly in the first 25 years or so of government. It is a distinguished list. It is extremely impressive, and I will read out a couple of those now. In other words, member for Barkly, I see your list and I will raise you mine.
Under the previous CLP government, there was the establishment of national parks such as Litchfield, Charles Darwin and Gregory National Parks, which was no mean feat. What a great legacy left by the CLP …
Mr Elferink: How many parks did we get from Labor?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, that is right, member for Port Darwin.
There was the creation of Palmerston. The members for Drysdale, Brennan and Blain are all members of that great community of Palmerston which was created by the Country Liberals when they were in government. The opposition decried that development over many years, and the debates in the Parliamentary Record will articulate that, and reinforce that the Labor Party in opposition was no great supporter of the creation of Palmerston. Nevertheless, it has gone on to become one of the great jurisdictions of the Northern Territory.
There is Kings Canyon, Yulara, Katherine Gorge Visitor Centres, not to forget the creation of Yulara itself, one of the great tourism destinations of the world. The Gold Battery and Tourist Information Centre in Tennant Creek was a fantastic investment in the Barkly region.
The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory has already undergone some great changes and a resurrection under this current Country Liberals government.
There is Channel Island Power Station and the Masters Games. We just celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Alice Springs Masters Games. The Australian Masters Games began 28 years ago and Alice Springs will host the 30th anniversary of the games when it rolls around in 2016. That injects somewhere around $10m to $20m into the Alice Springs community. This is a wonderful event and a great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
The Territory Wildlife Park and the Alice Springs Desert Park are two of our great natural assets.
State Square, where we are today, proved to be a great initiative during a recession, employing hundreds of Territorians to build this wonderful building we are lucky enough to work in.
There is Stokes Hill Wharf. The Alice Springs Convention Centre is a terrific asset to the Centre and a great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
Marrara Sporting Complex is one of the great complexes in Australia, no doubt about it – a tremendous sporting precinct and a great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
NT University, as it was known – now, of course, Charles Darwin University – has become one of the great recognised universities in the country.
There is the V8 Supercars. Where would we be without the V8 Supercars? It is one of the marquee events of the calendar, attracting tens of thousands of people to the event over the course of that weekend. The V8 Supercars is another great initiative of the Country Liberals government.
There is the East Arm port and gas development. We are continuing to develop our gas resources.
Who can forget that other little thing called the railway? It may have been the member for Sanderson who mentioned the railway and the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who was happy to ride along in a train, waving her hand …
Mr Elferink: She called it a faded dream.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, she called it a faded dream. It was a bit like Palmerston not being a great concept. The railway was truly one of the great infrastructure projects this country has seen, and it happened under the watch of the former Country Liberals government. We did many things right and we are continuing to seize those opportunities.
I turn to my portfolio of Tourism. In the last two years we have invested some $16m in additional funding to Tourism NT. That is equipping the agency with the tools and ammunition to market the Northern Territory as the preferred holiday and business events destination above all others. We re-established the NT Tourist Commission, one of the first acts of parliament of the new Country Liberals government in 2012. It was in November 2012 when one of the very early pieces of legislation came before this House to reconstitute the NT Tourist Commission.
Our new brand campaign Do the NT markets the Northern Territory as a fun and adventurous place to holiday. It is interesting when you talk about adventure, which someone raised with me today. Sometimes, jumping on an aeroplane from Sydney to Alice Springs is adventure enough. Others require a lot more high adventure, which might be heli-fishing, quad biking, etcetera.
The Territory had an image for a long time – the previous Labor government did nothing to dispel the perception that the Territory was a place where you cannot swim or climb and where you do not touch or do this or that. We started to take ourselves way too seriously as a holiday and business events destination. It took this government, with the initiatives taken by and resources given to Tourism NT, to start to dispel those perceptions. That is slowly but surely starting to cut through. We are starting to see some of those numbers turn around. We achieved a five-year high in international visitation in the year ending June 2014. We are starting to see more numbers. It is early days, but we are on the road to recovery. What a recovery it needs to be after a decade of decline under the previous Labor government with regard to tourism.
We are well on the way to achieving our target of creating a $2.2bn visitor economy by the year 2020 through building investment opportunities. By investing in our wealth creation portfolios of tourism, primary industries, mining and resources we are seizing these investment opportunities.
Today we talked a little about housing. The Deputy Chief Minister, as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, has overseen the biggest land release strategy and program in the history of the Northern Territory. It is remarkable. Unlike the previous government, under which land release stagnated, this government is releasing land for development. As a result we not only have the biggest land release project in the Northern Territory’s history, but our Real Housing for Growth strategy will complement that by delivering 2000 affordable homes on to the market by 2016. That is an incredible achievement.
During estimates last year, the member for Nhulunbuy drew attention to the fact that we had only built 290 homes, I think it was, by the end of last year. We had delivered nearly a home a day to the market. Yet, by contrast, there was nothing from the previous government to the tune of our goal of 2000 affordable homes on the market by 2016. That is a pretty good achievement. We are well ahead of our targets. I can outline those for you. In year one, we planned to deliver 200, and we delivered 290-plus. The member for Nhulunbuy seems to think that is a failure. We are well ahead of our target. That is nearly one home a day. That is pretty good. They could not build one home a day, but we are doing it. By year two there will be 400, by year three 600, by year four 800, which will see 2000 affordable properties on the market to help ease that burden, and move people out of public housing and into the rental or home ownership market.
That is a key objective of this government. For far too long people have sat in public housing feeling it was an entitlement; they expect a house, and expect the government to provide them with a house. Well that is not the case anymore. The government will provide assistance, of course, but public housing is there to provide people with a leg-up, an opportunity to get into the rental market or the home ownership market. Public housing is not there for life. There will be some exceptions, obviously, due to certain people’s circumstances, but largely speaking, public housing is a temporary fix until they can move into the rental or home ownership market. The 2000 affordable homes on the market by 2016 will go a long way to freeing up those wait lists.
The Remote Home Ownership Scheme has been a terrific initiative for the Giles Country Liberals government. This was a policy we put together this year. We have now seen 20 expressions of interest from people in remote parts of the Northern Territory wanting to purchase their own home. That is fantastic. It will be made available to a number of communities across the Northern Territory, and people can purchase their own home from anywhere between about $50 000 to $150 000. It is a great way for people to move out of that public housing space and get into the home ownership space and the private rental market. The home ownership market is where we want people to be. It has been a terrific scheme and has been very well received. The member for Arafura has been right behind us with this, very supportive of this initiative. He has received a lot of feedback from his community on the Tiwi Islands.
I mentioned the MAGNT, or the Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, earlier with regard to the achievements of the CLP this year. Another great investment opportunity is the MAGNT statutory authority. We created a statutory authority around the MAGNT this year, cut it loose, or at least gave it a bit more distance from government. It was not something we just uncovered, as there is a long-held view that private benefactors or donors are reluctant to donate to a government entity or directly to government, but they will donate to something they see as not quite so attached to government. Hence, the statutory authority with the MAGNT.
Already we are starting to see some donations come in as a result of that. That has freed up the MAGNT to source some of its own revenue. It could be in the form of cash or artworks donated to the MAGNT. That is a real game changer for the MAGNT and the arts and culture sector in the Northern Territory.
As I said, it is a no-brainer statement about seizing these opportunities. The Giles Country Liberals government has always held a very strong belief about building investment opportunities. This statement could almost be the Country Liberals philosophy about where we stand with regard to this approach to developing northern Australia and the Northern Territory, unlike Labor, which presided over the biggest increase in red tape in the history of Australia. They loved red tape.
Crime skyrocketed with figures on the rise, particularly in Katherine and Alice Springs where the concentration is much more obvious. Crime was out of control, hospital waiting lists and elective surgery waiting lists were the worst in the country, land release had stagnated, and alcohol issues across the Northern Territory cost the taxpayer $652m a year. That was the cost of not doing anything. That is what they did, as opposed to the AMT and the APOs introduced by the Country Liberals government. We are starting to see incredible results thanks to those policies.
Labor presided over some of the greatest child protection failures in the history of the country, and that is not putting too fine a point on it. We saw what happened as a result of your child protection failures and the federal intervention as a direct result of that. The Little Children are Sacred report was the end of Clare Martin’s Chief Ministership. It was a deplorable time for the Labor government.
They slavishly supported the live cattle export ban into Indonesia. It was one of the greatest travesties and public policy failures in the history of Australia, and they supported it. They lined up with the Prime Minister and said, ‘Yes, we support it’.
Who can forget the big one, the $5.5bn projected debt? If all that was not enough, we can underline it and wrap it up with a nice little bow saying $5.5bn projected debt.
The Country Liberals government believe in building investment opportunities. I have outlined a few in my portfolios of Tourism, Housing, Arts and Sport and Recreation. It is a tremendous opportunity, particularly when you put sport and tourism together, as this government has recognised they go hand in glove. The State of Origin or the Olympic Games are not just sporting events; they are monumental tourism attractions bringing people to the door. Putting sport and tourism under the one minister creates wealth generation and seizes investment opportunities, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Madam Speaker, we will continue to provide investment opportunities for the Northern Territory. We were born to provide investment opportunities for the Northern Territory. It is in the foundation and the DNA of past Country Liberals governments and the current Country Liberals government, and will be in future Country Liberals governments. If you are not doing business in the Northern Territory, why not?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to support the Chief Minister’s statement on building investment opportunities, because building the type of opportunities the Chief Minister has referred to and I will refer to in my contribution, as have other government ministers, is in the DNA of the Country Liberals. It is this work we do that sits at the base of our philosophy.
I congratulate the Chief Minister on securing Darwin as the destination for the 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference held from 12 to 14 October this year. Others have said this is the first time in the 52-year history of this business conference that it has been held in Darwin. It came on the back of what we are doing on this side of the House, which is getting out of our comfort zones in the Northern Territory and going across to our trading partner nations and establishing good, sound relationships based on mutual understanding and trust.
That is what the Chief Minister did when he was in Japan. He was not doing what the Leader of the Opposition constantly says we do on this side of the House, which is put the Territory down. He was not doing that. He was in Japan spruiking the Territory, talking the Territory up, telling Japanese government officials and investors that the Northern Territory is a great place to do business.
That is something I also do when I go overseas. It is about talking the Territory up – talking up the opportunities we have in the Northern Territory. I have said before in this House that whenever the opposition members speak about development in the Northern Territory, you could be forgiven for thinking that prior to 2001 the Northern Territory was a barren wasteland ...
Mr Elferink: I remember the tumbleweed.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is the picture the Labor opposition would like to paint of the Territory prior to 2001 when they came into power, but we know that is not true. We know the previous CLP government, whose DNA is the same as the current CLP government – a DNA with all the components that represent what we need to do to build investment opportunities in the Territory – was also doing that work in Asia to build relationships and establish the Northern Territory as a sound, reliable, trusted trading partner ...
Mr Chandler: I thought that was the Labor government?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The Labor government would have you think they did all that work. What they did was follow on from the good work of the CLP all those years ago. We have had a new Country Liberals government since August 2012, and thank goodness for that. We have taken up the cudgel and redoubled our efforts in this space. That is a terribly important point to make. We are not sitting here on our backsides and resting on our laurels. We are getting up, getting out and further promoting the Northern Territory as a great place to do business.
That is why we are seeing so many conferences in Darwin. We have Developing the North conferences and infrastructure conferences. Goodness me, I am sometimes a bit overwhelmed at the number of speaking engagements ministers on this side of the House have at all these conference in the Territory. It well and truly eclipses any of the work done by the former Labor government. It is a real honour to be part of a team and a government that is working so hard in this space.
Going back to the AJJBC, it was a privilege to attend the Chief Minister’s welcome reception at the 52nd conference at the Convention Centre and the formal dinner the following night. This government’s international investment strategy, as I have outlined quite broadly already, is designed to develop and support many things, including mining and exploration projects in the Northern Territory. It is foreign investment that is the lifeblood of the minerals and energy exploration program, which advances our economy and creates wealth and jobs for Territorians.
Japan is an import and export market for Australia, and the Northern Territory is proud of its links with Japan. It is a relationship that has been strengthened over the course of the last couple of years. Japan is considered to be somewhat resource poor and must rely on overseas resources for raw materials for all its processing industries. Detailed market research undertaken by my Department of Mines and Energy’s Investment Attraction and Development Unit revealed Japan as one country that is a high potential target market for the minerals the Northern Territory has to offer. In particular, Japan’s manufacturing industry needs rare metals such as tungsten, vanadium and indium for automobiles and information technology products. These are resources the Northern Territory has to offer. Since the department’s market promotions to Japan began in 2008, four investment deals in Territory exploration projects, worth $10.35m and involving Japanese companies, have been announced.
As members are aware, the major impediment to developing mining projects in the Northern Territory is the difficulty associated with raising finance. As I said before in parliament, the availability of finance can directly translate into reduced exploration. Because of global factors, we have seen a significant downturn in exploration expenditure across the country over the last 12 to 18 months.
This is why it is essential that government provides support to companies, and especially junior companies which want to get exploration projects up and running. Given that growing minerals and energy sectors to increase royalties is one of the most promising avenues for the Territory government to grow its financial independence, we need to help junior exploration companies seek alternative finance opportunities from as many sources as possible. Under the CORE program, which is creating opportunities for resource exploration, there is a suite of minerals investment attraction strategies designed to assist explorers in the Northern Territory to access potential investors and, ultimately, drive exploration and mining in the Territory.
I am very proud to be part of a government that places so much importance on this type of activity. In the 2014-15 budget, this government announced the biggest ever investment in precompetitive science acquisition, including our investment attraction strategy of somewhere in the vicinity of $25m over the next four years. No one can ever question this government’s achievements in, or its commitment to, attracting minerals exploration to the Northern Territory and supporting miners, large and small, to do what they need to do to develop and exploit our resource potential.
By joining overseas delegations, led by me as the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, local exploration companies can access top level decision-makers in an affordable way through dozens of investment meetings and opportunities to promote their products. We know this investment strategy has included our major player over many years, China. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to travel to China to lead those delegations. China is still a very important, huge opportunity for the Northern Territory in finance, notwithstanding the slowdown of the Chinese economy
Japan and countries like Korea are also very important to us. I mentioned Japan before. Earlier this year I was the first Northern Territory Mines minister to visit Japan and Korea with the purpose of leading mining delegations to attract investment to the Northern Territory. I am very proud to be part of that.
We are also forming a relationship with Taiwan. Earlier this year the member for Daly, representing me, visited Taiwan to attend the Australia-Taiwan Business Council conference. He has come back reporting great interest from the Taiwanese in Northern Territory projects. I am very much looking forward to meeting with delegates from Taiwan when they arrive here within the next week or so.
The delegations we take across with us attend seminars and business meetings, and receive direct introductions to significant international investment companies and trading houses. Ministerial trips such as these are a vital element to identifying and pursuing trade opportunities, and strengthening existing ties and establishing relationships. These meetings are also an opportunity in which Territory exploration companies can identify and directly access potential investors, as well as raise the Territory’s profile as an exciting jurisdiction for exploration for minerals and onshore oil and gas.
This government is committed to providing a responsible investor-friendly regulatory regime for companies wanting to invest here. Foreign investment brings many benefits to the Territory. It supports existing jobs, creates new jobs, and importantly, the focus – in my view a very important focus – is the development of economies in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory. Naturally, many of our resources exist in areas that are not defined by a municipal boundary. They are not sitting underneath Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Nhulunbuy, they are sitting in regional and remote parts of the Territory. That has the potential to provide jobs for Indigenous Territorians who live in those remote and regional areas.
These delegations also encourage innovation, new technologies and skills. It brings access to overseas markets and promotes competition amongst our industries. Some of the key attributes that foreign investment can bring to companies looking to develop opportunities in the Territory include supporting exploration expenditure in the Territory, increasing the chances of new minerals and energy discoveries and enabling minerals and energy projects in the NT to progress which otherwise may have stagnated. This has helped to maintain our economic strength, business activity and low unemployment.
A robust mining sector is another key element to this government’s plan to develop a strong economy in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt the mining industry is fundamentally important to the Territory. This government is committed to growing the resources sector to increase the future prosperity and development of the Territory, in particular, as I mentioned before, in our regional and remote areas. This means boosting minerals and energy exploration across the Territory in the short term so new discoveries can be made that will become the new mining projects of tomorrow.
However, mineral exploration is not cheap and it is certainly not without its risks. Our investment attraction efforts operate in a highly-competitive market for investment dollars, both nationally and internationally. When I say competitive, we are in competition to attract investment with our other states, but we are also competing with other countries for global investment. Australia being the jurisdiction it is, with quite high costs of doing business and labour, we have to convince potential investors in the Northern Territory, and Australia more generally, that our investment environment and the stable government and regulatory regime are factors they should consider over and above the cost of doing business in some of the more unstable countries of the world. I am thinking about places like some African countries.
As I said earlier, in my role as Minister for Mines and Energy I have led many Territory business delegations to Asia to promote business investment opportunities. I have travelled to China a number of times. Unfortunately, I was not able to get to China this year for the China Mining Congress which clashed with last week’s parliamentary sitting dates.
I was unable to get to China on an alternative program the week before due to the outbreaks of watermelon virus, the cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, which required me to remain in the country to show leadership to the industry and spend some time talking to industry players to make sure they understood the Northern Territory government takes the issue very seriously.
While on these trips I have also promoted the Northern Territory’s pastoral and agricultural industries to help establish additional markets for local agriculture and horticultural products. As Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries I will deliver a keynote address at next week’s Food Futures conference. My message will be simple: the Northern Territory is well placed to play a role in meeting the growing demand for food and resources from Asia, but we have to act now to take full advantage of these opportunities.
The Territory’s primary industries are critically important to the future of our economy. Food exports are a key component of this government’s plan to grow our economy, and this government has prioritised Asian engagement to build links and opportunities for Territorians. The Northern Territory government has identified food exports as a key component of its plan to develop a strong economy. I repeated that because it is a critical part of what we do in the Territory.
We are also committed to building and strengthening the Northern Territory’s ties with our closest Asian neighbours, which are clearly of vital importance to our regional economy. The opportunities for increased trade between the Territory and Indonesia are great, particularly when it comes to live cattle. The Northern Territory’s pastoral industry contributes well over $330m to the economy every year, and with the recent upturn in live export figures to Southeast Asian destinations, namely Indonesia and Vietnam, all indications show this figure is likely to rise substantially over the coming years.
The Country Liberals government is a proud supporter of Northern Territory pastoralists, and we have worked hard to help restore and rebuild this iconic industry which was decimated after the 2011 decision by the then Labor federal government to ban live cattle trade into Indonesia based on a media report on Four Corners. Much has been said about that, and it is quite fortuitous, even ironic perhaps, that yesterday was the day a class action was lodged by the Brett family from Waterloo Station and a number of other plaintiffs in relation to the matter. I hope former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and former Agriculture minister, Joe Ludwig, are called and held to account for the worst decision ever made by an Australian government. It visited shame on all Australian governments.
We have been working hard to rebuild that trade and important relationship we have with Indonesia …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I ask for an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Deputy Chief Minister.
We have spent a lot of time rebuilding that trade and relationship with Indonesia. Full credit also to the Coalition federal government, which has also redoubled its efforts to rebuild that relationship as well, which we all know is critically important. I commend the efforts of our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in visiting Indonesia a number of times since elected and also the federal Agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, for his ongoing efforts in re-establishing that relationship with Indonesia.
The proof of this pudding is in the eating. When you talk about relationships and trade, the proof is the number of cattle going through our ports to our target market destinations. This year there was a new record for live cattle exports through the Darwin Port and it is absolutely staggering to see those numbers.
We are expecting that by the end of the year we could see around 500 000 head going through the Darwin Port to our destination markets. That is testament to the work of the Australian and Northern Territory governments, but also our resilient pastoralists and the live exporters who are involved in this live cattle trade.
In 2013-14 the Territory’s cattle industry contributed almost $400m to the economy, equating to more than 60% of primary production in the Territory. Recent live export sales of cattle and buffalo to Vietnam indicate the real possibility of a new long-term, robust live cattle export market.
Another element, another string in the bow for this government, is the establishment of such strong relationships with Vietnam. If my memory serves me right, some 140 000 head of cattle have gone through the Darwin Port to Vietnam in the financial year 2013-14, which is staggering given that I remember the first shipment going out in this term of government was just a few hundred head. It is staggering to see that trade booming the way it is.
I also mention buffalo, which have never been on the radar before for Vietnam. It was the efforts of this government – the Chief Minister and me – talking with a number of people in Vietnam about buffalo that brought this trade into existence. We have a feral population which we expect to be around 200 000 head of buffalo. We do not know for sure yet; it is still being assessed. It can form the basis of a sustainable buffalo industry which requires a market. The work that has gone into that has been extraordinary as well.
This new Vietnamese market, in conjunction with the recent increased live cattle quotas from the Indonesian government, is providing confidence and encouragement for the industry’s recovery, which is still ongoing after that horrific live cattle ban of 2011.
The Country Liberals government has developed a collaborative strategy in conjunction with industry partners to restore and increase our live cattle industry. In order to create diversity and greater opportunity for Territory pastoralists and increase focus on emerging markets, an additional $300 000 of funding was used to establish a Live Animal Export Market Development Unit within my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries.
The work of this new section in the department will be to build on new markets, establish new markets, and start thinking a little laterally, a little outside the box, about other opportunities that exist for live animal exports for the Northern Territory.
We are creating the macro-opportunities by establishing relationships with our overseas partners. If we have those relationships, if we spend the time – as former CLP ministers did all those years ago – in country, establishing relationships, getting to know our trading partners and the people who make the decisions in government, that can only bode well for the future or our relationships and our trade into the future.
The Country Liberals government has significant plans for developing northern Australia and we are taking a leadership role in that space. But we cannot do it unless we open up resources and create an environment that allows for the development of these industries to kick along.
I am referring to a couple of areas of policy that this government has adopted. First of all, there was the diversification under the Pastoral Land Act, which was a brainchild of this government to allow for the diversification of business on pastoral leases in the Northern Territory. There are already a number of approved permits under those new provisions, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the results of those in coming years. That is about opening up land, but we also have to open up water.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition accuse us of locking up water. What a load of bunkum! Never in my life have I heard something so ridiculous and lame. The Leader of the Opposition is so desperate she will cling to anything she can to try to denigrate the good work of this government. Let me remind members of this House that when we came to government – this in the context of locking up water – 75 water licence applications sat unattended and unaddressed from the reign of the former government. Since that time we have worked our way methodically through not only those 75 applications, but a raft of new applications for water licences across the Top End as well. It is very simple: water plus suitable soils will give you development in the agricultural sector. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
In locking up resources, the former Labor government was so hamstrung by fear and held to ransom by its green friends that it was too frightened to make any decisions that may have brought any form of criticism its way regarding our resource sector. It is almost beyond comprehension – certainly beyond any level of credibility – that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Barkly or anyone else on that side of the House could accuse us of locking up resources.
I do not know how many times I have to say it, but we are proud of our record over the last two-and-a-bit years since August 2012 in the way we have allowed the agricultural sector in the Northern Territory to grow and flourish. We will continue to do so. We will not be held to ransom by green groups or small vocal minorities. We will get on and do what we believe is right for Territorians at large. That is the thinking on this side of the House.
I will use an example in the 40 seconds remaining. It is like a small group of protestors in Borroloola who do not want the McArthur River Mine to go ahead. I have to balance decisions around that type of protest against the 700 jobs of people who work at McArthur River Mine. For me it is fairly clear. Whilst I appreciate the input from people, we have to make strong decisions for the good of all Territorians. That is what this government intends to keep on doing.
