2014-06-19
REORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 89 I move that Government Business Order of the Day No 1 be called on.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 90: the Routine of Business has questions next.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. The opposition is fully versed in the processes of this House and knows full well the preeminent order of business after the Estimates Committee is the passage of the budget. We have had discussions behind the scenes. The opposition clearly wants to make an issue of it and, as far as I am concerned, it has been told we will be sticking to normal processes as a consequence of that.
I move that the motion be now put.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 12
Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Ms Lee
Mr Higgins Mr McCarthy
Mrs Lambley Ms Manison
Mrs Price Mr Vatskalis
Mr Styles Mr Vowles
Mr Tollner Ms Walker
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Wood
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): I move that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 13 Noes 12Mr Barrett Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Ms Fyles
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Lawrie
Mr Giles Ms Lee
Mr Higgins Mr McCarthy
Mrs Lambley Ms Manison
Mrs Price Mr Vatskalis
Ms Purick Mr Vowles
Mr Styles Ms Walker
Mr Tollner Mr Wood
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Allow Question Time
Allow Question Time
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as to allow Question Time to occur.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, we have just decided that issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Do you want to move a motion, member for Fannie Bay?
Mr GUNNER: It is 10 am on an ordinary sitting day. All on this side are ready to go with Question Time, and the CLP is choosing not to take questions in the House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the motion be put; we will not play silly buggers here today, and that is all that you guys are doing.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the conduct of question time.
Motion not agreed to.
APPROPRIATION (2014-2015) BILL
(Serial 79)
(Serial 79)
Continued from 13 May 2014.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the committee stage now be taken.
Motion agreed to.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: I call the Chair of the Estimates Committee.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am pleased to table the report of the Estimates Committee on its consideration of the estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2014-15. This report outlines key areas of interest or concern which became evident as hearings progressed, reflected in the lines of questioning.
Questions taken on notice will be tabled with the Speaker on 11 July. Answers to questions on notice must be with the committee secretariat by 10 July. I note that these deadlines are those set by the Assembly. The answers will be uploaded to the Assembly website database as they are received.
There were 81 questions taken on notice this year, a decrease of 34 from last year. At the close of hearings, 17% of questions had been answered. This is the Legislative Assembly’s 13th year of Estimates Committee hearings. They provided a valuable opportunity for members to ask ministers questions relating to agencies funded under the budget.
I commend members for focusing on questions relating to proposed expenditure. This constructive approach has resulted in members having the opportunity to hear from all ministers across their portfolios. Overall, the hearings worked very effectively and provided the opposition and other members with ample opportunity to ask questions on any areas of government they chose.
I thank all members who participated in the 2014 estimates process for their constructive approach, and the ministers and Madam Speaker for their cooperation throughout the process. Thank you also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their work to ensure the whole process ran smoothly. Special mention must be made to Hansard, Building and Technical Services, Chamber Support Services and Committees staff. I also place on the record my sincere appreciation to the staff of all agencies involved in the estimates process over the five days. The process could not have been effective without their hard work and dedication.
Mr Deputy Chair, I commend the report of the 2014 Estimates Committee to the Assembly.
Mr CHAIR: Pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 15 May 2014, the committee has before it the Appropriation Bill 2014-2015 (Serial 79) and the report of the Estimates Committee. The question is that the expenditure proposed in the Appropriation (2014-2015) Bill 2014 (Serial 79) be agreed to and the estimates report noted. I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow ministers, 20 minutes; any other members, 10 minutes.
The maximum period of consideration is five hours. If the debate is not concluded after five hours I will put the question. When consideration of the bill and report has been concluded and the question put, the following question will then be put without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. The bill will then be reported to the Assembly.
Ms MANISON: Mr Chair, it has been a very busy two weeks for everybody in this Chamber. Thanks to the staff of the Legislative Assembly for all their hard work for the Estimates Committee. We appreciate the fact they have been here for some very long hours, the staff who were in the room and the people behind the scenes in Hansard and so forth, as the member for Drysdale just said, helping us go through this very important process.
The Estimates Committee is a very important process. You will often hear your public servant friends moan and groan, and when you speak to advisors behind the scenes, it is a huge load and a great weight on their shoulders. As shadow, it entails much research and preparation. You would hope ministers undertake a great deal of preparation to ensure they are completely across their portfolios. It takes a lot of time, but it is an incredibly important process so we can reflect upon and analyse the performance of government, its departments, policies and initiatives. It is important to have the opportunity to scrutinise the budget, look at how government is spending Territorians’ money, see what money is coming in and going out, see how they are performing, what results we are achieving and what is working and what is not.
Estimates is an important process through which to gather data so we can monitor and track the performance of government and agencies. As somebody in opposition, it is a very useful, important process and something where the more information you can get from it, the more people across the Territory will benefit. It means everything is on the record for everybody to see and we can look, year by year, at what is happening, what is working, what is not, and hold the government to account because accountability and transparency is important.
This year during the Estimates Committee we saw the reintroduction of time limits. There is no doubt time limits work in favour of government, but everybody involved with the system would say that, more broadly, for all involved, such as the staff, departments and the staff of the Legislative Assembly, it means that time is valuable and people must cut to it and get to the point. It makes it a far more efficient process. There was no doubt with the reintroduction of time limits this year that we saw everything held to the clock and a very efficient process delivered, but we saw the re-emergence of some time-wasting strategies as well.
We heard some fairly long-winded opening statements which were meant to be five minutes but seemed to ramble on and on. We heard some fairly long answers and much reflection, and, again, some rambling statements when it was clear people were trying to get to the point and there were many more questions to be asked. We saw new Dorothy Dixers from government members of the PAC to ministers. I will give one example of a blatant Dorothy Dixer to the member for Stuart. We had an opening statement and were not taking questions on Indigenous Essential Services. The member for Johnston later asked questions about Indigenous Essential Services to be told it was not the appropriate output and that it should be taken at another time, and then, lo and behold, the minister receives a question on Indigenous Essential Services from the member for Blain and proceeds to answer it. That was an interesting process. You would expect a bit more subtlety to it next year if that is done again; it was an interesting example of the use of Dorothy Dixers to chew up time.
There was the reading of questions at times when the information would have been far more effectively served by getting to the point, being efficient and getting through the time and as many questions as possible and tabling some of the information so members of the committee could have it in front of them, look at it and ask questions. On many occasions we saw ministers read answers from briefs in front of them when they could have simply tabled the information.
As an opposition we put written questions to ministers prior to estimates, a process which has happened for many years. You put questions in to make the most of the time available, particularly with time limits in place. Some ministers were forthcoming with the tabling of questions at the start of sessions by providing answers to them. Some ministers did not table answers to written questions.
The Health minister did not table the answers to questions we had put, which was a concern. This is about getting the facts, data and information that should be on the public record. Government should be open and transparent when a question is asked and it was a shame those answers were not tabled when asked for. I will resubmit those questions to ensure we receive some answers, because it is important to find out what is going on and how things are performing in the Health department.
With regard to Power and Water, we saw a significant change this year with estimates. Had we followed past processes we would probably still be on the third floor, going through the government owned corporations part of the estimates process, speaking to the shareholding minister, the Minister for Essential Services, the Chair of Power and Water and maybe even the Chairs of the new government owned corporations as well. We would be asking them questions about the structural separation of Power and Water. The process has been changed this year.
We have been told we will have the opportunity to go through the estimates process with Power and Water, the structural separation and how the new government owned corporations are performing after the Statements of Corporate Intent are tabled in parliament during the next sittings. I am not too confident about how that process will go in August.
I spoke with the shareholding minister during some part of the estimates process. I did not get to ask the Essential Services minister operational questions about the performance of Power and Water and how things are going on the ground. It clearly has much to do with the budget because operations, as we know, cost a fair bit. It is good to see how the big projects are tracking and what is being invested in capital works, especially in repairs and maintenance.
When I sat down with the Treasurer to seek reassurance that we will chat in August, there was a bit of argy-bargy about who appeared before the last Estimates Committee. During Labor’s last Estimates Committee in government we had the shareholding minister so we could ask questions about the money. We could also ask questions about the operational performance of the Power and Water Corporation.
With that, in August, I hope we have the Treasurer, the Minister for Essential Services and the Chair of Power and Water, along with the Chairs of the new Retail and Generation Corporations, so we can go through, line-by-line, what is on the horizon and how Power and Water and its government owned corporations have been performing.
There are still many questions about these splits, especially to do with the cost, because when we were asking about that during the PAC process – we had submissions made to the PAC with our report into the legislation for the structural separation of Power and Water – it was clear that estimates provided to the committee at the time were simply that. They were forecast on a best-case scenario and would be re-evaluated after the legislation to structurally separate the Power and Water Corporation went through. There are more questions about that, such as what has it cost to split Power and Water?
We have seen a very flash looking rebranding exercise completed in the last few weeks. We have new branding for Territory Generation, as I think it is called, and Jacana Energy, the retail corporation. I am sure there are big bucks associated with that.
We have had new boards appointed. We also heard more discussion about privatisation at the Estimates Committee. When I sought clarity from the minister about what I had heard regarding the privatisation of the Retail Corporation, we heard that government is looking at partnering the Retail Corporation with a new private partner, which was news to everybody. That was not part of the debate about the legislation to split Power and Water, and we have heard denial after denial by the government, which has said this is not a privatisation exercise; this is not going down the pathway of privatisation yet. I was a bit dumbfounded. It took just two weeks after the legislation passing for the government to start talking about potential privatisation and pairing up the Retail Corporation with a private partner.
Going through the budget is a very interesting process, because you have a fairly frank conversation with the minister and the people running the agency or the government owned corporation to find out what is going on, what you are looking at, what is on the table, and that was news to us.
Looking at the Network Price Determination tariff increases, I am still unsure as to who will be footing the bill for the network tariff increases, so we must go into further detail about that. I am looking forward to asking those questions again in August and seeking some further clarification about who will foot the bill and who is finding the money. It was not $845m, it was about $825m, so there are more questions about what is going on.
From week one to week two we saw two very different styles of approach to the Estimates Committee process. Week one was fairly combative. In week two there was much more conversation and discussion and everyone tried to go through different budgets and reach the facts and figures.
One of the biggest issues of the first week of estimates was the tabling of the Mercer report about the cost of living, and the discussions which followed that. When the CPI is at 3.9% and housing costs are through the roof in the Territory – going to the shops is always interesting, seeing the different produce you can buy and what you have to pay for it, as well as its quality. Filling up at the petrol station is not cheap, and the discussion around the cost of living put a few things into perspective, because what clearly came out through the media was that Territorians believe, for very good reason, that we have a high cost of living. It is the reality of what goes on.
Instead, the government tried to put forward a report which said we do not have a high cost of living in the Territory, which is ridiculous. People have given me their thoughts on the release of that report and the cost of living. It has been a point of conversation at netball training, at barbecues and at the front of my Hibiscus Shopping Centre office when I have been trying to buy a coffee. People are talking about it, and I saw the best evidence of this at Casuarina last Friday night. The retail assistants said they could not get over the fact the government had apparently said the cost of living is not such a big issue in the Territory. That is concerning if, going forward, the government has policies in place based on there not being a cost of living issue. It flies in the face of the government going to the Territory election in 2012 promising to reduce the cost of living, one of its biggest promises. The CLP says one thing on one day and something completely different the next.
Health estimates was a very interesting process. I thank the Health minister, because we had a thorough discussion about the portfolio and its challenges. The term ‘rocky road’ was often used during that debate. There are some serious cuts to be made in Health, and we appreciate the fact that the minister was so forthcoming in saying it is something they are working through, but we have some big concerns in this area. The Chief Minister has gone to Canberra, because he is also very concerned about the $33m in cuts this year alone. We are talking about $600m in cuts to the Territory’s hospitals. We have the biggest health issues in the nation; we have people here who need the greatest level of support so we can see more Territorians living a longer, healthier life. Much work needs to be done in this space.
On top of the $33m of cuts this year, with about $600m over 10 years, there are also cuts to primary healthcare and disability services. During estimates I was given some firm assurances that I would be able see some money coming back in the mid-year report, so that is something I will keep an eye on. It will be very worrying if that does not come back in, given how the Territory is being treated by the federal government at the moment, particularly in the area of health. Many national partnership agreements expire this year, with about seven more expiring next year, which is also room for concern. Many of those agreements impact Health and the delivery of services in that area, so the possible flow-on effects are worrying.
There are also some questions about the construction of Palmerston hospital. The government’s press releases around cuts to Health mentioned that they equate to Palmerston hospital – I think it was the potential removal of 60 beds. I have a few concerns about some of the answers I heard during the estimates process with regard to the hospital. The first is the cost escalation; I asked if the government could deliver what it has promised today, a $150m cost for the Palmerston hospital, given escalation is a factor in the Territory. What costs us one amount today will cost us a hell of a lot more tomorrow. I was assured that we can deliver the same hospital in 2018 for $150m, but I will believe that when I see it.
With regard to the headworks, the government has selected a site that is not serviced. It is not ready to go, so power, water, sewerage and infrastructure is needed. We held a public consultation in Palmerston last year, where I put the same question to the government, and was told the $10m would not come from the $150m pot, but at estimates this year I was told the opposite. That is, effectively, $10m less for the people of Palmerston and the rural area for their hospital and its services. That is a concern because it is less money.
We also discussed the privatisation of Palmerston hospital and the use of private services where possible. The minister said:
- Perhaps the new Palmerston hospital might end up being a privately run, privately operated, built and designed hospital, a full PPP, but that is yet to be determined and those decisions take a long time to take effect.
I raised the issue of privatisation of the Palmerston hospital later on ...
Mr Gunner: There are no extensions?
Mr Elferink: No.
Ms MANISON: I will wrap there because I cannot get an extension of time. Either way, many questions were put on the record, with many more to ask. I will be submitting many more written questions to ensure we get the data on the record. We need to fully scrutinise the budget and hold this government to account.
__________________________
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Hon Stephen Hatton
Hon Stephen Hatton
Mr CHAIR: Before I call the next speaker, I acknowledge in the gallery a previous MLA, minister and Chief Minister, Mr Stephen Hatton.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, it has become clear to me during the estimates process that Labor Party members are great at organising Christmas functions, but Liberal Party members spend their lives dealing with the hangovers. That is one of the problems we have in the Northern Territory, dealing with the Labor Party’s Christmas party which, of course, was racked up on the credit card.
The second component the Labor Party clearly still has not learnt, despite of all its years in office and continuing time on the opposition benches, is that the expenditure of more money does not automatically mean you are doing a better job. Before I continue with that theme, I will briefly pause to pick up on one point made by the member for Wanguri.
The member for Wanguri raised the issue that time limits better suit the government of the day. I heard several people on this side of the House guffaw at that comment – I was one of them – because we abolished time limits for estimates two years ago and said to members opposite, ‘As long as you like, any minister you like’, and they whinged and complained when they went over time. I think they had the Chief Minister for something like 19 hours and the Treasurer for about 17 hours during that period, and it went on and on. They said, ‘We need to be restrained, you need to impose time limits’. Lo and behold, the first comment I heard from an opposition member when this debate returned to the House was, ‘Time limits work to the advantage of the government’. Those time limits were only imposed because that is exactly what the opposition asked be imposed. From a position of government, you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. However, the typical attitude of this opposition is, ‘We will make it up as we go along, we will criticise as we see fit and we do not care if the very thing that has been imposed upon us is the thing we asked be imposed upon us because of our lack of discipline’.
Getting back to some other points, the traditional idea amongst Labor Party members has been that to spend money is to achieve a result. I could trawl through hundreds of answers to questions given by former Labor ministers, who would answer the question, ‘What are you doing about A, B or C?’ with, ‘We are spending this much money’. I heard the criticism from the member for Wanguri today of, ‘We are worried about this source of funding into the future’, and I understand that is a traditional attack point when a budget becomes smaller.
It does not automatically follow that because you are spending less money in a particular area you are doing the job less effectively. I will give you a legacy example of a former Labor government decision. I am the minister for Child Protection; whilst having carriage of that ministry I became aware of and was concerned that – I mentioned it during the estimates process – the provision of out-of-home care services, as separate and distinguishable from foster care services, had a number of contracts which had started to look like profiteering, and I gave an example of that in my response to an estimates question.
One contract had been organised for the provision of services to one high-need child in care. I understand that is not cheap, but it was over $1m to look after one child for a year. There are a number of other examples which run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the provision of services for three or six months at a time. Becoming aware of this and some of the shortcomings in financial rigor in the department, I determined that we would look at these arrangements more carefully. As a consequence, the budget for out-of-home care services is smaller, but, having made that observation, the number of extra bed nights has increased substantially, by 29 000, through the extra purchase for out-of-home care services. That means we are spending less money and receiving more services as a result.
There were a number of other areas where I was concerned about that department. I acknowledge and congratulate the member for Araluen, because when she had carriage of this area she started a number of reform processes, having inherited a very sick department from Labor.
Sadly, there was another minister between the member for Araluen and I, the member for Namatjira. The reform processes commenced by the member for Araluen suddenly stopped and I was mortified to hear – I also mentioned this during the estimates process – the then acting CEO was absent for nearly half of the time she was in charge of the department, something the minister at the time seemed blithely unaware of.
I understand that she was stood aside by the Chief Minister, and I can understand why, now I look at some of the things that have occurred since that time. It continues to concern me that with the amount of rocks we look under there are more and more challenges in getting that department back to its core functions. I congratulate current CEO Jodeen Carney, known to, I think, all members in this House, for her excellent work and strident focus in making certain the department gets back to its core function, which is protecting children.
The department had not been effective at providing a raft of services across the board, because it had lost direction, particularly under Labor, got some back under the member for Araluen, and then continued to lose direction whilst the member for Namatjira was at the helm.
Nevertheless, we persevere and will continue to ensure the department delivers the best possible care for children, within its budget.
I am delighted to see that the department continues to produce better results in very trying circumstances and I congratulate frontline workers for their excellent work in what are the most difficult of all government services to deliver.
Pausing briefly in the area of Corrections, I am pleased to report that the number of prisoners in my correctional facility is 1465, which, sadly, is still about 122% of designed capacity, but it is nowhere near the projections expected by this time. I am referring to projections from the former Labor government.
It was the expected increase in prisoner projections, which today would be in the order of 1750 prisoners, that justified the expenditure, which will finally be $1.8bn in today’s dollar terms, on a new prison.
I am pleased to report that the concerns I had when I became the minister for Corrections, in that I would have to keep the Berrimah prison open, have now evaporated. I am confident the Berrimah prison will not have to be kept open and that the new Darwin Correctional Centre will not only be able to accommodate the prison population, but if current trends continue – we remain optimistic and hopeful – will not be full on its first day of operation.
The work of my CEO, Ken Middlebrook, and those who work for him has been extraordinary in its passion and delivery. The sense of direction that department now enjoys is something that I, as the minister, find heartening. The fact we are still keeping prison numbers substantially below original projections, in the order of some 300, shows we are on the right track as a government.
The gap today between the prison’s projected numbers and the actual numbers, if they were extrapolated out for one year, would produce a saving of $17m. That is $17m we, as a government, will not have to spend on prisoners because we have a Corrections system that appears to be correcting people. If you want any indication of that, look at crime rates, particularly in the area of property crime, which we now see being reported, with substantial drops in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. That is why we are seeing fewer prisoners come into the system.