Madam Speaker, again, I commend the Chief Minister on his statement and for the work he and this government are doing to build these opportunities for investment in the Territory.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement regarding building investment opportunities in the Northern Territory. What a positive statement this is, outlining the great things the Giles government is doing for all Territorians, despite the negativity of those opposite who constantly talk the Territory down. That is in stark contrast to this side of the House. This statement proves we are a government that has a plan and is putting it into action. It is not just talk, glossy brochures and balancing the government credit card, unlike Labor and the Leader of the Opposition.
No one wants to invest in an economy that is weighed down by government debt, budget deficits, giving away public assets to union mates and slush funds. What investors look for is a robust economy and a government willing to support economic opportunities. When investors looked at the Territory three years ago, they saw an economy struggling under the weight of Labor debt and red tape. The member for Karama’s computer said no.
When the Country Liberals came to power in 2012, we opened the door to the Northern Territory budget books. What we saw was lots of red numbers, an empty bank account and an overdrawn government credit card. As usual, Liberal governments would have to clean up Labor’s mess yet again.
We are doing that. We set in place economic management strategies to restore investor and business confidence, as well as our bank account. The Country Liberals realised there was some pain for Territorians in the economic management strategy we were forced to use because of the member for Karama’s incompetence and deceitfulness.
We have taken the economic broom to the mess Labor and the member for Karama left behind, and we are kicking goals. We have achieved a general government operating balance surplus a full three years ahead of target. We have significantly reduced the fiscal balance deficit and net debt position. This is proof of our fiscal responsibility and how we are building the Territory economy for the future.
These economic strategies have reinvigorated the Territory as a place to invest. Our hard work has resulted in a swag of recent positive economic indicators for the Territory. The Northern Territory has again topped the nation in forecast economic and employment growth according to the latest Deloitte Access Economics’ Business Outlook report.
Last week’s CommSec’s State of the State report showed the Territory is leading the nation in five of the eight indicators, including economic growth, retail spending, equipment investment and employment and construction. As well, the most recent Sensis Business Index also confirmed a 33% point surge in confidence among small and medium Territory businesses. This is how you repair a rundown Labor economy. These indicators send smoke signals to investors across the globe that the Territory is a place to invest.
The Chief Minister’s statement outlined how the tide has turned for the Territory. Of course, investment is critical for the Territory because it helps grow our economy with more jobs, more revenue available for the government to support growth, lower unemployment and a future for our kids.
For people in the bush, including my electorate, these projects mean jobs. They mean an opportunity for bush people to buy their own homes. Jobs mean that families can get off welfare. They can get their kids to school to get an education. We can break the cycle of welfare and sit-down money, violence and poverty. We can change the future of families across the Territory.
Projects like the Defence upgrades of Tindal will create jobs in the northern part of my electorate. I hope Defence looks to expand and upgrade the Delamere Weapons Range because in Timber Creek Greg Kimpton and his group have been working with the Army when they have been there. They look after the Bradshaw site. They work with the Army looking after the site and caretaking whilst they are not there. People are proud to be working with and getting to know the Army. They are proud to share what they have there and to tell them about their traditional country. Aboriginal people there are willing to work whenever there is an opportunity. More workers mean local businesses and farms have more demand. That means they need to employ more locals.
I have over 60 pastoral stations in my electorate that run cattle, ranging from Ban Ban Springs in the north to Aileron and Napperby Stations in the south. These stations total over 181 000 km2 or nearly 50% of my electorate’s 384 000 km2. That is nearly three times the size of Tasmania, a quarter the size of Victoria or 75 times the size of the ACT.
Each time I visit a station I hear and witness amazing testimonies of our true bush heroes who often live in incredibly harsh environments hundreds of kilometres from the nearest neighbour or urban area. I get to see the real jobs they offer local people. The cattle stations have close contact with the families who lived with them and once worked with them. They try to encourage young people to work on the cattle stations their fathers or grandfathers worked on. We need to support the cattle stations because they know how to run the cattle stations and how to work with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people love working with them because they work in their country.
Investment in the Territory also creates the need for more minerals and resources like oil and gas. In my electorate of Stuart I have a number of mines and resource projects which employ Aboriginal people. There is Mount Todd, The Granites gold mine and the gold mines at Pine Creek, which employ Aboriginal people. It is a great opportunity because Aboriginal people are getting on and working together with the mining companies to make sure they are employed and have a job. It makes them proud when they have a job.
It is not just about cattle and mines, the Ord project is also in my electorate and has the potential to provide massive employment opportunities and to change the lives of Aboriginal people in that area. I remember when I was growing up we grew watermelons, had orchards, and our people ran piggeries, bakeries and a butcher shop. I would dearly love to see my people back on the land farming and growing produce like we did. This gives the kids a future and sets an example.
We know Labor want my people as slaves to welfare; they do not encourage my people to work. They pretend to be our friends; I think not. I want my people to have meaningful lives free of violence with access to education and real jobs just like anyone living in the northern suburbs. That is why we are developing the north. It is not a mantra or three-word slogan like those opposite love of ‘debt, deficit and doom’.
Developing the north is a reality. It is a way of life for this government. We on this side know employment leads to opportunity for all. That is why we have to fix the economy, get the Territory back on track and send the message that we are open for business.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for his leadership and vision. The results are clear for all to see. I support the motion that the Assembly note this statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I support this statement. I am glad I waited for the member for Stuart to speak because the area of the statement I wanted to address was one of concern to me: the opportunity so many Territorians will not get by virtue of a system of land management that renders investment almost unattainable for them. I speak of those people who live on the land trusts created under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.
From time to time I have cause to trawl the Internet because I have nothing better to do with my life. In my visitations I found the well-known satellite picture of the Korean Peninsula at night. I invite all honourable members to google it if they have not already done so because there has never been a clearer manifestation of what property rights mean and how they have value than that photograph. It shows the whole of the Korean Peninsula. South Korea twinkles like a jewel in the night with Seoul illuminated with the rest of the South Korean nation, including Busan, sparkling on the dark side of the planet when the satellites can see it.
Go north of that border – the 38th parallel is its general term – and you find yourself looking at the North Korean part of the peninsula. With the exception of a small dotted light which is Pyongyang, the rest of that peninsula is in absolute darkness.
Travel even further north and you will find yourself in China. If you look at China at night, you see many more lights than there used to be only a few decades ago. I was watching Anthony Mundine on television earlier today and he made a point very similar to what I had made: China in the last 20 years has raised 650 million people out of poverty.
I use the quote out of the economic history book, Commanding Heights, that Deng Xiaoping the successor to Mao Tse Tung, should have – in my opinion and the opinions of the authors of Commanding Heights – been given the Nobel Peace Prize. Even in his fairly short reign he lifted 30 million people out of poverty simply by enabling them to enjoy some property rights. As I cast my mind over that photograph of the Korean Peninsula and then my attention to Darwin Harbour, I see a very similar juxtaposition of two sides of the harbour.
On this side of the harbour we see growth, growth and continued growth. On the other side of the harbour we see the manifestation of a land rights act that continues to stifle any form of growth for the people who should own that land.
The former Labor government of the Northern Territory and the current Northern Territory government are more than happy and would be well disposed to settling the Kenbi land rights claim. Unfortunately, it continues to remain unsettled. As a consequence, the manifest poverty which is visited upon the claimants continues to go on unabated.
I found it very frustrating when I heard the member for Nelson pontificate that this statement is not about people, it is about something else. I argue and suggest to the member for Nelson that this statement is almost entirely about people.
The member for Nelson would have us believe that unless we are in some way meddling or interfering with people’s lives – as would the Labor Party – then people should not be trusted to get on with their own lives.
I hear many lamentations in this place that the Northern Territory is a changed environment. That is true. I have lived in Darwin and other parts of the Northern Territory since 1969. When we came to the Northern Territory as a young family, Darwin was only slightly larger than Alice Springs is today and there was no such thing as a television channel to be seen.
I remember 1971 when television came to Darwin. Television changed Darwin beyond recognition. I genuinely believe the introduction of television was singularly the most profoundly intrusive social change in Darwin in the time I have lived here, and that includes the destruction of Darwin through Cyclone Tracy. Frank Hardy, another noted Labor luminary, lamented coming to Darwin after the introduction of television in 1971 because of the change he saw. He was put through the indignity of having to watch a rerun of I Love Lucy rather than enjoying the lifestyle of Darwin.
But this is the great truth: change happens and continues to happen. The member for Nelson said this should be about people, but Darwin’s population now is upwards of 150 000, and that does not include the rural area, and times change. When I was a child my father drove us into town – in about 1970 – and I had the privilege of being shown this finger of humanity pointing skywards into the heavens above Darwin. It was then the T & G building, a skyscraper by Darwin’s standard at six storeys. Then, of course, the Travelodge was built, and it was a demonstration of the fact Darwin had come of age and was genuinely becoming a city.
As a government, one of the functions we have is to govern on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. It is all too often that members opposite think our function is to govern people. I find that inherently objectionable because government has the habit of standing in people’s ways as we try to rescue people from themselves. We heard the Deputy Chief Minister talking about the amount of red tape that has been lifted by this government. We will continue to lift red tape so people have better options to make choices for themselves, rather than having government making choices for them.
The member for Nelson would have us making choices on behalf of other people, because he does not like them or they do not necessarily suit his nostalgic world view. He quotes scripture in this place to tell us about the social justice aspect of the Bible and, in particular, the New Testament. I take issue with the member for Nelson on his world view, because it is one thing to speak of charity and charitable acts, but another thing to talk of the present approach of government being necessarily an extension of that charitable form.
If the member for Nelson wants to quote scripture chapter and verse, I remind him of certain passages in the Bible that we hold so dear. I am reminded of Samuel cautioning the Israelites about demanding the presence of a king, he said, amongst other things:
- … this will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you.
- …
- And he will take tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards.
He went on to say:
- He will take a tenth of your sheep …
- And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king …
That is how the Bible treats the collection of taxes by an oppressive overlord when you are taxed at 10%.
Look at the Islamic Zakat, which is their tithing process, and the formulaic expressions of how that is put together. The Islamic Zakat places duties upon Muslims at somewhere between 2.5% and 20% of their income and property holdings. It is also a voluntary payment and will please the eyes of Allah, rather than necessarily a sum of money which is collected by force of menaces, precisely how we, as a government, collect our taxes today. Failure to comply with the taxation law of this nation or of this jurisdiction in the Northern Territory means a punitive response. Yet, if you were to compare either the Zakat or the princely sum of a 10th as described in Samuel, we are then the local protection racket.
The member for Nelson would have us believe this is social justice. To extract money from people by menaces and then spend it unwisely is a morally challenging concept. Yet that is precisely what the members opposite would encourage us to do: collect money by way of menaces and then spend it on all sorts of things.
The most amazing thing they believe in is that you can purchase your way out of poverty. It sounds logical that if you give somebody lots of money they will no longer be poor. That is not how the real world works and is something that is fundamentally misunderstood by the members opposite in particular.
In the real world, we currently spend – and I saw some costings on it not that long ago – literally well over a $100 000 for every man, woman and child living in a remote community. If I was to do that in my family, then the order of expenditure would be about $400 000. If I had an income of $400 000 in my family then I would live particularly well, but I would then naturally be cautious of managing that income successfully.
Sadly, that is not what happens in these remote communities. We think, as members of the state, by being charitable with other people’s money we are doing a favour to the recipients of that charity. We do not. What we do, of course, is create a system of dependency which is amplified throughout the generations as greater dependency becomes manifest, and greater incapacity to deal with that dependency also grows during that period.
I read out the other night in parliament the Question on Notice – I think from Mr Fisher to Mr Hart in 1973 in this House – where a gentleman in Arnhem Land wanted to have a lease which was refused because the then Deputy Prime Minister, Jim Cairns, said we would be offering no more leases to Aboriginal people. Of course, Mr Cairns would have been thinking at the time, ‘The land rights act will be just around the corner and we have a new system of collective ownership for you’.
The Fraser government delivered on the Whitlam Labor promise to return land to Aboriginal people. We have seen the old common law ceremony reproduced in the very famous photograph of Mr Whitlam pouring the land back into the hands of Vincent Lingiari, and we all feel warm and fuzzy about that. That was going to be the rescue of Aboriginal people.
If you go through all that Parliamentary Record you will see several references to how it will take a generation, possibly two, for the educational and poverty issue surrounding Aboriginal people to be dealt with in the Northern Territory. Government was going to step up and spend lots of money and give lots of land back to Aboriginal people, and they were going to enjoy wealth and a secure future.
Then forward the clock to 1979 when Mr Viner issued a paper – and I have it in my office – describing how land rights would bring about all of these fundamental changes to Aboriginal people. One of the chapters is headed ‘The Well Spring of Economic Opportunity’.
The beliefs held by both Liberals and Labor in the 1970s of what land rights would mean and what welfare would do were misguided at best, criminally negligent at worst. I have said before and will say again that I genuinely believe the results of that welfare approach have meant that more Aboriginal people have found their way into early graves than any other policy since this nation became a federated country. History will not look kindly upon this time. To make any person dependent upon you is to enslave them. I listened to the speech by the member for Stuart very carefully, and that is precisely what she was alluding to.
Nevertheless, I heard the member for Namatjira interjecting her way through Question Time today saying we want to take Aboriginal people’s land away from them. It is the most base form of politics engaged in, in remote communities. The member for Namatjira genuinely does not believe it because she knows full well I embrace the idea of Aboriginal people owning their own land in a system where they can own their own land, or at least own a lease over their land as that gentleman wanted to do in 1973.
Nevertheless, that has been denied Aboriginal people. Unfortunately there are still people such as the member for Namatjira – evidenced by her interjections today that we will take Aboriginal land away from Aboriginal people. No, we want to do make sure Aboriginal people have the same opportunity to treat and make contracts with the general economic environment, otherwise the North Korean section of the Korean Peninsula will be reproduced in the Northern Territory every step of the way.
It is possible in the Northern Territory to step from one side of the fence from the First World to the other side of the fence of the Third World. The only difference on either side of the fence is the system of land administration applied. Aboriginal land should be a wellspring of opportunity and economic development, but for that to occur there must be an arrangement by which people can secure their investments on that land. If you do not do that you will cast the people who own that land into oblivion, the oubliette of poverty, for now until the time the land administration system changes.
If we want to create an environment where we can step into the future, there needs to be changes to way the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 is structured, administrated and overseen by the councils themselves. I do not necessarily blame the councils and the participants on the councils because they are hamstrung by the system of land they have.
The act itself could do with restructure and reform with a view to making certain the development of Aboriginal land can be achieved within a very quick and reasonable time frame. I would like to see a land council system which reflects the aspirations of Aboriginal people who no longer want to sit there with their hands out having favours sprinkled upon them by the centralised government of this country.
The continued operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in its current fashion means people will not be able to take a step forward. I find it frustrating in the extreme that when I talk to many Aboriginal people living in remote communities, they want to develop businesses but there is scant available to them for that development. I express my ongoing frustrations because I am sick of seeing poverty based on a racial world view.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House because it speaks of a future for the Northern Territory ...
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the member for Katherine’s observation with regard to the Labor Party. You would swear between 1978 and 2001, if you were listening to the Leader of the Opposition, that our roads were dirt with tumbleweed upon them, our skies were dark and bleak and there was nothing but thunder claps and sunless days under ominous leaden clouds. I recall that immediately after the 2001 election rainbows were everywhere, the sky was a technicolour blue and birds chirped on my window sill. When the government was finally defeated in 2012, once again the tumbleweeds were instantly replaced.
I have acknowledged in the past the work of Clare Martin in securing the INPEX gas deal for the Northern Territory. I heard what the Leader of the Opposition had to say of future development, but that is what an onshore gas industry is all about.
It is what the pipeline that will be built between Darwin and the eastern seaboard is all about. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition would blanch at our successes in this area because she would resent them deeply.
I remember when the former Leader of the Opposition, Clare Martin, announced to all Australians that the railway was a faded dream. I remember watching on television that night as she rode the train into Darwin and thinking there was no small irony that she was riding a faded dream into Darwin.
As time passes, different governments achieve different things. I note the former Labor government did well with the Ichthys project and bringing INPEX to Darwin. We seek to expand on that and we encourage further gas development.
One of the challenges we face as a government is making sure gas comes onshore. Between ConocoPhillips and INPEX not so much as a cigarette lighter’s worth of gas has been secured for onshore purposes. However, because of ConocoPhillips, a CLP-driven investment opportunity, and INPEX, we now have a gas industry which ultimately will lead to an onshore industry. Of that we are confident. Moreover, we will also enjoy, hopefully, the last missing and fundamental piece of our economy in the Northern Territory: a decent manufacturing industry.
We continue to travel into Southeast Asia and down south, and to work on making certain there will be a pipeline that takes us from the Northern Territory into the rest of the national gas grid.
I hope and encourage companies like Dow Chemicals to seriously look at Darwin as a place to launch their Southeast Asian investments from. Dow Chemicals has looked at Darwin. Andrew Liveris, the head of Dow Chemicals International, is a former Darwin boy and knows the capacity of Darwin as a potential place in which to insert his company into Southeast Asia. The challenges are that he will still try to secure ethane. I know he has upset INPEX and other companies with some of his observations in relation to the reservation of ethane for the purposes of plastics manufacture.
There will come a time, I am certain, when securing the materials companies like Dow need will become reality and people will inexorably be drawn to Darwin. That will mean a population that will grow to 200 000, then 500 000 and possibly even within the lifetime of my children, to a city of a million people – in fact, almost certainly. Times will change. That will be a city of a million people of which more than 500 000 people will have jobs. They will need places to live and will require services, electricity, water, power and all number of things.
I remind the member for Nelson – and I come to where I started – this is about people. It is about people with jobs, with roofs over their heads and with something else the member for Nelson and the members opposite have no regard for: it is about people with choice and the freedom to make decisions for themselves so they can determine what is right without having any master bearing down on them and causing them great grief because we are busy running their lives for them, because we know best.
Mr Deputy Speaker, going back to that quote I started off with from the Book of Samuel:
- And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king.
That is not the type of government I would like to be part of.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Sale of Public Assets
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Legislative Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to sell public assets – TIO, Power and Water and the port – without a mandate, in order to fund their unfunded election commitments, and that the Legislative Assembly asserts that the government must halt any actions to sell public assets and take their policy to sell public assets to the 2016 Territory election.
It is important this Legislative Assembly sends the Chief Minister a message today. He and the government need to be condemned for wanting to sell our public assets without a mandate. TIO, Power and Water and the port do not belong to the CLP; they belong to every Territorian.
Without a mandate the CLP has no right to sell what is not theirs. The Legislative Assembly asserts that the government must halt any actions to sell public assets, and must take their policy to sell these assets to the 2016 Territory election to seek a mandate.
Front and centre in this debate is our TIO. I thought it would be pertinent to see what TIO says about itself. On its website it says:
- While ultimately TIO is ‘guaranteed’ by the Government, the organisation operates on a commercial basis and is fully committed to complying with prudential standards and achieving key industry performance benchmarks.
- TIO works to maximise the positive impact of its business activities and decisions for all its stakeholders, including employees, customers, the community and its owner. Examples include operating ethically, encouraging good conduct from suppliers, treating employees responsibly, ensuring the safety of employees, ensuring that marketing statements are accurate, and delivering high-quality products and service.
- TIO contributes to the social and economic wellbeing of the Northern Territory by investing resources in activities that benefit its owner as well as other stakeholders. Examples include participating voluntarily to support the community in the areas of sports, arts and culture, youth, health, recreation and education.
Chief Minister, in government hands our TIO is a great Territory institution and corporate citizen. It seriously concerns me that all this may be lost with privatisation. TIO’s role as the insurer of choice in the Territory is what makes it worth keeping in government hands. Northern Australia, our landscape and our people are unique as are, at certain times of the year, our weather patterns.
I lived through Cyclone Tracy; I remember the devastation. Our TIO was established to make sure weather events like Cyclone Tracy or the huge floods that hit Katherine and the storm surges we experience do not completely shatter people’s lives. TIO is there as a safety net.
Government insurers like TIO not only cover these events, but pay out in a timely fashion. Unless you have been through a natural disaster it is hard to understand the critical importance of payment in a timely fashion. I know you do not like to hear this, Chief Minister, but the federal parliament’s inquiry into northern Australia, headed by someone from your side of politics, Warren Entsch, spelled out just why TIO must not be sold.
In its submission to the Entsch inquiry, the city of Townsville said this:
- Only a small numbers of insurers are engaged in the market in North Queensland, and potential mergers and acquisitions will reduce competitiveness further. In addition, some insurers refuse to insure certain properties, based on location ...
- We are just a small franchise business in Sarina, which is 30 minutes south of Mackay. The previous year’s premium was $7000 to insure just my stuff – not the building that is in that hop along with your breakdowns and those sorts of insurance. It went from $7000 to $14 000 in one hit. That was the increase in the 12-month premium from last year to this year. I happen to be the treasurer of the RSL Club in Sarina. Their insurance went from $25 000 to $40-odd thousand in one year. There is only one person that would insure the RSL club and I think I had two options to get my insurance.’
Yet the Chief Minister tells us the competition will keep premiums down.
Mr Nick Behrens has been with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Queensland since 2007. He stated in part:
- … some businesses – and I do not over-exaggerate – have had an increase in their insurance bill in Far North Queensland of 2500%. It really has been a significant shock to the operation of their business.
What Mr Behrens has identified was an apparent market failure occurring in north Queensland with insurance companies seeking to withdraw from that market either by discontinuing insurance policies or by ratcheting up insurance prices and premiums to the point where it is no longer affordable for business to reinsure. Mr Behrens stated:
- We are now seeing instances where some businesses are deliberately underinsuring their assets or, very dangerously, not insuring their assets at all.
Chief Minister, I urge you to think again. Today I received news of a Katherine resident who, given this TIO debate, contacted insurers. They found only one insurer willing to cover them for flood, and that insurance premium would cost $8500 a year above their normal insurance premiums. This is not an ideological debate, this is a debate based on the harm it will wreak on Territory families and businesses.
Do you really want Territorians priced out of the insurance market, leaving their homes and businesses uninsured? That is what is happening in Queensland where there is no government insurer.
Warren Entsch’s inquiry made it clear that our TIO is gold standard. He said it is the model which should be adopted across all the areas of northern Australia which are prone to cyclonic weather conditions and flooding. If you will not listen to us, at least listen to the experts and the experience of people in northern Queensland.
Like TIO, our port is too important to our future to sell or lease, which is a sneaky, tricky way of sale. Selling it would be a quick cash grab which would cost Territorians into the future. Any privatisation of the Darwin Port would be an attack on jobs and an escalation on the cost of living in the Territory. A commercial port would deliver higher costs for port users, and all Territorians would pay more as a result of these increased freight costs. Our port is a lever of our economy; it is not something to play with. It certainly should not be sacrificed to pay for your unfunded election commitments.
Listen to the stakeholders. There are more than 100 businesses in the Territory which rely on the port. They range in size from the biggest exporters of raw materials to our smallest importers. The CLP need only listen to the oil and gas sector, an incredibly important industry to the future of our Territory. In their submissions on developing the north, members of the oil and gas industry have called for the port to stay public.
Workers of the port face the real prospect of job losses and erosion of conditions. It will be yet another broken promise. We remember those promises the CLP made to the public service in the past, that their jobs would be safe. Port workers right now are our public servants. Chief Minister, at least keep this promise. Keep your hands off a sale or lease of our port.
It is time to come clean on your intentions with Power and Water assets. Structural separation was never about a greater competition in our tiny electricity market; it was about getting ready to hive off the profitable parts of Power and Water, which we see in Jacana Energy and Territory Generation. We have seen you fatten it up in preparation for sale, and it is under way.
The TAFR belled the cat on this yesterday. On page 29 of the TAFR, the public non-financial corporation sector cash flow statement showed that in 12 months the receipts from sales of goods and services has increased by $230m. That is just $20m shy of a $0.25bn windfall. We know this has come from the pockets of businesses and families across the Territory through your tariff increases. It was a slug on all Territorians. Household budgets were crippled. Businesses were left with no alternative but to increase that flow-on effect increasing the cost of everything we buy and everything we do – bread, milk, clothing and service stations have all had significant hikes in price because of this tariff increase.
You have had the chance to deny that the Power and Water assets are for sale but you refuse to. This is a serious matter about which you say you want a mature conversation with Territorians, yet you do not give them the opportunity to have their say on whether they support the sale of public assets. It has been a cynical exercise. You waited until after the Casuarina by-election to put a full page ad in the Northern Territory News espousing your ambitions around the sale of TIO. You created a website that allows people to put suggestions in on what they would like to see any sale money spent on. Why will you not be enough of a leader to put on that website a simple question: do you support the sale of TIO, yes or no?
What is wrong with giving Territorians a say on whether or not they support the sale of their asset? You can mount all the arguments you want. You can have motions in parliament to debate all you want. The reality is Territorians know in flood zones like Katherine, in the storm surge zones of Rapid Creek and other areas of Darwin and in the event of a natural disaster like a cyclone, they rely on the government insurer for timely payment of insurance, for our lives going forward and affordable premiums.
You can turn a cloth ear to many things, but surely the evidence of what has occurred in northern Queensland, which has been elicited through the developing the north inquiry, sends a very clear, strong message: it would be a disaster for Territorians to sell TIO.
I listened carefully, Chief Minister to your comments attributed to the CEO of TIO, Richard Harding, today in Question Time. He made it clear that TIO would operate well with or without sale. That is the reality. It operates well now within prudential standards. If anything could test that it was the global financial crisis. As we saw major insurers around the globe fall, TIO weathered the worst of the insurance storm and came through well. The board has been appropriately cautious in its reinsurance practices and it is positioned extremely well.
If the CLP had gone to the last election saying, ‘We stand for the sale of TIO, the port and of our utility assets’, you would have a mandate. You did not. Territorians fully and reasonably would have gone to the last election believing the CLP policy was staunchly against the sale of TIO. You campaigned and issued media releases against it. The CLP has been front and centre of the campaign not to sell TIO. Why now do a complete change without giving Territorians the chance to have their say? These are not your assets, Chief Minister, they are public assets.
If the consequences of sale were not so dire there is no ideological barrier, but the consequences of sale of each of these important public assets are dire. The sale of TIO would leave Territorians exposed to escalations in premiums way beyond the 30% you have quoted Chief Minister – 2500% in northern Queensland. For many it would mean they do not get the insurance coverage they need. These are homes and businesses. You are literally hanging Territorians out to dry, to fend for themselves, yet you have no mandate to do that.
Is it that you intend to sell the banking arm only of TIO? If that is the case, then be clear and come clean with Territorians. If you only intend to sell the banking arm of TIO, be honest in this debate and say that. Put to rest any concerns and great angst our community has of the insurance. If that is your intention then come clean in this debate. But you have not been honest with Territorians to date and we will not hold our breath waiting for you to become honest with Territorians. That is not your style.
If you see an aspect of the port you would sell, what aspect? Again, you have not been honest with Territorians in saying the future crane or the extension of hardstand for a particular part of industry could be privately operated. You will not even be that honest with Territorians.
Industry is saying do not sell or tricky-sneaky lease the port. If you cannot heed the call of our critical oil and gas sector, then who on earth will you heed the call of? When they are making submissions saying do not sell the port or tricky-sneaky lease it, how on earth can you say you have any economic credibility when you will not heed their call?
We know – and knowledge is an interesting thing – that when you do port pricing reviews and get some analysis around what the port prices are and the sectors to which commercial port rates would apply, the key targeted commercial increases would be in our most vulnerable sectors: livestock; resources; household goods; and motor vehicles.
What is industry saying to you, Chief Minister? Have you called a forum? Have you written to them? Have you sought their response? Have you been up front in any way? If you have, state in this debate all the industries and businesses you have consulted and let us know what they had to say.
I am basing my argument on all the advice I received over the years from industry. I am going on my knowledge of industry directly eyeballing me when I was a government minister and saying not to sell the port or impose commercial rates as it would impact on business.
By all means if that has so dramatically changed, Chief Minister, explain it. Explain who you have consulted with and what they had to say. All I can see on the public record is our largest industry, which has a greater capacity to pay than our small- and medium-sized businesses relying on the port, is saying it cannot support the sale.
Do not worry, Chief Minister, I will do what you do not seem to have done, which is consult. I will write to the 100 businesses seeking their advice on the port. They have been open and frank with me in the past. I am going to refresh that relationship and give them another opportunity to say whether or not something magically has changed for them to be able to withstand commercial port pricing. You would make it a cost-of-living hell for Territorians in the oncosts as a result of commercial port pricing.
Regarding the experience of utility sales and privatisation, I know you like to espouse that Labor has done it elsewhere. Well, we are here. We are Labor in the Northern Territory and we stand strong, and have always stood strong, against privatisation of our utility, because we get it about Power and Water.
There is much to do in Indigenous Essential Services in delivering improved water, sewerage and power across the Northern Territory. Yes, that work is cross-subsidised by our major users that sit in the system paying commercial rates – no apology about that. We subsidise small businesses and households because, as we have seen with the escalation in the cost of living with your increase in tariffs, you would otherwise literally price people out of the Territory. We are seeing people leave in their thousands because they cannot afford to live here. You have hit them too hard and too deep.
If we see major uses cherry-picked out of Jacana Energy by a competitor, where does that leave small and large households and small businesses – those vulnerable tranches – in pricing? You are creating an economic disaster, Chief Minister, by putting our utility assets up for sale. If you will categorically rule out the sale of any of our utility assets – be it Jacana, elements of the Jacana business, any element of Territory Generation or any element of Power and Water -then rule it out. This is your chance to come clean with Territorians.
While you are at it, talk about what you are doing with the gas sitting within networks at Power and Water. Say whether or not you are selling gas to General Electric, for what price, and whether or not it went out to tender in the open marketplace. However, that is not your style is it, Chief Minister? You will do everything to cover anything up because, exposed to scrutiny, it has dire consequences for Territorians, both households and businesses.
You do not have a mandate. You were not elected as the Chief Minister; Terry Mills was. Territorians have not backed you and they do not like what they see you doing. They do not want their assets sold. If you had any integrity or conscience you would put the question to Territorians. If you are in a rush to sell then hold a referendum and ask us now. Put the question to Territorians. If there is no mad rush in the fire-sale approach you are taking, take it to the 2016 general election and stake your leadership on it.
Listen to Territorians. They will not be blinded by the shopping list you are promoting. They understand the importance of insurance premiums to their households and businesses. They have seen what has happened elsewhere in Australia and in northern Queensland. They understand they do not have affordable alternatives.
The Katherine resident has done his homework – only one insurer prepared to touch him for $8500 a year above the premium he currently pays. I would like to hear the member for Katherine talk about how he supports the TIO sale, how he has held community meetings in Katherine and now, as far as he is concerned, as the elected member representative of the township of Katherine, it is all good. Join this debate, member for Katherine, and let us know what consultation has occurred in Katherine, because residents there understand what dire consequences the sale of TIO would have for them, just as those of us who have been through Cyclone Tracy here understand what dire consequences it would have.
Chief Minister, meet with the residents who live along Rapid Creek in that storm surge zone and find out what they have to say about the sale of TIO. You will not do that; you are known for not listening to Territorians. You will put more money into the government PR spin machine and create more glossy brochures and websites, waiting for the television advertisements to roll out the spin. That is why you already pumped $33m into the Department of the Chief Minister while taking the axe to education and health. It was so you could spin your way through actions which would have dire consequences for Territorians.
You were not elected as the Chief Minister; you knifed the one who was. You have no mandate to do this. Members opposite might sit there in some kind of strange comfort zone and think, ‘Oh, well, we will not be blamed for it. The Chief Minister will be.’ You are wrong. Each of you will be held to account in your own electorates for this. Each of you will have to front a general election and explain why you exposed people to unaffordable premiums and utility prices that are going through the roof because you have sold key assets, and to a cost of living that is escalating because the freight costs across our port have gone up to commercial rates.
Madam Speaker, the chickens will come home to roost on this if the CLP proceeds with the sale. It is a simple request: halt your planned asset sales and take your plans to Territorians if they are so good and the right thing to do. You have your $33m spend machine in the Department of the Chief Minister. We do not have as a war chest to fight back on the glossy ads and brochures. If everything you want to do is so good, get the yes vote on the sale of public assets. Territorians will not be fooled.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. I will not concentrate too much on TIO because the Chief Minister highlighted the fact he will have a debate on this tomorrow. However, I will say a couple of things because the motion is more about whether these issues should be taken to the next election. I believe that is the case because they were not taken to the last election.
I was just reading an article in relation to Prime Minister Tony Abbott travelling to Tasmania in a bid to convince the state to change its mind on selling its energy assets. I note that the Premier, Will Hodgman, said they were not going to sell the assets they had promised they would not sell at the election. I quote from the article. I am not sure which newspaper this is from – ABC media:
- The state Liberals promised before the election that state-owned assets would not be sold.
Further, it said that is exactly what the state government told Mr Hockey. The Tasmanian government went to its election saying it would not sell off state-owned assets.
It is not just about the economics, it is about people having a say in what is, basically, theirs. When we say government-owned assets, they are the people’s assets, especially TIO. TIO has a shareholding minister. That shareholdering minister represents us. TIO has always advertised itself as ‘Our TIO’. That has been one of the consistent messages it has been sending to the people for many years.
I will go back one step. If the government does not agree the issue should be taken to the next election as a fundamental issue, it will have put a very good argument why.
There is no panic, except for Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey offering a 15% asset bonus. If he did not have that asset bonus hanging, the question would be whether there is a hurry to even be discussing this matter. If you are thinking of selling these assets, especially TIO, and if the company is healthy and has a good bank account, there would be no harm in taking this debate to the next election.
It is interesting that the Chief Minister tabled TIO’s media release today. He quoted from it regarding Chairman of the Board, Bruce Carter, who talked about TIO’s briefing to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia.
The Chief Minister pulled out a couple of things which caught his eye in relation to whether TIO should diversify its risks. However, there was a second page. At the end of that second page Mr Carter said:
- Our brand has such great strength because we focus on our customers, which we are continuing to do.
Then he said:
- The bottom line is TIO is a very sound business and will continue to serve the needs of Territorians, irrespective of whether it is owned by the Northern Territory Government or an existing insurance company.
He has not made a definitive statement, as chairman of the board, that it should be sold. He might have given an opinion about expanding its global outlook. I repeat what he said at the end of this media release:
- The bottom line is TIO is a very sound business and will continue to serve the needs of Territorians, irrespective of whether it is owned by the Northern Territory Government or an existing insurance company.
It seems strange to me that the chairman of the board, if he really believed there was no other path for this insurance company to go down than to be sold, would clearly state that on behalf of the board. Yet, when you read the 2012-13 annual report – I hope by tomorrow we have the new annual report tabled before we have a discussion. That is the only way we can look at the financial situation of TIO. In the chairman’s report in 2013 by Mr Bruce Carter, he said:
- What is pleasing about this performance is that it all comes from the efforts of our people before external factors are taken into account and that every part of our business has been operating at a sustainable level for three years or more. The operations are now performing in a way that is reflective of a sustainable business model.
He said further on:
- There is no doubt that we are achieving strong alignment between our customers, our culture and our people as evidenced by the outstanding results in customer satisfaction, staff engagement and employment retention. The efforts of our management and staff should be strongly applauded – not only are they creating a stronger and more sustainable TIO but they are also delivering outstanding service to Territorians.
The Chief Executive, Richard Harding, also wrote quite glowingly about TIO and said some issues needed to be looked at. He said in his report:
- For the third year in a row, all three streams of our business have delivered a surplus, despite the volatility of external forces and increased competition. This is a far cry from days gone by when underlying performance was patchy. Our board can now have confidence that our business is viable, sustainable and ready to weather the risks ahead.
That is pretty clear. He summed up:
- The coming year brings with it a number of opportunities. We are looking forward to working with National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) under DisabilityCare Australia as it plans to begin its trial in the Barkly region ... We will also need to review eligibility and benefits under the MAC legislation against benchmarks under the National Injury Insurance Scheme that will sit alongside the NDIS.
You can see there is a commitment moving into the future of the Northern Territory which reflects what I do not believe any other insurance company could do. The Territory is a special place and needs a unique type of insurance company. That is why the Northern Territory government has to step back a little. Forget Mr Abbott’s 15% bonus, let us look at the long term. If you get rid of this asset there is no more asset.
Who loves insurance companies? Obviously you will get people who do not have a great love of insurance companies. But when 15 000 people sign up to support an insurance company, you have to say there is something a bit different. I do not reckon you would get 15 000 people sign to save QBE. In a small constituency like the Northern Territory, for 15 000 people to say they want TIO as their insurance company sends a message.
The Chief Minister probably was not around when that petition was presented in parliament. Terry Mills was the Opposition Leader. He and I and a lady from TIO, one of the employees, worked across the Northern Territory as far as we could in an attempt to find out what people wanted. The way we found out what the people wanted was to ask, ‘Will you sign a petition to keep TIO?’
I remember we had tables and chairs outside the grand final in the AFL in 2006. We were outside the Marrara TIO Stadium and people queued up and signed because they saw the benefits of having not just an insurance company or a banking company, not just MAC, but a company that had a little heart and soul that made it special.
I will probably hear from the economic rationalists. We argued this in 2006 with Syd Stirling who was then Treasurer. We honestly believe it was the economic rationalists who were driving the agenda. I do not think the economic rationalists take into account the other benefits because they do not necessarily have a dollar sign to them.
The government has a duty to find out what the people think. This asset of ours is not the asset of the Chief Minister or of the CLP, it is our asset. It has been with us for something like 39 years. TIO was established under section 4 of the Territory Insurance Office Act 1979. It has been going a good length of time and commenced operations on 1 July 1979.
I do not think it could be replaced by another company. Yes, we could probably keep the logo. I do not believe we will keep all our employees, because the reality is you will get a bigger company come in which might keep the brand and some of the policies TIO has, but I believe they will rationalise their staff. They will not need to keep that many staff. They will get hold of an insurance company, pay big bickies for it, then to recover some of those costs, quite a number of TIO staff will lose their jobs. That will be an economic reality and we will have no way to do anything about it.
Chief Minister, if it was good enough for the Premier of Tasmania to make a promise – and you were not Chief Minister at the last election – when he went to the polls, telling the people of Tasmania he would not sell off their government-owned assets, then why is it not good enough for you to follow in Mr Will Hodgman’s steps and take this to the next election? You could put the issue of asset sales to the people.
I have not spoken too much on the port. I do not claim to be a golden oracle of economics in this place; I try to bring a type of logic. For instance, if the port is creating revenue for the Northern Territory, you need to say why selling it is better for Territorians. If a company takes over the port it obviously has to recover the amount of money paid for either a 99-year lease or the port. How is that money recouped? It will be recouped by charges over the wharf for inwards and outwards goods. Will the charges for those goods be dearer or cheaper than what people pay now? That is a fundamental question the government has to answer.
The government might say there will be more efficiencies with a bigger company and there may be more trade over the wharf. However, there needs to be some clear evidence of a financial benefit to the users of the port, which then relates to the customers who purchase from people who provide or move goods across the port. Will it cost more to shift a moo cow going to Indonesia or Vietnam? What is the cost to move one cow over the port at present? If you sell the port or lease it to a company what will the price be then? That might be simplistic, but that is what it is all about. Will the cattlemen and pastoralists of the Northern Territory be better off under a privatised port than I a government owned one?
It is the same with TIO. Can someone show me the figures for storm surge policies in the Darwin region if QBE decides to take over? Can someone tell me what flood insurance premiums will be compared to what the Chief Minister says they will go up to if TIO retains it? Can someone give me a definitive statement to say how much the premiums will be in the flood-risk areas of Katherine if QBE takes over TIO? Will they even provide them with insurance? Will an interstate company provide insurance for people in the surge zone in Darwin? They are the basic questions to which people need answers from the Chief Minister. They might sound simplistic, as I said, but they are fundamental to the debate.
Getting back to the premise of the debate, because these assets are the people’s assets, they are valuable assets. If you sell these assets without asking the people, you are treating them very poorly.
Once sold, these assets are sold for good. We sold the NT bus service with not even a debate about it. The member for Barkly asked where the cost-benefit analysis for selling the Darwin Bus Service was. We were not even allowed to see a cost-benefit analysis. You would have thought for the government to sell an asset it would have to come back to parliament for debate.
There were two assets sold: the Government Printing Office and the Darwin Bus Service. If you recall, there was a statement made by the Minister for Transport one day before parliament went into recess, with no mention of selling the Darwin Bus Service. The next day the media release was issued saying, ‘We are selling the Darwin Bus Service’. Surely you would have thought if you wanted to sell an asset and you had a good reason to sell it, you would come back to parliament and at least sit something on the table for a while and discuss it. No, none of that.
We have to work on the theory, ‘Trust us, we are from the government’. People in the Northern Territory are a bit more mature than that. They would like to find out the benefits and the downside of this sale of assets proposed by the government.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I put to the government that the sale of assets is something the Public Accounts Committee should look at. This is exactly the type of thing it has been set up for. It could come back to this parliament in about six months’ time after having travelled the width and breadth of the Northern Territory, asking the people who own these assets what they think – the businesses that use the port and TIO, the sporting groups, CareFlight and all the people who benefit from these government assets. The Public Accounts Committee would at least be able to make a bipartisan recommendation or recommendations about these assets. It would show the government is fair dinkum about finding out what the people of the Northern Territory think about the sale of these assets.
As I said at the beginning, it is important that government has a mandate for the sale of these very important assets. I hope the government listens to that. I know it can pass it off because it has the numbers, but this is a serious enough issue for the government to not rush and to think carefully about it.
As it did not receive a mandate at the previous election to sell these things, it should at least wait and ask the people to decide after they have had a chance to hear all the pros and cons about these matters. In fact, if people want to hear some pros and cons they can turn up for a meeting at the Mal Nairn Auditorium at Charles Darwin University next Thursday at 6 pm. Everybody is invited to attend.
I will give you an indication why that meeting will happen. A couple of panel beaters came to see me. It is not me organising it, but a couple of panel beaters. One is in my electorate and the other one is in Palmerston. They were concerned about what would happen. They asked what they could do. We worked as a group to get out amongst the people and pass on as much information as we could. I have asked Richard Harding from TIO if he would like to come. If anyone here wants to come and say something, we are not putting out lots of invitations to anyone. We are trying to hear what the people have to say and find out what they think about this whole matter. That is what we need to be doing.
If we need to hold a meeting in Katherine, I am quite happy to do that as well to find out what the Katherine people think. We may need to hold meetings further down the track. We only have a limited amount of time before the next sittings.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave at that. I hope the government will not move on this until it has a mandate to do so.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, in joining the debate, it is obvious the main points are being raised not only by the Territory opposition but also the Independent member for Nelson. It is General Business Day, the chance for the opposition to represent the people, and to hold the government to account. The issue of the sale of public assets is very important.
It is a very veiled approach by the government. There has been much movement behind the scenes, but there has not been the transparency and open and accountable dialogue. Where do the members of the government stand? Do they stand shoulder to shoulder with Territorians on this major issue of the sale of public assets, or do they stand within their own self-appointed fallacy that the CLP was born to rule? I remember that statement made in this House. I have great concerns that members opposite may be blinded by that fallacy.
I remind them that the Territory’s major public assets of TIO, our public utilities of power, water and sewerage, and Darwin port belong to the people and the transaction of their sale needs the people’s vote. Good arguments have been put forward and there has been a clear resolution for any government: take it to an election and use the ultimate democratic process. A strong part of the debate is that there are clear alternatives. It could be a referendum. The member for Nelson introduced analysis by the Public Accounts Committee. Or the ultimate is taking it to an election and letting the people decide.
What is the rush? I find it interesting that in 2014 we are having this debate because there seems to be urgency from the current government. There seems to be a concern which has been crafted into an infrastructure story. Let us debate that story. We heard from Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss at a regional economic development conference recently in Alice Springs that mega-regional infrastructure projects are planned to be delivered by the federal Liberal Coalition government, but unfortunately none are in the Northern Territory.
We have seen budget appropriations where this current government equates the Ord River Stage 3 with the same budget appropriation to the Alice Springs Golf Club. There are many contradictions in what this government says and what it does.
If we are left in the dark and are to come to our own decisions representing Territorians, I have grave concerns around what this decision is based on to sell off what belongs to the people together as Territorians in an important part of the Territory’s development historically, with the emerging economy and opportunity. Darwin is the emerging capital of northern Australia.
Yet, large ‘L’ Liberals want to sell off the moneymakers. That is what confuses me. With the free market economy and all that rhetoric around economic rationalist debate, you want to sell off the moneymakers in a period in history where we ain’t seen nothing yet. These utilities of insurance and the port have the potential to be really significant revenue raisers on the way forward as the Territory develops.
If we take the recommendations of the federal Inquiry into the Development of Northern Australia by the Liberal Coalition, surely you would acknowledge that contribution to the debate, ‘The TIO is the important insurer for NT flood and cyclone’. It is an important statement and a reputable reference. I encourage members opposite to take notice of that and ask why that would be put. If you listen to the language of insurers there is concern that the government, in selling off TIO, would be ignoring the storm surge risk. It is an open market insurer in Darwin offering that cover at the moment. What would it be? We do not seem to have any economic modelling or empirical evidence at this stage other than a Chief Minister who has been making statements about ‘mature conversations’, ‘it is lined up for sale’ and ‘it is a good thing to sell’.
Ironically, the Chief Minister seemed to be running down TIO during to the last three Question Times. I am wondering about a Chief Minister who is telling the Northern Territory the TIO needs to be sold; we need to offload it and get rid of it. It is like a used car. I am thinking to myself, ‘Hang on a minute, if it is so bad then who is going to buy it?’
When we dig into a bit of detail and look at the outcomes of the TIO making a $60m profit, being a very loved and cherished institution within the Territory and insurance company operating on the open market that targets specific insurance products and outcomes for Territorians, we have a good outcome and a good company that will grow and flourish as the economy develops in the Northern Territory. I do not get this sense of irony that is emerging from the Chief Minister’s excuses and sheer determination to bully this through.
The Leader of the Opposition made a very important point about members on that side. If there is one member on that side who needs to reflect on the constituency they represent, it is the member for Katherine. I cannot understand how the member for Katherine will go home and sell this to a large percentage of the population in Katherine who have already incurred devastating floods, have survived and acknowledge the support of the TIO in that total recovery. Member for Katherine, it will be very interesting to hear your take on this because your constituency will have a very powerful argument.
If we look at Power and Water, then any of the bush members should be very concerned about the changes that are taking place. The Chief Minister, in carrying 13 portfolios, is a very busy minister. The other day in parliament he talked about Power and Water carrying the $77m liability – or subsidy – which is required each year to keep the bush going.
I am very concerned. When you look at the power and water utilities in the Northern Territory you see the moneymaker is generation within the greater Darwin area. Of course, that network link to Katherine is the moneymaker.
What has the CLP done? They have split the Power and Water Corporation. They are lining up the generation component as the saleable item, the part that makes money for the Territory, which will then be sold, hot on the lot, to an interstate company or concern. That troubles me. Any member from the bush should also be concerned because we cost the Territory money. The people who live in the bush in regional and remote communities need a subsidy. We have seen the impact on cost of living for our rural, regional and remote constituents already with the massive price hikes under this government.