Whilst I pause briefly on property crime rates, I will also talk about crimes against the person, which members opposite take great glee in pointing out have gone up over a number of years. Whilst that is true, what they refuse to acknowledge, whilst understanding it, is that the government has been stridently pursuing those who beat their spouses with criminal charges. To put that into context, what happened in the past was that if a person – for the sake of this conversation we will say a wife beater – beat his wife, a nice little civil order of restraint was taken out against them and he was told not to do it again. That incident was not reported as a crime. It was simply a civil order obtained to make sure a wife beater did not beat his wife.
The Chief Minister and this government have made it abundantly clear that we will not stomach, tolerate or accept that as the end approach, so we have engaged in a policy where we stridently and rapaciously pursue wife beaters as criminals, which is why they are charged with a crime of aggravated assault. When a police officer goes to a domestic violence incident somebody can expect to be charged.
That is why we see that increase in overall assault rates, because they are included as offences that were not traditionally counted, particularly by the former Labor government. Having gotten to that point, I point out to all members that if you pull out domestic violence- related offences from increased statistics, assaults have generally plateaued and stayed at the same level over the last couple of years. That remains a frustration for this government, but we will continue to put downward pressure on assaults, and if the heartening statistics of the last few months are anything to go by, particularly in relation to the policy of ‘cops in shops’, we have discovered that we are now putting downward pressure on assaults generally, both inside and outside of the home. We will continue to press on in that area, unafraid to protect the citizens of our community from violent offenders. We will continue to do so, irrespective of the spin members opposite will place on this. If it was as bad as the members say it was, in the realm of mandatory sentencing in which we exist, why are my prison numbers going down? The opposition has no answer for that, but it is not in government so it does not have to explain anything; it only has to point at government and say we accuse …
Mr McCarthy: No smoking in prisons is probably a good thing. That is what they are saying in the bush, John.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right, no smoking in the prisons is a good policy.
Mr McCarthy: Well done, minister.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, I very much appreciate the acknowledgement. Yes, we banned smoking in prisons in the Northern Territory and we are proud of it, as a parliament. We were national leaders, and whilst I briefly pick up on the interjection, I confess to an element of trepidation in taking cigarettes away from prisoners, but the way it was rolled out only demonstrates that the management of our prison system is in good hands. Whilst I spent three days sitting in my office waiting for the telephone to ring to advise me of the riot about to occur, it did not happen. It came and went with barely a blip on the radar, which I found surprising and heartening.
A member: You are the man, John.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, I am not sure what the mirth and frivolity is about on that side of the House, but it demonstrates how seriously some members in this House take the business of this place.
The final observations I care to make about the estimates process are about the lack of preparation which appears to go in from members opposite. There is a …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the chortling and laughing, but in 56 hours of questioning, what has been discovered? If there is anything I take out of that, it is that in 56 hours of questioning by members opposite, with malice of forethought to try to demonstrate all of the shortcomings of government, all that was provided was a platform for us to demonstrate how competent and well-informed ministers were, as well as the fact that we are a government that continues to press on for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
Ms Walker: What about your performance during Corrections? It was 15 minutes of bullying.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. ‘What about your performance in Corrections?’ The prisons have 300 fewer people in them today than you said they would have.
It is incredible. I am proud of our performance in Corrections and Child Protection, and very proud in relation to the Attorney-General position. Your performance was ill-prepared, ill-considered and demonstrated that you do not talk to each other, even about a strategy on how to approach questioning. What is going on on the other side? It is clear that some members on the other side do not talk to each other. If you were talking to each other, some of the errors I saw being committed, as well as the revisiting of particular issues, would not happen. It is demonstrative of some non-communication on that side of the House. I do not see a group of people talking to each other. From what I can make out, I see two distinct camps. Those people should get their stuff together and start talking because they owe a duty not to themselves, but to the people of the Northern Territory.
We start our parliamentary sitting day with two prayers. One is the Lord’s Prayer, while the second finishes with the line ‘for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. I am not seeing that on the other side of the House. I see an organisation that apparently has members who do not talk to each other. How that can be good for the scrutiny of the budget process and the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory is something I do not understand. Nevertheless, how they organise themselves is a matter for them. What we know is that in the absence of being able to attack us with fact they are more than happy to engage in assaults with fiction.
Mr Chair, I am still waiting for my apology from the member for Fannie Bay for the outrageous slander he committed during estimates. However, I suspect he never will apologise because he is not that big.
Ms FYLES: Mr Chair, the estimates process this year was, as always, interesting, but the government’s approach was designed to avoid transparency, openness and accountability. In making that statement, I highlight a number of examples, the biggest being the political game of ministers simply reading out information from papers, rather than tabling them. Estimates is an important part of our parliamentary system. It allows scrutiny of the Appropriation Bill and time for questions to be asked.
As an opposition team, we were highlighting that this budget was bad for Territorians. It is hurting Territorians. For the Chief Minister to say the cost of living is not an issue in the Territory highlights how out of touch he is with our community. My colleague, the member for Wanguri, gave numerous examples from the last week since he made those comments and tried to table a report to highlight what Territorians are talking about on the streets. It is what people are stopping us to talk about.
We have a high cost of living. It is going up under this government and there is less support for Territorians. You have knocked back and cut schemes that help some of the most vulnerable in our community and you are cutting funding to our schools. To have a Chief Minister not even acknowledge the cost of living as an issue is appalling. Territorians are leaving. They want to stay here as they love the lifestyle, but they cannot see things getting better under this government. For a government to go to an election and promise to reduce the cost of living and then do the exact opposite is not fair. To see the Chief Minister’s arrogance was astounding, particularly with that comment.
The Chief Minister’s refusal to answer questions is something people are talking about. I sat with my colleague, the member for Karama, through some of the hours of questioning the Chief Minister, and he just shut down. He rudely and arrogantly refused to answer questions. That highlighted what this government is about in ticking boxes and getting on with what they want without thinking about or supporting Territorians. Some of the comments he made were appalling, and Territorians are talking about that on the street or whilst doing the school drop off. At the markets on Sunday, people approached me and that is what they were talking about.
CLP backbenchers asking Dorothy Dixer questions to waste time was frustrating. That happened during my portfolio estimates and others where I sat on the committee. I heard long-winded, repetitive opening statements designed to stop the opposition from asking questions, which was frustrating. Ministers commented that we had not provided questions beforehand, which showed they do not understand the estimates process. When you are asking questions other questions flow from statements and documents provided, so we tried to provide as much information beforehand.
Questioning on the Child Protection portfolio was very frustrating. Documents and figures tabled and provided last year were suddenly unavailable this year. It was very frustrating because it was a chance to look at how the government’s budget is impacting on Territorians and how it will impact into the next year. Millions of dollars is being ripped from child protection, services will be cut, and trying to find out where those services will be cut – the data we asked for is important, yet we were shut down and told it was not available, when it was last year. That was one instance in one portfolio that was concerning.
Ministers referring to written questions, which left other questions unanswered, was frustrating. There are budget output areas, but some questions definitely fit into two portfolios. They might cover two ministers portfolios, but there was a blatant refusal to answer questions; it was almost a cheeky, ‘You missed your chance to ask that’. We had not, and we were asking questions on behalf of Territorians. That was very frustrating. My colleagues and I will review the Hansard record of estimates and continue to research the information provided.
Within my portfolio of Education I had a number of concerns. Global written questions were eventually tabled, but there are still some unanswered. For example, Written Question 180 part three clearly asked for a list of schools and the number of teachers at all levels, assistant teachers and other staff by category who were employed in our schools in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and those anticipated for 2015. We are still waiting for those answers. The reason those answers are so important is that they show the budget and what will happen in our schools, which was my area of questioning. The not answering of questions is something I highlight as a PAC member.
There was confusion with some questions that were answered. Yesterday when I asked the Minister for Women’s Policy if she had an advisor, I was genuine in that question because stakeholders are telling me they feel that women’s policy is being completely dropped. To have the minister look at me like I had asked a trick question – it was not. It was a genuine question, ‘Do you have an advisor in your office for women’s policy?’ That flowed into questions about her, as minister, meeting with them, and where in this budget we are supporting women’s policy initiatives. She could not answer that. The incompetence of some ministers is extremely disappointing.
During Education questions there was confusion about the CLP election promise of a $5000 bonus on completion of the first four years of remote teaching. Last year the Minister for Education said it would be dealt with in the EBA. This year he said, ‘At this stage we have not continued with that’, and ‘No, it is not in this year’s budget’.
Interestingly, when I compared the answer I received to the written question, the written question said that commitment was completed. Last year it was part of the ongoing EBA. This year we have forgotten it, and the answer to the written question said the commitment was completed. As a team we will be reviewing the answers provided, reviewing the statements provided and making sure inaccuracies are highlighted. Our job in opposition is to question your budget, particularly a budget that is so bad for Territorians.
During Education questions the minister did not agree with the Chief Minister about federal budget cuts. On 18 May the Chief Minister said the Territory stands to lose $652.2m in health funding and $312.3m in education funding over the next decade through the forward estimates and outer years modelling, yet the Education minister used many excuses to say it was hypothetical. I encourage him to read the Chief Minister’s media releases.
I have touched on the cost of living, but from the first week when the Chief Minister said it was not an issue – Territorians do not agree with that. We do not have the cheapest utility prices in Australia – the figures and facts are there – so that was extremely disappointing.
I raised some specific issues regarding schools and education and I look forward to the minister responding to me about those, but from tabled documents we see 182 fewer teachers and support staff in our schools from last year to the start of this year. You cannot cut the Education budget without there being cuts in our schools affecting students.
A future issue for Education in this budget is the global budget for schools, which is a huge concern. I have attended two school council meetings in the last week where parents were puzzled and members of the school council were worried about global budgets. It is a move to cut funding from our schools. You cannot have a budget which cuts education when we should be investing in our schools and students. Within the Education portfolio there is a number of concerns.
We will review the information provided and ask more questions. The estimates process allows the opposition that scrutiny, which is important. It was interesting that the member for Port Darwin talked about non-communication and preparation. I acknowledge the hard work of department staff; you could see them buzzing in and out with huge amounts of research and paperwork, but ministers, interestingly enough, shut that down. I noticed a number of times that if we asked a question the CE would call for that information, knowing they had it, yet the minister would decline to use it, which was disappointing. It was especially evident within some portfolios.
The member for Port Darwin talked about non-communication and a lack of preparation. That was evident from ministers. Time limits affected me asking questions about my portfolios, so it was a time-wasting strategy, and we saw ministers continually reading out answers and statements. When some of the figures were quoted to me, once I realised they had answered my question I explained that it was fine and we already had information or could look it up, but the minister would insist on reading out many pages of data. Public servants and members of our community watching the estimates process told me they were frustrated with that happening.
In this budget and my area, I must mention the Nightcliff police station. The CLP came to government promising a 24/7 police station for the Nightcliff area. Nightcliff, Coconut Grove and Rapid Creek are growing areas; they have renewal and are becoming much denser. We have a great lifestyle there, but there are many social problems. Since the removal of the Banned Drinker Register we have had huge problems with antisocial behaviour. The government promising a police station was an issue in our community. I questioned the previous Chief Minister, Terry Mills, in this House and he said that commitment would be honoured. For this budget to scrap the Nightcliff police station is disappointing.
Soon after coming to government the Nightcliff police beat, which was an active police beat specifically targeting hot spots in our area, was dismantled and we saw an increase in crime and antisocial behaviour as a result of that. To pull out the police station is to turn your back on what was promised and is something for which I will hold you to account. It has been the number one issue over the past few weeks at the markets when catching up with people. People are concerned; Nightcliff is seeing more infill and more people are coming to the area.
Police do a great job. I meet with them regularly, such as last Friday. We need a 24/7 police station in our community, and for Chief Minister Giles to walk away from that commitment without any explanation – I have written to him and I look forward to his response.
This is a bad budget and it will hurt Territorians. My colleagues will speak in each of their portfolio areas, but during the estimates process, the area of Women’s Policy showed a complete lack of information. It was astounding to hear the responses from the minister and it appears there has been no work done in that area. Staff numbers in the department have been reduced. I was unable to form an idea of the plans or policies of the government and what this budget will do for the women of the Territory. In Education there are some appalling figures. We have seen cuts and there will be more.
After asking the minister during public employment questioning about when the next staff survey will be held, no specific dates were given, only generalities, which was an extremely disappointing response. Why was it delayed?
In the Arts portfolio, the minister talked down the clock and no questions could be asked. This is a bad budget for Territorians; it is hurting them and will continue to do so. The estimates process allowed the opposition to ask questions, but ministers had a plan to shut things down. Their lack of preparation was shown in the last two weeks of hearings and, as an opposition, we will review the documents and continue to pursue this government, because this is a bad budget for Territorians, education and my electorate.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning, Mr Chair.
Mr VOWLES: Mr Chair, I asked some people in my electorate, during the break at the end of the first week of estimates – my second – what they thought the estimates process was. We work and live in this environment where we think everybody is listening, watching and taking care of what we do in here, so I asked a few people at the Sunday markets about estimates. I also door knocked and asked a few people if they knew anything about estimates and, if so, what they thought about them.
Most people understood what the estimates process was and what we do in there. Some people had never heard of it, so I did my best to enlighten them on what it is and the process of doing that. It is important that we …
Mr Chandler: Did you convert anybody?
Mr VOWLES: No, I did not convert anybody, but I highlighted what we do during the 56 hours of questioning and the purpose of it. It is about standing up for all Territorians and asking the questions they would like to ask government and, specifically, ministers. Speaking to people, including those who knew about the estimates process and those I informed about it, was very interesting. I said that we were holding the government to account on the budget, and asked them what questions they had.
One thing they did know about was the Chief Minister’s Mercer report, which called Darwin the cheapest capital city in the country. That was interesting and probably a form of ridicule. A couple of them asked if we could have the Chief Minister over to chat to them about it. I will pass the addresses of those people on to him, so he can meet Territorians and see what his budget is doing to them. The cost of living has nearly doubled under this government and he can explain how he would live on their money and ask what would stop a few of them from leaving the Northern Territory and Darwin, as well as persuade a couple of their mates back who have left the Territory because of this issue.
Going back to what people thought of estimates, the people who knew about the process knew that it is an opportunity for the opposition and Independent members to question the government about the budget. That is a good analysis of what we tried to do over the 56 hours. I explained that is what we have been doing and about a few questions which were asked. Some people were following it, some were not, but I will get that out in the next month or so in a newsletter, talking about some of the highlights, as well as some of the massive disappointments.
I was upset about the Dorothy Dixers clearly put in to waste time. The estimates process is excellent for holding a government to account, especially one which has told Territorians for nearly two-and-a-half years – nearly two in government – that it will be open, accountable and transparent. I thought that was what the estimates process was about.
I believe in the estimates process, but when we have situations where Dorothy Dixers are heard in parliament – I might have been placed on a warning for bringing this up and trying to stress my point in a very respectful way to Madam Chair at the time, but I told CLP members of the Estimates Committee that they could ask these questions of their members any time in the hallways or while having a coffee. If they have to make arrangements to hold a meeting with their minister, at least they have more opportunities to do that, but those questions should not happen during estimates. At some stage they may have wasted up to an hour on Dorothy Dixers, which did not allow more stringent grilling of the government and ministers with questions Territorians had given to us to ask them. That is something that must be looked at and discussed in whatever forum is appropriate. I have already briefly mentioned the blatant time-wasting.
We had some very good performers and some very well-prepared ministers to whom I give credit. It must be a great source of comfort – as we knew when we were in government – to have departmental staff who know what they doing and chief executive officers who manage those departments with great staff. As an ex-public servant I know how much preparation goes into an estimates process and the support the ministers have from people and CEs from the department who know what they are doing. As I said, there were some very good performances by some ministers and very average performances by a couple of the ministers. When you have ministers asking questions of the people asking questions, that is a huge concern to all of us.
The CEs of those departments know those answers. It goes back to knowing your department and your portfolio responsibilities. If you do not know them, you have excellent departmental staff who do. They will give you great advice all the time, which would be to take it on notice, because I stress that the estimates process is not the forum to question opposition members on what they would do. ‘What would you do if you were the minister?’ – as I said, if you do not know what you are doing you should get out of it.
Estimates is an excellent process. As a Labor member I am very proud that the Labor government of the time said, ‘We need accountability, openness and transparency’, so put the estimates process in place.
I will talk about my portfolios briefly, starting with Sport, Recreation and Racing. I do not say it many times, and I will struggle to say it now, but I thank the member for Greatorex, the minister for Sport and Recreation, for his time. Member for Greatorex, we have turned the corner; you finally realise the importance of being a minister of the Crown. Your performance in estimates was professional, one of knowledge and knowing that you have great departmental staff who know what they are doing. I know firsthand how well our Sport and Recreation department operates and how well it prepares, as all departments do, for the estimates process.
I thank you because it was a very easy time in estimates in that every question I asked you had an answer for, or if you did not know you passed it over. That is what we expect from a minister. That is how we governed for seven years taking part in the estimates process.
There were a couple of things, such as the $3.5m the government provided to Alice Springs Town Council for – it might not have got there – upgrades to Anzac Oval. You said there was about 3500 or 4000 people at the Parramatta game, when the match played a few years earlier it was close to 7000. We spent $3.5m upgrading an oval for half the crowd, but I am sure the users of Anzac Oval are happy with that upgrade. However, considering we upgraded it for the Parramatta trial game, which you brought to Alice Springs for about $500 000 after cancelling the Brumbies trial match in Darwin, which was $300 000, that is what I highlight from Sport and Recreation.
I will go to Indigenous policy, which is broad ranging because you do not have a minister for Indigenous policy or Indigenous affairs …
Mr Chandler: We are all ministers for that.
Mr VOWLES: Yes. It is a broad-ranging responsibility I have as the shadow minister for Indigenous policy and I want to highlight the somewhat non-inspiring performance of minister Price during the estimates process. Although surrounded by great departmental staff and CEs who knew what they were doing, it was obvious in some areas that the minister had not done any homework, had not been briefed properly – she may have been briefed properly, but she obviously did not know many answers to portfolio questions. As the member for Nightcliff has already pointed out to do with Women’s Policy, I briefly heard crickets when the minister was asked, ‘Is there a Women’s Policy advisor?’ and that is concerning.
The other concerning thing about the member for Stuart’s lack of openness and accountability around the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and her comments in a speech she gave to the developing northern Australia conference – she admitted she had some changes but would not answer questions about what those changes were. I look forward to, as many of the land councils do, seeing what changes she would bring in.
The member for Stuart has carriage of Indigenous Essential Services as the Minister for Community Services. Over $71m has been spent in that area providing power, water, sewerage and a few other services, and it was concerning that she would not answer many questions on what taxpayers and federal money has been spent on. I did not receive a breakdown of the power, water and sewerage costs and many other answers to written questions.
What is very concerning is the $500m in cuts in Indigenous affairs and how that will, if at all, affect Indigenous Essential Services. We are talking about remote Indigenous people, and that is a huge concern for me and many Territorians.