I have that articulated regularly in my bush travels about power cards that used to last four days only lasting two days. The conversations say to me that it relates to the necessities of life such as storing food. It relates to food security. The majority of the constituents I am talking about are on fixed incomes. They do not have the latitude to absorb increasing costs. This cost-of-living pressure directly coming from utility tariff increases has seriously impacted on very important aspects of their lives, like keeping food safe in a fridge. We can get away without the lights and the cooking, but if the power goes off, which it does now more frequently, than we are risking the basic element of food security.
The retail sector of Power and Water is another good business arm. It is another business component that would be seen as a good company to buy. If we sell the generation and retail components we are seriously impacting on the revenue-raising capacity. Power and Water will be left with the liability. The Chief Minister has already outlined a $77m liability, which is what it costs to look after the bush, the generation, the networks and the people. I am very concerned that, once again, this is being bullied and pushed through with no real analysis.
Members of the Territory opposition who recently participated in the governmentowned corporations briefing came back very concerned. They briefed Caucus that there were far more questions than answers, that this has been rushed through and officials were not able to give the Territory opposition details in that hearing. That is of grave concern to a person who lives in the bush.
The other aspect of these public asset sales is the port. As I have said before, I am very privileged to be able to say I worked side by side with the Darwin Port Corporation. It was a great learning curve. In that job I was part of an incredible team that was on the hunt for new customers. I brought to the table many conversations about these customers emerging in the regions. That said it is not a matter of if but when, because in our supply chain logistics the Darwin Port is the gateway to Asia. It is also the gateway from Asia to the Territory.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries told us about these huge increases in the sale of live cattle exports. It is a great story, and we are moving forward. The Darwin Port Corporation is putting in enormous work, through a master plan that was set up and launched by the previous government into preparing for this boom which, once again, represents a major moneymaker. It is a very good institution to keep, because the Territory is booming. There will be an incredible escalation in the export of minerals, resources and energy, as well as pastoral products.
I cannot understand why this has been lumped into this rushed, bullied rhetoric around asset sales. Why? We can guess it is about the delivery of infrastructure. It is quite ironic that you would sell a major component of the supply chain logistics to support Territory development – which is essentially the development within the northern Australia plan – to purchase and develop infrastructure. What infrastructure?
The member for Blain was the only one on that side to give me any idea. He talked about higher producing infrastructure and his example was a swimming pool. We sell off a port, the gateway to and from Asia, and the example from the member for Blain was that we can then go into the community and build a swimming pool. I would love a swimming pool, as would Elliott and Ali Curung. Tennant Creek is getting a new swimming pool thanks to the federal Labor government. Yes, people benefit from swimming pools, and they would love swimming pools. But, honestly …
Mr Wood: To make money.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, they cost a lot of money.
I cannot really get the argument of the sale of major public assets. I cannot see the sense.
The Chief Minister may be acting with an unhealthy element of urgency. There is a sense of irony in the timing of the comment, because it seemed that after the Casuarina by-election the story started to emerge. The CLP government cannot get away from the accusation of, ‘What do you have to hide?’ If it was not good enough to be talked about and aired before the Casuarina by-election, is there some problem? Is there a hidden agenda? Are you really being honest with Territorians? Are you being straight?
Chief Minister, you are the leader, the one who has carriage of all the unfunded election commitments that were made in the 2012 election. They relate to the bush. Not only have you enormous pressure from Alice Springs and your urban members, you have set up very large expectations within the regional remote areas. I believe this urgency is being driven from that pressure and, on top of that, the pressure from your own members.
We see the member for Arafura, with an allocation of $924m for a Tiwi ferry, yet there is a $400 000 allocation to bush bus services, servicing a constituency covering a geographic area bigger than the area of New South Wales. We can see there is an unhealthy political agenda emerging, a number crunch.
It was all good for a short time, but the member for Fong Lim is now operating on the fence. He is sitting on the top rail. He is watching what is happening in the yards, and he is not quite sure whether he is going to be part of the next muster.
Once again, without accurate information, a serious debate and honesty within the Territory then I am left in the dark to make up my own mind. This is not a healthy place to be.
As the opposition members and the Independent member have said, treat this seriously. As Territorians, we are all in this together. Let us look at the economic modelling. Let us look at what we have today and be very cognisant of what is around the corner in the Territory’s growth and development. Be very careful about selling the farm, members of the CLP. Be very careful in your own discussions; you should be questioning this. I hope you will seek the wisdom of your constituency. The member for Katherine would be leading in that aspect of the research.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope this argument is rationalised back to a position where we can judge it fairly in the essence of the benefit for Territorians – the real benefit for the future of Territorians, not what it looks like as a sense of urgency, a cash grab, a pure political agenda for personal political survival. I do not think that will auger well in the history books of the Northern Territory for any members opposite.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion to condemn the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to sell public assets – the Territory Insurance Office, Power and Water and the port – without a mandate, in order to fund their unfunded election commitments.
This is a hot topic at the moment and Territorians are deeply concerned about what they are hearing, especially with regard to TIO. It is a big issue in the community and people are coming to me thick and fast to say they do not believe selling TIO is a good idea and they do not want to see TIO sold.
People are also disappointed with this government because they see the government has no mandate to sell TIO. They had no warning, prior to the 2012 election, of the government’s intention to go down this path. They are feeling the government should have been up front with them and consulted with them prior to the election, and at the moment it seems the government has already well and truly made up its mind.
Power and Water is another issue. There was no discussion around the time of the Territory election and going forward to separate Power and Water.
Territorians were also not told that upon voting in the CLP – which promised so dearly to reduce people’s cost of living as one of its key election commitments – that one of its first actions in government would be to jack up people’s power, water and sewerage bills, and put them right through the roof. We now know the average Territory family is paying an extra $2000 a year to keep the lights on and the water running. It has been a huge cost-of-living increase for families who are now paying around $8000 a year in power and water bills, thanks to the CLP.
We have seen with Power and Water, due to the huge tariff increases, a $260m net profit after tax. We saw that in the latest Statement of Corporate Intent. The government is directly taking money out of the pockets of Territorians despite the fact it promised to reduce the cost of living.
We have also heard many statements with regard to some of the subsidies in place for Power and Water and wanting to see those completely eliminated. Like the member for Barkly, that raises alarm bells for me. We know the cost of delivering power, water and sewerage services in the bush is extremely high. We are talking about people on some of the lowest incomes in the country who have a right to have power and water. The last thing we want to see is it becomes unaffordable for them so they have problems keeping the lights on, washing their clothes or having safe and hygienic places to have a shower.
To hear the constant banter from the government about not wanting to subsidise Power and Water Corporation makes me wonder what on earth will happen in the bush in the future if that is the direction it intends to take. What will people end up paying for power and water in the bush?
It has been interesting watching what has happened with Power and Water under the CLP. When the government first came to power we saw huge power and water price increases. It then announced it would split Power and Water. Again, it did not tell Territorians going into the 2012 election it would be splitting the Power and Water Corporation. We then saw it try to ram the split through this parliament. First it was an attempt to cognate the bills to minimise scrutiny through the parliamentary process. The government wanted to push those bills through with very little scrutiny with regard to committee work or consultation with Territorians.
The only reason they were unable to achieve that was because during that sittings they had an extreme crisis with numbers. At that time we saw huge instability in the CLP. We saw members walk away and join the Palmer United Party. The government was no longer able to ram through the split of Power and Water as intended. Leading into that its members were being awfully friendly with the member for Nelson. I remember questions around numbers and a General Business Day when the member for Nelson moved some self-referral powers to the PAC. The government gladly supported it. As a result, at least the PAC was able to hold an inquiry into the bills to separate Power and Water so we could look at what it meant and try to get more detail on what the government was doing and, most importantly, try to understand whether or not there was any benefit to Territorians. That was a huge question because if the government was going to ram through, with very little scrutiny, the split of Power and Water without being able to show any real benefit to Territorians, what was the point?
It is deeply concerning that where we have seen structural separation in other jurisdictions, we have seen that lead down the path towards privatisation. When that happens it consistently shows prices go up, reliability goes down and jobs are cut. It is a fact. It has happened time and time again in other jurisdictions where governments have ventured down this path.
The PAC was able to have its inquiry. Unfortunately we were able to get absolutely no data, no figures from any of the government agencies. We were not able to get any information from NewCo – which is part of the Department of the Chief Minister, responsible for managing the separation of Power and Water, Treasury or anything from Power and Water about whether or not there was any cost-benefit to Territorians. If they had any figures to demonstrate any cost benefit they were not able to provide it, which is staggering when you think they are dealing with billions of dollars of Territory assets. They are also dealing with a utility, use of which is a major bill every Territorian has to pay.
To go through the process to see there was very little evidence to support what the government was doing and there appeared to very little thought around what the government was doing, was quite concerning. Despite the PAC, in getting its work done, finding there was very little evidence to support the separation of Power and Water, demonstrating it was being rammed through at a pace that was too fast, the legislation was rammed through. They did not have the grace to let the PAC report be tabled, let alone debated, in this Chamber of parliament. The split happened on 1 July. We now have Jacana Power, Territory Generation and Power and Water Corporation.
We went into estimates and put some questions to the government, wanting to get a better understanding of how things were going in this new world of having these three new corporations. The answer we received was that they had no complete financial data around their assets, and Territory Generation and Jacana Energy were unable to complete Statements of Corporate Intent, and the strategic plans for these two new government owned corporations were still being worked on.
They still have no clear idea of where they are going, but one thing they did make very clear to the Estimates Committee was they are there to drive profits and ensure they are making as much money as possible. This leads to some very big concerns about how they will do this. What will this cost Territorians? Will we see Territorians paying even more? We already know that on 1 January Territorians will be paying a further 5% for their power. That is another price hike coming their way.
What will we see in those strategic plans when they are released, particularly for Jacana Energy and Territory Generation? What will we see in those new documents when they have some idea of where their finances and assets are?
We know Jacana Energy has a very attractive group of customers who are their contestable customers. We know somewhere between 70 and 80 of their customers reflect about 34% of their revenue. Around 90 000 other customers reflect the rest of their revenue. That is a very small group of customers making them a fair bit of money.
Through the separation of Power and Water, one thing the government continually said was this was about creating competition to drive prices down for Territorians. In the retail game, it is very clear there are no competitors targeting households. Our constituents, those people in normal households across the Territory, are not being targeted by those retailers; they are after the big business end of town. They are not even chasing small businesses. What will happen? Will Jacana look at those contestable customers and what they can do with them? We know Jacana is looking to partner with a private retailer. That was something the former Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim, let us know during the estimates process in June. It was something we had not heard before, but we know they were looking to partner them with another private retailer. Effectively, part-privatisation is on the books right now and is something they are looking at.
With regard to generation, again we are waiting to see what their strategic plan will ultimately look like, once they have a crystal clear picture of their finances and assets. You would think that would have been resolved before splitting Power and Water, but that was never done. They have some very new equipment such as the Weddell Power Station and Owen Springs Power Station, which are very attractive assets to sell. It is very concerning; we do not know where they are going at this point, because they do not even know what they have.
Let us see which way it goes, but if we are to look at what has happened in other jurisdictions that have gone through structural separation, it leads to privatisation. When we see our utilities privatised that means higher prices. Reliability goes down, because less is invested into repairs and maintenance. It also means fewer people on the job to make sure power, water and sewerage services are running the way we need them to.
I turn to TIO. As we said, the government has no mandate to go down the path of selling TIO. Territorians do not want to see happen. They are saying loud and clear that TIO should not be sold. They are signing petitions thick and fast. They do not want to see their insurer sold; they have so much trust in TIO because it has been there for them through thick and thin. It has been there for them through floods and cyclones, and provides excellent insurance products people believe they can rely on. Most importantly, it does it at an affordable price. TIO employs Territorians and invests back into the community. It is not just about providing an insurance product; it is about an organisation that gives back to the community as well.
The government keeps saying any sale of TIO would be on the basis of ensuring Territory jobs are protected, the brand of TIO is protected and people can still access those very important insurance products of cyclone and flood cover to maintain that level of protection. The government keeps saying that, but it is little wonder Territorians struggle to trust the government on that. You are basically leaving people at the mercy of the private market. Let us see what happens with insurance prices then. They have very little trust in the government. When the government went to them at the last election it said, ‘We are delivering a key commitment in reducing your cost of living’. However, one of the first actions the CLP took in government was to jack the price of power, water and sewerage through the roof.
This week we have seen another example to do with bus drivers. When the bus service was privatised, drivers were told their conditions would not change and they would be on the same wicket. Instead, what have we seen? After the bus service was privatised, drivers have lost conditions and will be losing wages.
So it is little wonder people have little trust in the government when you say you will keep premiums down. People have little faith that Territorians will keep their jobs if you sell off TIO. TIO is a great insurer. People have a lot of trust in it. They want to keep TIO in the hands of Territorians. They do not want to see it sold. The government should at least get a mandate if they are going to go down this path of selling. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. All you will end up doing is lining your pockets with a quick cash grab to fund your election commitments. As I said, once it has gone, it is gone.
By the tone of the government, it sounds as if they have already made their decision about selling TIO. It is a shame they did not test this by going to the Casuarina by-election and at least telling people they had plans to go down this path. Instead, straight after the Casuarina by-election, we heard they are venturing down this path of selling TIO, and they want to have ‘mature debate and discussion’ about it. It would have been a lot more mature if you were up front and open with Territorians, since you have been discussing this since March. That is what you have put on the record, telling people you were looking at selling it.
The government’s tone has been quite interesting so far in this debate. When it has been asked about it, nothing is on or off the table. Then the Casuarina by-election happened and we saw full-page advertisements about it. You should have been a bit more up front with those voters.
We are also seeing work around the port the government is undertaking to look at the potential leasing or privatisation. It is something people really struggle to believe. How on earth will you keep prices down if you privatise services at the port?
We hear the government repeatedly talking about the development of northern Australia, and we all know the port is critical to the economic development of the Territory, particularly of our resources sector. You would think this time is not the moment to be going down this path, especially if you cannot show Territorians any benefits from doing this. It is like the Power and Water situation, where we asked very simple questions about the cost-benefit to Territorians, and not one government agency could demonstrate that. It makes you wonder. There has been a total failure to articulate any real benefits to Territorians of venturing down this path. It is something you should have a mandate to do. You should take it to an election.
There has been huge debate about the sell-off of Territory assets. People know and understand that once they are gone, they are gone forever. They do not want to see their assets sold off and see, as a result, an increase to their cost-of-living pressures.
There is a lot of merit in what the member for Nelson said with regard to going through a committee process to look at TIO so we can at least have further scrutiny regarding this, rather than the government’s very selective consultation process. There will be lot more debate in this House about it.
The government should be going through the ultimate consultation process of taking the decision to sell off public assets –TIO, Power and Water Corporation, and the port – or any privatisation path to Territorians at an election. Let them have a say on this in 2016. Do not be so shortsighted to sell them or privatise them straightaway with some very shortsighted cash grab initiatives. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I hope the government listens to the voice of Territorians.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the Leader of Opposition in this motion that this Assembly condemns the Chief Minister and the government for their actions to sell public assets – the Territory Insurance Office, Power and Water and the port – without a mandate, in order to fund their unfunded election commitment, and that the Legislative Assembly asserts that the government must halt any actions to sell public assets and must take their policy to sell public assets to the 2016 Territory election.
This is one of the better motions which has come to this parliament. It is important that this side of the House makes our view, and the view of our electorates, known regarding the sale of public assets when you do not have a mandate. If you want to do that, you should take it to the 2016 election. These are Territory assets. One of the most important roles of the opposition is to hold the government to account. As shadow minister for government accountability, it is a role I take extremely seriously.
In August 2012, Territorians weighed up the choice of a CLP or ALP government. While the choice of a CLP government was disappointing to everyone on this side of the House, it was a decision we accepted and one we are learning from.
Territorians are entitled to expect the commitment the CLP gave at the last election to be honoured. They are also entitled to expect the CLP be up front and honest about government plans, particularly ones which involve the sale of valuable assets which belong to all of us. The list of broken CLP promises is so long I could spend this whole contribution detailing them. From the massive power hikes to the savage cuts to teachers and education, to failing to deliver for the bush, it is clear this government places little store in being faithful, open and accountable to all Territorians. What is becoming increasingly clear is the CLP did not intend to keep its commitment not to sell our public assets, hid its plans to do so, and deliberately and audaciously deceived Territorians at the last election.
It is clear the CLP always intended to flog off our public assets to pay for its unfunded election commitments. It is clear it had a plan to do so before the last election, and it deliberately hid this plan from Territorians because it knew it had no chance of winning the election if it came clean.
Territorians will recall the hundreds of millions of dollars of promises the CLP made to Indigenous Territorians and bush communities leading up to the 2012 election. No wish was too big or too small to receive a pledge from the then Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, to deliver it in full. Often these commitments came in the form of a signed contract, and what a cynical ploy that turned out to be. He was ably abetted by none other than the current Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, who was instrumental in what I like to call operation fairy dust. We had the spectacle of the current and former Chief Ministers floating across the Territory from community to community sprinkling fairy dust, promising everything to everyone and signing contracts which were not worth the glossy cardboard they were written on.
Territorians in the bush where entitled to take the CLP on its word, to believe these commitments had been carefully costed and the CLP had a plan to deliver them. They were entitled to believe they were being dealt with in good faith. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
The CLP knew full well the only way to pay for these unfunded commitments would be to slash health and education spending and to flog off our public assets. Straight out of the conservative play book, that is what is unfolding before us.
It is no coincidence this plan of attack on all Territorians, particularly paid conditions of those who work for government owned corporations which the CLP intends to sell, seems familiar. It is the same ideological crusade run by the same people being waged at a federal level and across the border in Queensland. The plan of attack is clear: lie your way into office with unfunded commitments; set up a commission of audit – in our case the Renewable Management Board – giving them bucket loads of cash for a few hours’ work every week; slash funding on vital government services in health and education; raise taxes; and flog off public assets to pay for your unfunded commitments.
In my electorate of Johnston there is a funding commitment of $1.5m for flood mitigation works. We would like to say it is Rapid Creek but the residents of Millner are deeply affected, and were deeply affected by flood a few years ago. The then CLP candidate promised, along with Terry Mills the then Opposition Leader, $1.5m for flood mitigation works with a promise that more would be delivered if they won the election. We are over two years into that 2012 election commitment and not one cent – I repeat, not one cent – has been spent on flood mitigation works in Millner for Rapid Creek flooding.
We have a Chief Minister who is using as a political tool and ploy the Millner residents and the people affected by the floods in Rapid Creek, saying, ‘If you do not sell TIO we will not do the work for you; if we sell TIO there is a possibility.’ Every time he mentions it in the media or in this parliament, he mentions Rapid Creek flood mitigation works. You do not hold Territorians to ransom. You do not sell off a public asset that is owned by Territorians through saying, ‘Sell this, agree to this or we will not do your work’. It is the government’s job. It is what this CLP in 2012, when in opposition, promised the residents of Millner and Rapid Creek: they would fix the flooding using $1.5m, with more to come.
As I have said in previous debates, I have residents coming to me irate that the Chief Minister and this government is using flood mitigation works in Millner and Rapid Creek as a political tool. These are people’s lives. This is what you promised. As I said last week, if you promise to do something and get into government, it is your job to deliver on that promise.
I will spell it out for this government. The issue we have in regard to the Millner or Rapid Creek residents affected by the flooding is that with TIO – as an insurer, as our public asset – we took a hit around the costing to keep the flood premiums down for Katherine and Millner residents who were flooded. If TIO was to be sold and privatised, it would individually assess each case and the flood risk on each property, and the premiums would go through the roof. As I said, we all take a hit on TIO for Katherine, parts of Millner and other parts of the Territory which are flooded.
If we were to privatise TIO these premiums will go through the roof as we have seen in Queensland where it was $5000 more. The member for Karama mentioned in her contribution somebody in Katherine who has checked the figures and it is going to be $8500 more for insurance premiums. This is the reality. We have already seen this in Queensland with $5000 extra. It is $8500 extra straightaway trying to get flood insurance for Katherine. We will have the same issue in Millner and other areas around the Territory that occasionally flood.
This is why we need to protect our public asset. We need to protect TIO. I know you guys do not own up to it, but Warren Entsch is one of your blokes; he is one of the Liberal Nationals. He said, ‘Keep it’.
We saw in Queensland what happens; people are not insured because they cannot afford it. They cannot afford to insure their own properties because of the increased risk and the money it is costing them now.
The Renewal Management Board, the CLP promises, and the ideological crusade were run by the same people at federal level, in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. No one should have been surprised when the name James McGrath appeared in documents recently tabled in this parliament, detailing e-mail exchanges regarding Foundation 51. Incidentally, the item ‘debt reduction strategy’ also featured in the list of expenses for Foundation 51. This is the same James McGrath who ran the same strategy in Queensland and in the Northern Territory. It is the same James McGrath who, in his first speech as a Senator for Queensland, listed, as his policy nirvana, the sale of the ABC, an increase in the GST to 15% and the abolition of the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Education.
At its core, these policy objectives represent a fundamentalism, a belligerent belief in smaller government and a view that those less well off in our community should fend for themselves. It is an ideology that has scant evidence to support its claims to provide for a healthier, wealthier and fairer community. It represents a mean-spiritedness that those of us on this side of the House categorically reject.
All of us in this House are ultimately accountable to the good people of the Northern Territory for our policies and the values they represent, our conduct and delivering on our promises. We should all be in the ideas business.
It is clear that Territorians were denied the opportunity to cast judgment on what is now a clear plan of the CLP to sell assets that belong to all of us. Territorians deserve this choice. The challenge is now with the Chief Minister. If he really believes these asset sales are in the best interest of Territorians he should man up, make his case and take it to the people to decide. Or he could squib it, take the coward’s way and ram these sales through without the mandate such important decisions require. It is a test of his leadership and of whether the interests of all Territorians have any chance of competing with the interest of him and his mates.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a couple of things have been raised in this debate, particularly the lies about Queensland …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! The Chief Minister needs to withdraw ‘lies’. This is under Standing Order 62. Madam Speaker was very clear about that in her advice in the Chamber. She would not accept that language.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam Speaker yesterday talked about the word ‘lie’ and said that it is important we not call each other liars in this place. You may refer to certain things that are published as lies, but be careful not to call anybody in this House a liar. Please proceed.
Mr GILES: I follow that guidance, so it is good to see those rules are being replicated in the commentary in the Chamber. Getting back to the lies that were raised about Queensland, I know there is concern being raised and peddled …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62; following the advice of Mr Acting Deputy Speaker in the accusation of lies, the Chief Minister has repeated it, so I ask that he withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He was referring to the situation as a lie, as opposed to a person or a body.
Ms LAWRIE: He was referring to lies spoken in this Chamber, so I ask him to withdraw.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition has admitted to lying within this Chamber she should reflect on how she is commenting.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My ruling is that he was talking about the situation, not of any person or things that have occurred here.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know there is talk about increases in prices, as they occurred in Queensland, so I have done some research and I am happy to provide some information.
There is a belief being peddled by the Labor Party and the Labor opposition that the reason prices are lower here and could be lower there is around TIO’s ownership structure. It is raised in the Pivot North report by the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia. Unfortunately, what is raised is completely untrue. There is a very simple reason why insurance is cheaper here and why prices will not skyrocket after an event like the Queensland floods in the Northern Territory. It is the nature of underwriting the risk.