Going on to sacred sites responsibilities and the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, what changes and the review – there was a draft Cabinet submission, but the minister could not tell me if she had signed it or if it had been sent out, hiding under the Cabinet confidentiality clause she kept rolling out. I look forward to seeing that review – as many people do – into protecting Aboriginal sites.
I will go on to Lands and Planning. Once again, the minister for Lands and Planning, the member for Brennan, was 98% across his portfolio, as expected, so I will give him credit where credit is due. He does his homework and knows the responsibilities of most of his portfolios. I raised some issues, as did the member for Nelson, around planning, spot rezoning and the clearing of land, which concerns me. It concerns residents as well as many Larrakia people because of the Totem Road clearing. It sounds like a bit of a shemozzle around who provided clearing rights for a proposed burial site.
We have had issues about the planned retirement village in Johnston Ridge, now turned into affordable public housing. I believe 155 residents in Brennan signed a petition against the development of over 80 units on that site, regarding transport and access in and out of the area, as well as the change of concept from a retirement village to a housing development. With the matter being referred to the Housing minister and then back to the Lands and Planning minister, the issue of responsibility has been raised with me.
We might have some argy-bargy over whose responsibility it is – you say it is the Housing minister or the Lands and Planning minister’s job – but to people on the street it is government. You are in government, you are a minister of the government and you need to sort it out. We sometimes forget that we know the intricacies of departmental and government processes, but people on the street do not. They think that you are a minister, the local member and you are in government.
I think there has been some movement, and I have been updated that there have been a couple of meetings with the Lands and Planning minister and the Housing minister regarding that. I am sure the 155 people who signed the petition in Brennan will be updated on what is happening there soon.
I will finish with a holistic summary. The estimates process is an excellent one, open, accountable and transparent, which plays into the government’s rhetoric about that. I encourage, urge and expect ministers of the Crown to be across their portfolios. It was apparent that some are not. This is a budget that is hurting Territorians, and will continue to do so. The words we say are true; people are leaving the Territory because they cannot afford to live here anymore. You promised to reduce the cost of living, but you have increased it and every Territorian is hurting.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chair, first of all, I thank the hard-working staff of the Legislative Assembly because a two-week estimates process requires many dedicated hours. For all staff who work directly under the Clerk, as well as those in Hansard, a big thank you from the opposition for the hard work you have put in and the long hours of, literally, enabling this scrutiny of the budget to occur.
We believe the budget, as we have heard from members opposite, is not there to serve the best interest of Territorians. It is a self-serving budget, and that was clearly exposed on the second day of estimates hearings when we heard about the Department of the Chief Minister receiving a $33m increase in its budget, while the budgets of Education and Health, just to name two, are seeing drastic cuts. It is an extraordinary situation to be in and one wonders what happened around the budget Cabinet table to allow that to occur.
Never in the history of Territory budgets have we seen dramatic cuts to frontline critical service delivery, such as education and health, whilst there is a massive $33m boost to the Department of the Chief Minister. The department does not create outcomes, better educated children or improve the health of Territorians. It is there to provide advice to the Chief Minister. He needs an extra $33m for advice and, in his view as the leader of the government, everyone else can suffer significant pain through budget cuts. It is an extraordinary budget in the way it delivers more pain to Territorians, whilst the Chief Minister is taken care of with a $33m boost to his own department to provide advice and coordinate efforts on his behalf.
The Chief Minister’s attitude to the cost of living was stark and clear. It was an extraordinary moment when he sought to laud the Mercer report, which said Darwin is a cheaper capital city than others in our nation.
Territorians are still laughing at the Chief Minister; he has become a focus of ridicule. Regardless of where people live they are gobsmacked that a Chief Minister of the Northern Territory could believe anything which says Darwin is cheaper than other capital cities. The next day I had the Treasurer alongside me on a radio talk show and he was backpedalling as fast as he could, trying to distance himself from the Mercer report. The Chief Minister then said, ‘It is not up to me to defend the report’, albeit the report was funded by Northern Territory taxpayers at the request of the Northern Territory government.
The Mercer report has no credibility in the public domain. We had journalists from different media organisations immediately going to the detailed report, and they started to perform comparisons from information there, particularly around real estate, which tried to pretend that places like Scarborough in Perth and Castle Hill in Sydney were the same as Rapid Creek, Moil and Jingili. The Territory government has gotten into this loop of thinking Territorians are fools and they cannot see through spin when it is so extreme.
The reality is that you are the fools because Territorians can see spin for what it is, and this is a budget which encapsulates spin to the nth degree. We are still waiting for advice from the Chief Minister on specific budgets for his communications and media bureau. This is a government that went to the Northern Territory election promising to cut spin, and we now see a $33m boost to the Department of the Chief Minister, with no direct answers about the cost of that spin machine. We are waiting for them, as they are questions on notice.
Normally in estimates with questions on notice, you have the questions back the same day or within a couple of days, but here we are, an entire week after the Chief Minister put that on notice, and there is still no answer. This is a government that would go to any length to hide information from Territorians, and as members have witnessed through the estimates process, it went to extraordinary lengths. I give credit where credit is due; at least the Chief Minister and the Treasurer were willing to table their written answers to written questions we had provided through due process, whereas some ministers, to their shame, refused.
I note that the Chief Minister refused to table written answers to Police, Fire and Emergency Services questions. It does not serve the government well to be seen trying to hide, to that great an extent, answers that would already have been prepared by public servants of the Northern Territory. We will use the process of parliament to find answers to those written questions, so why on earth would you show such contempt for a process which, by its nature, is designed to be open and accountable? We cannot understand that, but it seems to be a quirk of this government and it is something you are judged down on by the many public servants who watch the estimates process.
I received a lot of feedback from people who watched estimates about the behaviour of the Treasurer and the Chief Minister towards me. People were particularly appalled at the behaviour of the Chief Minister. He went out of his way to behave in a very aggressive, bullying manner. There was no need for that, Chief Minister; it is a process designed to elicit information on behalf of Territorians. It is not for the Chief Minister to determine who the Leader of the Opposition is. He may have personal views about me, but do not hold the estimates process in contempt through your behaviour. It does you no good and you have been judged down by Territorians.
Many people were shocked. They knew the Treasurer had that style about him as he is known in the Top End, but people did not know the Chief Minister that well in the Top End because he is an Alice Springs member of parliament. He has only recently, following the knifing of the previous Chief Minister, come to Territorians attention in the Top End. They have been shocked by what they have seen of his behaviour during the estimates process. Scrutiny occurred on many levels during estimates; people judge others on their behaviour and the clear contempt the Chief Minister showed towards the estimates process, and his behaviour towards me, has done him no good at all and marked him down even further in people’s estimations.
The cost of living is a core concern for Territorians. The lauding of the Mercer report by the Chief Minister was an extraordinary error of judgment which will haunt him for his entire political career. Territorians have been, as I said, ridiculing him. You need look no further than the daily newspaper here, the Northern Territory News, to see some of that ridicule. The headline in the NT News was ‘Just what planet are you guys living on?’, and the article went on to say:
- Chief Minister Adam Giles turned heads when he announced the latest Mercer Regional Differentials Report listed Darwin as a capital city with one of the lowest costs of living in Australia.
The vox pop represents what everyone in the Northern Territory has been saying about the cost of living. People who watch television news saw – the first person interviewed by ABC referred to it as ‘BS’. Territorians are frank and no one could believe the government and the Chief Minister could lead with their chin to such an extent. It shows what we have been saying for a while about how clearly out of touch the CLP government is.
For any Chief Minister to laud the Mercer report at estimates as he did is extraordinary. The cost of living is excruciating in the Northern Territory. Territorians are literally packing up and leaving town. Successive governments have acknowledged over the years – whether CLP or Labor – that the cost of living is higher in the Territory. This is the first time we have seen a Chief Minister try to pretend it is not. It was extraordinary. In pretending it is not, he reinforced to Territorians that the government simply does not care. That is a fundamental issue for people when they look at a government. They want to feel that in some way the government has empathy for their circumstances, at least acknowledges it is tough and is doing, hopefully, what it can to ease the burden. None of that is occurring under the leadership of the current Chief Minister. It is quite the reverse, as shown by his behaviour at estimates.
Budget papers show that the CPI has doubled from 2% under Labor to 3.9% under the CLP. Budget Paper No 2, page 3, credits that largely to utility and motor vehicle registration price increases. Again, I saw the Treasurer and the Chief Minister dismiss that. They are dismissing the words of their own budget. The way they operate is that if they deny it and say, ‘No, that is not right’, and then proceed on to another attack, they think they have done their job. They have not done their job because the cost of living has doubled under them. Whilst you do not accept the inherent challenges in areas that are driving up the cost of living, for example utilities and motor vehicle registration, you are then not equipped to tackle it and put it in reverse.
We saw that in the response to land release and have already heard speakers on this side talking about how ministers would say, ‘You cannot ask me questions on lands and planning’. The Chief Minister repeatedly said to members of the Estimates Committee that they could not ask him questions on lands and planning, that is, you could not talk about land release, or housing, which is one of the major policies of the CLP government, and then took a Dorothy Dixer from his backbencher on it.
Chief Minister, if you are pretending you have no role to play as the leader of government policy around housing and land release – we know it is a pretense because every Chief Minister would have to participate in that policy as it is crucial. However, if you want to pretend, do not contradict yourself by taking a Dorothy Dixer on the same subject. It means you have no credibility. It shoots down any shred of credibility, and that is what you managed to do during these two weeks of estimates hearings with your performance and your ridiculous tactics, which have backfired.
We are proud of the estimates process inaugurated 13 years ago under Labor, because before that it was even more of a farce as a Committee of the Whole in this Chamber. If you are not prepared to be an open and accountable government, you need to explain why. If there is a reason why you will not table documents or provide the same detailed information the taxpayer has a right to know, which is why there is a scrutiny process, then explain that. If there is a reason why something cannot be provided – commercial-in-confidence – say it, but minister after minister blankly refused to table information.
I do not like singling people out, but to say you will not table something and then orally provide answers – why do that? Why demean yourself to that extent? It is demeaning and makes that person look foolish. Whoever is advising you to do that, reconsider their advice. It was a great display of arrogance. The arrogance is woven right throughout this budget in the way it fails to respond to crucial issues concerning Territorians and the heavy burden of tariffs on power, water and sewerage. You did not want any scrutiny of that, which is why you removed the GOC and why you stripped away questions to the Essential Services minister on Power and Water.
There were questions about the Land Development Corporation and the relationship with the director, Graham Lewis, who is also the director of Foundation 51. The Chief Minister confirmed the appointment was approved by Cabinet, but refused to say who recommended it. He did not see a conflict of interest in the director of a CLP slush fund, Foundation 51, oversighting land development on behalf of the Northern Territory government. Chief Minister, everyone else can see that clear conflict. It is extraordinary that you hang on to the view there is no conflict. That arrogance is not lost on Territorians.
We saw the confirmation that Terry Mills has been appointed to a position in Jakarta at huge expense, but when questioned on the details we were told contract arrangements have not been finalised. How can you have a contract, with payments already occurring, without those arrangements being finalised? In what manner can that occur? It is extraordinary. We also saw the admission that $1m has been paid to the Tiwi Land Council to facilitate a lease that does not exist. The government has paid $1m for nothing; it is unbelievable and extraordinary. Where else does that happen? Think about it this way. If you were a business, would you hand over $1m for nothing? ‘Here is $1m, but that is okay, we do not need anything for it.’ In addition to the $1m, it was discovered through estimates that there is at least – again, information was not very forthcoming – a further $800 000 expenditure in-kind or additional resources to support the Tiwi land deal which is not a deal, the 10 000 ha land deal that does not exist.
What is happening? This will not go away, it will be scrutinised because this is the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds. It is little wonder the Chief Minster gets over there as quickly as he can for meetings because, somehow, someone will have to deal with the fact that nothing has come from the expenditure of $1m, and a further expenditure of at least $800 000 to date, because the Chief Minister would not put a time frame on the delivery of anything.
When questioned at estimates, he walked away from a time frame, even though he said in his public announcements that it would be done within months. There is no time frame now. The local member for Arafura has walked away from the government, so he would have some genuine concerns about what the Chief Minister is doing in regard to all of that. One wonders what is happening when you can spend $1m on nothing and then add another $800 000 plus, also for nothing.
As the member for Nelson appropriately pointed out, you do your feasibilities before you determine whether there is a yield to be had from that land, not the other way around.
The Treasurer is failing small businesses. His changes to procurement are extremely concerning, vesting the power in CEOs who operate at the whim of ministers for the delivery of government contracts. It does not get much worse than that, but that is what this government is doing in ripping away the procurement review board knowledge that ensures it has been done in a fair manner.
This is a Treasurer who cannot acknowledge that the growth of the Territory is being fuelled by the major project INPEX, who does not acknowledge the rate of inflation and he has no jobs plan. He is failing Territorians in towns, regions and remote communities. He refuses to be accountable for the most basic aspects of his job.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, we should firstly acknowledge that it is the member for Nhulunbuy’s birthday. Happy birthday, Lynne – I was a bit early yesterday.
At the same time, while we are acknowledging people, I also thank the many people involved in the estimates process. There was a huge effort on so many fronts. Departments work their butts off in preparing for estimates, right through to Chamber staff and those in Hansard, who do a tremendous job.
Also, to my staff in the office upstairs, the work you do is incredible. The majority of the work would go down to those departmental staff, chief executives and senior managers within departments who spend many hours preparing for estimates.
It all comes back to budgets. I found many of the arguments during estimates to be more about ideology than actual budgets.
Mr Wood: Policy.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, there was some policy as well, but there was much to do with ideology and in many cases, particularly around education, there was not an argument in the room about outcomes. It was more about how we achieve those outcomes. In education we are starting to see some goals being kicked and, again, I take my hat off to the department and all staff working in Education, right through to our teachers in our classrooms.
There is a huge change agenda in education in the Northern Territory and no one likes change. It can affect people in different ways and they will often see it as a stumbling block for them to get on and do their daily job when change is afoot.
However, change is needed. I was looking at a graph earlier, which the Attorney-General has often used, showing the crocodile jaws where the Department of Education grew dramatically over the last five years of the Labor government, whilst we saw a modest increase in student numbers. What was more disturbing was the fact that our results, in many cases, were going backwards.
What you find with Labor governments is that they will spend money easily, and it is always with the general public. It is easy to say yes, to give and keep on giving, like the previous government did, but when it comes to financial responsibility someone, at some point, has to pull it up and say, ‘Look, we cannot keep going the way we were always going’.
Much rhetoric has been spouted again this year by the Labor opposition, particularly to do with the cost of living.
We acknowledge that the cost of living causes undue pressure. It is why we are working so damn hard, particularly in Lands and Planning, to have enough land to bring some balance back to the market, but it is not new.
I first came to the Northern Territory in 1985 and was gobsmacked with what I thought the cost of living was. There was acknowledgement of cost of living pressures back then; you only had to look at government departments offering airfares and entitlements, like district allowances with tax incentives. Why? There was acknowledgement that the cost of living in the Northern Territory was above other areas in this country, and I argue that it is just the same today. There are cost of living pressures, and we need to recognise that as a government. We have done so, and that is why in this year’s budget we have record spending on land release. Why? Because there is not enough land being released. If you drip feed the market, like has been done in previous years, the price of land goes up, and in the Northern Territory, particularly in the greater Darwin area, I argue that we are paying far too much for land.
When we built our first house in the Northern Territory in about 1993, about a third of the cost of the mortgage was the land and two thirds went into the house and other improvements.
Today many people are paying up to 60% of their entire mortgage just for the price of land. That is not sustainable, so we are working our butts off trying to have land delivered to the market more quickly than it has ever been because we also recognise that not only do we have a legacy of not enough land being released, but we have an economy which is booming. When you have companies like INPEX and others and the derivatives that come from such companies, we have double trouble because you must ensure that not only are you keeping up with the normal growth of Darwin, but also the impact which companies like that and the economy bring with them.
The spirit of estimates was good this year. On a couple of occasions I felt the member for Johnston was a bit like a second slip hedger, just throwing mud, and I dropped the ball at one stage because I think I called him a moron, and I apologise for that. I also told him to shut up on a number of occasions because he would not let me answer the question, and I was pulled up for that. But we were there to answer questions. Not allowing me to answer the question got me to the point where I said, ‘Please, Ken, can you shut up?’
Mr Wood: Who was the moron?
Mr CHANDLER: The same member. I was pulled up on that too, so I apologise for that.
In relation to the Dorothy Dixers the member for Johnston mentioned earlier, in the case of Lands and Planning, he was overly generous with his time, handing over much of it to the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson has a keen interest in that area and asked some very good questions. For the member for Johnston to complain we were taking up much of his time with Dorothy Dixers – he had a lot of time he could have taken if he had chosen to.
I want to go over a few things which were raised and a few highlights we had in the budget this year. In Education we have managed to increase spending on government education by 4.4%. In a time of constraint and everyone needing to pull back on their spending we have increased the budget in Education by 4.4%. That is shifting the focus out of the department and into the classroom.
There are fewer executives today. In fact, the number of executives in the department is about half what it was under Labor. You make accusations about jobs for the boys, but I argue that on coming into government there were many positions I found very hard to justify. Another saving that does not affect the classroom was the fact that every one of those executives who no longer works in the Department of Education also had cars they no longer need and no longer have, so many savings were made in the executive car fleet. However, our bus numbers have grown by about 15. I would much prefer spending money on buses for children, rather than cars for executives.
Over $80m has been committed to expanding education infrastructure. As most people know, we had John Glasby perform a fantastic review of infrastructure needs, so in this year’s budget over $80m has been committed for infrastructure, with $40.5m going towards boarding school infrastructure to be used for the introduction of the Indigenous education review recommendations.
At the moment most are aware that the department is building an implementation strategy, which will be put to Cabinet in late July/early August so we can get on with it. The trick for me – or good planning, I argue – is that we first ensured that we had money in the budget to implement the recommendations. I did not want such an important review to sit on the shelf for another 12 months waiting for next year’s budget. It was important for me to have the support of my Cabinet colleagues for sufficient money so we could implement the recommendations. People have had a gutful of governments, over the years, doing report after report, review after review, and then not having either the courage or resources to implement the recommendations of those reviews.
Remote Indigenous education is probably one of the most important things I will ever be involved in in my life. We will work and work until we see improvements and can provide the same opportunities for those Indigenous kids that every other child who attends school in the Northern Territory has. That is what we have a mandate and responsibility to do.
Debate suspended.
APPROPRIATION (2014-2015) BILL
(Serial 79)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr CHANDLER: Mr Chair, before the lunch adjournment we were talking about some of the great things this budget has brought for the Northern Territory and will continue to deliver for the Northern Territory.
I was at the point of talking about $40.5m put aside for boarding school infrastructure and I was explaining that it was important to have money in the budget to implement strategies when it comes to the Indigenous education review. There is $37m for a primary school in Zuccoli over two stages; $20m for a special school in Bellamack; $10m for a special school for Henbury; and $5.2m for extra remote classrooms, a remote school attendance strategy and 13 extra teachers in remote schools due to improvements in attendance rates. I applaud the scheme that is helping many of our disenfranchised children back into remote schools.
Moving on to land release, we have the biggest land release program in the Territory’s history to drive down the cost of living and make housing more affordable; that has been top of mind recently. Before the lunch adjournment I spoke about how the cost of living has probably been above what many other Australian states have had for many years. I explained how when I first arrived in 1985 I felt the Northern Territory was expensive compared to interstate. I thought it was astounding trying to fill up the car, even back then when fuel was about 53.9c a litre at BP Bagot Road near the overpass. How could we be paying 53c a litre when in other states they were probably paying about 40c to 45c?
There has always been a marked difference in the price of things in the Northern Territory, much of which has to do with freight. It is not a new phenomenon, but you would expect, with the rhetoric of Labor recently, that it was.
During the Blain by-election some guy spent the entire day as Mr Sledger. He continued to spruik that a vote for Nathan Barrett and the Country Liberals would see prices continue to rise, particularly on power and water. It went on all day; a vote for the CLP meant further price rises and a vote for Labor would mean the price of power would go down. The price of power would go down under Labor having only gone up under the CLP.
Many hours into that campaign I had heard enough and finally yelled out to this person, who was representing one of the unions, to say, ‘Tell me what year power prices went down under nearly 12 years of a Labor government?’ He stopped in his tracks. He could not give an honest answer because it did not suit his rhetoric.
Releasing more land is one way we can bring some market balance back to Territorians and help drive down the cost of living. This is the biggest land release program in the Northern Territory’s history: $135.5m for residential and industrial land release, including $23.9m in Palmerston east. Labor will say these are their plans, but I have always argued that it does not matter what side of politics you are on, a good plan is a good plan and a good idea is a good idea, so if there is a change of government and you come across a good idea you stick to it.
The difference is we are doing it faster and bringing it forward. Palmerston east is currently around three years ahead of the schedule put out by the former Labor government. There is $23.9m for Palmerston east, $27m for regional land release, $4m to provide seed money into Holtze and $4m towards Berrimah Farm.
We are also reducing red tape to make dealing with the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment easier and faster. We are doing this through a bit of legislation that would and can be used many times to clear up a lot of misapprehension with what goes on in planning. It is to do with concurrent applications. For the first time people can see when land is rezoned and what will be put on that block of land. We will provide an opportunity – we have seen recent cases where land is rezoned for particular reasons before, at a later stage, changing, perhaps through a developer changing their mind. You could then argue that it was rezoned under the wrong premise. Concurrent applications will provide, for the first time, the ability for people to see land rezoned, as well as what it will be used for and what will be developed on that land.
Online building approvals are an exciting area, providing for more reactions between developers, the general public and the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment. Things are far clearer, up to the DCA holding a hearing. The general public can see what the plans are in advance of what was there before. The DCA agenda is online. It is an area that could be improved further, but it provides more clarity for people and more time to prepare if they will attend one of the DCA hearings. The one-stop shop is another area where we are reducing the red tape burden on developers and the general public.
I will not speak for much longer, but I want to clear up a couple of things. There are a couple of areas that have concerned people, but we have taken – especially for the opposition – questions which I hope were answered as well as we could. There were a few questions taken on notice. If we have not gotten those answers back to you, we commit to get them back to you as soon as we can. Overall, everyone has done a good job in the general practice and manner in which estimates was held.
The Country Liberals have a good news budget and we did the best we could in getting answers to the opposition. I commit to getting answers back to you as soon as I can on any questions that I have taken on notice.
Ms ANDERSON: Mr Chair, I want to have my two bob’s worth, as they would say, about the estimates process.
I thank the staff of the Department of the Legislative Assembly, including Hansard, because these people put all of this information together for us so people outside of parliament are fully informed of the processes we go through.
I also thank the member for Nelson, who kindly gave up a couple of hours per minister for us during estimates. Member for Nelson, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for giving us the opportunity to represent our constituents, because we are duly elected into this parliament by members of the Territory public. It was absurd to see the behaviour of the government in not acknowledging us or giving us a seat to go through the processes.
I think we put our questions in two weeks out from estimates, to every minister, hoping we would receive answers, but no. There was one very important question, amongst the many important questions we put to the Minister for Children and Families, which was not answered. When you find $8m of savings within the Department of Children and Families, and a week out from estimates a child dies in your care, there must be answers and things put into perspective. Are you saving $8m at the cost of little black kids? Why did you not talk about the death of young Madeline? Why did you not tell the Territory public, through the estimates process, that she died on your watch? You continuously talk about open and transparent government. There has been no openness and transparency from any of you.
Mr Elferink: Why did you not ask a question?
Ms ANDERSON: I would like to thank her family.
Mr Elferink: You did not ask a single question, and you were not there.
Ms ANDERSON: You can hear the arrogance in these interruptions, even through this process. This is our time to talk about your process which failed not only us as duly elected people, but the Territory public. The Territory public wants to know about children who die in your care. You talk about openness and transparency, you like to talk about the good news you see in the Northern Territory …
Mr Elferink: What the public thinks about you …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Chair! Standing Order 51: I ask for no interruptions.
Mr CHAIR: I will point out that seeing as people want to be sticklers for standing orders, I will be enforcing that. With regard to Standing Order 51, if there is anyone not taking any notice of that I will have no hesitation in suspending these proceedings, calling the Speaker back in and ensuring someone is out of here as quick as a flash, thank you. You have the call, member for Namatjira.
Ms ANDERSON: We must talk about young Madeline, who passed away in the care of the person who continuously interrupts this process. This is about openness and transparency. I have the permission of her family in Katherine to mention her name in parliament, and I thank them for giving us the opportunity to talk about her case and to ensure we highlight the fact that while the government is saving $8m, there are still kids dying in its care. These are future generations of our Territory kids, and this is serious business. We need to ensure we uphold the promises we make to their parents that we will provide their children the best possible care and that these children do not die in the care of the CEO, unless they have a significant sickness. We, the opposition and the Territory public want to know why this has happened.
Why has an inquest not been called into the death of Madeline and why does it take a member of the Territory public in Darwin to tell us what is going on? Why can the minister and the government not be honest and transparent in talking about these issues to ensure they are highlighted? In the Northern Territory we must ensure we look at child protection seriously, that we talk about deaths in custody and children dying in our care, and ensure that we highlight these problems at all times, so the Territory public is informed and families have a process to go through. Here is a minister who is precise about following everything, yet he could not talk about this young woman’s death.
I believe she only turned 17 last month. Her family wants her name mentioned in parliament and her case to be spoken about publicly. They do not want another statistic and her death to be covered over. I went through all processes of contacting her family to ask their permission to talk about this case to ensure it is highlighted, because you will not get away with not talking about kids dying in care.
If the opposition will not do it, we will. We will chase you down and ensure we highlight all of these problems. If you talk about transparency, be transparent when kids die in your care; make sure you talk about it. Ask for an inquest into this young lady’s death and ensure you support the family. Go to Katherine and start talking to young Maddy’s family to help them heal through this process. These are people who duly elected your member, and one would hope the member for Katherine would take this opportunity to get in touch with and visit the family. I have called them and they are grateful for young Maddy’s name being mentioned in this Chamber; they want openness and transparency and they encourage the minister to talk about what happened to her. Why did Maddy commit suicide in your care, minister? Is that one, two, or three? We do not know. There is no openness or transparency, so you must come clean.
We will hold you accountable. You want to be held accountable for all the good outcomes from your portfolio. As the former minister, I know the office of Children and Families does not always have good news stories, but be open and transparent about kids dying in your care.
I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the Minister for Health, who outlined, through the estimates process, major health funding of $36m which is not coming from the feds. What the Health minister said should encourage the government to look at how we will support our services without an extra $36m of funding coming from the feds. It was encouraging to see the Health minister highlight that early in the estimates process to ensure, as Territorians, we understand which services we might have to cut or lose. We would all like to see the government look at this issue, and I hope it will not result in cuts to only the NGO sector. As the minister said, $36m is equivalent to 30 beds in the Alice Springs Hospital. We would not like to see major cuts to one sector of the health system, but small, swift cuts overall.
We understand that you attend forums and ministerial councils to fight for the Northern Territory. We know one person across the Chamber will fight for and believes in the Northern Territory. We know you will achieve those outcomes by talking to your colleagues. It was good to go through the details with you to ensure we understood the effects of $36m of cuts Territory-wide. It is concerning, as the member for Nightcliff said, that there are national partnership agreements expiring soon, and we must ensure we cover all of those.
It was sad to see the member for Stuart struggle, as a minister, to answer questions on her portfolios during estimates. Her appalling performance was an indictment on us as Aboriginal people
Mrs LAMBLEY: Mr Chair, thank you for allowing me to give some final comments on estimates from my perspective as the Minister for Health, the Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation and the Minister for Disability Services.
I take up one of the points raised by the member for Namatjira during her speech. She talked about how we discussed, through the estimates process, the potential cut in funding of around $36m to the Health budget next year. It was, in fact, $33m that we talked about. We have been negotiating with the Australian government about a range of agreements for which funding will cease in 2014-15. It came as a huge shock to us, particularly in areas of ongoing funding for Health, that the government would brutally cut our budget.
The Territory government expected to receive more than $150m in Commonwealth funding for Health in 2014-15, and the Territory initially stood to lose around $33m in this area just for this financial year. This was due to the way the Australian government calculates hospital activity, and how it is funded. Through ongoing work with the national funding administrator the Northern Territory has successfully identified additional activity in our hospitals, resulting in an additional $22m to be provided this financial year.
The positive news is that this means the Territory health budget is now facing a shortfall of $11.3m as a result of the federal government’s budget announcements on the same day we handed down our budget. We did not anticipate this shortfall, and while it is much lower than originally predicted, going from $33m to $11.3m, we continue to work with our federal counterparts to address this gap. Even a cut of $11.3m is extremely significant and we, as the member for Namatjira suggested, will try to minimise the impact throughout the Department of Health.
From my perspective, the government has presented a very strong budget, given the fiscal situation we inherited 18 months ago. We faced a deficit and level of debt which we knew – it was glaringly obvious – was unsustainable. Our first attack point, as a new government, was to rein in spending, and we have done that very successfully for the most part, without having to implement too many cuts and inflict too much pain on the people of the Northern Territory. There has been pain and there have been cuts, but not to the extent we feared would be necessary, particularly during those first six months of government.
Within Health there have been some challenges, but given our extraordinary staff, such as our chief financial officer, Mr Michael Kalimnios, our new CE, Dr Len Notaras AM and others within the system, we have been able to present a well-balanced, well-considered way forward over the forward estimates and the next 12 months.
Our priority is the planning and construction of the new Palmerston Regional Hospital. There have been questions posed, even today, by the opposition about how we have gone about this task since coming to government. The first decision we made has put us well and truly on the right track, and that was to assess the site identified by the former Labor government and realise, very quickly, that it would be inadequate. The new site enables us to develop a very large hospital with many different services connected to it over a very long period of time. It is truly visionary and people of Palmerston and the rural area, and Darwin itself, realise it is a vision for the future, not only for the next five to 10 years, which is what Labor had in mind. We have $150m on the table and we will be building a public hospital, there is no dispute. It will not be a private hospital as some people have tried to imply. It will be a public hospital, run in a similar fashion to public hospitals we already have in the Northern Territory, for example, the Royal Darwin Hospital.
Where people might become confused, and where I think the opposition became confused during the estimates process, regards how we procure the design, and build and operate this hospital. It will be approached very differently to how Labor intended to go about the process, given the very limited vision it had. The only option it was considering was a Department of Infrastructure build. During estimates I was very open that we would consider, at Cabinet level, entering into a public-private partnership, if that is the best course of action. This will be a public hospital and the whole community will have access to it, as it does with any other hospital throughout the Northern Territory.
The next 12 months will see a dramatic change in the way we provide health services in the Northern Territory. Only a few months ago we passed the Health Services Bill, which changes the way we do business. In a few weeks’ time there will be two boards in operation, managing the Top End health service and the Central Australia health service. What this means is that decision-making in regard to how money in Health is spent will be devolved to the grassroots. People on the boards represent those communities. They are people with great skill, experience and expertise in their respective fields, but also within the health area. They will be consulting with people on the ground to make the best decisions for those communities – local people making local decisions. That is a foreign concept to the Labor opposition.
This is a new way of doing business. It is consistent with how health services are run across other jurisdictions in Australia. Victoria, for example, has dozens of health service boards making decisions for their local area health services. It is not unique; we have learnt from the experiences of other jurisdictions, and our model is a hybrid of what we have researched from other parts of Australia.
It is a turning point as of 1 July, a new way of doing business. Hopefully we will achieve a more responsive, effective and efficient service in the Top End and Central Australia. It will mean a greater level of community participation and a more responsive system which meets the needs of local people.
Also on 1 July we are celebrating the launch of the Barkly trial of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is a major milestone, which we have all been talking about for a long time, and it is coming to fruition in a few weeks’ time. We are the major funder; the Northern Territory government will be funding 60% of this trial, which equates to $2.25m. We will be servicing 103 people with severe disabilities within the Barkly region.
There have been attempts to spread scuttlebutt about how this roll-out will occur in the Barkly, to no avail. There is no controversy and there are no stories; nothing is going wrong in preparation for this roll-out. It is all on track. We have some incredibly talented people who have helped us get to this point. There are some people with a weird vested interest in trying to cause some drama and spread scuttlebutt associated with this, but they will not find anything. This will be a unique experience for the Barkly and the whole of Australia to observe a completely remote located NDIS trial. Most of the people who will access it are Indigenous, so it is exciting. Everything is on track. I do not have any concerns about what may not happen or that things may go wrong. There has been some talk nationally that the scheme has been underfunded and there has been a lower than required estimate of how many people we will capture. In the Barkly we are well prepared for any variation which might occur. You are talking about 103 people, so if there is a 10% variation that is an extra 10 people. We will be celebrating that launch; I believe the member for Barkly will be invited to that event on 1 July, and I look forward to hearing weekly progress reports on how that is positively impacting on the lives of people with disabilities in the Barkly area.
The alcohol mandatory treatment program was also a topic of discussion during estimates. If anything, it has created a lot of interest across not only the Northern Territory, but also nationally. It is a unique program and our government has been very courageous in this space, implementing something that is unprecedented in Australia. We had mandatory residential alcohol rehabilitation in the Northern Territory before we initiated this program. We were able to refer people from the justice system, on a mandatory basis, to alcohol residential programs, so it was not entirely new. However, we have constructed this initiative to capture people who are locked into a revolving door of public drunkenness and who come to the attention of the police on a regular basis, putting them before a tribunal which may or may not send them onto mandatory treatment. It is a unique framework and design and it is paying dividends.
I have just met with some senior executives from the Department of Health, one of who is responsible for the roll-out of phase two of the alcohol mandatory treatment program. He assures me that the positive outcomes we are already seeing from this program go well beyond our expectations and the experiences of most other residential alcohol rehabilitation programs we researched from across Australia in preparation for rolling out ours. The signs are good that we are changing people’s lives. The member for Wanguri, the opposition spokesperson for Health, was very interested in this area, as was the member for Barkly. They both asked intelligent questions about this and, generally, both sides of this Chamber are in favour of mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. We have both proclaimed our support for it at different times.
There can be some contention over finer details at times, but we will be releasing the review of the act very soon. It is going to Cabinet and it will be made public within coming weeks. It is a review of the legislation, not the operational side of how it has been rolled out, and we discussed aspects of that during estimates. Apart from our critics who will always be so – that is reassuring too, to know who they are and to almost pre-empt what they will say – most people in the Territory have accepted that alcohol mandatory treatment is a part of life here and it is not going away. Despite cuts to our federal budget, we will continue to roll out this very important program, which has changed the lives of not only participants, but communities throughout the Northern Territory. In Alice Springs, having 20 people going through treatment at any given time is 20 people who would normally be on the streets intoxicated, a worry to themselves and the community at large.
During estimates we showed our reinforced commitment to the bush with funding for a range of clinics which had been left to languish, to some extent, under Labor. We have used federal government funding to upgrade many clinics, to the tune of about $50m next year alone. Putting my Central Australian hat on, I was stunned there were, essentially, no questions from the opposition about services, government policies or initiatives specifically for Central Australia. It is staggering to think that after all these years the opposition is still very Darwin-centric and cannot think beyond the Berrimah Line. On this side of the House we have accepted that is the way the opposition functions. Most of them are Darwin-based and it is almost impossible for them to think beyond Darwin, unlike this government. Our interests are far-reaching in trying very hard to serve and please the interests of people across the Northern Territory.
During the last 18 months of being the Health minister I have endeavoured to visit as many communities as I can. It is not only a time-consuming process, but also very costly. However, it is essential that we, as ministers, see our clinics, roads, schools and all services we fund. I am very happy to say that my plan to see them all as soon as I can is well on track.
I only have a few minutes, so I will respond to the accusation from the opposition that by not submitting written responses to their written questions I was somehow avoiding their questioning and trying to doge a bullet of some description. My perspective is that estimates is, first and foremost, an oral exercise of questions and answers. I had prepared responses to every question lodged with me in writing, but I preferred, for the benefit of the public, to give those responses orally, not in writing.
If members of the opposition wish to lodge those questions, I am more than happy to provide them the written responses I had in front of me. That is the beauty of estimates. It is spontaneous for the most part, reactive, oral and live. You cannot take away the value of that. For us, as ministers, to know the content of our portfolio areas and respond with immediacy and accuracy is a challenge, but we all should be able to do it to a very high standard. I am happy to take your questions, and I assure you I will respond with written answers in good time.
Mr GUNNER: Mr Chair, I thank all Legislative Assembly staff who supported the running of the Estimates Committee over the five days – 56 hours – it met. A lot of work goes into the Estimates Committee, and as an ex-Chair – the member for Drysdale, the current Chair, would also know this – I know there is a lot of work done by staff around you to ensure the committee functions. There is also a lot of work done by the department to prepare for estimates and to answer questions during the process. A significant body of work is done.
I pick up on the point the Minister for Health made about written questions and answers, which I agree with. Estimates is about live questions and answers; however, we have a strange situation where the CLP has asked for written questions in advance. We also had an argument about that last year; the CLP flagged that unless a question is asked in writing you cannot necessarily expect a good, detailed answer on the day. It is still very much a work in progress, but we want answers to our written questions. Public servants have written answers to those questions, which have been signed off by the ministers. Each minister has approached written questions differently. The Minister for Health was open and expansive during her estimates appearance, and it was good to hear her commit to answering written questions.
Other ministers took different approaches to written questions, one being the Minister for Correctional Services, who, at the end of his time, was asked to table the answers to one of the written questions. He did, which was very helpful. We only had 10 minutes left at that point.
The minister for Police, the Chief Minister, said he would not table his answers, despite having them in front of him. He then proceeded to throw a couple of sledges across the floor, which can happen from time to time during the Estimates Committee. He had time to make the sledge, but not time to table the answers, which was disappointing.
As a party we want answers to questions that were not answered. The Leader of Government Business has flagged that they will expunge unanswered questions from the Parliamentary Record. He might take that step, but we will re-lodge unanswered questions because we want answers. Importantly, the public service has undertaken a considerable body of work to answer those questions, so it would be good for them to be on the public record.
As a parliament, we can lodge written questions all year round, and the process for written questions during estimates – oral versus written answers – has been argued over a long period of time in this Chamber. The CLP has flagged that it wants written questions provided in advance, which we have done. If we have given considerable notice of the questions we are interested in we would like answers to those questions. We might perform a do-si-do, where the CLP flags that it will take those unanswered questions off the public record, and we will put them back.