North Queensland’s exposure to highly-intense cyclones and large catastrophic insurance losses is significantly higher than in the Northern Territory. It is pretty simple why. It has a very long east-facing coastline exposed to cyclone, and is home to numerous cities and towns, which means they are riskier to insure; that is, the border of Queensland is really long and faces the Pacific Ocean where the cyclones come from. On top of that, there is a whole lot of urbanisation up and down the coastline which presents an even greater risk …
Ms Fyles: And we face the Arafura Sea. Do you know that? Oh, he is from Alice Springs.
Mr GILES: We sat here quietly while you debated, so it is only fair that you hear another side of the story.
That can very easily be witnessed by the size of the losses which arose out of Cyclone Yasi and Cyclone Larry, which were in excess of $1bn each. We do not have that level of infrastructure here – the resorts, the big hotels, the high rises, the population or the coastline facing the Pacific Ocean.
In addition – which is very important to note – the Territory’s Building Code is significantly stronger than Queensland’s as a result of Cyclone Tracy. The Building Code – and I am happy to be corrected on the dates – came into effect in about 1979, six or so years before the Building Code was in place in Queensland. We had almost complete or 90% reconstruction in Darwin and the Top End by then, which meant that most of the reconstructed buildings in the Territory were cyclone coded, as opposed to what occurred in Queensland. Hence the reason many of the buildings and structures there are not cyclone coded to date and many face the Pacific Ocean. This is a simplistic but factual way of looking at it, particularly how things work around the Building Code.
While government owned TIO operates on a commercial basis, its prices are not set by government and it is not subsidised in any way – just to make that clear. There is nothing in the ownership structure or role of TIO which would result in the differences between insurance costs in these two markets, to put it quite simply. TIO said if it covered north Queensland it would be charging exactly the same for premiums as other companies there charge right now. While the debate on the future ownership structure of TIO is under way it needs to be understood that it is a separate debate to pricing, which is determined only by risk profile.
One thing I also clarify is this question of mandate which Labor seems to be fixated on. When the people of the Northern Territory elected the Country Liberals government to govern in August 2012, it gave the government a mandate to govern ...
Ms Fyles: To the elected Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: It gave the government a mandate to fix the debt-ridden mess Labor left behind. Your Opposition Leader was not voted in either, member for Nightcliff.
The mandate was to take action ...
Ms Fyles: Oh, touchy, touchy!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, you have had plenty of warnings this morning. I do not plan on giving you anymore.
Ms Fyles: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr GILES: The mandate was to take what action was deemed necessary to not only address the debt issue, but to embark on a plan to rebuild and re-establish the Northern Territory’s economic growth and its potential into the future. The May budget made it clear where our priorities lie: securing our children’s and their children’s future. To that end two issues were at the forefront: the cost of living and the boom and bust economic cycles.
The Country Liberals government is tackling the cost of living through the most generous Back to School voucher scheme, sport and recreational voucher scheme, childcare funding and seniors scheme in the nation. We have tackled fuel prices head on, something Labor failed to do when in government.
Our land releases put downward pressure on the challenges on housing and rental costs, and already real estate people are starting to say that is having effect. Our promise to slash red tape is being delivered, with more than 20 pieces of red tape already removed, taking action on the $4bn red tape industry that was created by Labor between 2006 and 2011. We have taken massive steps to fix the disastrous mess left by the Labor Party with such things as the ban on live cattle exports.
The task at hand now is to continue to deliver on our mandate to fix Labor’s mess and address the challenges of a boom and bust cycle. We have a duty of care to ensure the building blocks are in place when the construction phase of the INPEX project comes to an end.
We are planning for the future, unlike Labor. There are a number of ways we are going about this. One of the solutions is to borrow more money and put us further into debt. That is the Labor way of doing business: borrow, go into debt and ruin our children’s future. The Labor Party and its Opposition Leader believe in the fallacy that in government you can borrow forever; you can keep increasing big credit card limits. That is simply not achievable. Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics can understand if you continue to spend more than you have, in the end you will go bankrupt. It is a simple lesson for the Opposition Leader.
This is the same course the current Opposition Leader embarked on when in government and continues to advocate for today. Only yesterday, her deputy, the member for Barkly, advocated wholesale cuts to taxes when commenting on the TAFR, the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. Interestingly, he did not say where the tax cuts should be made or how the revenue shortfalls and the impacts on servicing government debt – Labor debt – and continuing to grow the Territory economy would be achieved. Needless to say it was, ‘Bugger the debt, let us just borrow more for tomorrow’. The other solution for government to deliver on its mandate to fix Labor’s mess is to recycle assets in line with the federal government’s asset recycling program.
I remind members of the Labor opposition that selling government assets started in 1993 and included Labor’s great national leader – no, not Gough Whitlam – Paul Keating, who sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. All other states and territories, including the Labor states, did it as well. They did it to stimulate economic growth, investment in infrastructure and jobs for the future, which ultimately leads to productivity gains which helps economic growth.
There will be roughly $0.5bn injected into local and community projects should the NT government recycle TIO and port assets. There is no discussion about Power and Water assets. Recycling government assets is the NT government’s plan to ensure sustained economic activity in the short to medium term, and it ties in with its medium- to longer-term growth through the north Australia strategy.
The Territory Insurance Office, TIO, was established in 1979 to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. It is interesting to note that today workers compensation cover now sees TIO holding a market share of 35%; that is, 65% of policy holders are not with TIO.
Since 1979 TIO has evolved into a general insurance company providing a wide range of insurance products as well as a banking business providing, primarily, home loans and holding customer deposits. The strategic imperatives for the creation of TIO no longer exist.
The Territory insurance industry is a vibrant and competitive one with in excess of 15 insurers competing for customers. Most large national and international insurers offer products in the Northern Territory. I note the Leader of the Opposition indicated earlier in this debate that she would be keen to see the banking side of TIO sold.
The Territory is also well served by the banking industry, with the four big banks and a raft of …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I did not indicate that at all. That would be an incorrect statement in the Chamber.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition feels she has been misrepresented she has the opportunity to make a personal explanation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: The Leader of the Opposition quite willingly supports the sale of the banking side of TIO …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The Hansard record is very clear. I did not say that. I did not indicate that. That is wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! If the Leader of the Opposition feels she has been misrepresented, she can make a personal explanation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, if you feel you need to make a personal explanation, you can. You can seek approval through the Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: No, I do not have to, but thank you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: Thank you …
Ms Lawrie: Keep lying.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you were told about ‘lying’ this morning. If I hear that again, you will be out. That is really pushing it. Chief Minister, you have the floor.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, the mendacious nature of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to debate in this Chamber is challenging at the best of times. I do not know what the Hansard will reveal when read word for word, but I was sitting in this Chamber when she quite wilfully indicated through the smile on her face, the glint in her eye, the tickle of the belly, that she was very keen on selling the banking sector ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What was offensive? I did not hear it.
Ms FYLES: The comments the Chief Minister made about the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr GILES: I am happy to withdraw. I withdraw.
All right, there was no twinkle in the eye at selling the banking side of TIO. Let me get back to the point I was making before …
Ms Lawrie: You can laugh now but you will lose your seat. Gone!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! She continues to use the ‘L’ word.
Ms Lawrie: I did not. I said, ‘You will lose your seat’.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, I do not like to labour the point but if the Leader of the Opposition says these things she should at least have the decency to own up to it. This is parliament ...
Ms Lawrie: Seriously?
Mr Elferink: Yes, seriously.
Mr GILES: You just …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have a bit of order with the debate, please. Members of the opposition, everyone was quiet while you spoke, the least you can do is be quiet while the Chief Minister speaks.
The next person who opens their mouth when I feel it is inappropriate will be out. Chief Minister, that excludes you opening your mouth, thank you.
Mr GILES: Mr Deputy Speaker, what I am about to say is not offensive. We are talking about TIO, a fantastic institution in the Northern Territory. We are talking about ‘T’ standing for the Territory and always standing for the Territory and TIO always remaining part of the Territory. I will get back to the notes I have crafted here ...
Ms Fyles interjecting.
Mr GILES: Sorry, what was that, member for Nightcliff? You will not own up to that one either?
The Territory is also well served by the banking industry with the big four banks and a raft of second tier banks and credit unions also providing services. This reflects the true global nature of the finance and insurance industry in the Northern Territory. When you go through some of those big four banks and credit unions in the Territory it is no wonder the Leader of the Opposition is so supportive to see the banking sector of TIO sold.
All insurers operating …
Ms Lawrie: Absolute rubbish!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I beg your pardon?
Ms Lawrie: Absolute rubbish.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You need to move a substantive motion if you wish to use that language in this Chamber.
Ms Lawrie: Come on! At least be honest in this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, cease interjecting!
Mr GILES: All insurers operating in the Territory offer cyclone cover and all but one offer flood insurance. Even in the area of cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest. Its prices actually sit in the middle of the market, albeit it provides a fantastic service, particularly the level of customer service, something any likely suitor for the organisation is very keen to keep. Not only does TIO hold a large market share it also holds high levels of goodwill and respect from Territory consumers.
TIO now exists in a market where it is no longer providing what would have been a unique service. It is also no longer keeping competitors’ prices low by being a market leader from when it first penetrated into the market in 1979.
TIO remains the last government owned insurer and bank in Australia, with other states having privatised theirs in the 1980s and 1990s, including Labor states. TIO is limited by its legislation to offer services within the Territory. This means it is one of the smallest insurance companies in Australia, competing against national and multinational corporations.
No final decision has been made, but selling TIO and leasing parts of the port will provide significant funds to rebuild, and build, the Territory in the future. I have said before we would like to see those funds given back to Territorians and put into community infrastructure, and, importantly, economic infrastructure to grow the Territory of tomorrow.
The federal government’s asset recycling initiative also offers a 15% financial incentive for us to sell eligible assets and reinvest the proceeds in new economy growing infrastructure.
I will digress for a moment. I noted the member for Nelson made some disparaging comments about government being motivated by the 15% asset recycling initiative to do this. That is far from the truth. In March, when Cabinet considered TIO and how it was to be supported to grow into the future, it was about TIO. The 15% component came in well after that; I think it was in the federal May budget or even after that point in time when this was first talked about. It plays in our favour, but it is not the purpose of why we are having this debate …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In accordance with Standing Order 77, I ask that the Chief Minister be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: We are not only talking about TIO, we are also talking about the port. The government is also looking at ways to attract private investment in the Port of Darwin so we can make it more efficient, improve economies of scale and bring down freight costs into the future. That does not mean there will not be CPI increases and increasing costs in the future. It means we can put downward pressure on those costs so they do not increase as much as they could in the future.
There is another way we could drive down the cost of living for Territorians. Detailed investigations into potential options are in progress. As I have previously announced, Flagstaff Partners has been appointed to advise the NT government on alternative investment propositions, including the possibility of the long-term lease of port assets, not sales. We do not support the sale of the port.
The Office of Major Infrastructure and Investment has been tasked with identifying economic and community infrastructure projects that might be pursued. It has put forward some of the government’s ideas to start that conversation. I stress that these ideas are not concrete, but we have started talking about them. We have also received ideas from the community.
The government’s ideas to help a mature conversation about how we may reinvest include things such as – I am sure the member for Johnston would appreciate this if he was here – amelioration and flood mitigation works around Rapid Creek to help those in his electorate who suffer, at times, flooding or storm water surge etcetera, and roadworks to remove the bottleneck at the end of Tiger Brennan Drive, near Dinah Beach where it approaches Darwin city. Currently we have the Dave Tollner, former member for Solomon, funding pool, which is assisting the duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive all the way through to the Stuart Highway, but it stops at Dinah Beach. We need to find support for the section from Dinah Beach into the city. Identifying funds to remove that traffic bottleneck is a very important element.
An Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs has been raised as a potential investment opportunity. It would support Indigenous culture in the Northern Territory, the cultural heart of Australia being in Central Australia, Alice Springs. There is also the opportunity to not just share cultural excellence and expertise with our Aboriginal Territorians, but to look at how we get an economic generator out of that from a tourism perspective.
A second port at Glyde Point has been raised, as have new sporting venues for Darwin. The minister for Sport and I have discussed how we might be able to invest in a new rectangle oval for the likes of big rugby league, soccer – or football as it is generally called these days – and rugby union in the Top End in the Northern Territory, and what that might mean for some of the bigger teams, but importantly, what it means for community events and community sporting teams participating here.
Of course, I am very supportive of a new long-term infrastructure development fund for the Northern Territory to finance the building of the Territory into the future. The idea is that funds realised from the potential TIO sale and port long-term lease would go into a Territory future fund and assist the building of the Northern Territory, with all funds dedicated towards economic-generating infrastructure into the future.
I have tasked Treasury to draw up legislation to identify the operation of that future fund. We have already started identifying who board members of that future fund would be, making sure we have experts sitting on that future fund who are sound in investment and in judgment about where those funds should be spent into the future, making sure it is not a fire sale and putting in place protection so in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time. should Labor, heaven forbid, get back into government, they cannot just raid the piggy-bank to spend it willy-nilly.
These are some of the ideas we are talking to the public about with regard to how Territorians would like us to pursue a reinvestment into the Territory, should we go down this path.
We have launched a new website – www.buildingourterritory.nt.gov.au – where the community can propose infrastructure projects that could be funded through any future sale or lease of public assets. The response to that website has been more than we expected. We have had a public website for the Office of Northern Australia now for many months and have called for ideas through that website. What we have seen come back through this Building Our Territory website has roughly been tenfold, with people putting forward some fantastic ideas.
I have no hesitation in saying I question some of those ideas. Some of them I question a lot. But some of them are good ideas. Some of them are about community infrastructure, some economic. We have received one idea which talked about a proper Olympic swimming pool in the Top End. We do not have a swimming pool of the official Olympic size in the Top End. It has been put forward, and they are the ideas we want to see.
People have spoken to me of a future equestrian centre that can house all equestrian events for northern Australia. Madam Speaker, I am not verballing you and I do not mean to cause offence as I did with the Leader of the Opposition, but I saw a glint in your eye when I spoke about equestrian. It is a very important community sporting event in the Top End. If we can realise the value of the asset of the TIO and keep it Territorian, but put that value back into the community, it is good.
The last point I make is about where we take our advice on some of these things. Yes, there was a lot of pressure and advice coming to us when we first came to government with that enormous cloud of debt, saying ‘Let us sell TIO, realise some of that value and pay back Labor debt’. The decision at the time by Cabinet was, ‘Let us not do that. Let us take our time and take a good look at that’. I note the member for Araluen, who was Treasurer at the time, came under enormous pressure for these things. We took a sensible approach to how we do this, and have been having a very detailed look at making sure TIO and any future sale is about protecting TIO, and not just about Labor debt.
Of course Labor debt comes into it. We have just seen, through good fiscal management by the members for Araluen and Fong Lim and Cabinet, how we can be very frugal with the way we manage our money, and with the way we raise income in the Northern Territory. We are now at a point where the Labor debt has decreased from $5.5bn to $3.1bn. We are now three full years ahead of our target for operational surplus. We are on an operational surplus of $119m It is a fantastic pat on the back for a government that is keen to get into a good fiscal position. Labor has not congratulated us on that.
When we came to government we set up an economic development strategy panel consisting of Ian Smith from Bespoke; Doug McTaggart, former Under Treasurer from Queensland, and a gentleman who has just been appointed to the Federation review panel by the federal government; and former Chief Minister Paul Henderson. The report had a couple of recommendations, two in particular from the former Labor Chief Minister which support the debate today. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would hate hearing this commentary. The report recommended two things in particular. One was the port should be sold. I have said we will not sell it and believe we should be moving to a long-term lease, and we are well advanced in that process. It also said TIO should be sold off.
That would not be news to the Leader of the Opposition because, of everyone in this Chamber, the Leader of the Opposition was the only person in the parliament present at the time the former Labor government sought to sell TIO. She agreed it should be done. No one on this side of the Chamber was there at the time, but the Leader of the Opposition was in government supporting the concept.
She likes to say, ‘We supported it a bit but I have changed my mind. I voted against it inside the secrecy of the room. Trust me, cross my heart, hope to die, I will never tell another lie.’ That was the approach you took in the media. Now you say, ‘No, it was not me, I was against it. It was Syd Stirling, Clare Martin, Paul Henderson and the other crew around the table at the time.’ You stood against it despite all the support for it. It is easy to have a bob each way, flip the burger over and decide you do not want to support it when the government is trying to act in the best interests of Territorians.
Madam Speaker, we will not be supporting this Labor motion. We think it is important to have a mature debate about TIO and the port. Yes, we are seeking final offers for TIO. When the final offer comes in we will move extremely quickly if we decide to make the sale.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, that was a very telling end to the contribution from the Chief Minister, ‘We are seeking final offers and will move very quickly’. A call to Territorians: this is a government that has no intention of seeking your views on your assets. This is a government that will move very quickly to sell TIO, an admission from the Chief Minister. We are debating a motion to stop the sale of public assets and take it to Territorians for their view and the Chief Minister said, ‘We are seeking final offers for TIO and we will move very quickly to sell’. That is an outrage. You have a motion before parliament tomorrow but have already decided because you are in the final stage of offers, you are seeking final offers and will move very quickly to sell.
That is the hallmark of this government: crash through, move quickly and do not tell the public what you are doing until it is exposed by others, then when exposed, move as quickly as you can and do not give Territorians a say. Territorians will ultimately have their say when you go to the ballot boxes. You will be judged.
God forbid, I hope there is not a significant natural disaster because people will discover that insurance premiums go through the roof if the company is in private hands. We heard the Chief Minister dismiss that out of hand saying it lies, but is not, it is fact. A resident of Katherine has done his homework and called insurers. You say there are 12 or 15 competitors in the market. No, Chief Minister, that resident in Katherine found only one insurer prepared to insure them for $8500 a year more.
We quoted the Chambers of Commerce and the mayors of those north Queensland towns who talked about the fact that businesses cannot get insurance because they cannot afford it. The Chief Minister’s response was, ‘Well we have a different coastline, it is not as long. They have lots of resorts and hotels.’
Have you seen Darwin? Have you looked out the window and understood how significant our city of Darwin has become? Have you even sat down with anyone who went through Cyclone Tracy and heard what it was like to try to rebuild after complete and total devastation? Do you sit there in your fool’s paradise and think because we have a Building Code and we build to Category 4 standard, it is all good? Arrant nonsense! There are many homes across Darwin that are pre-Tracy that have been repaired. There are many businesses that will need insurance post a catastrophic cyclone.
God forbid that happens, because if it does and TIO has been sold, the people will bear the brunt of your decision. You have clearly decided, with the Chief Minister ending his contribution in debate today, ‘We are seeking final offers for TIO and it will be sold quickly’.
The people of Katherine do not get a look in with a government that is meant to be representing them. Member for Katherine, what are you doing on this? It is extraordinary. Why? Because the Commonwealth has a recycling program? Recycle? No, it is a public asset sale scheme not a recycle. Do not throw jargon at people, it is nonsense. It is cash for public asset sales. It is an incentive for public asset sales. Why? Because the Commonwealth does not want to fork out infrastructure funding to states and territories.
That is not the form of Liberal National Coalitions. Under 10 years of Howard, states and territories were starved of infrastructure funding. This is an admittance of complete and utter failure by the CLP to achieve Commonwealth funding for infrastructure. You have to find your own, sell assets, take your 15% top-up and there you go, you could fix some more roads.
We leveraged $400m from the Commonwealth for roads. You cannot get a cent. It is an extraordinary admittance of failure. The problem with this failure is the consequences are dire for families and businesses.
You do not even have the decency to give Territorians a say. They will judge you. Member for Brennan, I interjected that you will lose your seat. Member for Sanderson, you will lose your seat. Member for Port Darwin, you will lose your seat. We do not know what is happening with the member for Fong Lim. Maybe he will be gone before the others. I do not know that any of you necessarily know what is happening with the member for Fong Lim. You have a vacant seat in Cabinet. You have a Chief Minister carrying 13 portfolios.
You have had two years of chaos and dysfunction and now you will crash through for a cash grab, blinding yourselves to the dire consequences for Territorians. That is not responsible, mature government; it is reckless and dangerous and it needs to stop. The ridiculous, spurious arguments led by the Chief Minister today are that our coastline is not as long as Queensland’s and we are not as built up with hotels and buildings. If you are so sure of those arguments put them in the public domain, have the debate and then take it to a referendum.
Even you know what you are doing is wrong. However, you will do it because you are desperate for money to pork barrel and try to buy your way out of the disaster of a government you are, with votes at the next election. That does not work. Territorians will not, and do not, accept that.
I heard the most appalling things come from the mouth of the Chief Minister. He heard what I had to say and he knows I did not support the sale of the banking arm of TIO, but he said it time and time again to be provocative. How about being honest? How about stumping up and debating it from a basis of honesty? You cannot do that. It is disgraceful. Born and raised in the Territory, I have never seen a government this bad. I have had to live through many years of CLP governments, so this is not a case of, ‘We are all good and you are all bad’. You are the worst ever; we know that because people who are CLP to their boot heels are saying that.
Businesses get it; they understand the impact of their insurance premiums on them. Householders in vulnerable pre-Cyclone Tracy homes, storm surge zones and the entire area of Katherine get it. However, you guys will turn a deaf ear and blind eye to it and you will crash though, because that is your style.
I doubt you will find a buyer for the port. In our interests I hope you do not find a buyer; it does not stack up to sell it now for any reason. It would escalate the cost of living, create crippling costs in doing business across the port and we would be selling our best asset – or the sneaky-lease CLP formula that follows the LNP in Queensland. We would be trying to get rid of it when it is at the apex of its growth. It is the worst time to sell.
I know I am talking to people who have whipped themselves into a bit of fever about it and who have little competitions, ‘Let us see who can sit in the Chamber and stare at Delia’. I do not know what is going on but it is weird.
It is okay because I will be holding you to account every day. Even if we have reduced sitting days I will hold you to account. I am okay with the fact Territorians will hold you to account for this crash through. You will lose your seats by trashing the trust. Did you not hear the debates? Do you not understand what has happened in other jurisdictions when governments have irretrievably broken the trust of their constituents, irrespective of their political colours? They have lost, and that is what you will do ...
Mr Conlan: You should be hoping we sell it.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the ridiculous member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Withdraw that, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Greatorex. He said we should be hoping they sell it. That is the difference between us, member for Greatorex. I want what is best for the Territory and Territorians. I am not here for a self-serving purpose. I am here to say this will hurt too many Territorians. Do not sell it. If it means you will win the next election, so be it, but do not sell something that will hurt Territorians – families and businesses.
That is fundamentally the difference. You will fly into the Territory, live here for a few years and fly out, but I will still be here. I was born and raised here, and I will be here my entire life. That is the difference ...
Mr Conlan: That makes you so much better than everyone else, does it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms LAWRIE: It was your stupid interjection, member for Greatorex.
Some people in this Chamber will never get it. They will never understand how important it is to Territorians to have the security of affordable insurance which will pay in a timely manner ...
Mr Conlan: You just insulted everyone in the Territory.
Ms LAWRIE: You will never get that, member for Greatorex?
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51: interjections from that side of the House interrupting debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Barkly. Opposition Leader, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: Plenty of people get it, sadly. Anyone who has been through a natural disaster understands this debate. People who live in Katherine who went through the floods understand this debate. People who live in regional areas of the Territory are vulnerable. The Chief Minister talking about our coastline completely ignored his ambition to have home ownership and the like across the remote communities. Guess where the big cyclones hit? But do not worry about that. Good luck finding an insurer on the Tiwi Islands when you are in the cyclone path. Good luck to the remote communities which have already seen the disruptive forces of Category 5 and Category 4 cyclones come through. Good luck with that.