I am not sure if this process is easier or harder for Legislative Assembly staff. It would be good to receive answers to the written questions the public service has worked on, which ministers could have tabled during estimates. We heard a good explanation from the Minister for Health about her approach to this issue. Other ministers have taken different approaches. The Minister for Correctional Services tabled his answers, while the minister for Police did not. There are questions, on which work has been done, which should be answered.
Our other concerns around the Estimates Committee process, which we flagged during debate around the formation of the committee last term, remain. We said there should be a chair at the table for members of the Palmer United Party. We saw the member for Nelson consistently give up his chair to allow them to participate from time to time. That was a loss to the process, as the member for Nelson is a fantastic contributor to estimates. He is someone who reads all annual reports, ensures he is across all details and always has interesting questions to ask, not only on his area, but beyond. To lose him during the Estimates Committee process, when we did not need to, and when there could have been a chair for Palmer United Party members from the start, was disappointing and could be managed better.
During next year’s estimates those members of parliament should be allowed a voice at the table, and the process will work much better, more smoothly and efficiently with them there, rather than having the member for Nelson chop in and out with them.
Both groups have important questions, and if they are on the same topic it is impossible for them to ask them, unless they leave notes behind, which becomes messy. We have seen time and time again that when someone asks a question on behalf of another member, it is never as effective as the member themselves asking the question, with the knowledge they have.
The Palmer United Party should be part of the Estimates Committee process, which we said before the committee commenced. With the process now complete, it is clear that it would have been better for them being there. It was not like a spanner in the government’s works, nor will it cause headaches. One extra member at the table could have been easily managed by the Chair. At next year’s estimates there should be one more chair for Palmer United Party members.
On the Thursday morning we would normally hold the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearing. The member for Wanguri’s line of questioning – limited as it was by the fact it had to be put to the Utilities Commissioner while the shareholding minister was present – was not as fulsome or effective as it would have been on a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. The questions she asked and the answers she received demonstrated that it would have been good to have the GOC there and to have all of her questions properly answered. We were not able to ask operational questions at that output or later on during the appearance of the Minister for Essential Services.
During our last term in government, in response to the CLP, we made our shareholding and operations ministers available during the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee timeslot. That worked quite well, and it was the first time it had happened. Unfortunately, the CLP stopped this happening, despite us asking for it. In the first term it did not have the ministers and in the second term it did not have Power and Water. We think it would have been a much better process with those people present to answer questions.
Minister Tollner gave advice through the Estimates Committee that it had not happened during the last term, and that ministers had not been present. This was a mistake, because the ministers had been present and it was something we flagged before the Estimates Committee met. Now that the committee has concluded, evidence is there to show it would have been a better process having them present to answer questions.
The member for Wanguri had a considerable number of questions it would have been good to have answered. The only way those answers could be given is through the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee process. The absence of that process has led to a full sitting day today, and when you have a full sitting day you expect Question Time. Unfortunately, we have not had that. As a whole, it did not go well as a process on those points. We should have had a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. In the absence of that committee, with a full Thursday sitting day commencing at 10 am, we should have had an hour of Question Time for government scrutiny.
Considering the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee normally goes for four-and-a-half or five hours, depending on what the PAC decides, it would have been reasonable to have one hour of Question Time on a normal sitting day.
This year’s budget and the estimates process confirms, again, the hurt caused by three CLP broken promises; it has broken more than three, but these go directly towards hurting Territorians. They are around jobs being safe, especially if you are on the front line, that the cost of living would be cut under a CLP government and that the government would cut crime by 10% every year.
The cost-of-living promise is hurting Territorians, and I assume the Chief Minister has received this feedback. I would be stunned if he has not. For the Chief Minister to use taxpayers money on a report into the cost of living in the Northern Territory to defend the CLP’s broken promise on cutting the cost of living, and for that report to say Darwin is the cheapest capital city in Australia, was a considerable mistake. It is a broken promise which has hurt Territorians, and instead of trying to bring forward policies or honouring its election promise, the government commissioned a report, using taxpayers money, to try to justify the broken promise.
As the NT News said in its headline, what kind of planet are you guys living on? We often think the CLP and ALP live in two different Territories, including Darwin, and the Chief Minister quoting the Mercer report into the cost of living to say that Darwin is the cheapest capital city in Australia to justify its broken promise shows this to be true
I put it to the Chief Minister that he should spend an hour at a petrol station while people are filling up and explain to them that Darwin is a cheap place to live. Spend an hour in the fruit and vegetable section of Woolworths, Coles or the local corner store and tell people Darwin is the cheapest capital city to live in Australia. It will not go down well; you will need to wear a helmet. It was a considerable error of judgement by the Chief Minister to try to defend that broken promise to reduce the cost of living in the Northern Territory, by spending taxpayers money on a cost of living report no one believes.
We saw the Chief Minister running away from it only a couple of days later, so he had clearly seen the reaction. It was the number one talking point of estimates amongst the general public. Everywhere I went, personal or work, people raised this topic, and it is not often that people are entranced by parliament. There might be certain issues which come up that interest people, but parliament itself is not normally of interest to Territorians. However, the Mercer cost of living report cut through, and the Chief Minister’s claim that the Northern Territory is the cheapest place was extraordinary. It goes to the fact that Territorians are hurt by the CLP’s broken promise to cut the cost of living in the Northern Territory, and the CLP has used taxpayers money to defend the indefensible.
The government has made its decisions around Power and Water, and we would have discovered more damage and hurt if we had been allowed to ask questions as the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. It is clearly a broken promise which has hurt Territorians.
I thank the Minister for Health for taking questions during the alcohol mandatory treatment section. We have argued about the mandatory detention of people, and will continue to do so. Both sides support mandatory rehabilitation, but our biggest issue with what the CLP has done is that by making it mandatory detention, it has the capacity to lead to criminalisation. Many health sector service providers have similar issues and there are other things within the bill and the act that we have problems with. Many of those problems have emerged because of the timeline the CLP set upon itself to bring the legislation forward; it meant it could not listen to experts, because by listening to experts and making recommended changes, the government would not have met its own timeline.
The CLP made mistakes, and in her evidence the minister admitted that it was rushed the first time around. We all want to see positive outcomes around alcohol, as it is a huge problem in the Northern Territory. What the minister has said about not rushing it this time around is important. The government is performing a review of the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act, as it should, and this is good. We disagree with many of the elements from when it first came forward.
As the minister acknowledged, that review is due now, but it will not be rushed this time around, considering our criticism of them the first time was, in many ways, tied to that issue. We want the minister get it right this time and we look forward, with great interest, to seeing what comes out and the consultation which happens around that. The minister said during her appearance that review outcomes will go out for consultation; she has said she is taking the time to get it right, and that is what we want to see. The minister was expansive during her committee appearance, and our side really appreciated that. This Estimates Committee, by and large, functioned quite well, apart from those points I made earlier about filibustering and dixer-ing ...
Mr Wood: Dixer-ing?
Mr GUNNER: Dorothy Dixer-ing.
Mr Wood: Is that in any dictionary?
Mr GUNNER: I am not sure if it is in the dictionary, member for Nelson. The asking of questions by CLP backbenchers on things they could ask questions on any time chewed up time. There were often set pieces and a fair degree of filibustering.
The Minister for Health showed that if you are open and answer the questions that come forward, the whole process happens smoothly. You get in and out and everyone is happy, the questions are asked, the answers are on the table and you can work through the content of what has been said to try to achieve better outcomes for the Northern Territory.
When you filibuster and take Dorothy Dixers, it leads to tension, where both sides become more agitated the longer that goes on and more time is chewed up. You are not receiving answers for Territorians which people can work through for better outcomes. That is what we are trying to do. We go through the budget to see what money is being spent on, why it is being spent in different areas, whether there is a better way of doing something and what information is available. Let us understand it, so we can have a better and more informed debate. That is the ideal situation, but what you often see is politics being played. One of the most frustrating types of politics is filibustering and Dorothy Dixers. We saw a number of those during this Estimates Committee process, which did not add to it.
My time with the Treasurer was quite good as well. I was not expecting the answer I received from him when I asked about the possible increase in poker machines in the Northern Territory. The response from the community has been loud and clear on the doubling of poker machines in clubs from 45 to 90, and the tripling of poker machines in pubs from 10 to 30, which is what the Treasurer flagged as a possible plan. He said he is committed, but has not yet held any consultations. We pushed him on doing this, and he said that if we go down that path, it will be done.
I find it hard to understand the minister’s point that increasing poker machines leads to more family-friendly pubs and clubs. I have never seen a queue for a poker machine in the Northern Territory, so there must be an explanation as to why there is a need for more machines. There is not a queue of people wanting to play poker machines. It would be good to hear a clearly articulated argument from the government as to why it is considering more poker machines.
I also flagged with the Treasurer my concern around the increase of tax on bookies, the majority of who work in my electorate at Brett Dixon House. They provide good, high-paying jobs and have flagged concerns around being poached in the past. Tasmania has tried to do that from time to time. We do not want to lose those jobs in the Northern Territory and we want to keep that business. We do not mind more revenue if that can be done without losing those jobs. We must be careful not to lose those operators and jobs in the Northern Territory. They are good contributors to the Northern Territory economy.
I have placed my concerns about the Estimates Committee process on the record, what we will be asking to happen on next year’s committee and how we want to handle the written question process, which the Attorney-General will raise later as well.
Mr STYLES: Mr Chair, what a great time to be in the Territory. Apart from the fact we are facing a projected $5.5bn debt, the Giles government has come up with an excellent, responsible budget.
There is record expenditure on roads and accessories to road networks in the Northern Territory. Roads and bridges are economic enablers that allow us to unlock the potential for economic development in the Northern Territory.
In any community and society you must generate wealth. When you do that people spend money, and when they spend money they pay GST. When you attract money into communities it goes around and around, more tax is paid and it is great for the economy. It is Economics 101.
We need to develop the Territory so we can participate in the development of northern Australia, which the Giles government and the Prime Minister are looking at.
It is about jobs and encouraging people in communities to participate in the economic activity and wealth you can generate from involvement in many different things. We have many vast, untapped resources through which, with the right economic enablers, we can make not only the Territory a better and more prosperous place, but Australia as well.
To this end, the Giles government hosted a National Remote and Regional Transport Infrastructure and Services Forum in Alice Springs. This brought together key stakeholders to workshop remote transport issues and possible solutions.
I was able to secure an agreement from my ministerial colleagues from various states, especially across the Top End, to draft a national remote and regional transport strategy which will ensure these issues remain front and centre on the national transport agenda. It is very important that we continue to work in close partnership with the Australian government as we open up northern Australia and the vast, untapped resources to create a stronger, more prosperous country.
From a transport services perspective, outcomes from that forum included – this relates to the record $319m the government is spending on roads and associated infrastructure – identifying a need to improve passenger transport services through possible community transport models.
When I was in Alice Springs I looked at a number of transport providers. Bush Bus was a great example of private enterprise working with communities in the Northern Territory to ensure a good service. I am very impressed with what it is doing.
We are trying to resolve remote airstrip ownership issues, as well as remote aerodrome standards. In many parts of the Territory the aerodrome is a link for social activity, medical evacuations and fly-in, fly-out workers, giving them the ability to participate in business, mining and agricultural developments across the Territory.
We are also aiming for local employment through the development of transport services. The need to move away from prescriptive regulation towards more risk-based measures, the need to reduce the regulatory burden and a possible zonal approach or national framework that recognises regional variation were also issues that emerged from the forum, and will be addressed with a strategy.
It is important for regional, rural and remote Territory communities that all of these things are taken into consideration. When we add the government’s commitment to develop the economic enablers of roads and bridges, it is good to see that was accepted not only by industry, but by others associated with all forms of business creation across the Territory.
Let us look at the future of transport and the $319m record expenditure by the Giles government. As I said before, infrastructure enables economic growth. If we are to have a modern, efficient, safe and high standard of roads and infrastructure, investment must be made through proper planning. To unlock that growth in the resource sector the government has provided about $1.2m in funding from the Australian government’s regional infrastructure fund to undertake a Territory-wide planning study to determine what infrastructure is required to support resource-related economic development in regional areas. This study will focus on identifying general community infrastructure needs, such as housing, schools, health centres and trade training centres, as well as utilities infrastructure, such as power, water, wastewater and telecommunications. Transport infrastructure must cover the entire logistics supply chain, including roads and bridges, ports, rail and aerodromes. The record expenditure of $319m will assist us in achieving those goals. The Northern Territory government looks forward to receiving the final report of this very important study later this year. It will lead to the government finalising and publishing the roads and bridges strategy, which will be part of the foundation of infrastructure planning into the future. When we look at roads – I look forward to the year ahead, with that $319m record expenditure, and there are a number of exciting projects to come in the 2014-15 program
I will talk about a couple of those projects, including the commencement of the next stage of the $103m duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive from Woolner Road through to Berrimah Road. I congratulate the member for Fong Lim, as when he was the federal member for Solomon some years ago he initiated discussions with the Australian government and received a commitment to make Tiger Brennan Drive happen. There is also the commencement of other road upgrading projects, such as on the Santa Teresa and Port Keats Roads – the member for Daly is very interested in that one – as well as the Buntine Highway, under a $106m jointly-funded project with the Australian government.
There will be many interesting things happening out bush. The government made a commitment to spend money in the bush and we have well and truly met that. When you look at allegations made by those opposite and Independent members who say we do not spend any money in the bush, I point out – from one of my favourite graphs – the expenditure per capita in different areas. If you look at this chart, it shows that the biggest spend per capita through the years, lo and behold, is in the Tennant Creek region. Fancy that! The member for Barkly constantly says, ‘You do not spend any money out bush’ and, ‘You do not care about people in the bush’. Where is the biggest spend per capita? It is in the Barkly region.
We then look at the next expenditure. There is a lot of spending in the Katherine region in Arnhem, so to those Independent members who say we do not spend any money, that is the next biggest spend. We then look at the 2013-14 capital – where was the greatest spend? It was in the Nhulunbuy region. The member for Nhulunbuy says we do not care about the bush, yet per capita there is more money there in the current financial year than anywhere else.
Looking at Alice Springs, it is about equivalent to Darwin, but about half of what is spent in the Barkly region, about 60% of what is spent in the Katherine region and less than half of what is spent in the Nhulunbuy region. I am at a loss when I hear those opposite say, ‘You do not care about the bush, you do not spend any money in the bush’. There it is, and anyone is welcome to see these figures. Statistics are available, and if anyone wants a copy of them contact my office and I will gladly provide one.
I digress. There is $8m towards major investment in rural arterial roads across the Territory for work on the Carpentaria, Arnhem, Tanami, Tablelands and Lasseter Highways. As I said, this is an economic enabler. I discussed opening up new areas with the Minister for Tourism and thinking of innovative ways to finance some of these new ventures. We were talking about a road across the top; there are people currently working with the government to create interesting ideas outside the square.
We now turn to the federal government, which is, sadly, lumbered with a $667bn debt, again inherited from the ALP. It is in debt, just like we are, and it must think of interesting ways to meet its budget commitments, stimulate the economy and make things happen. The federal government has said to everyone around Australia that if they have an idea and can think outside the square, they want to hear it. Let us recycle some assets and set the whole thing going. There are people working with the Giles government to think of innovative ways to create new roads and bridges. When I discussed this with the Minister for Tourism – it is about opening up parts of the Territory which no one has seen.
I talk to people in communities who want to be involved with this budget, especially across Arnhem Land. We say, ‘Here is some money to do this and that’. We do not have a cheque book full of fairy dust to sprinkle around and hope magic happens. Sadly, that is for the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
When we look at what we can do and what is available for rural, regional and remote Australia, there are opportunities. Our job, and what my colleagues and I on this side of the House are doing, is engaging with people. The Treasurer has given us a budget, and we would love to have much more money to throw around, but, sadly, somebody did that before us. They spent too much, racked it up on Mastercard, and our responsibility is to pay it back. Here is the problem – that is the federal government’s debt. When you look at what is going on – here is my pyramid chart, and I see members opposite laughing at this.
Members interjecting.
Mr STYLES: Laugh you may, but I challenge those on the other side laughing at this graph, which shows my kids, grandkids, your kids and everyone else in Australia being put into a massive debt to the point where they owe $30 000 apiece. That is a lot of money, but they scoff at it because they have never had to pay it back. When you look at the pyramids of debt, you look at the fact that when Labor is in it is the red one and it is racked up, but when the Coalition is in it comes down.
Imagine what the Coalition could have done if it had inherited government with zero federal government debt and $45bn in the bank. Imagine what we could have done with that, the infrastructure we could have built and the jobs we could have created. The wealth we could have created would have been enormous, but what we have is pink batts, which, sadly, caused a lot of problems and deaths, and a lot of wasted money.
Here is a pyramid on the graph with an antenna on top of it; it is disgraceful and you have the same deal in the Territory.
When our side came into government, we looked at the massive debt we inherited. You must think ‘Well, here is the CLP’. When Labor was first in, it was not too bad, but look at the time it started to be racked up. When you start putting antennas on top of the debt pyramids, who was in charge? It was the current Leader of the Opposition, who asks questions in estimates about financial management. You only have to look at the evidence of the inability to spend money that is before all Territorians.
I think it was the member for Port Darwin who said that when we were in opposition we would question them, and they would say, ‘Oh, yes, but we have spent more money than anyone else. We have spent a truckload of money.’ That was the answer. What have you done? ‘Well, we spent a lot of money.’ What did you get out of it? I remember being on the other side of the House, pointing out to people that money is an input, not an outcome. The sad thing is that the opposition probably still has not learnt. You must have outcomes and, sadly, when you look at some of the outcomes they achieved spending all of that money, it was not good.
There are so many opportunities for people in the bush to engage in business activities and operations. We have the Department of Business working with the Department of Infrastructure. We are trying to bring people up to speed with tendering so people in the bush can get tenders and get on with business. We are changing the way we do business so they become engaged. I was talking to my colleague the member for Stuart earlier in relation to business activities there and the change in attitude in the bush.
When you say to people, ‘We are not here to give you a hand out, we want to give you a hand up’, there are those who are listening. Through the budget and the pages I have in front of me regarding the good things we are achieving in the bush, you see that people are taking up the offer. It is fascinating and encouraging when you have people from rural and remote areas of the Territory knocking the door down to say, ‘We have the capacity, we are looking to do this’. We encourage them to do that and the Giles government is giving people assistance across the board.
Before my time runs out, I will mention the Tiwi Islands and the money the Giles government has committed to the ferry service and the building of pontoons. I have discussed tourism opportunities with the Minister for Tourism. For those working in the community it is a fantastic initiative. When you see what is happening – I encourage everyone in this House, in fact, anyone in the Territory, to visit the Tiwis and see what they are doing there. They are the leading lights at the moment on innovation, getting things going and creating wealth.
Before I finish, I will talk about seniors and multicultural and youth affairs. Funding grants for all of these communities have been increased in 2014-15. We realise the fantastic contribution those three groups make to the fabric of the Territory. I reiterate what I said in estimates, in that we are about to launch ministerial advisory councils for both the Multicultural Affairs and Seniors portfolios.