You will need it. The residents of Katherine will need it because they already know today – they have done their research – it will cost them $8500 more to find comparable insurance, and there is only one private insurer willing to touch them. It is extraordinary that members whose own constituents would be the most adversely affected are prepared to support the crash through money grab so this government can try to buy itself out of the host of woe it is in.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 9 Noes 12
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Manison Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Moss Mr Giles
Mr Vowles Mr Higgins
Ms Walker Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Wood Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Funding and Resourcing Territory Schools
Funding and Resourcing Territory Schools
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this Legislative Assembly condemns the CLP government for failing to properly fund and resource Territory schools by slashing $125m from our education budgets and forcing global school budgets on to schools, which is cost shifting and putting resource burdens onto our schools. The Legislative Assembly calls on this government to reinstate teachers and teacher assistants and properly resource our Territory schools.
I will read a relevant quote:
- Funding of schools should be based on enrolments, not attendance, but with a bonus system for attendance. That way, we will see schools being funded for the number of children who are supposed to be going to school, rather than just the number of kids who go to school.
- … quality education is the key to positive participation of Territorians in our community and our economy. It is the vehicle which drives social advancement.
- The government is absolutely focused on getting it right.
Some 12 months later it seems the complete opposite is happening in our education system as we plunge into more chaos and confusion with the rushed introduction of global school budgets.
More recently we have seen the member for Brennan seize the day and grab the prize position of Deputy Chief Minister, but he has also told the ABC of his desire to retain his Education portfolio to continue his reforms. Can the Territory afford to keep him as Education minister given the deep damage he is doing to our schools and education system? These reforms are driven by ideology and the need to impress his colleagues that he is a can-do action man rather than focusing on the evidence in forming progressive improvements to our education system.
The minister likes to portray a grounded grassroots understanding of education, what works and what does not, but the truth is he is overseeing unprecedented chaos and confusion in our Territory education system, fed by ideology not facts or experience.
Under his watch hundreds of teacher positions have been cut from our schools, support staff have been cut and there are fewer subjects and less subject choice in our schools. Under his watch our students are receiving less individual attention. Perhaps the only saving grace is the professionalism and dedication of our education workforce – our teachers, teacher assistants, principals and school councils of dedicated parents who believe in their children’s education and give up their time to ensure schools have the support they need.
The minister implied that teachers are lazy where it is the hard work and dedication of these teachers in our classrooms day in day out that is holding our education system together. These are the people who struggle to have their concerns about changes in their school work environment as part of the EBA negotiations. It is unprecedented that eight out of 10 teachers voted no to the government’s EBA offer. These people we trust to care for our kids day in and day out were prompted by their alarm to the changes in our classrooms, practice and education resourcing. This has been their key concern on top of their separate struggle to have their wages stay abreast of the ever-increasing cost of living under the CLP.
This minister has overseen the biggest squeeze on an Education budget: a reduction of $125m since the CLP was elected and a loss of over 185 teachers and support staff in our schools last year alone. Minister, are you still saying it is 35?
He is now overseeing the second wave of the big squeeze on education: the introduction of global school budgeting to our local schools. Minister, I urge you to rethink this. Our schools cannot take anymore; there is nothing more to trim. Our schools and staff are already reeling with budget cuts and changes brought into effect in 2013-14 and now have the new formula and budget to work with in 2015. Our schools are at an all-time low.
In justifying the deep cuts the minister likes to retreat into his mantra that more investment has not led to better outcomes, ‘We cannot keep spending the way we have been doing the same things’. Minister, I remind you that education is a long-term investment in our children; it is giving them life skills. Where is the evidence that a global budget will improve educational outcomes? We need to invest in our children. We need to continually invest in our teachers, our schools and their resources. But, no, we have a minister who seems blind to the impact of his budget cuts and his ideologically-driven administrative changes on the quality of our education provided by our teachers and support staff to our kids, our future.
These global school budget cuts are causing chaos and huge stress in our communities. I have even had principals tell me they cannot sleep. School council members are struggling to get their heads around what these new budgets mean and what their role is. There is so much confusion in so many aspects of this new funding model.
The Education minister is clearly out of touch if he thinks sacking teachers and having more overcrowded classrooms with less individual attention for our students will somehow help our education system. This is not the proper investment our children deserve.
Principals should be leading educators in our schools, not business managers struggling to find funds, pay bills and balance budgets that are underfunded to start with. But that is what your government’s policies are forcing them to do.
Now you have launched your new smoke-and-mirrors policy of global school budgeting for our schools. It is not a simple as you say:
- One-hundred-and-fifty-four government schools will be empowered to make local level decisions about staffing and financial resources through one line budget allocations from 2015.
Schools tell us they enough autonomy. What they need is support, not extra burden. The minister described the new approach as allowing schools to customise their services to meet the different needs of families and communities across the Territory, and assist greater community governance and local ownership of education.
It all sounds so neat, but how incorrect that impression is. Schools are struggling with the education cuts and now they are expected to do more with fewer resources. Now you are offloading responsibility for meeting an impossible budget target on to our schools.
It is also concerning that new arrangements come on top of changes to the school staffing formula. Sadly, it appears on the evidence available that most schools are losing staff and staff resources under the changed allocation formula.
I remind the minister that this global budget funding model was brought in with a promise that it would be nice and slow and there would be transitional funds available for schools. Further, it was claimed that schools would have three years to get their budget point, indicating it would be nice and slow with no rush. We are seeing the exact opposite take place. Everything is urgent, as soon as possible. Where is the transition funding? Where is the calm and orderly change to the new approach?
Parents and school staff were assured $16.5m would be available over the next three years to assist with implementation of the new budget arrangements. Concerns continue about how these funds will be disbursed. Will they be spent on support for school councils, school principals in their new business management roles, or will it be swallowed up in administrative costs? Minister, have you changed this model? Have you put pressure on the agency to deliver on urgency?
Our schools are in chaos. Schools were promised repeatedly throughout the year that they would not receive their global budgets in Term 4. Well, they did not get them in Term 4 but they got pretty close: week 9 of Term 3. It has also been brought to my attention that school principals have been told not to show their budgets to school councils yet, and when they do it is their responsibility to keep their school council members quiet. Principals have been told to put a positive spin on these budgets. It sounds a bit more like a threat than a request.
Minister, you may not be making these directions but you should be made aware they are taking place. Our schools are concerned and principals are stressed. They are concerned about their budgets. Some have not had time to take them to their school councils, others who have, have raised concerns. I am sure you have spoken to schools in recent days, but in case you have not, they are telling me the global budgets are so stressful that some principals are losing sleep. Some school council members have seen their budgets, some have not. The ones who have seen them are most concerned. It is causing a huge amount of stress at a particularly busy time for our schools.
I remind you that school councils are the governing bodies that sign off their school budgets. The fact that they are halfway through the last term and some have not seen next year’s budget is concerning. One person said to me, ‘The council and the principal have not really had the chance to meet and we have not been able to tell them very much. We are still trying to ‘get it nailed’ as we were very clearly told we must put a positive spin on the process and we agreed we cannot discuss fully with the finance committee or the school council until we put a positive spin on it.’
This is the pressure that our schools are under. I am also hearing that some schools are taking their budget back to the department, not once or twice but three times, and each time they are getting a different formulation with different budget figures. What does this represent? A well-considered policy or something that is being rushed and pushed on schools?
These are only the schools and the school principals that have the courage and the ability to talk to us. What about our remote schools? What about our principals who are afraid to speak up? What does all this say about the disarray and chaos of your policy of global school budgets on our schools?
Your department said the budgets would be the same as this year plus 1%. All the evidence indicates that is not the case. Schools are telling us there have been a number of errors in the spreadsheet. They seem to have to re-enter information repeatedly, which they are finding frustrating. Schools are trying to run their school. Term 4 is already a busy time of the year and now they are struggling to cope with budgets. They feel as if the department and the government do not understand, ‘We have a school to run, as well as all this extra work’.
The budget figures we have had for about three or four weeks are very hard to reconcile. It is not a case of the 2014 school budget plus 1%. Schools are quoting different figures within different areas. I urge you to immediately look into this and provide some clarity. You may say school principals are being provided with professional development, but from what I understand from what I have been hearing, it has not been useful. One person explained to me that it was all new and raw, and after they have had a PD session it took a while to sink in. Another session was needed to consolidate information. They also went on to say, ‘I do not believe the PD sessions we attended gave us the information needed to work with the spreadsheet, for instance. We did not receive instructions on populating the staff level and what to do if you make changes.’
There are so many questions around this formulation, how it is meant to be implemented and how staff are meant to work within the formulation spreadsheets. It goes on, and there are many human resource questions. When I had a briefing on global school budgets the department was unable, at that point, to answer them. I have spoken before with the minister during estimates and sittings, so maybe he could clarify some of the basis for staffing formulation. What happens around staff leave entitlements, maternity leave and sick leave? These are all genuine questions our schools are struggling to deal with.
One of the issues the union and school councils are talking about is the basis for staffing formulation. How did you arrive at that? Did you add up every teacher in the Territory, all levels they were on, and equate it that way? Is it just that everyone across the Territory was based on a teacher six or seven? We want to know the formulation. Was it a blended formula? What was the formulation? These are the smoke and mirrors people are concerned about.
I have heard a story of one principal openly saying they will encourage their Level 9 teachers to move on so they can create flexibility in their budget. I urge you to put parameters in place so that does not happen. We cannot afford to lose experienced teachers, particularly in the Territory, purely to save money. We have a unique teaching environment. Yes, a less experienced teacher is not as expensive, but who will provide guidance to young teachers? Schools should have a mix, a blend of teachers, but should not be choosing teachers purely for financial reasons.
Some of the feedback I received was that staff salaries attached to school budgets creates uncertainty; there are so many variables. If you have a school with a bunch of experienced teachers it will be at a higher level. If you have a school where three or four teachers go on maternity leave it will create unfair balances in the budget. I am not sure of the parameters with sick leave. At the moment, if someone goes on sick leave for more than three weeks you can apply to have that position refunded by the department. These are the questions concerning schools at the moment.
What is the impact of reduced funding for the backfilling of staff who are unwell and on leave, particularly as stress levels rise? What about the impact of the increasing loss of dedicated and experienced staff? An increasingly high turnover of school staff is likely.
Not only are schools saying they want more instructions for business managers to help them understand their spreadsheets, they also express frustration at the time the corrections and changes take place. Schools are saying this should have been trialled at a few schools before being pushed out in a hurry, so problems could have been identified first. That is one message coming across loud and clear. In evidence from interstate and overseas, the one message was take it slowly. Yet, we are implementing this in 11 weeks.
Our bush schools could lose a huge amount from their budget. That is what these Excel spreadsheets and the formulations are showing them. This is why we have principals and staff so stressed wondering what further cuts they are expected to make. These arrangements are meant to be seen as an opportunity, but in the majority of our schools there is dismay about the changes, how they will affect school resourcing into the future and the blame-shifting to teachers and principals for expected budget cuts.
There are many questions about support staff. For example, our Transition level teacher aides play such an important role in our classrooms in the early years, something you should be investing in, minister. This program can disappear as the budget for it may be used to prop up other areas. We urge it to be placed in the targeted program so it cannot be shifted.
This highlights some of the ongoing problems with the global school budgets. Is it a sneaky way to cut the funding? Schools have raised concerns, particularly our remote schools, that there are staff members who might work at a number of schools across a region, but it has been tagged to their school. In some cases they see the staff regularly and could understand that allocation to them, but in other cases that staff member has nothing to do with their school and they feel this is unfair. This shows the unfairness of a global school budget.
I heard that a school in Central Australia does not have enough in its allocated budget for the mobile preschool program, which is such an important and vital program. I have also heard that one of our preschools in an urban area does not have an allocation of funding.
There have been questions raised about some of the support programs and the schools that provide the refugee support programs, etcetera. What is happening with the funding for those programs?
The minister might say these are glitches in the system. That is why this should have been taken slowly. I urge you to look into them and come back to the House with responses. We should not be having global school budgets rushed out in Term 4 and being pushed onto schools.
You clearly promised things and they have not been delivered, such as transition funding to allow schools and school staff to work slowly towards this model of funding in our schools, and perhaps some trial schools. I remind you that education in the Territory is already starting at an extremely low base. It is shrinking. We have lost $125m from our Education budget, so it is disappointing we have to push further cuts.
In relation to schools’ individual budgets, perhaps you can clarify tonight that schools will not be forced to accept significant budget cuts, that they will receive their budget plus 1%. Can they have confidence they do not have to plan towards cuts? Some schools are concerned they might receive funding next year, but have been told their 2016 figure will be this, and they will need to work towards it. They need to make the cuts now. I understand the department is encouraging schools to work towards budget cuts based on loss of student numbers, but schools were told they could get used to the model and receive the same level of funding.
This also goes against what the Chief Minister said in a recent statement and what he said in 2008. Schools need stable funding. I remind the Chief Minister that this is his Cabinet, the government he leads, and at the moment schools are not receiving it.
Interestingly, today we heard that the Minister for Public Employment is directing the Education department to put in place a 6% pay rise for teachers, followed by a further 3% at some point next year. I am not 100% certain of those figures, I heard a couple of variations. That is without teachers having agreed to an EBA. Has the Minister for Public Employment taken these matters into his own hands or did this go to Cabinet and you knew the whole time?
What is most concerning about that allocation is it has not been budgeted for. Schools which are already struggling are now hearing they have to budget for an extra 7% to 9% on staff wages. Some of the principals I have spoken to cannot even contemplate that. For schools which are trying to make a budget work, it is $90 000 in the red off their staff wages and they are looking to dip into other areas to make that up. They now have to find up to an extra 9% which will equate to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
What are schools meant to do? What will they cut? Will it be special education programs or will they dip into their base and equity funding just to cover the basics? These are the questions coming from schools, school principals and the council members that understand.
In the minister’s maiden speech, he said:
- One area that has concerned me is the level of support provided by government for Inclusion Support Assistants, affectionately referred to as ISAs, working hard every day in our public schools. Unlike many interstate departments which provide ongoing certainty for employees, in the Northern Territory Inclusion Support Assistants have absolutely no certainty of ongoing employment, no certainty of the hours they will work this week or next week, and absolutely no certainty whether they will have a job next term.
That is one of the areas we are hearing about regarding these allocations of funding: they do not know if they have jobs next year. I remind the minister of this and ask what he has done for certainty in our schools. At the moment our schools feel there is no certainty ahead of the 2015 school year with these global budgets.
Territorians are concerned. They are not fooled by the apparent veneer of this shiny new product that might give them a little more local decision-making. They feel they have autonomy and they make decisions in their schools. Schools currently decide what methods of learning they want to implement. There is a core curriculum which they obviously have to deliver. Schools want to get on with the job of educating. They are sick of the government’s cuts and budget pressures. It has been most surprising seeing principals’ reactions to this. They are struggling and have no extra room within their budgets, and now they have to find further cuts.
In our previous censure of your government the minister talked about the administrative burden on schools today and said it was unbelievable:
- We need to streamline the administrative processes … to lessen the burden on principals and teachers in most of the reporting they do which, quite frankly, is more about numbers than the welfare or education of our children.
Administrative workload on principals and support staff is increasing rapidly under this model of funding. Principals are being forced to become entrepreneurs and business managers; they are not educating. They are being forced to become budgeting and Excel spreadsheet gurus and are spending so much of their day focused on this and not worrying about educating. You said we need to streamline administrative processes. Dumping the burden from the department onto schools is not a way to achieve that.
There are concerns in the bush that principals will be forced to cut local employment then bear the blame for that. Some bush principals are concerned that they are on six-month contracts. If they cannot manage this process will they be blamed and moved on? Some feel they are being kept on a short leash with a six-month contract so if they rock the boat they can be quickly dealt with. How does this engage a dedicated and forward-looking workforce? They are pushing the hard decisions on staff and budget allocations down the line. At the same time the Chief Minister is putting $33m into his department. That would go a long way in our schools. Chief Minister, what about our kids? What about our future?
I have given examples on the impact on teachers, parents and school councils already dealing with rising costs. They see rising costs to utilities which they have to budget for at the moment.
We are not going to see higher rates of retention, we will see reduced rates of retention of quality staff. There are some questions around this. What is happening with the department’s CDU graduate recruitment plan in 2015? It is an important program ensuring we get CDU graduates into our schools. There are many questions in education at the moment. I am privileged, as shadow Education minister, to be able to ask questions in this House.
The minister has maintained for months that only 35 teacher positions were cut, yet the estimates figures show it was far higher, with 125 teacher and 60 additional support staff numbers cut. What will be the case with global budgets when you claim one thing but another happens?
We feel you are not qualified to push such a huge change onto Territory schools. You say you will fight to improve educational outcomes whether students are in Darwin, Alice Springs or Katherine, but government is providing more uncertainty. People have a distrust of the government and are frustrated by the global budget process.
What are the Minister for Education and Chief Minister doing about the projected loss of $312m from federal government funding to the Territory over the next decade? Can you disclose to the parliament and the parents, teachers and principals the exact figures for students at NT schools from the federal government under new arrangements at COAG? We have a significant loss and that is disappointing.
We are seeing so many changes in our education system being rushed through before reports are even finalised. Some of my other colleagues will speak this evening about the boarding school model. It is important to note that students do best when they are supported by their family, their friends and are surrounded by community. Your government is taking that opportunity away from a cohort of our students.
The minister failed to explain cutting school support positions and school programs like GEMS, which was cut a year ago. Opportunities for community engagement enhance our schools and our schools’ performance.
While we are talking about GEMS, I heard a story the other day. I travelled a little. I will not reveal the location because I know schools are particularly upset at being identified. In my travels a school talked about the GEMS program, which was cut from their school at the end of last year. They mentioned two young ladies who have, sadly, fallen off the bandwagon; their studies are suffering. The school commented that if GEMS was still in place those girls would be focused, achieving and getting academic results through that support.
Chief Minister, that is the story of two. I am sure there are tens of young ladies across the Territory, maybe even hundreds, who are not benefiting as much from our schools as they should be. This is directly as a result of a program cut, which was GEMS. Where is our girls’ mentoring program? What is happening? It is already week 4 of Term 4 and we have nothing put in place. Even if we hear an announcement quickly it is going to be a struggle to put in place for the 2015 school year. Our girls are being let down once again.
Minister, why are you pushing this funding model onto our schools? Are you hiding behind a smoke screen of numbers and confusion? Can you answer some of the questions? Why would you not simply compare apples with apples and be up front with Territorians?
Why people are leaving the Territory has been discussed in the media over the last few days. I think it was on the ABC News tonight. Obviously the cost of living is a huge issue and a key reason, but time and time again people are telling me families are leaving because of their concern for their children’s education. Under this new scheme there is a real risk the gap will get wider and our children will suffer.
I understand that COGSO, the Council of Government Schools Organisation, is surveying schools and school councils on the implementation of the new school budgets model. I look forward to a commitment from you to take account of that survey and the views of COGSO. I know you pride yourself on being sincerely open to consultation, but those are the people affected most, not just the departmental staff trying to keep their own jobs and interpret as best they can. If you can give us a guarantee that survey will be listened to and acknowledged that will be most appreciated.
Minister, these huge changes do not secure our children’s future. Your CLP budget mantra was securing our children’s future. This is simply pushing our education system further into chaos.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, we will not support this motion because it shows what a fantastic job the member for Nightcliff does in scaremongering. She has made it an art form. If we had thought any of the things she said in this House over the last 12 months would come true, what we would see today is schools closed, teachers leaving and students failing. Of course, none of that is true.
She talked about ideology tonight. It is ideology if you have your head so stuck in the sand you thought everything Labor did over all those years, after throwing so much money at education and not seeing any improvement in results, is the right way to go. Madam, you need to get your head out of the sand.
Recently we saw Labor trying to get COGSO on board to fight global funding. You will find that COGSO was getting quite a lot of feedback from schools saying they were supportive of global funding because it will do exactly what they wanted in their schools: give them control.
In the lead-up to the Casuarina by-election, because COGSO would not come out and wave the flags, they had to call on their old mates at the teachers’ union, who quickly put together a rally outside what just happened to be a polling booth. It was a couple of days before the by-election. That was not so long after being told by Jarvis Ryan that he was apolitical and would not be involved in the politics of the day. He wanted to keep out of it. However, the opposite happened before the Casuarina by-election.
The member for Nightcliff continued the scare campaign tonight. She mentioned things tonight again – schools are already quite aware of what is and is not included in global funding. In fact, there are many areas the department will continue to pay for. She listed a number of things tonight suggesting that schools had not been informed, and she is totally wrong again.
I will read the list that was provided to all schools so they were clear on what things are being funded centrally and not included in global school budgets. These include: the remote incentive allowance; freight allowance; remote retention allowances; motor vehicles; principals’ salaries; principals’ vehicles; long service leave; study leave; maternity leave; paternity leave; leave airfare entitlements; workers compensation; fares out of isolated locations; highly accomplished and lead teacher allowances; specific maintenance; cyclical maintenance and urgent minor repairs – that is repairs and maintenance; capital works; teacher housing costs; teacher housing electricity costs; relocation costs; and Back to School grants – funding is allocated to schools for distribution to parents.
That list was provided to every school and is on the website. If the member for Nightcliff wanted to do a little research into it, instead of writing rubbish we would be so much further ahead than we are. It looks like we will be in the same place this year as last year.
According to the member for Nightcliff, one of the schools used during the Casuarina by-election was to be closed down. That was part of the scare campaign last year. I was standing outside that school, and it looked like a school to me. It was all there. We just had to keep it open because we needed a polling booth – maybe that is what it was. We knew the member for Casuarina, Kon Vatskalis …
Mr Elferink: Another cunning plan.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, another cunning plan.
This is a continuation of the same fear campaign the opposition was running with the Australian Education Union last year before it lost all steam, resulting in the cancellation of planned industrial action. That was a real win for students and teachers that day.
Let me unpack the reality for you. The Education budget handed down in May showed an increase in the overall agency budget of $20.5m, a 2.5% increase on last year. The government Education budget increased by $22.3m, a 3.3% increase on last year. There was an overall school education increase of $20.1m, a 2.4% increase on last year. In 2014, we are spending 97% of the Education budget on schools. Compare that with 95% under Labor. It means we are spending less money on the Mitchell Centre and more in the classroom ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, my God, no. We are out of control.
Mr CHANDLER: I know. We are out of control.
If you listen to the member for Nightcliff you would think the sky is falling in. However, Labor cannot count. The Leader of the Opposition could not even count the members in this House last week. She could not count as the Treasurer. It looks like her protg, the member for Nightcliff, is following very closely in her footsteps.
Last year we heard horror stories from those opposite that schools were to close and children would be wandering the streets looking for a teacher, all because the big, bad Country Liberals decided to tighten the belt buckle a little. Excuse me for trying to take a different approach. Under Labor, the Education budget exploded. Over 700 extra staff were hired in the last few years, and what happened to results? There was no change.
There were over 700 staff, while at the same time, if memory serves me correctly, there were around 280 additional students. The student cohort grew by around 280 yet the department, under the former Labor government, employed an extra 700 staff members. In fact, some of our figures went backwards, as did attendance. How can you advocate that approach? It is insane. Not only did you waste money, you wasted an opportunity to have a lasting change. Simply spending money might make you feel good, member for Nightcliff, but what makes you feel good sometimes does not make a difference.