The Chief Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians continues to play a significant part in how this government engages young Territorians. When I was a shadow minister for Youth, the previous government had it as the minister’s – it was downgraded from the Chief Minister to the Minister for Young Territorians. When we came to government, as promised in our election commitments, we elevated it back to Chief Minister level, so those people have a greater input.
We continue to support significant numbers of events through those portfolios, with multicultural assistance support grants; Multicultural Community Facilities Grants; Seniors Month grants; youth engagement grants, including Youth Vibe Holiday Grants; national youth events; and funding for some peak bodies. Increased funding in the 2014-15 budget for the three offices which report to me is as follows: the Office of Senior Territorians receives a $198 000 increase; there is a $1.7m increase for the Office of Multicultural Affairs; and the Office of Youth Affairs receives a $210 000 increase.
Mr McCarthy: Do not digress, stick to the script.
Mr STYLES: I digress all the time.
Mr CHAIR: I remind everyone of Standing Order 51, thank you.
Mr WOOD: Mr Chair, my time is precious as I only have 10 minutes, even though I am the shadow minister for everything and a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
I will say a few things, some a little tongue in cheek and some more serious. To the Speaker, I am happy to pay for my evening meal. The question about meals being stopped in the evening was not about that, it was about it being good to get together occasionally over a meal. If the Speaker could work out a way we could order and pay for a meal while parliament is sitting, that would be a good idea. I am not about being stingy, as I am happy to pay for a meal in the evening.
The Treasurer raised some good questions – some interesting classics – during his statement. He mentioned that we are building a Taj Mahal of a prison. The fact that the old prison has concrete beds, barred cells and no air conditioning, and you lose your freedom in a place that has not been designed with the Sentenced to a Job strategy of giving prisoners the opportunity to turn their lives around in mind, seems irrelevant to the minister.
The only thing relevant to the 19th century, minister, is punishment. If he had his way, he would be sentencing a protestor for writing ‘Dave is a Dill’ on a dunny door and sending them by transportation ship to Port Arthur. The Treasurer believes flogging should still be available if the transportation budget needs to be cut.
Poker machines – there is a classic. The Treasurer said, ‘There is a bit about money too, you know’, before saying on radio that this will make pubs more family-friendly, echoing the AHA arguments. That was obviously meant to reinforce his catchcry that this budget is family-friendly and he was only making it more so.
In another classic, the Treasurer said:
- … I would like to see the abolition of all taxes …
Not only would he do himself out of a job – we could only hope – but roads would not exist; the sewerage system would be a hole in the back yard; we would have to drink from wells we dug ourselves; candles would be the norm; children would not be able to read or write; the sick would just die; and the politicians would not be paid, something that would probably receive popular support.
On a serious note, you are also the minister for small business. I remember listening to the criticism, when your side was in opposition, about the number of empty shops in the mall. I see lots of empty shops in the mall at the moment and I hear many people talking about this government’s lack of support for small business. You might be supporting the big end of town, but small business is hurting. It is something the government seems to have forgotten. It needs to find out why there are empty shops in the mall. That it exactly the issue the government, when in opposition, raised with Labor.
The Chief Minister has told us to tighten our belts, but I look at the number of business class trips, the amount of money spent on travel and ask if he is fair dinkum. Has the Chief Minister mentioned that one of his ministers has a top-of-the-range LandCruiser, outside fleet requirements? How is that allowed to happen? Surely that is an extra cost? Even $1m for the Tiwi Islands – I am not against the Tiwi Islands being developed, but I query the government handing $1m to the Tiwi Land Council when there is no lease. It has said, ‘Here we are, this might sweeten you all and then we will move along with development’. That is wrong.
Planning has lost its openness and transparency, and this government has lost its way. It says, ‘We are open for business, and that means we do not care about planning rules, we do not care about planning schemes; we are just open for business.’ A classic example – there is a number of them – is the development at Humpty Doo, a rezoning application the DCA recommended should not go ahead. The minister decided not to accept those recommendations. Instead of responding to the reasons the DCA provided for not recommending the rezoning he said it gives us a choice of housing, as well as housing affordability, a generic answer that did not relate to the issue.
What concerns me in the Lands and Planning budget is $2m for a Humpty Doo regional centre, the upgrade of headworks infrastructure to support the development of private land. I have heard them say, ‘No, it is not private land’. It is written in the budget as private land, and if this has anything to do – the minister has said it has not, but it is written here as private land, so I will be very surprised and will be keeping an eye on it.
Even things like the independent units the minister brought out – he said we need more accommodation and this is a way of providing that. I do not have a problem with that, but in an amendment to the planning scheme it says the primary purpose of the amended clause is that an independent unit does not detrimentally impact on the amenity of adjoining and nearby properties. It does not allow anyone to argue that is the problem with having an independent unit on a neighbouring property. That is a farce. Do not put that in the clause; that would at least be more honest. To put it in is to say, ‘This is what should happen, but we have no way of enforcing it’.
The issue of Holtze/Howard Springs is a classic example of arrogance. The government must look at developing more land, but does it talk to anyone? There has been nothing and it has just announced it. Does it worry about the people of Wallaby Holtze Road? It does not worry about them; it does not even provide a note in the paper. Does it talk to people in Howard Springs? It does not talk to them; it announces it and says, ‘We need more houses and do not have time to develop Murrumujuk or Weddell. We will go down this path’, against plans, but it does it.
The government might have good reasons, I am willing to accept that, and we might be able to find a compromise, but it is the way it is done. There was a recent issue with a block of land in Howard Springs which has been subdivided, where the minister has taken over. I will not talk on that issue too much, because of limited time, but the minister has a clear conflict of interest in overriding the role of the DCA in relation to a subdivision in the rural area. I am not happy about that. The minister should not have been involved in that subdivision.
In relation to the minister for Primary Industry and water allocations, I support the government being open for business when it comes to agriculture. I support them giving out water, but I am not supportive of the process. The process, to me, is purely based on them having a scientific explanation as to how much water is available and saying, ‘Here, have a bucketful’, when we should be saying, ‘Do you deserve that amount of water and can you prove that you will need that amount?’ Would it be better, as it was originally planned, to give some water to these people and they must prove to be genuine growers. There will be ambient claims for water and, as we have seen, if water trading comes in this will be a valuable resource to someone.
If you provide a large amount of water to someone, what is it based on? One person has not even grown anything. The idea of providing large quantities of water is a silly idea, and we must be careful. That is not to say we do not do it, but we need to do it carefully. On the issue of whether Aboriginal people are provided with some water, the minister – or I think it was the controller – said they lodged an application in September. That is a long time ago, even if they had a problem with filling out the form. Surely some of that should have been looked at by now. What is the hold up?
I thank the Minister for Health for an excellent report on mandatory rehabilitation, especially with having the doctor there. We learned a lot and that is what estimates is about, but I find it a little hard sometimes. When I asked the minister for Seniors how much cuts to concessions will cost, he said he could not give me the answer because it is the Minister for Health’s job. I then asked the minister for Seniors how much money they are putting into the open speed limit section of the road. He said that is a question for the Minister for Transport, even though he is the Minister for Transport.
Do we have we our priorities right? Is the open speed limit such a great priority? Why did we not use that money to top up concessions for pensioners, which we have cut? We have our priorities right; the open speed limit is for people who want to fly along the road at 200 km/h and avoid hitting a cow. Seniors are a little more important.
Minister for Tourism, the changes to bookings through travel agents should have been discussed, but we do not have time to do it now. There was some time-wasting. Answers to written questions should be delivered to people before estimates, so they can use those to ask further questions.
I thank all staff, especially the member for Drysdale. We got on very well this time and she did a terrific job as Chair.
Mrs PRICE: Mr Chair, this was my first estimates. It was challenging and I have only been a minister since September, but I felt good about it.
This gives me a great opportunity to respond to and clarify some of the issues raised by the member for Johnston during estimates questions on the Department of Community Services. I always believed the estimates process was about asking questions of government departments regarding expenditure and the proposed appropriation for the next financial year. That is the reason I refused to comment on issues raised in my speech earlier this week. It seems the member for Johnston missed that memo. I was ready to answer questions about how my department had spent taxpayers’ money and the good things this government is doing in the bush, but the member for Johnston was not interested in the bush or holding this government to account for our promises. Instead, he was more concerned with getting a sound grab and engaging in grubby, despicable politics, along with the member for Namatjira.
The member for Namatjira had her opportunity to ask many questions about her concerns and how she alleges that our government is not delivering for the bush. After all, she tells everyone that was the reason she left the CLP, but she resorted to her old Labor ways of personal attacks. She stayed long enough for a sound grab, attacking my daughter and a staff member before disappearing again. What a great advocate for the people of Namatjira, and what a disgrace she is for abandoning them. I thank the member for Barkly for his interest in the bush during his questions.
I would like to respond to a few issues raised during estimates. Firstly, the member for Johnston asked about my views, expressed earlier this week, concerning ALRA. For the benefit of the House, I said:
- … people in the bush need jobs. Jobs are the way to break the current state of dependency that exists in communities and homelands. They are a way to normalise our communities and homelands and bring in the much needed infrastructure to give bush people a quality of living. Anyone who expects our Government to fix an 11 year mess of deficits – budgetary deficits; infrastructure deficits and promise deficits – are being unreasonable and unrealistic.
Welfare has also made it hard for economic opportunities to be developed in remote communities and homelands.
Welfare, in my view, discourages my people to look for a job.
- But it’s not only welfare that is inhibiting indigenous economic development. The other significant blockage is the Commonwealth’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
… I will only briefly touch on this issue, but it is one issue that I believe is holding Aboriginal people back from truly moving ahead, realising the economic benefits and creating local jobs for my people. This Act, instituted by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, has locked Aboriginal land away. I’m sure that Act was well meaning, but it is clear that it has now become outdated and a hindrance to moving forward in our communities. It’s clear that this piece of law is now forcing the very people it intended to protect away from their traditional lands.
- I plead with the Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Senator Nigel Scullion to give Aboriginal people their land back. When Aboriginal people are free to trade and deal with their land, social, business and economic opportunities will flow. Tourism, arts, mining, primary industry, cattle, tours, films – all of these things can happen when Aboriginal people are free to deal with their land. And, of course, from that, a river of jobs will flow. I want to see a river of jobs right across the Northern Territory, jobs that will give my people a launching pad to prosperity, an ability to make decisions for themselves. Jobs that will break a cycle of welfare and substance addiction. Jobs that will break the cycle of family and domestic violence.
As you can see, I did not call for the act to be repealed, despite what the media has reported. I said it was outdated and creates inequality for Aboriginal Territorians. What is this inequality? Under the act, Aboriginal landowners cannot sell or use their land without having to go through a very long, complicated process, and these are people like me as a traditional owner. This only applies to the Northern Territory, as our states do not have the same onerous obligations. This, in my view, is an unfair disadvantage and a disincentive to the Northern Territory’s Indigenous landowners and those wishing to do business with the Northern Territory.
Sadly, the member for Johnston does not understand that this does not sit within my portfolios and that this was my view as an Aboriginal Territorian, traditional owner and landowner. It is a pity the member for Johnston could not take his feet out of his mouth long enough to listen to my answer and explanation. True to his form as the member for grubbiness, out came his usual incorrect, misleading, false and personal attacks by what can be loosely described as a media release, attacking me for not answering his questions. It is a pity the member for Johnston failed to tell everybody in his so-called media release that it was through his own incompetence and grubbiness that he did not ask questions which actually related to my portfolio.
The member asked me to provide examples yesterday. I will say this: every day this outdated, unequal law remains, we do not know how many people or businesses choose not to invest in the Northern Territory. They choose not to know the hurdles the act creates, hurdles these people and businesses will have to face. Those opportunities that go elsewhere are not pursued. Instead of asking questions that could benefit Aboriginal Territorians, the member for Johnston simply chose to be lazy and resort to personal attacks, attempting to make me out as a dumb blackfella. Member for Johnston, I will continue to fight for all Territorians, including Aboriginal people, while you continue to wallow in grubbiness. The best thing is for the member for Johnston to continue to show the people of the Northern Territory exactly what type of person he is. Every time he opens his mouth, he costs Labor more votes, so keep going.
Before my time expires, I want to educate the members for Wanguri and Johnston regarding IES and break it down into simple terms for those opposite. The Deputy Chief Minister and Power and Water own the shop. The Minister for Essential Services and IES provide the staff and goods to sell in that store, make repairs and service the goods. My department is the customer who goes to the shop, buys services or goods and pays for them. Does the member for Wanguri, when she is shopping for a Herms handbag, tell the shop how to make that bag? Does the member for Johnston do that when he is shopping for his body lotion? No, they look at what suits their requirements and make the purchase. If there is something wrong with the Herms bag, what does the member for Wanguri do? The member takes it back to the shop. If that Herms bag needs servicing or repairing what does the member for Wanguri do? She takes it back to the shop where she bought it.
That is how it works, members for Wanguri and Johnston. None of your questions covered that. Your questions were about how the shop is run or how the goods were made, rather than what was purchased. Perhaps if you had spent more time in preparation, rather than looking at ways to personally attack me, you would have received the answers you desired.
Taking the member for Wanguri’s ridiculous statement in the House this morning, the member for Blain asked about which goods were purchased by my department. If a customer buys an item from a store, are they not entitled to tell people about the great thing they have purchased and its benefits? It is quite appropriate. The member for Wanguri should apologise to the member for Blain for a grubby slur.
The opposition showed itself as a disorganised rabble throughout estimates, with no plans for the Territory, only resorting to grubby personal attacks and sound grabs.
The only side with a plan is this side, a government led by the Chief Minister. I look forward to working with my colleagues to deliver the benefits.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Chair, I thank Legislative Assembly staff who ran the estimates process, because they are a highly professionalised group which always looks after you really well. I also acknowledge departments for all their work in preparing ministers.
I remember estimates well. I enjoyed all work that went on to prepare for it, and the published material. I used to refer to such material as the workshop manuals of departments. They carried on to support a minister and the work the minister does for many months after estimates and the budget is passed.
Estimates 2014 was interesting, but I found it to be a disconnected situation. Ironically, it started with the CLP government and the federal Liberal Coalition bringing down their budgets at the same time. It was a very similar budget approach, with increasing taxes and charges, job cuts, increased tariffs, major revisions to programs and spending cuts, all for the good of the people.
The Treasurer was very casual and confident about the 2014 budget. I immediately challenged him with the work that needs to be done to ensure those big Liberal blocks in the east and south do not change the GST formula or interfere with the Territory’s GST funding.
I also challenged the Treasurer to ensure he meets with his Liberal colleagues to address the $80bn that will be cut from states and territories, directly impacting on health and education. The Treasurer, in his casual manner, flicked that off, thinking it was not a real issue and it will all be apples, as he flicked off most other questions and delegated them to other ministers. It is interesting to listen to the rhetoric of projected debt that has dropped to debt, then projected added, with the major assumption that Labor, had it won in 2012, would do nothing.
Nobody hears our story, but you have a good tree of ministers still trotting out this rhetoric to try to justify what is a savage, neoliberal, economic rationalist fiscal approach, and the question is whether this will deliver outcomes. As we hear on this side, it is not about money and inputs, it is about outcomes. The guys on that side are directly in the frame, and as I asked the Treasurer about the budget books – if you want to play semantics say that by 2017-18 there will be a $4.2bn debt. That is an interest semantic and there were not many answers about that from the Treasurer.
We continued with the process, which was good, and it led to evidence of a disconnected process between the federal Liberal coalition and the Northern Territory CLP, because when the Treasurer was questioned about the next big economic project, or the next big projects after Ichthys, there was not a lot of material to work with. There were broad statements about the development of northern Australia and agriculture, and there is bipartisan support for the development of northern Australia. However, it did not seem to connect with the audience when there were real issues around – the day the Chief Minister announced the development of northern Australia policy the Prime Minister committed $10bn to the development of Sydney’s second airport, a mega infrastructure project over the next 10 years. It did not connect when we see that less than 1% of federal infrastructure funds over the next seven years are coming to the Territory. With all the talk and the papers there does not seem to be a connection with funding. I questioned the Treasurer at length on what is next, what is the plan and what will be the economic drivers. We only heard rhetoric as opposed to real plans, but then again it was a very casual encounter with the Treasurer on that day and he was mostly flicking to other ministers.
I found the rhetoric about land release interesting. The Treasurer was very clear in his statements that he has no money, so they are entering a new period of land release. They will try a new system of land release where it will be an englobo land release and the developer will be responsible for developing the headworks infrastructure, the subdivision and then delivering titles for the purchaser, the average Territorian.
That was interesting because the following day the Chief Minister countered that with a government plan to invest in headworks infrastructure. That left me a little disconnected, in that we had a Treasurer one day and a Chief Minister the next telling different stories. That led to another interesting link, where the Chief Minister continues to use holistic rhetoric around land release and then starts to quantify it with numbers of lots. Yet, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries was vocal in outlining for the Estimates Committee that he has quarantined Berrimah Farm. He has quarantined the area needed for the sentinel herd, and that will be significant, as defined by normal cattle management practices and animal welfare legislation, and the contaminated areas will be quarantined.
In this global rhetoric around land release the Chief Minister talks about when he talks about Berrimah Farm, I asked the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries how much will be left. He was not able to give me that figure, but it immediately relates to yields the developer will be able to work with. That directly relates to the size of lots and we then have the question of serviced land costs.
When this government talks about land release and residential, commercial and retail construction, we need to start delving into the detail of how it will take place. Whether it is the Treasurer or the Chief Minister’s plan, we are unsure how this economic plan of new land release will take place or how it will relate to the big story, which is the cost of living. With legislation that will change the first home buyer scheme, we will be looking at young Territorians and young families that will be precluded from purchasing anything new because land services costs will go through the roof, along with construction costs of building or purchasing a new home. It reflects the criticism of this neoliberal approach about the haves and have-nots, or a disproportionate budget that will affect the low- to middle-income earner. When I talked about CPI issues, the Treasurer was not able to give me any figures about regional remote areas. I reminded the Treasurer – he is a logical person and he agreed – that the CPI, if we look at the regional or remote areas, would be far greater than doubling in the last two years under the CLP to 3.9%, because the cost of living is much more.
When you talk about increased power and water charges and motor vehicle registrations, and then Tony Abbott puts the fuel excise on, we will see increases twice a year. That impacts on groceries and essential services for families. The cost of living then starts to spiral, and across the Northern Territory much of the community is on a fixed income.
When you kill off that consumer confidence and they do not have that disposable income for purchase, you then have a compounding effect on business. Once again, the challenge to your plan in your fiscal management – it is about acknowledging that we had a plan as well, but you are in charge and the Treasurer is always good to remind me of that.
During estimates, I was shocked by the Chief Minister’s appearance. I have never seen anything like that and I am glad that many Territorians took notice. The conversation is across the regions. I heard many people comment and I said I did not realise they watched or listened to that stuff, but it is in the public arena. People are concerned about economic management; they are concerned about this government and they are starting to take more notice.
The Chief Minister was on stage in the spotlight. Chief Minister, your name is out there, not only in the media or because of that cost of living statement you made and the report you waved around, but it is reverberating across the Northern Territory, and people are very concerned about your leadership. We need a statesman, a mature attitude and a leader, and unfortunately we saw none of that during your appearance at estimates. We saw a very aggressive, reticent politician not prepared to answer questions, and instead of celebrating and leading a government you spent more time attacking others, opposition members and Labor policy. It is about time you learnt to get on the front foot because you are not a performer off the back foot.
I will make a special mention of the member for Blain, who talked in this House about the nature of criticising individuals and people, and how this was a derogatory part of parliament which shocked him. I will remind the member for Blain of how he jumped in and handed the Chief Minister a goblet of vile, venomous vitriol to spray across the estimates process in the form of a Dixer. The Dixers were not only time-wasters; it was obvious they were set up as time-wasters. The Dorothy Dixers from government members of the Public Accounts Committee were designed to hand over serious venom for derogatory attacks.
Member for Blain, you did not take long to get into the saddle in that nature of the CLP, and I will give you a lesson, a quick story on the public record. There was a casual chat going on behind the scenes, and I was asked about where there was good accommodation in Tennant Creek. You mentioned that you stay in Alice Springs or Katherine, with a bit of a giggle, and I said to you, ‘Well, I will take that message home and tell the people of Tennant Creek what you think about our town, member for Blain’.
That is the nasty stuff you want to stay away from. That is the gutter politics you talked about being above and said you will stay above. By that comment you showed you have no understanding of Tennant Creek whatsoever, and yet you handed the Chief Minister a vitriolic spray across the Estimates Committee which ignored factual content about enabling infrastructure and services across health, education, community services, justice, infrastructure and transport that was delivered in Tennant Creek and the Barkly region between 2008 and 2012. Maybe take a drive down the track, member for Blain, and visit Tennant Creek. I hope my lesson here today might jag your attention to being an active and willing participant with your Chief Minister in what was a completely derogatory approach to an Estimates Committee.
We give credit where credit is due, and it has already been mentioned that it was a pleasure to see the Health minister supply the Estimates Committee with information requested, and to understands the challenges in Health. It was an honest approach by the Health minister, and she provided a strong guarantee that she and her department would be fighting that $33m gap. The minister has now given us reassurance that there is some great news on that front. However, it is not all good, because when we are facing $80bn worth of cuts from the federal government across states and territories we will be challenged with, once again, health, education and those essential services.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries was generally a good estimates performer. There was some scripted time-wasting in there, but we get used to that. It was logical and obvious that he needed to waste as much time as possible, as he did not want to go anywhere near questioning on water allocations across the Northern Territory. He was very settled in the seat when we were talking about Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Mines and Energy. That time-wasting strategy was obvious because once they got down to the detail of water resources in Land Resource Management and the detail of the recent allocation of water licences across those major aquifers of Tindall, Oolloo and the Douglas Daly, some serious concerns were raised, not only by the opposition, but by environment groups, the Northern Land Council, traditional owners, and NAILSMA, important stakeholder groups and AFANT, a group the minister works closely with. It is not only about the opposition; this is serious business and the government and the minister continue to dodge it.
The discussion around the Ord River was important. Once again, the disconnection between the federal government and the CLP – that is the Liberal camp, you all wear the same jumpers, you are mates and you all share the same ideology. When I questioned the minister on an appropriation of $400 000 for the Ord River, and then started to challenge him that he told me there would be 14 000 ha of arable agricultural land, we talked about the mega infrastructure that will be needed to support that and the challenge of duplication, where the federal government will probably back Western Australia as opposed to duplicating transport infrastructure back into the Northern Territory. We threw around all those challenges in a very good discussion.
You have to compare the fact that the minister has allocated $400 000 to the development of the Ord River and the member for Greatorex appropriated $300 000 to the Alice Springs Golf Club. There is a comparison about a disconnection. I am sure the Alice Springs Golf Club represents nation-building infrastructure. The Chief Minister apparently has a very good handicap and spends a bit of time at the Alice Springs Golf Club. That is what I mean, in a macro sense, about this disconnection and where this government needs to get over the rhetoric and get on with the business.
The Sherwin iron ore project discussion with the minister was very important, about the dangers of any minister or government going ahead with projects without the appropriate infrastructure and support networks in place. We found out at estimates that we have lived through extremely dangerous road traffic conditions across a diversity of constituents in that area for the last 14 months, and will go through another 14 months, because we discovered the 200 000 tonne test sample is actually 400 000 tonnes. That was a major area of concern and we really need to have that road transport infrastructure upgraded.
I will have to finish as I have run out of time. I have plenty more, but one for the minister for Arts – it was a great quote at the end. He is ripping $1.5m out of Arts; he said these are tough times, but he will maintain our cultural institutions. We value that, minister, but the comment that came with it was the one that got me. That was, ‘Let us face it, if an artist wants to paint a picture and he has nowhere to hang it, we do not have an artist’. Minister, I refer you to the Tracks Dance Theatre and a 20-year engagement with Lajamanu, an exemplary group that developed dance alone in the Northern Territory. They dance under the stars, the trees or anywhere, and they engage the community. I ask you to reconsider that decision.
Ms WALKER: Mr Chair, like other members of this House, I also acknowledge and thank staff of the Legislative Assembly. It is a very busy two weeks when estimates comes around and I acknowledge them for the hard work they do in ensuring the committee runs as smoothly as possible.
I acknowledge those on the committee. I see the member for Drysdale growing in her role after her difficult first year last year as Chair last year, and I acknowledge her efforts. I was annoyed and aggrieved at times by the number of Dixers asked by government members of the committee, clearly designed to chew through time and buy ministers time they would not have to spend answering questions from the opposition or the Independent member or, when she managed to get time, the member for Namatjira.
The cost of living was a big focus during estimates. Minister after minister appeared and either struggled to answer questions or would not answer questions, or when they did answer there were some painful truths associated with those questions about how they have driven up the cost of living and broken so many election promises since coming to government in August 2012. Given the CLP has pushed up power prices, it is now making it even harder to deal with cost of living pressures. The Chief Minister’s comments around the cost of living are laughable. His Mercer report backfired on him quite badly because, unlike the Chief Minister, we know Darwin residents do not have the cheapest utility prices in Australia. We do not pay 18% less than Melbourne and Adelaide residents or 25% less than Sydneysiders and, unlike the Chief Minister, we know Darwin rental costs are not 52% less than Sydney or 32% lower than Perth. It was a laughable strategy that clearly backfired, but it was also a report commissioned by the Chief Minister with taxpayer dollars, which makes it not only laughable, but painful at the same time.
Nhulunbuy featured across a number of portfolio areas. Because the region is going through an incredibly difficult time it is feeling abandoned by the Northern Territory government. Given we were denied Question Time today I will ask one of the questions I was going to ask now. It will become a rhetorical question because the Chief Minister will not be answering unless he chooses to do so when he comes into this debate.
My question to the Chief Minister this morning would have been: your spin telling Territorians they have never had it so good has worn out, including when you used a Gove bakery as an example of a thriving local economy. Are you aware the deal you mentioned between the bakery and Woolworths as proof of the benefit of your small business advisors never eventuated and the bakery owner, John Carter, has said his business may have to close? And, Chief Minister, within days of this spin, Qantas announced it was pulling out of the Darwin/Gove/Cairns route, with more jobs lost. However, in your world it is all okay because Airnorth is taking on the route. Is this not yet further proof you have failed the people of Gove and shows how arrogant and out of touch you and your CLP government have become?
It will be interesting to see if the Chief Minister can get himself on the new Airnorth route in and out of Darwin to support a Territory company. I welcome Airnorth stepping into the space to provide a service to Gove, but it would be good to see the Chief Minister and his ministers supporting that service and saving taxpayers a lot of money if they were to cease chartering aircraft into Gove. It is just over an hour, and that is what I would be asking the Chief Minister and his ministers to do.
I have a number of shadow responsibilities and I am not sure I will get through all of them in the time I have, so I will try to get through some of the notes I prepared. I have shadow responsibility for the environment, and what featured in the short time I had with the Environment minister, his CEO and the Chair of the EPA – the stand out was questions not being answered during that period and it was very clear who was running the show in the Environment portfolio. The chief executive answered more questions than the minister. It also seemed that the Chief Executive of the EPA may have usurped ministerial responsibility by deciding to cut funding to NGOs. He said:
- It was an EPA decision made by me.
This is to do with cutting funds:
- I would have done it three days after I started the job on 4 September 2012.
It was made by me. I did not consult my minister.
- I am telling you, he is independent.
It is not clear who is setting the priorities in the environment portfolio; it appears to not be the minister. It seems that fracking is not a concern at the EPA, because the number one priority it has at the moment is the environmental assessment of the McArthur River Mine.
The news of Muckaty today was interesting, and I congratulate the member for Barkly for the enormous amount of work and lobbying he has done there. It was clear that the people of Tennant Creek and the traditional owners were not happy with this, yet when I asked the minister and the head of the EPA about Muckaty they basically said, ‘Hands off’, and that it had nothing to do with them. Given it is one of the most significant environmental issues in the Territory, the fact it has come to a close and Muckaty is now over is to be welcomed.
We know the EPA budget has been cut and we learned that environment grants will be held stable for the Environment Centre NT, Arid Lands Environment Centre and the EDO for one year, but they will be clucked. This is a government which does not want transparency or scrutiny of its activities, and if it can blindside organisations such as these environmental groups, which have specialist and well-qualified personnel within their ranks, then it will. It is a great shame these organisations will now have to reapply for grant pool funding and compete with others. The response I received to their funding cuts was dismissive. They were described as ‘the kids’, Dr Stuart Blanch was described as ‘Stuey’ and there is clear contempt for these organisations. I am sure the Environment minister is rubbing his hands with glee that he can go ahead and the government can do what it wants without worrying about these organisations. They will seek funding from other channels, and I am sure they will continue to operate and hold this government to account in spite of the funding cuts they face.
I move to a natural segue from Environment to the Land Resource Management portfolio. The minister for Land Resources was one who refused to table written questions, which was churlish. In spite of that I moved on to a number of questions I had for the minister and his answers were revealing. He admitted meeting former CLP candidate for Lingiari, Tina MacFarlane, in January 2013. He also met with Peter Maley a few months ago, before these two CLP candidates were granted water licences.
His admission that he had met with them was interesting because only minutes earlier he tabled an answer to a global written question – as opposed to my other written questions – denying any contact with either Ms MacFarlane or Mr Maley.
These admissions bring into question whether the granting of these licences and others under the CLP government have been free from political interference. Despite, over the last 12 months or more, repeated denials from the minister that he has had any involvement in the granting of water licences, as we know, documents obtained under FOI clearly show that he discussed licence conditions directly with his CEO before the licence was granted to Ms MacFarlane.
During questioning I raised with the minister the capacity for the water controller to truly be an independent authority at arm’s length from government when he is also the chief executive of the department. How is it that this senior bureaucrat is able to wear one hat and then another when he has two significant roles for the minister? Not surprisingly, the minister had no issues with the water controller also being the CE of his department. He could not see any compromise in what people might think and the prospect for political interference, but there you have it. It shows that the CLP and this minister are hell-bent on doing what they think is best.
He has the capacity under the Water Act to refer the allocation of licences for independent review yet, to date, he has failed to do that. He has not only failed to do that, but he was ardent in dismissing any organisational stakeholder in the Territory’s precious water resources as having a view different to the minister or the government. We are talking about being dismissive of traditional owners and their desire to see the strategic Indigenous reserve policy reinstated, which the CLP scrapped.
The interests of AFANT, Northern Territory farmers, the NLC as representatives of traditional owners and the interests of NAILSMA – they were described as having views that might be politically or ideologically different, and that his staff had the qualifications. However, the minister’s failure to look at the social, economic and environmental impacts for these other stakeholders when it comes to the over-allocation of the Territory’s water resources is woeful, and nothing less than a full and independent inquiry investigating whether precious natural assets belonging to all Territorians are awarded without political interference will give Territorians the comfort they deserve. It was interesting to read the editorial in the NT News today, which also supports and encourages an inquiry so we can get to the bottom of the over-allocation and water rush we have seen since the CLP has been in government. Importantly, it is a water rush which has benefited two members of the CLP, one now a former member, but one of them, Tina MacFarlane, was granted 5800 ML for Stylo Station, which is more than double the other 15 licences combined. There clearly needs to be an inquiry.
I will move onto housing. I welcomed the frankness, to a degree, with which the Housing minister provided answers. It was tedious to have lengthy answers read out, rather than tabling factual information, and he avoided answering questions about record levels of asset sales in the Housing portfolio, which will mean a reduction in public and social housing. There is clearly something to hide there.
Initially the minister indicated that he would take questions on the government’s regressive First Homeowner Grant changes, but towards the end of the hearing he changed his mind and said that was a matter for the Treasurer. The minister was asked about a Deloitte report into rent arrears commissioned in 2012, but refused to discuss it because he said it had nothing to do with the current appropriation bill, which, to a point, might be the case, but in the interest of accountability and transparency and a report that has no doubt been commissioned at the expense of taxpayers, we need to see the details of that report.
He did commit to me that he would be happy to go back to the table and look at it, so I hope he comes back and says, ‘Here you go, I will table this in parliament, so that everybody can see it’.
During questions on the housing portfolio in estimates, the minister did place – because he could not avoid it – some uncomfortable truths on the table. We learnt that waiting lists for public housing are worse than ever and have increased. The average waiting time for general public housing applicants has gone from the average of 64 months in 2013-14 to 73 months in 2014-15. That is more than six years, and the minister acknowledged that this, sadly, is not a great story. It is a terrible, disastrous story and the minister needs to do something in this area.
He confirmed that only 283 of the 2000 dwellings to be delivered under the Real Housing for Growth initiative have been delivered to date, and at that rate it is very hard to see how on earth he and his sorry excuse for a government will ever deliver on its target of 2000 dwellings over the next three years.
Up to 50% of remote public housing stock will be available for sale under a $4.5m remote Indigenous home purchase strategy, but it was apparent there is little understanding of the plans in remote and rural parts of the Territory for this sale. Initially, the minister said:
- There has been widespread consultation.
But when pressed he said:
- There has been consultation with the CLC, the NLC and, of course, IBA and various financial lending institutions. I do not want to get too hung up on the consultation …
We know the Housing minister probably does not have the grip on his portfolio that he needs. I asked him what he is doing to reduce the disastrous waiting list, and he gave four relatively unrelated reasons. He is accelerating land release, there is the Real Housing for Growth initiative, renewing public housing and new maintenance contracts. I am sure those Territorians who are homeless or who are on a waiting list for the average 73 months, or six years, will be greatly assured by this news and with it, no doubt, advocacy groups including NTCOSS and NT Shelter.
There is $1.128m worth of cuts to the Housing portfolio. One of the stand-outs when I asked him where these cuts were coming from was $674 000 to the Apmere Mwerre short-term visitor park in Alice Springs. Interestingly, we do not know who will take it on. Will this process be worked through a commercial operator? What is the guarantee that rates for people around Central Australia wanting affordable accommodation will remain affordable for them? Let us remember the whole purpose for which this place was built. I visited it a couple of years ago when I was in Alice Springs and it is an excellent facility, providing accommodation for up 150 people. However, right now if you phone the Apmere Mwerre visitor park it is not accepting bookings after 1 July; you have to take pot luck and turn up. What does that mean about what will happen to that place after 1 July? What will people heading into the Alice Springs Show do if they cannot stay there?
I do not have a great deal to talk about in regard to local government. The minister talked up his government’s reforms, which amount to a costly rebadging of the shires and changing their names to regional councils. Importantly, I wait to see if the minister will make public the Deloitte refresh report on the financial sustainability of the shires and regional councils. This is becoming a feature of the CLP government in that it commissions taxpayer-funded reports, but does not like to table them. It does not like to make them public because they are not accountable or transparent. It is all about covering things up. Clearly the opposition and Territorians will be watching the transition and operations of the new regional councils and their financial sustainability very closely.
The conclusion of the session was carefully stage-managed with a segue to a Dixer designed to grab headlines – which it did not – to demonise the East Arnhem Regional Council about a company it operates. That was a disappointing end to the local government session.
What can you say about Children and Families? What the minister had to say contrasted fairly starkly with what the Children’s Commissioner had to say when he appeared. The minister did not sit with his commissioner; he was far too grumpy and had stormed off with a bee in his bonnet. When he did come back and sit with him, it was a little uncomfortable. The Children’s Commissioner highlighted that not enough money is being put into the preventative end, and we will continue to see children hurt. Yes, all recommendations of chapter six of the board of inquiry report have been ignored, and we will continue to see children in a system being harmed because we do not have that money up front at the preventative end.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Mr Chair, I join the chorus of other contributions with regard to thanking those who have been involved with estimates. Much has been said about members of the Legislative Assembly who have participated in this. Their work is always very much appreciated, as well as the work of the Estimates Committee and all members who sit on it. I also want to mention – I am not sure if they have been singled out – Hansard staff, who have to listen to hour upon hour of the sometimes ramblings of Estimates Committee members who are asking questions and the responses by government …
Mr Conlan: As they are doing right now.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: As they are doing right now. I also thank staff from departments who have contributed, particularly members of my departments of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Mines and Energy, and Land Resource Management for everything they did. Thanks also to my office staff on the fifth floor for the enormous effort they put in.
When I listened to the member for Wanguri speak about restricted time during these estimates hearings, and how that had worked against government, I was one of the chorus who joined the member for Port Darwin in guffawing at that, because the efforts the opposition put in during estimates last year were woeful. Notwithstanding the incredible number of hours the Chief Minister and the Treasurer were subjected to last year, the converse was true for other ministers. From memory, I had 55 minutes of questioning all up for the three portfolios I had during estimates last year, which did not afford the opposition any real opportunity to examine the budget allocated to those three departments. It did not give them the opportunity to drill down into what government is doing, thinking and achieving. Having displayed that incredible lack of discipline last year, it should have been considered by the opposition as refreshing to have government take some semblance of control over the discipline of the estimates process.
I am pleased I was subjected to six hours of questioning during my estimates day. It was good because all the preparation that goes into estimates by so many people, if ministers are not examined properly, virtually goes to waste. Last year departmental staff, particularly Primary Industry and Fisheries, Mines and Energy, and LRM, were extremely disappointed their minister was not interrogated for a reasonable length of time, so the work they had put in not only preparing estimates briefs and all information and questions around that, but the general briefings they provide to me throughout the year as well, could be examined. They felt robbed of the opportunity to have all the good work they do displayed throughout the estimates process.
This year at least there was that opportunity, and I relished the chance to be questioned about what my departments are doing, the money being expended and the achievements of the past 12 months, because there have been a great many of them. That was a good thing.
There were some reasonable lines of questioning during my estimates appearance, although, as we all expected, water was high on the agenda of those opposite and they certainly did not disappoint. I pick up on the point the member for Barkly raised a short time ago when speaking about me using a lot of time during the Primary Industry and Fisheries component of estimates on Tuesday.
First of all, I am extremely interested in what is going on in Primary Industry and Fisheries, and departmental staff are dedicated to the work going on in those areas. It needs to be spoken about and, for their sake, I am pleased I took the time to answer those questions in the way I did.