Making a difference is the new schools at Bellamack, Henbury and Zuccoli and a new Northern Territory Open Education Centre, which brings me to your next rubbish claim that the global school budgets were forced on schools with no consultation and are a cost-shifting exercise. This is complete balderdash. Schools will have no extra expenses in their budgets. They will simply have the control over the expenses they already have.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition say schools will now have to meet capital works and urgent minor repairs. Rubbish! You just make it up on the run. I have given you a list of things that included what was in the global budget. Urgent minor repairs and capital works are certainly not part of the global budget scene. But it does not stop you and the Leader of the Opposition running off at the mouth, stirring the pot, trying to stir the community, rubbish our education system and run people out of town because you are scaring them away. It is not coming from this side of the House. If you bothered to get your own education in order – I know what is involved in that topic. There have been many opportunities for you to get your head around it.
We have been talking with schools and school organisations about this since the start of last year. You tell us we have not consulted. I will share with you some of the comprehensive consultation that happened prior to the public announcement of global school budgets:
a Principal’s Reference Committee has been meeting fortnightly to inform the direction and development of global school budgets
consultation and briefings with principals through the Regional Business Days held each term across six regions and four terms – 24 days total
the Annual Leadership Forum was two days, and online sessions with principals NT-wide by REACT link.
extensive consultation with the Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations (COGSO) including monthly meetings between the Chief Executive and the President of COGSO
forums with open invitations for school councils in June
attendance at school council meetings on request by the executive departmental staff
regional sessions for parents held in Palmerston on 23 August attended by the Deputy Chief Executive Organisational Services; Darwin on 27 August attended by Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive School Education, member for Nightcliff; Katherine on 30 August attended by Executive Director Schools North; Alice Springs on 14 September attended by Executive Director of Schools South; Arnhem, Nhulunbuy on 20 September attended by Executive Director Schools North ...
A member interjecting.
Mr CHANDLER: Thought you were going to miss out. But the member for Nightcliff said we have not consulted:
COGSO shared information with parents and school communities through social media, e-mails to council chairs and newspaper advertisements
In regard to communications:
stakeholder groups including COGSO, AEU, the Community and Public Sector Union and the Association of Northern Territory School Educational Leaders, ANSL, were provided in-depth briefings in September by the Chief Executive and Professor Lamb of Victoria University, Australia’s leading authority on needs-based school resourcing who contributed to the development of the funding model
But we have not consulted:
a regular school autonomy newsletter was issued to all school and corporate staff
information on the department’s public website
But we have not consulted:
advertisements placed in the NT News and Centralian Advocate referring readers to the website
But we have not consulted:
But we have not consulted:
But we have not consulted:
media activity generated by ministerial announcements
But again we have not consulted if you listen to the member for Nightcliff and her scaremongering campaign, the one thing she is good at.
Ongoing support:
Regional workshops have been delivered intensely over five weeks in September and October providing principals and business managers hands-on experience to frame their budgets in 2015.
But we have not been working with the schools on budgets according to the member for Nightcliff:
The department is working with COGSO to deliver ongoing financial and governance training to schools and school councils.
But we are not working with the school according to the member for Nightcliff.
Ongoing advice and support is being provided by departmental staff.
Let us move to why this is good for schools. Why are school global budgets a good thing for our schools? For the first time you have the people with the knowledge of the school and the students making decisions that matter. These are decisions about staffing, equipment they may like or programs they may want to implement – what you can do when you have control over your own budget.
This is based on evidence, not plucked out of thin air. It is not my idea, experts are telling us this. The OECD and Melbourne University have both done research which supports increasing school autonomy. To quote Professor Brian J Caldwell of Melbourne University:
- … each school contains a unique mix of student needs, interests, aptitudes, aspirations and passions and those who work at the school level are best placed to determine the particular mix of all of the resources available to the school to achieve optimal outcomes.
If you want practical evidence look at the NAPLAN results in Western Australia which are on the up. They are the leaders in school autonomy. Schools in Western Australia have had an increase in school autonomy since 2010 and are seeing the benefits in spades, with more schools wanting to become independent public schools than they can handle.
I quote Western Australia’s Education minister, Peter Collier, from 15 October this year, who said the independent schools initiative:
- … is doing what is eminently sensible; it is empowering the local community, saying that it can have a say in what goes in their community. The boards love it. They salivate at being part of the prospect of being part of the selection process.
School autonomy is about trusting principals and school communities to know what is right for their students and their needs. What do you have to be worried about, member for Nightcliff? Why does Labor not trust the school communities? Why do you think someone in Mitchell Street offices knows more about schools or the people in schools than the people on the ground?
Member for Nightcliff, what will you do? Will you go to Nightcliff Primary School and tell them their head office knows more about their needs than they do? Will you go to Nightcliff Middle School and state they are not competent enough to handle their own budget? Will you stand in front of those schools, member for Nightcliff, in your own electorate, and tell them you do not trust them to do the job, to understand their own needs? You do not trust your community schools. Will you tell them you do not trust them? If you do not support school autonomy and global budgets then you are telling them you do not trust them. You think someone in the Mitchell Centre is in a far better place to make decisions for them. You do not trust them if that is your position.
You are playing a dangerous game, member for Nightcliff. In your heart of hearts you know this is a good initiative. Instead, you are playing politics with this just as you have over the last 12 months.
The sky is not falling. I will stand by those 35 teachers. The member for Nightcliff fails to tell people – and she knows the truth – that the Country Liberals policy and our changes led to a reduction of 35 teachers in the system. We said from the outset that would occur and it did. The member for Nightcliff fails to tell people it was the old Labor model of working out teachers in schools that led to a reduction of teachers in certain schools.
We were using the model put together by Labor for the number of teachers in our schools. Using that model, some school teacher numbers went up, some went down. The bottom line is, under the changes we introduced, there was a reduction of 35 teachers and we were honest, open and up front about that.
The previous government spent a lot of money in education, no doubt about that. Have we spent as much or more? The truth is yes. Have we refocused where that money is spent? Yes, we have. Are we trying different approaches to what the previous government used? Yes, we are. Do we have a different direction we want to take remote students? Yes, we do. Why do we want to do that? Because the results we are getting, particularly in our remote schools, are a miserable failure. While we have glitters of gold in certain areas, particularly in our urban schools, in our remote schools the results are mostly pretty tragic. It comes down to many things. It comes down to school attendance but also to the scattergun approach the previous government took in the Northern Territory to education.
When I hear, even today, that schools for the very first time are trying a whole school approach to a certain program, I shiver and wonder what were we doing before. What we were doing before is exactly where the member for Nightcliff wants us to do again – go back to what we were doing before. What we were doing before got us the results we have today. I have said before if you are happy with those results, fine, let us give up and do exactly that. Let us continue to throw buckets of money in that are not challenged, not measured, not tested to see if they are going to improve results. Or we can start to focus on results.
In the member for Nightcliff’s little rant tonight she never used the word ‘result’ once. She used ‘money’ many times. She did not talk about results once.
This government, the Country Liberals government, is focused on results, improving those results and providing focused resources with a dedicated Department of Education and wonderful schools and school staff using the methods we are talking about right now, to improve results.
That is the resolve of this government: improving results. It is not about how much or how little money you spend in education, it is about how the money is spent. It all should be focused on improving results. Every child, no matter where they live in the Northern Territory, deserves that. They deserve to have a minister and a government that is interested in them, not in the department or the member for Nightcliff spreading rumours and innuendo, but interested in them – focusing on them and giving them every opportunity.
That means doing what we can, as a government, to improve their results. Without that, they do not get an opportunity. That is why we are working so hard, as a government, not only in education but in other areas, stimulating the economies in our regions so Aboriginal children have access to a job. Why are we educating them if we do not get them ready for jobs?
I have heard the Chief Minister talk before about land rights. It is about time we speak about Indigenous economic rights. It is about time we talk about the rights of these children to have a government that is focused on them and improving their results to give them every opportunity. Their opportunity needs to be jobs. They need to have an opportunity to grow and prosper in this world, like every other child does, wherever you come from in Australia or around the world. We need to offer them what we can.
If we do what the member for Nightcliff wants us to do – go back to the dark old ages where you are putting on 700 extra staff every time you put on 230 students – then I am …
Mr Elferink: That way you can announce you spent more money.
Mr CHANDLER: Announcing they spent more money is all they did. I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin, which is right. It is not about how much; it is about how, what it is spent on and what it is focused on. It has to be focused on improving results.
My only advice to the member for Nightcliff is to stop spreading rumours, making it up, scaring people about education in the Northern Territory and rubbishing education in the Northern Territory and start focusing on things that matter. If there are serious things that matter in schools across the Northern Territory that I can help with, I am there to help. That is my job. Do not make up rubbish that scares the community. As I said earlier, if we believed you – you are losing credibility every day you make it up. You are following the footsteps of the Leader of the Opposition.
Where are the schools that have closed across the Northern Territory? Just name one. Twelve months ago you were crying from the rooftops, ‘They will close schools. Children will be walking the streets, looking for a teacher.’ It just did not happen. Every time the member for Nightcliff speaks of these things she loses credibility because they are not happening.
I am open to offering a briefing again on school autonomy and global budgets. I am happy to help provide the right information to the member for Nightcliff, but please, for goodness sake, stop scaring people with stories of horror that are not happening.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support the motion brought forward by the shadow minister for Education in relation to the CLP government’s cuts to education and concerns about cost shifting through global school budgeting. As somebody educated in the Territory, this is an issue that is very close to my heart.
A total of 125 teachers, 60 support staff and $125m has been lost from Territory education in two years despite the promise that no frontline jobs would be lost. This was before the $312m cut to Territory education over 10 years announced by Tony Abbott. The CLP government has not stood up for the Territory against these cuts.
This is about getting to the core of debates held and decisions made in this House. It is about the future of the Territory, keeping it strong and thriving, and ensuring Territorians have the best possible chance in whatever endeavours they choose in life ...
Mrs Price: Not the kids out bush. They are not strong and thriving; they are sick.
Mr Elferink: You need to tell the truth.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A number of interjections are coming across the floor, and I would like to hear the member.
Madam SPEAKER: I agree.
Mr Elferink: I would like to hear her tell the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, withdraw that.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Ms MOSS: Education is a basic right, and we all agree our aim should be to give Territory children the best access to education we can, regardless of location or background.
On a local level, teacher cuts equate to five teachers lost at Dripstone Middle School, seven at Casuarina Senior College and many more support workers.
Our schools locally are also experiencing the impacts of the loss of support staff, a concern for parents and those who have been providing one-on-one time the students so desperately need. I have witnessed the support and passion of these support workers firsthand. Whether for students with behavioural or learning difficulties or other reasons, these workers provide individual attention to students at risk.
I also invite, again, the Minister for Education to talk about the time lines around building Henbury School, which I am sure all of us are very interested in.
Over the last two years we have seen teachers, support staff, parents, students and concerned community members stand together on a number of occasions outside this parliament, in the hope the CLP government would listen to those who are on the front line in education every day and rethink these cuts. It is a fight we will continue to have.
I have been a student in the Territory and I have worked in a local school. Most of my family members have gravitated towards the profession. As I walk around my local schools I continue to be struck by the dedication of students, teachers and staff. They take on the individual needs of our young people.
In some cases, teachers are the only cheerleaders some of our young people have in life. This is extremely important. Education is a protective factor for young people in a multitude of areas and it deserves our full attention. If we are to develop the north, surely first we should be investing in the education of those who will one day inherit it.
The impacts of these cuts will not only be felt now but, if something is not done, well into the future. When we want our school staff to be innovators and nurturers, to be leading the way and preparing our young people for the rest of their lives, we should be listening to those at the forefront. Our schools are essentially being told every day to do more with less, to achieve better outcomes with less support, fewer teachers, less time and fewer resources. Morale is understandably low and schools are struggling.
It should not be lost on us that we talk to this motion ahead of World Teachers’ Day this Friday, during which many of us will be spending time with the teachers and students in our local schools. It is mind-boggling that the CLP government sees logic in reducing teacher numbers as a way of addressing educational needs in the Northern Territory.
It is a vital part of government’s role to provide access to quality public education. While doorknocking in Casuarina, rarely a day went by when residents did not raise education as an issue important to them. It is not just parents and school workers, the waves caused by these cuts are felt right through our community, far and wide. It was an issue that resonated. Parents are anxious about the changes being made and what impacts they will have on their children’s education. People told me how much they love their local schools, which do an incredible job and are a vital part of our community, and they are worried about these changes.
We have heard much from those across the Chamber about the benefits of global school budgeting. However, many questions still remain. Where is the evidence this method is a good fit for Territory schools? Leading education academic, Stephen Dinham, was quoted in yesterday’s The Australian on global measures saying:
- ‘Educational research and other evidence has been distorted, discounted or disregarded in favour of deregulation, privatisation, corporatisation and quick-fix solutions to the supposed problems of teaching and the ‘crisis’ in schooling. Educators have been either silent or silenced.’
At a COGSO question and answer session I attended last month, many questions were still being raised about global school budgeting. These included questions from parent and teacher bodies, and tended to pertain to the same thing: if a budget is mismanaged one year, what happens in the next? Many of these questions remain unanswered. The response that this is then the responsibility of the school does little to quell their concerns. It opens the door to further questions that must be addressed, such as whether we will see the loss of more experienced teachers due to the additional costs of retaining them, as opposed to a teacher with less experience.
As the member for Nightcliff said, we need a good mix of teachers with experience and newer teachers coming through. We do not want to see a trade-off system, nor do we want to see schools having to make the decision in a year’s time or two years’ time on keeping a staff member or addressing their other needs such as the equipment and programs the Minister for Education talked about.
Principals should be focused on achieving the best possible outcomes educationally for our children and young people. That is what they are employed to do and what makes them educational leaders. Global school budgeting requests that our principals also now become financial managers, and that their school councils manage budgets instead on focusing on how to get the best for their children. Our schools are not businesses and our principals and school councils are not bean counters.
Worse still, this responsibility is passed on to schools at a time when budgets have been slashed. While the CLP government paints this as a positive move for schools, it is understandable, with the record in educational cuts over the last two years, that there is a level of scepticism about what this will mean in real educational terms. There are still many concerns and questions that are not addressed by simply stating autonomy.
In addition, on the issue of independent schools, the Department of Education’s independent schools fact sheet mentions that school boards may include representation from local business and industry. This has raised concerns in education for which there has not yet been a satisfying answer. How will the CLP government safeguard our schools to ensure that any business or industry involvement in a school is purely to improve educational outcomes and operations?
Madam Speaker, I support the motion to condemn the CLP government on its cuts to education and cost shifting through global budgeting.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Note Statement – Building Investment Opportunities
Note Statement – Building Investment Opportunities
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, what an opportune time to stand up. Member for Fannie Bay, you have the opportunity to do the numbers again. I am not sure if the leader and deputy have been kicked out but you can start working the room. Member for Fannie Bay, you need to start working the room.
Maybe the member for Johnston wants to have a crack. We are all wondering why the member for Nhulunbuy has been so quiet the last few days. Perhaps she is trying to work the room. We have all heard her stories. She could do it; maybe she is the one. The member for Nightcliff is not going to duck in; the five are here. They are what we call Michael’s five; they are in the room. Michael’s five are the members for Wanguri, Johnston, Casuarina and Nhulunbuy …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am flattered by the Chief Minister’s man crush, but he is digressing from the subject and perhaps we could return to business of the Northern Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, speak to the ministerial statement.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I take your point and your guidance. I note, however, that wide-ranging topics were discussed, particularly from the other side of the Chamber. This side stuck to the importance of growing the Northern Territory and investment opportunities. However, it is important when we talk about the future of the Northern Territory that people know the member for Fannie Bay can potentially be Leader of the Opposition. He has his five. Three are gone and now is the time to strike ...
Ms Walker: Get on with it, Adam, you fool. You cannot even work out who to elevate into the Cabinet.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy!
Mr GILES: Hang on, the member for Nhulunbuy is coming in trying to lay her claim. She is saying to the member for Fannie Bay, ‘Get out of my way, I am coming through. I want to do the job.’ Maybe you could put a ticket together, member for Nhulunbuy.
Why does Labor always claim everybody else’s achievements? It is because they do not have any ideas of their own. Everything stipulated in this statement today Labor said it owns. But it did not say it owned $5.5bn worth of debt or the deficit of the former Labor government. It did not say it owned the crime rate or higher unemployment. It said it owned everything else the Country Liberals have done in the two years since being in government. It is amazing.
The 52nd Australia Japan …
A member: They are all leaving.
Mr GILES: They have all turned their backs on Michael. He is down to three and will not be able to get the numbers. There are only three on your side, member for Fannie Bay; it is a challenge now.
The 52nd Australia Japan Joint Business Conference will be held in Darwin for the first time this year. You did not organise it. I was in Japan last year talking about coming to the Northern Territory. Arrangements were made and facilitated through the Office of Asian Engagement and Trade; the office which has been moved to the Department of the Chief Minister which has an increase in budget that you keep referring to. That included the extra staff from the Department of Business, hence a reduction in the budget for the Department of Business.
Jeff, Brian O’Gallagher and the team in the Office of Asian Engagement and Trade facilitated, along with DCM, the AJBCC and the successful outcomes achieved throughout that conference. It is not just what was achieved throughout that conference, but what will be achieved into the future including achievements with companies such as Mitsui.
The member for Arafura is keen to hear about Mitsui because that is the Japanese giant which signed a forestry deal with the Tiwi Land Council, something Labor is completely opposed to. I provided the introduction, we have an MOU, we have done the deal, but Labor will own that as well.
The Leader of the Opposition claims no new initiatives have been found by this government. What about the Tellus Holdings Chandler salt mine on Maryvale Station at Titjikala in Central Australia? What about securing the supply base for the Shell Prelude floating gas facility in Darwin? What about securing some of those projects?
You do not talk about any of those things in regard to the Leader of the Opposition. I have a few notes here but I do not think it is worthwhile me going through them to recant many of the negatives the Labor opposition has provided.
The contributions provided by this side of the House were positive. They produced good debate, came up with a range of ideas, congratulated the successes of the Country Liberals government two years in and provided a positive platform for the future about how we work together for the interests of jobs for our kids.
That is what it is all about on this side: what will be around tomorrow, not what is around today, and not what we are doing as individuals. We are not talking about politicians, we are talking about the Territory and Territorians. That is the difference in governance within this Chamber of the Legislative Assembly.
We are an excited government which talks about Territorians. The opposition talks about themselves, and the two members of the PUP Party cannot seem to turn up to parliament for more than an hour and cannot work in an iron lung. Anyway ..
Ms Walker: Where is the member for Fong Lim?
Mr GILES: He provided a good contribution against your slurs about Foundation 51 the other day, and you hiding behind your claims against what he called the ‘midnight pegger’, member for Nhulunbuy.
Madam Speaker, I commend this fantastic statement to the Assembly. It talks about what we are doing, what we have done and what we will do in the future. It also pointed out that Labor left a $5.5bn debt legacy. They can try to hide from the fact and say it was not them, but it was Labor. The Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer, was the person who sent the Territory into the biggest debt it has ever been in. It is up to us to fix it and we are doing that.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Quarterly Fuel Report for Members
Quarterly Fuel Report for Members
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the quarterly fuel report for members who have a government issued car.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, last night I was joined by the member for Nhulunbuy at the Independent Schools Excellence Awards Night. Hon Austin Asche AC QC gave a wonderful speech. I asked him whether I could read his speech into Hansard tonight and he was very obliging and thought it was a wonderful idea.
I am going to read the speech Hon Austin Asche read last night. It is for teachers. I will not be able to read it out as he did last night. He is quite the orator.
- Proteus, in Greek Mythology, was the old man of the sea who knew everything that was happening and why, so it was very useful to consult him. But there was a problem: he didn’t want to tell you anything. First you had to grab him and hold him while he tried to escape by changing shape rapidly. So you would be holding a horse, a pig, a sea snake and possibly a kangaroo, though the ancient Greek writers don’t mention this. If you held on firmly enough he would finally give in, but it was a tough job.
Teachers are protean in the sense that they are expected to take on all sorts of different shapes. But in their case they are also expected to tell you what you want without escaping. So depending on who is holding on they become social workers, psychologists, nurses, paramedics, arbitrators, mediators, pacifiers, entertainers, calligraphers and futurologists. Occasionally they will be asked to teach.
Teachers adopt and adapt these various skills as part of their protective armoury, turning themselves ultimately into what all parents expect them to be: magicians.
A magician is expected to turn something into something else by mysterious means, and a teacher is expected to convert, by equally mysterious means, a small lump of humanity into something which will begin to read, write and calculate and finally emerge triumphantly as a teenager capable of – and indeed only too willing – to identify in frank and precise terms the many deficiencies and shortcomings of their parents.
At this stage, however, I remind parents of the perceptive remarks of Mark Twain:
- When I was 18, I was ashamed of the ignorance of my father. When I was 21, I was amazed at what the old boy had learnt in the three years.
Teachers, of course, do not always come up to parental expectations. This is where they have to add to the various skills already mentioned a large dose of tact to explain why they have not so far recognised the obvious fact that little Johnny is a genius. Some parents will express surprise that seven-year olds have not yet realised that e=mc2 and others that little Effie, whose outstanding intellect is so far above the rest of the class, has not yet been introduced to Plato and Socrates.
Meanwhile, certain more robust parents will complain that too much time is taken up in education which could be better used in preparing their 12-year-old to obtain that gold medal in the next but one Olympic Games.
Of course, I am overstating wildly with extreme cases. We are all well aware that teacher’s rewards are sensible parents who become friends, grateful for what teachers are doing, and children who will always have happy memories of school days.
Leaving aside the specific subjects taught, as they must, in the classroom there are certain non-specific subjects schools teach their pupils, more by example than by direct tuition. The most obvious is language, particularly as learned by children who have, until entering school, spoken some other language. This is a common phenomenon in Darwin schools, and the amazing part is how quickly the new language is learned.
I wish to draw attention to the most important subject of all, in which the school must play a vital part, along with family and society; that is, how to be an Australian. This necessarily demands two preliminary inquiries. Is there an Australian character? If so, what is the character, so unique and precious, that it should be preserved? The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is my bloody oath it should be.
We could spend a lot of time debating what is the Australian character, and it would be very pleasant to do so. Here you will just have to be content with a quick summary and you can add to, vary or contradict later.
The Australian character developed in the 19th century. The settlers expected and dreamed of the green fields and flowing rivers of the land from hence they had come. They found instead the wide brown lands of droughts and flooding rains which fought them all the way. After disappointment and failure again and again, they were forced into a tough realism: get rid of visions of inland seas and fertile plains, and meet challenges with patience, experiment and common sense. As they did, their views changed. There was something deeply attracting, rather than attractive, about this country which called you from the old ways and kept you here, sometimes taming but never totally conquering it.
It was the rough mate who never left you, and you would never leave, so you came to rely on yourself, your family and your mates, and felt pretty contemptuous of the poser, the big noter and the bloke who wanted to tell you what to do – a sort of sardonic realism, contempt for the theorist, the extravagant promoter. The sort of attitude developed in the shearer, the drover and the miner, and from the country to town, for it was the ordinary citizens of Melbourne who formed the juries who acquitted those of the Eureka Stockade the government sought to convict of serious charges.
Sometimes we do not realise it, but this is the sort of attitude that makes the most successful democracy in the world. The test is the dictator such as Hitler, Stalin or any or the present day bag of petty tyrants swaggering about the world, would have no chance here because of the chorus of mockery and contempt they would get from Australians skilled at recognising …
… when they saw it.
There is a deep and immense pride of being Australian. We do not trumpet it from the rooftops, but we can go from Sydney to Perth, from Adelaide to Darwin and find friends wherever we go.
So back to the teachers. Can they encourage that sense that we have something special and enormously valuable in our people and our country? Most children will always have this sense absorbed from their parents, but they would not be able to put it into words because it really is to them more an accepted way of life, rather than something you write down.
But they do have something to say these things for them, and we must introduce the children to them. If they have not met the Magic Pudding, it is time they did because the pudding is a very Australian character. Fortunately, our Australian writers have been giving us the true Australia for years and are continuing to do so. You will each have your special favourites. I will leave it to you, but I make a special plea for the great Banjo Paterson because he came at the end of the 19th century development that made us what we are, and he expresses the philosophy so often and in so many ways.
We need not worry that migrants will lose out, we have now a long history of the introduction of migrants to our schools, and have seen, time and time again, that within a generation they have turned into Australian every bit as loyal and cheeky as their mates. The school and the teachers do that.
I finish with one reminiscence. I am a seven-year-old in a class of seven- and eight-year-olds at Darwin Primary School. We are standing up and reciting together a poem of Adam Lindsay Gordon. It contains the lines:
- Life is mostly froth and bubbles
Two things stand like stone:
Kindness in another’s trouble,
Courage in your own.
I hope there are no intellectual types here gasping in horror that children had to learn poetry, or worse still, had to absorb old-fashioned values that do not apply today. No, you all look far too intelligent to be intellectual.
On principle, I have never told teachers what to do, taking the view that what they do is their job. But on this occasion I demand, insist, require, dictate and decree that the immortal words of Adam Lindsay Gordon, which I have just quoted, be granted to our children as part of their great Australian heritage. I do not care how you do it, be protead.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that was read last night by Hon Austin Ashe, and I thought it was a great speech.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I enlighten the House on a couple of good news stories. I acknowledge the efforts of a young man from Maningrida in the local remote jobs program. His name is Shannon. He is 21 years of age and is a resident of Maningrida. Shannon is a participant in the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation Remote Jobs Community Program. The RJCP participants were recently offered an opportunity through the Department of Community Services to supply workers for an asbestos removal project in Maningrida.
One of the job seekers, Shannon, completed the asbestos removal course and went to work with a company called De-Construct. He worked for 51.5 hours over four days in the heat, in a personal protection asbestos suit. That is over 12 hours per day, quite an effort. I am told he enjoyed the work and was disappointed to see it end.
However, the contractor, De-Construct, spoke with the make good contractors, Ant Constructions, to arrange other opportunities. Shannon met with the potential new employer, and during the conversation Shannon asked about the starting time. When the reply was 8 am Shannon asked if it would be okay if he started at 6.30 am or 7 am. This is a classic example of changing work ethics. The work ethic of this young person is of someone who wants to go places. He is to be commended for his efforts and his leadership in this area.
In the past three weeks, Shannon has completed two courses – asbestos removal and obtaining his white card. He is currently applying for a birth certificate and the next step is a driver’s licence. The RJCP is referring Shannon to other more permanent positions in Maningrida.
Mrs Jenny Davis, the manager of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation RJCP, had this to say about Shannon:
- It puts a shine to our day, as I hope it does yours, when speaking about Shannon. As a community champion for Maningrida, it gives me great pride to be able to talk about someone like Shannon who is a role model for his peers. I am working hard to create ongoing employment opportunities in Maningrida that will benefit people like Shannon.
It is very encouraging when you go into Aboriginal communities. In relation to the champions program the Chief Minister has implemented, it is terrific to meet these young people. We have to ensure we create economic development in these communities so people who may choose to follow Shannon and his example have jobs to go to.
I was recently there with my colleague, the member for Arafura. We were looking at all sorts of job opportunities and how we can create economic activity. We are looking at what we can do to assist the community to produce mud bricks. We toured a mud brick factory. When you go around Maningrida you will see the school, the art centre and numerous houses are of mud brick construction. The whole idea is to give Shannon a permanent job in something like that.
When they are manufacturing mud bricks, Aboriginal people get on a front-end loader or truck and drive to a gravel pit where they extract gravel. They load it onto the truck and Aboriginal people drive it down to the factory where they then dump it into a stockpile at the rear of the factory. Aboriginal people with a bobcat load it on to a conveyer belt operated by Aboriginal people. It then goes into a machine that punches out bricks which are then stacked by Aboriginal people onto pallets; the pallets are loaded onto a truck by Aboriginal people and driven to a building site by Aboriginal people to be laid on the construction site prepared by Aboriginal people. The bricks are laid by Aboriginal people then painted and sealed by Aboriginal people. The resident plumbers, electricians and air conditioning people, who are now permanently in Maningrida, then commence their trade work on the place and it is handed over to someone, for instance to the Bawinanga Corporation, which is managed by Aboriginal people.
It is easy to see if you want economic development you have to get people like Shannon to be role models for others and their children and get up in the morning, go to work and earn money. This is real money and then they can go home and their children can see the benefits of economic development.
I congratulate Shannon for being a brilliant young leader in his community and a role model to his peers. I also thank my colleague, the member for Arafura, for introducing me to some of the key people there so we can work closely to create economic development for some fine Aboriginal people who do not want a handout; they want a hand up and to work.
I have been in the Territory for 33 years. I do not know whether I qualify to be a Territorian as per the Leader of the Opposition’s definition that if you were not born here you are not here to do good for the Territory. I find it offensive that if you were not born here you are not doing good for the Territory and will leave when you have finished doing whatever you are doing.
We work as a team on this side of the House with the intention of creating economic development so these people can do what they want to do: help themselves, their families and their children. The people who do that are role models for everyone else in the community.
Moving to another issue, last Sunday I had the great fortune of being invited to participate in an event called Jog for Jugs. It is about breast cancer research and raising money for that cause. It was very enjoyable and I thank Katrina Fong Lim, the Lord Mayor of Darwin, for co-starting this event. I pay particular thanks to Peta Burton, founder of Jog for Jugs. It is refreshing to not only see the volunteers, but people like Peta Burton, who is full of energy and enthusiasm I cannot describe. It is difficult to describe in words this woman who has put some time in. This was the first Jog for Jugs here. We had 300-plus people attend. Together we raised $2010 from a quick fun run at 7 am on a Sunday morning. It was a fantastic effort that Peta was responsible for organising.
I particularly thank Karen Stark, who is a breast cancer survivor. She is also a nurse at the Royal Darwin Hospital and a Breast Cancer Network Australia representative. I also thank her daughter Kate who was there. She stood side by side with her mother while she told the story of nearly passing from this world. Kate is only a young girl; she was such a brave young lady to stand with her mum. They supported each other in what was a very emotional description of their personal journey.
I also thank Karen Dempsey from the Breast Cancer Voice in the Northern Territory, and the lady who supplied my pink T-shirt, which there are, unfortunately, photos of. It was great. It was a little small for me, but thank you, Karen, for supplying the T-shirt so I could participate in the Jog for Jugs.
My particular thanks also goes to Alison Montgomery from Mindil Beach Surf Life Saving Club.
Ladies, you all did a fantastic job. I sincerely thank you for contributing to what is very close to my heart, that being cancer research.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise the good work the Giles government is doing in Maningrida and all remote communities.
Early this month Cabinet met at Maningrida. While they were there I joined with the Chief Minister in announcing a $100 000 grant to the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation and the Djukuriti Development Corporation.
The grant will go towards the Welcome Precinct that links the airport, accommodation and the arts centre. I also announced, alongside the Minister for Infrastructure, funding to seal the road which runs adjacent to the accommodation centre near the airport.
Bawinanga and Djukuriti are both looking to increase visitation to the area, and plans under consideration by local operators include day tours, car hire, a performance area and museum. The work will help develop tourism and transport-related businesses. That means more jobs for people in Maningrida.
The Country Liberals government wants to help communities in Arafura develop thriving economies. Creating community pride is an important first step. Creating and growing economies in remote Indigenous communities provides job opportunities.
I have said in this place countless times that the education of our young people is key to closing the gap. Creating jobs in remote communities gives young people a reason to go to school and study, because they can see in their own home towns what the result of education can be – earning an income, and having a job.
When we develop remote economies and create remote jobs we give our kids permission to dare to achieve and dream. It allows our kids and all people in remote communities to aspire to more.
I look to my home on the Tiwi Islands and the work being done in partnership with traditional owners which is stimulating and creating a vibrant economy. The potential for new business enterprise is enormous.
Early this year an MOU between the Tiwi Land Council and the Mitsui Corporation was signed. This MOU covers the export of woodchips from Tiwi forests to the rest of the world. It is expected the deal could generate up to $200m worth of business and create 100 jobs on the island over the next five years, with the first shipload of woodchips leaving port on Melville Island in March or April next year.
This is one of many new business ventures either under way or in the planning and development phases. By encouraging new investment and growing existing businesses, Tiwi Islanders are confident of creating new jobs and future prosperity. I have seen what this approach can do. We need to create more opportunities like these for Maningrida, Warruwi and all other communities in my electorate. I encourage those communities to seriously consider economic development that will benefit them and, as always, I am only too happy to assist them in any way I can.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk on a religious-type activity in my electorate which is very enjoyable and, surprisingly, not onerous. Indeed, it is very pleasant and comforting. The event was called the Blessing of the Animals, which was held at the Anglican Good Shepherd (carport) Church at Bees Creek on Sunday 12 October 2014, under the careful all-seeing and all-knowing eyes of Reverend Ian McDonald. Attendance included regular churchgoers plus a new audience who had attended especially for the blessing of the animals.
The reason behind the blessing of the animals is to celebrate the life of the patron saint of animals, Francis of Assisi. He had a very interesting life. In 1182, Pietro di Bernardone returned from a trip to France to find his wife had given birth to a son. Far from being excited or apologetic because he had been gone for so long, Pietro was furious because she had named the new son and baptised him Giovanni, after John the Baptist. The last thing Pietro wanted in his son was a man of God. He wanted a man of business, a cloth merchant like he was. He especially wanted a son who would reflect his infatuation with France, so he renamed him Francesco, which is equivalent to calling him ‘Frenchman’. Francis enjoyed a very rich, easy life growing up, because of his father’s wealth and the permissiveness of the times.
From the beginning, everyone – and I mean everyone – loved Francis. He was constantly happy, charming and a born leader. If he was picky people excused him, if he was ill people took care of him, if he was so much of dreamer he did poorly in school no one minded. In many ways he was too easy to like for his own good. No one tried to control or teach him and he liked it that way. As he grew up Francis became the leader of a crowd of young people who spent their nights in wild parties. Francis said, ‘I lived in sin during that time’. He sounds like a nice kind of fellow to know.
Francis fulfilled every hope of Pietro’s, even falling in love with France. He loved the songs and romance of France, especially its free, adventurous troubadours who wandered through Europe. Despite his dreaming he was married. Francis was also good at business but he wanted more. He wanted more than wealth, but not holiness. Francis wanted to be a knight. Battle was the best place to win the glory and prestige he longed for. He had his first chance when Assisi declared war on its long-time enemy, the nearby town of Perugia.
Many troops from Assisi were butchered in the fight; clearly they were good at partying, but useless at fighting. Only those wealthy enough to expect to be ransomed were taken prisoner. At last, Francis was among the nobility, like he always wanted to be, but was chained in a harsh, dark dungeon. All accounts say he never lost his happy manner in that horrible place. Finally, after a year in the dungeon he was ransomed. Strangely, the experience did not seem to change him; he gave himself to partying with much joy and abandon, as he did before the battle. The experience did not change what he wanted from life either: glory.
Finally, a call for knights for the Fourth Crusade gave him a chance for his dream Before he left Francis had to have a suit of armour and a horse. This was no problem for the son of a wealthy father. Not just any suit of armour would do, but one decorated with gold, with a magnificent cloak. Any relief we feel in hearing Francis gave the cloak to a poor knight would be destroyed by the boast he would return a prince. Francis never got further than one day’s ride from Assisi. There he had a dream in which God told him it would all be wrong and that he should return home.
Francis returned home. What must it have been like to return without even making it to battle? The boy who wanted nothing more than to be liked was humiliated, laughed at, called a coward by the village, and raged at by his father for the money he wasted on his armour.
Francis’ conversion did not happen overnight. God had waited for him for 25 years – those naughty 25 years of partying. Now it was Francis’ turn to wait. One day when he was riding through the countryside Francis, the man who loved beauty, was so picky about food and who hated deformity, came face-to-face with a leper. Repelled by the appearance and smell of the leper Francis nevertheless jumped down from his horse and kissed his hand. When his kiss of peace was returned, Francis was filled with joy. As he rode off, he turned around for a last wave and saw the leper had disappeared. He always looked upon it as a test from God and that he had passed.
His search for conversion lead him to the ancient church of San Damiano. While he was praying there, he heard Christ on the crucifix speak to him, ‘Francis, repair my church’. Francis assumed this meant church with a small ‘c’, the crumbling building he was in. Acting again in his impetuous way, he took fabric from his father’s shop and sold it to get money to repair the church.
His father saw this as an act of theft, and together with Francis’ cowardice, waste of money and his growing disinterest in money, it made Francis seem more like a madman than his son. Pietro dragged Francis before the Bishop and in front of the whole town demanded that Francis return the money and renounce all rights as his heir. The Bishop was very kind to Francis. He told him to return the money and said, ‘God would provide’. That was all Francis needed to hear. He not only gave back the money but stripped off all his clothes – the clothes his father had given him – until he was only wearing a very skimpy shirt. In front of the crowd that had gathered, he said, ‘Pietro di Bernardoneis no longer my father’. Wearing nothing but cast-off rags he went off into the freezing woods singing.
When robbers beat him later and took what clothes he had left and left him for dead in a ditch, sometime later he climbed out and went off merrily singing. From then on, Francis had nothing and everything, so the story goes.
Where did the animals come into the picture of Saint Francis of Assisi? In one famous story, Francis preached to hundreds of birds about being thankful to God for their wonderful clothes, their independence and God’s care. The story tells us the birds stood still as he walked amongst them, only flying off when he said they could leave.
Another famous story involves a wolf that had been eating human beings. Francis intervened when the town wanted to kill the wolf and talked the wolf into never killing again. The story goes that the wolf became a pet of the townspeople who made sure he always had plenty to eat.
Over the years, Francis travelled and preached with his followers, and I am sure had many adventures in his country and other countries of the age. With so much time passing and so many troubles during his time, years of poverty and wandering had made Francis ill. When he began to go blind, the Pope ordered that his eyes be operated on. This meant cauterising his face with a hot iron. Francis spoke to Brother Fire:
- Brother Fire, the Most High has made you strong and beautiful and useful. Be courteous to me now in this hour, for I have always loved you, and temper your heat so that I can endure you.
Francis reported that Brother Fire had been so kind and that he felt nothing at all. Francis never recovered from this illness and he died on 4 October 1226 at the age of 45.
Francis is considered the founder of the Franciscan Order of monks and the patron saint of ecologists, merchants and all animals. His saints day is on 4 October.
Back to the special blessing. Ian McDonald conducted the service and Reverend Margaret from Kormilda College and Arnold Beazley from the Salvation Army Chapel helped with the blessing of the animals. There must have been something special in the air as the horses did not tread on the dogs, the pet snake did not try to eat the pet rats and the dogs did not try to chase and belt each other up, especially my dog, Musket, the American Staffordshire Terrier which hates little fluffy floor slipper rats. It was wonderful to see the beautiful horses belonging to Karen Duminski and Jenny James stand so quietly, and the many dogs sit so peacefully and well behaved. And the snake? Well, he did have to stay in his bag until the blessing time, more for the churchgoers’ benefit than the pet rats’.
Mary McDonald played the organ and everyone sang, All Creatures Great and Small as you would expect.
There was a morning tea at the conclusion of the service, and I extend a big thank you to the Litchfield Lions Club’s Glenn and Robyn McLeod who provided cooked snags and onions, cool drinks and a happy smile. It was a pretty humid morning but they put their collective shoulders to the grindstone and turned out a real treat for everyone. Thank you to Glenn, Robyn, and other Lions supporters for their involvement. Thank you to Ian and Mary McDonald. Thank you to Arnold Beazley and Reverend Margaret for their involvement and support. It was lovely to see them there.
Thank you also to Luang from the Cambodian community who attended to represent them, as they had all been invited along with other churches in the rural area. Thank you to Carol Lynch and Trish O’Hehir from my office for their work in pulling together an event, and to their well-behaved dogs that also attended. To everyone who attended with their pets, thank you. To Lisa from Humpty Doo Vet Clinic and Paws, thank you for the work you do to help all pets that are abandoned or orphaned. Your rehoming service is appreciated.
Finally, thank you to Musket for not growling, snorting, snoring, licking parts of you in public that you should not, or trying to bite any fluffy floor slipper rats; that would most likely embarrass me. I put it down to you being blessed by Francis himself.
It was a good morning, Mr Deputy Speaker, one I hope to repeat next year on or as close to 4 October as possible.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to place on the record a number of good and very positive events that continue to occur in Nhulunbuy.
I will start with Rotary Beach Volleyball, an event that has been held in Nhulunbuy for years. I am blessed to have sought information from Rotary. Sharon Norris, a hard-working member of the Rotary committee, has prepared something for me to read out this evening. A special thanks to Sharon, a very talented published writer.
In a small remote town like Nhulunbuy which has no cinemas or golden arches, and has atmospheric conditions that sometimes play havoc with television reception, is it any wonder sport is worshipped by the locals? One event the locals look forward to every year is the annual Rotary Beach Volleyball Tournament held every September on a date chosen around the tides to provide the maximum use of the venue, Middle Beach. This tournament brings together the community in a way unlike any other.
This year’s event was the 25th anniversary beach volleyball tournament so it was a special day in Nhulunbuy. Overseen by volunteers from NT Volleyball in Darwin, 30 teams battled it out for the ultimate prize, the beach volleyball crown. That honour went to the aptly name team Some Spike it Hot, one of the hottest teams on the sand. In fact, the sand is so hot most people wear a pair of socks. The proceeds raised from the event went to a fabulous local cause, Gove CareFlight, in recognition of the tireless work this important medivac service does in our remote location.
Nhulunbuy Rotary, one of Australia’s northern-most serviced clubs, has less than 20 members, yet every year manages to stage an awesome day of beach volleyball with the support of other community and sporting groups, as well as local businesses.
The Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club patrolled the surf break at Middle Beach enabling competitors, spectators and families visiting the beach to swim in safety. Gove Junior Golf kept children amused with face painting and golfing games on the sand. Behind the scenes, inmates from the Datjala work camp, supervised by Department of Correctional Services staff, helped prepare the beach and set up the mini tent city that housed the event’s administration and the food and drink pavilion. They also fielded a very good team in the competition.
Local community radio station Gove FM broadcast live from the beach all day with its amusing running commentary of the action, especially for those locals who could not attend or were listening at home or online.
Events like beach volleyball which bring the whole community together demonstrate that small communities like Nhulunbuy can show us exactly what it means to be Territorians: Territory tough, Territory fit, Territory focused and utterly sports mad. It was organised by Nhulunbuy Rotary President Sean ‘Ocker’ O’Connor with the support of the hard-working volunteers on the Rotary committee.
A range of support and sponsorship from many local businesses and individuals was also integral to the staging and ultimate success of this event. Those sponsors include Rio Tinto Alcan, Nhulunbuy Corporation Limited, Airnorth, Datjala work camp crew and the Department of Correctional Services, me as the local member, Toll, Transpacific, Walkabout Lodge, YBE, Dhimurru, Gove FM, NT Volleyball, Gove Volleyball, Arnhem Squadron NORFORCE, Sodexo, Kamayan Caf, John and Estelle Carter and the Nhulunbuy Bakery, Gove Tackleworld and Outdoors, Gove Junior Golf, Gove Peninsula Surf Life Saving Club, Arnhem Physiotherapy Services, St John Ambulance, East Arnhem Real Estate, Endeavour Medical Centre, and if there are any others left off the list I apologise.
The winning team was Some Spike It Hot and team members included Donna-Marie Grieve, Tash Grant, Brett Martin, Erica Sims, Hayden Chrzanowski, and Gerry Ryan, one of the prisoners. The winnings paid his fees for indoor volleyball which he plays each week and also bought him a couple of Billabong shirts. I thought that was a nice touch to the story. That was the Nhulunbuy Rotary Beach Volleyball Competition.
I will now talk about the RALPA graduation which was held last week. Unfortunately, because I was in parliamentary sittings I was unable to attend.
The seventh RALPA Work Readiness Program has recently concluded with nine trainees graduating in a ceremony that was attended by about 100 family and guests at the ALERT facility last week in Nhulunbuy. The RALPA program is supported by Rio Tino Alcan and delivered by its ALERT team. I wish to place on the public record the names of the graduates from last week’s graduation ceremony who completed the program. They included Zowie Bromot, Lenny Snape, Reynolds Wunungmurra, Paukl Munyarryan, Sharee Yunupingu, Vernon Gurruwiwi, Ainsley Gumbula, Alfred Burarrwanga and Kristy Dhurrkay.
Zowie Bromot received an award for achieving 100% attendance and Vernon Gurrawiwi and Lenny Snape achieved 97% attendance. Gary Barnes, who is a very hard-working employee on the ALERT program and a senior adviser to it, said attendance averaged 80%, which is fantastic.
The RALPA program focuses on strengthening relevant working skills, therefore increasing the opportunities for graduates to secure employment. Upon completion, graduates also have the opportunity to move into the RALPA Community Extension Scheme, which is an eight-week program which aims to transition trainees into real jobs with Arnhem Land businesses.
The last item for the evening I will talk about is a luncheon that was held on Saturday 11 October to raise funds in conjunction with Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We decided to title the lunch ‘Who is still here’. There are, obviously, many people who are leaving Nhulunbuy, sadly, but we had a fantastic turnout.
I thank Jennifer Kerr for organising this event. She approached me a few weeks before October to ask, ‘What do you reckon? It is coming up to October, time we did another luncheon?’ It was during that conversation she came up with the title. ‘Let us call the lunch “Who is still here.”’ Jennifer is a survivor of breast cancer, a very strong advocate for women, a great organiser and emcee. She is very entertaining.
The luncheon raised a total of $3661.50, which is a pretty awesome effort for the women who attended the luncheon and dug deep into their wallets to purchase raffle tickets or buy auction items.
I acknowledge the support provided by Judy and Bernie Carter from Nhulunbuy Newsagency; Jeff and Kelly Murray from Gove Tackle World and Outdoors; Darryl Stewart and his team, including Teresa Holdsworth, for their contribution from Nhulunbuy Amcal Pharmacy; Kirrilee McLennan from Norwex products; Alana Thomas from Mishe Accessories, and Megan Niven, who is one of the best cake makers and decorators you will ever find and has recently set up a little business called Megnivacentcakes. She donated two cakes. I will let you use your imagination what shape you think these cakes might have been for a breast cancer awareness raffle. There were two of them and it involved pairs.
Thanks also to Woolworths – Marion Adams is our fabulous manager for Woolworths – for their support; Linda Alexander for her support – she is our breast care nurse in Nhulunbuy and a former Nurse of the Year recognised a couple of years ago in the Northern Territory; Jill Stephens from Nutrimetics; Maria Slatter from PartyLite; and finally Paula Thompson and her wonderful staff at the Arnhem Club for their great support, which they always provide for community events – the wonderful menu they provided, the great service they always provide and a very generous donation of prizes for auction. All of that support and sponsorship – I was a sponsor as well donating some prizes – allowed us to raise $3661.50.
Importantly, all of this money will be staying locally in Nhulunbuy. We have set up a special account with four of us signatory to it so two people could sign cheques at any one time. This fund will be called the Boob Account and will be administered by our breast care nurse and community health nurse, Linda Alexander, who will make recommendations to us as to who she believes is worthy or in need of some financial support. This is for women who are going through breast cancer and treatment. It is not a huge sum of money, but it was important to us that the money stays locally for the support of local women.
Madam Speaker, my thanks to everybody involved. It was a very special day. It started at lunchtime and went to well after dinner for some of the local ladies. Gove women know how to support local causes and how to party as well.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016