Secondly, I was always intending to provide fulsome answers. The member for Barkly – I do not know if he actually used the word – inferred that we were filibustering and I was wasting time, which was not the case at all. I am incredibly proud of the work that goes on in all of my departments and I am very happy to sit there and talk about it until day’s end if I have to.
Moving onto the questioning by the member for Nhulunbuy; as I said, it was where I expected it to be. It was largely in relation to water allocations, and it was interesting that water was the only topic discussed during the period in estimates focusing on the Department of Land Resource Management. It was interesting that we did not proceed to the output groups within the Department of Land Resource Management. The way things proceed through estimates is that the minister can read a five-minute statement – which I did – and the Chair of the committee calls on questions about the statement. That is as far as we got. We went to questions on the statement and did not move into any of the other output groups.
If there was a disappointing part for me, it was that I did not get to talk about some of the other work the Department of Land Resource Management is doing, such as in the pastoral sector, what the Pastoral Land Board is up to and all the additional work it is doing now it is properly resourced, a far cry from where they were under the former Labor government.
I did not get to talk about what the flora and fauna people are doing, the work they are doing around feral cats and trying to get on top of some of these issues that are important for landowners in certain parts of the Northern Territory. There were many areas we did not get to, which disappoints me. To the public servants who work in LRM, in those areas which I did not get to, I am sorry we did not get to those parts in the estimates, but we always knew the focus would be on one thing: water.
I heard the usual lines from the member for Nhulunbuy about water, and the accusations flying about political interference and corruption. I will vigorously defend not only myself, but the water controller and departmental staff who work in this space. For the record, there was not, and never is, any political interference or influence exerted over the water controller for or around the issuing of groundwater extraction licences in the Northern Territory. It might have occurred under Labor, and maybe that is the benchmark. Those members are assessing us against the practices used during their time. But, then again, that might not be true either, and I can use a statistic to illustrate that.
I mentioned before that we had 75 water licences in backlog when we came into government and had to deal with them, so we have been playing catch up. I am advised that since coming to government we have issued some 102 water extraction licences, which is fantastic news. We have dealt with the vast majority of legacy applications, as well as new ones, but the interesting contrast to that is the number of water licences issued over the same period of time around 18 months before the election in 2012, when Labor was in power. Would anyone in the Chamber like to hazard a guess as to how many water licences were issued by Labor in the 18 months before the 2012 election?
Mrs Lambley: Zero.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Araluen. You are very close. Two water licences were issued. You can now see why we had a legacy problem in issuing water licences in the Northern Territory. We had to do all the hard work which the former Labor government did not have the courage to do.
Mr Chandler: They were as weak as water.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection; it was indeed as weak as water.
The other legacy, if you could call it that, is that we have a Water Act in the Northern Territory which, to my knowledge, was never changed by the former Labor government when it was in power over its 11 or so years, but it is a good, robust piece of legislation. It is the guide which provides us the principles for issuing water licences and other things. When we came to power and started issuing water licences, it was done under the auspices and conditions contained within the Water Act, a piece of legislation which the current opposition, the then Labor government, never had to deal with and never changed, and perhaps that is also a legacy.
Perhaps there is something in the Water Act that we inherited from Labor which needs to be looked at. We picked up this combination, which was almost like a perfect storm, a piece of legislation which did and does provide for the issuing of water licences. The terms of that allow us to go ahead and do that, which is what we have done.
As far as transparency goes, the member for Nhulunbuy and others have called for an inquiry into the issuing of water licences in the Northern Territory. We do not need to hold an inquiry into the issuing of water licences, because the system is transparent. For every water licence the water controller issues, he also issues a statement of reasons. That statement of reasons is the grounds upon which the water controller relied or has put forward as the justification for issuing a water licence. That is even more transparent because each and every one of those relates to a section in the act which stipulates the matters the water controller must consider when he issues a water licence.
You have a piece of robust legislation which contains a number of matters the water controller must take into consideration when he is issuing a licence. He takes those into consideration, provides a statement of reasons as to why he has issued a water licence, and then issues a licence. I do not know how much more transparent that process needs to be.
The allegation of me in particular, but also ministers, interfering with those decisions is not true. Nowhere in the legislation is there a condition or parameter that the water controller needs to consider which refers to a person’s political persuasion, for example. It does not say in the relevant section of the act that water licences should only be issued to CLP members, so he cannot take that into account. To suggest he has is what I have seen the opposition do time and time again, that is, to impugn the good reputation of the Controller of Water Resources in the Northern Territory, along with all scientists who work in the Water Resources Division of the Department of Land Resource Management. That is a typical tactic applied by the opposition. They have never supported the public service. They blamed them time and time again for their own failings when they were in government. You only have to think back to the poor old Montara disaster, where public servants were blamed by the former Minister for Mines and Energy.
There is no need for an inquiry into the issuing of water licences in the Northern Territory because our system is already open and transparent. The only reason put forward by the member for Nhulunbuy and others for such a call is because they want to politicise this issue. There is no proof anywhere that any minister in this government interfered with the process of issuing water licences, particular the one to Stylo Station, which is commonly referred to.
I do not know what process needs to change to satisfy members opposite and, for that matter, the member for Nelson. Only a short time ago he said he did not agree with the way the system worked either. That is fine and dandy, member for Nelson, but you are a member of parliament who often stands on the outside throwing rocks. Rarely do I see you come up with a solution. If you have some ideas about how the issuing of water licences and the system around that might change or improve, I encourage you to forward that information either directly to me or through the Department of Land Resource Management to me for consideration. You have not done that yet. You have been worried about water for quite some time, so you say, yet I do not think I have seen a shred of correspondence from you suggesting any solutions or how we address the problems you identify, in your own mind, as existing.
I again thank all those who have been involved. This is a terrific budget for the Northern Territory and I am very pleased to be part of a government that has been able to deliver on so many of its promises. Many of the items we see in the budget this year are refunding things that should have been done, or were defunded by the previous government. We are only moving now to fix and address some of those problems.
Thank you to the Treasurer for the work he has put into the budget. His deliberations, along with us, have been respectful – robust at times – but the system works and this budget proves that.
Mr VATSKALIS: Mr Chair, I admit this was the thirteenth estimates I have been through. It is always fascinating to see the different people and personalities interacting, from government and opposition.
I note, with interest, the comments made by members opposite that they were not questioned by the shadow minister for very long. It may be true, but you must also remember it takes two to tango. There were ministers who gave succinct answers to questions and there were others who took their time and sometimes talked about war and peace, rather than answering a question put to them. There were also ministers questioned on some very important issues for excessive periods of time, eating into other shadow ministers’ time. We have the situation where some ministers were questioned less than others.
During my first year in government I was not questioned as a minister because the then shadow minister of the CLP took so long to question other ministers that estimates finished before I had the chance to be questioned.
Estimates is an interesting time because even if you do not want to disclose information, you talk, and when you talk nothing is scripted. You want to provide information in a controlled way and sometimes you cannot avoid slipping information out. That has happened before; some ministers said things they should not have. Other ministers mix their outputs and portfolios and talk at the wrong time. Other ministers refused to answer because the question put to them related to another output, but when a Dorothy Dixer was asked they were quite happy not to consider outputs.
I had the privilege of questioning the Ministers for Tourism, Transport and Infrastructure, as well as the Chief Minister, with regard to my shadow portfolios. Asian Engagement and Trade is a very exciting portfolio, despite the fact I had little time to question the Chief Minister, and it will be more interesting with the coming elections in Indonesia on 9 July.
It seems that the focus of this government is on Indonesia, and it has appointed the ex-Chief Minister, Terry Mills, as a Territory representative in the country. I hope Terry is doing a good job and providing feedback to the Territory government, because if the results in Indonesia are as some of my friends in Jakarta predict we might have a surprise on our hands.
As you probably know, Mr Joko Widodo, or Joko, the Governor of Jakarta, is one of the candidates, and the other is retired general Prabowo Subianto, who is well-known for his nationalistic ideas. He has talked about nationalising companies’ foreign assets in Indonesia and making the country self-sufficient. That means he has the idea that Indonesia has the ability to do this and can now feed itself, something which will affect us if – we are the prime exporters of live cattle in Indonesia – he wins and goes ahead with his very nationalistic ideas.
There were some surprises in regard to Asian Engagement and Trade. For example, we found out that Mr Mills has a contract, but we do not know what the contract says because it has not been finalised. The Chief Minister was not able to provide an accurate figure of how much Mr Mills costs us every month or year. As I said, I hope he does a good job because we need his skills and we will need information from Indonesia.
We questioned the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. I was disappointed with the member for Sanderson as a minister. He would provide lengthy answers to some questions and would not provide answers to others because he did not know the information or did not want to disclose it. However, we had a number of issues and I will raise some of those today.
First, the Minister for Transport refused to table any reports he has received with regard to speed limits. There were four, now there are five and when he was questioned – he was talking about four reports – all of a sudden he changed his tune to say they are not reports, and it is only information received, but he still would not disclose the information or table it for Territorians. Territorians paid for those reports through their taxes. It is a good idea for the minister to come clean and tell us what these reports say, instead of writing another one which might provide the answer he wants. If that report does not provide the answer the minister wants there will be another one hidden in his drawer.
Everybody talks about the cost of living. We know the cost of living – NTCOSS has proven that the cost of living in the Territory is quite high. I do not know who advised the Chief Minister to issue the Mercer report. To put it bluntly, he was set up, and everybody realised that. Everybody was laughing when he came out with a report which said Darwin is one of the cheapest cities in Australia, or the cheapest in Australia to live in, when everybody knows what the cost of living is.
Newspapers come from down south, so if you pick up one from any other state and compare house prices or the price of goods and services you will find out if Darwin is the cheapest city to live in in Australia; it is not. Chief Minister, I strongly suggest you find out who set you up and make sure that person does not have a job in your office or anywhere they can work for you.
The Minister for Transport agreed that the decision on petrol excise will cost Territorians. When I asked him what he has done about it, he said, ‘Well, I wrote a letter’. Oh, good, you wrote a letter. What was the answer? He did not provide any information and then said that the Chief Minister had spoken to people in Canberra, but you need more than a letter or a phone call to Canberra. This will affect the Territory more than anywhere else in the country, because of our geographical location and the great distances we travel. How will we attract tourists here when it will be much cheaper to catch the plane from Melbourne to Bali and stay for 11 days, rather than driving to the Territory and returning to Melbourne by car? Minister, your answer was disappointing.
The minister disputed claims that to construct a road in the Territory it costs about $800 000 per kilometre, compared with about $250 000 in Western Australia, due to the higher cost of gravel and water transport. Later, in an answer to a question, he admitted that it cost $800 000 per kilometre to build it here and that the price was right, but he still could not explain why there is such a difference in the cost or what he is doing about it.
The federal budget includes funding for key projects and infrastructure investment programs. It includes $6.7bn committed to the Bruce Highway in Queensland, $5.6bn committed to the Pacific Highway duplication in New South Wales, $3bn committed to the East West Link in Victoria, but only $77m is committed to the Northern Territory roads package. We hear all about developing northern Australia, but you will not develop northern Australia unless you spend money on infrastructure. Roads, railway lines and ports are infrastructure. When we are ignored by Canberra, and they still talk about developing northern Australia, it rings hollow. The minister should be there arguing, with the Chief Minister, for a better deal for the Territory, because we have been shafted this time.
One million dollars is being spent on new ticketing machines for Darwin buses, which is a great idea, but why are you doing it now when you have a tender out to privatise the buses? Why do we have to pay for the guy who wins the contract to have a brand new ticketing system when he will be reaping the profits? He could not explain that either. ‘I am selling my car, but I am putting on brand new tyres today and I will put in a new stereo.’ It does not make sense. The Treasurer should have a quiet word with the minister, because he has his priorities wrong.
Budget Paper No 4, page 11, shows that total infrastructure payments are expected to be lower at $1.14bn, from the previous year’s $1.151bn. I do not know if you go out, minister, but if you talk to and have a coffee with the little people who build and paint houses, pave driveways and work on maintenance and repairs, they will describe conditions in the Territory today as being like 2000-01. Some of you remember it. The member for Port Darwin was a member of parliament at the time and probably remembers well. When the army finished work, construction went downhill and many people were leaving Darwin to work somewhere else because there was nothing happening here. This is what people are telling me now, that it reminds them of the same situation. Minister, we told you that last year and I am telling you again this year, but you are not prepared to listen.
We have investment in some major projects, Ichthys being the biggest one, and we also have the Marine Supply Base and the Darwin Correctional Precinct. The Marine Supply Base and the Darwin Correctional Precinct are finishing, so now there is only INPEX. Where and what are the new projects? Who is working to attract a new project? Ichthys will last five years. It will employ about 5000 people at the peak of the project and it will then go down, like what happened with ConocoPhillips. We will have a peak and trough situation; something happens and then finishes, and nothing happens for a period of time until something else comes along. They do not come along by themselves. We should try to attract big infrastructure. There is a lot of oil and gas out there, and for that to be exploited and produced we must find companies or clients to do it, because people will not drill for oil and gas unless there is somewhere to sell it. There are markets; there are about 25 million people to our south, which I have said many times. To our north, if you exclude China, there are about 0.5 bn people, and if you include them you have 2 bn people. Because of the situation with the environment and the new leader’s ambitions, China is trying to rectify its environment, close down polluting factories and power stations or convert them from coal to gas.
China has also built 25 new nuclear power stations, so they want gas and our minerals. If we try to attract customers from China, we could sell all of our gas to them and we would not have to worry about another client for many years to come, the same as what happened with Japan. ConocoPhillips would never have developed its plant in Darwin from 2003 to 2006 unless it had a client. It is the same with Ichthys; it secures clients first and then factories. It is the government’s job, with private investors, to try to find clients so private investors in the Territory can start digging for minerals, exploring for oil and gas, and exporting those resources. The minister had no idea; he said we are looking at it, but could not give us an example. He could not even tell us if he was looking in China, Vietnam, South Korea or Indonesia. There was nothing at all. Minister, looking at a map does not mean you are actively seeking a new project.
We also brought Bureau of Statistics data to his attention, which saw state final demand in the March quarter fall the most in the Territory, by 6.5%, where everywhere else went up. The problem is that spending on infrastructure has slowed down or is trickling. We need to spend money. We are a small jurisdiction and cannot afford to lose people. If we do not put money into infrastructure, and repairs and maintenance, people will go somewhere else, and when they go they do not come back. You know that very well; people fly in and fly out and they will keep flying in and flying out for a period of time, creating problems for us with tourism, hotel accommodation and the cost of living. However, in five years’ time they will fly out and over, and they will not be here. The government has to perform its role to keep people here.
The government has to become a government for all Territorians who spend money, and they spend money wisely. Through estimates we found that public housing in Alice Springs has been surrendered, needs to be repaired and stays empty for up to eight months. Why? It is because the government does not spend the money to quickly repair and maintain them to put them back into the system where they are needed. We also found out that no land has been released for public housing in Alice Springs since you took government. Minister, something needs to be done; you must talk to your colleagues and your Treasurer to open the purse and have money enter the community in order for something to happen.
We asked a question about the Palmerston hospital. The minister told us he is very good and will build it in 30 months. Minister, if you build it in 30 months, I will take you out and buy you the most expensive whiskey in the bar to drink with you for the opening, because I know very well – if you become the Minister for Health, God help Health, the same way God helps Education. If you can build that hospital in 30 months, as you said, you will be buying me the whiskey, rather than me buying it for you.
You have not done anything yet. You told us you were still in the consultation period, despite the fact consultation has been undertaken with the public, doctors, nurses and everybody involved in the hospital.
Are you producing the drawings too? You perform the consultation, create the drawings and then put services in, which will be quite expensive because it is a brand new site with nothing on it, and you need to undertake road works as well. After that, you will have to start building it. If it is ready by 2020, I would be very surprised.
The Commonwealth will provide money to the Territory, as it usually does. This time it is $600m, 1% of total infrastructure spending. Can you explain to me why the Australian Capital Territory receives $100m more than we do? We have 1.5 million square kilometres in the Territory – we are as big as a state, but not a state – and in the ACT a local council receives $700m, while we receive $600m. I do not know who is talking to who, but you should have a good word with your mates in Canberra and your local member, Natasha Griggs, who believes you did really well. She said you did very well, with a big smile on her face. I do not think you agree with her and you should talk to her about it.
We asked the minister if he is consulting people, or if he has any plans for dams in our rivers, and he had no idea about it. We asked him if the department was consulted about the Elizabeth River Dam, as proposed by the Planning Commission’s regional land use plan. His department was not consulted.
I specifically asked the minister if he had held any discussion with airlines, because I heard on the grapevine that Qantas was ready to pull the pin on Nhulunbuy. He told me he had held discussions with the airlines. No, they did not tell him they were going to pull out of Nhulunbuy and, anyway, it would be a commercial decision. The next morning the front page of the NT News said, ‘Qantas is going from Gove’. Either the minister had no idea what was happening around him or he knew and did not tell Territorians the truth.
I questioned the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure as much as I could and we finished on time. One who did not finish on time – I did not have the time to question him anymore – was the Minister for Tourism. I had a good time with the Minister for Tourism. He is very good at reading long-winded answers to our questions. He then complained that we did not question him for long enough.
The minister talked about they are doing for tourism. He said, ‘We talk to airlines, we are talking to Singapore Airlines, they have a new partnership’. When I pointed out to him that was probably the wrong airline to talk to if they want to bring tourists from Europe to Australia, because Singapore Airlines is one of the most expensive airlines in the world, he quickly handballed it to his CEO and, surprise, surprise, his CEO said, ‘Yes, you are right, member for Casuarina, the average Territorian would like to see other airlines come here that are cheaper than them’. The Minister for Tourism did not know much about the implications of his or his department’s negotiations with Singapore Airlines. It looks good if we have Singapore Airlines landing in Darwin. The reality is they are not going to land in Darwin, as that is why they have SilkAir flying here.
We asked him why Tigerair left Alice Springs, and he did not tell us. We asked him if he knew anything about Qantas and Gove. He said he did not know. We asked him if he was concerned about the Commonwealth proposing to dam our rivers and what impact that will have on our fishing-based tourism, and he said, ‘We are talking about tourism now. If you want to ask this question you should ask the Fisheries minister.’ I was talking about tourism and the problems it will create if people start damming rivers in the Territory.
We asked him about Indigenous economic development, because we hear the rhetoric from your government saying ‘We are here to help Territorians – make them economically viable’. We asked, ‘Minister, are you providing any specific grants to Indigenous tourist businesses?’, and the minister answered no and that grants are provided to everybody, black or white, because they are supporting all tourism industries. You are talking about economic development for Indigenous people and you are not prepared to provide any special grants to these people to sell what they know best: their land and cultural traditions. I know for a fact the thing that people coming to the Territory want to see is Indigenous people and their culture.
We questioned him about his wisdom in abolishing the Arafura Games and he kept talking about the games not doing anything …
Mr CHAIR: Your time has expired. We are sticking with standing orders this afternoon. Treasurer, you have until 5.16 pm.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Chair, much appreciated. I apologise, member for Casuarina; I would have asked for an extension of time, but I was informed that did not apply in this debate.
Like most people, I thank the Public Accounts Committee for the work it put in, particularly members from this side. I do not say that in any political sense, but the three members we had were there the entire time and everybody acknowledges that took some effort over six long, drawn out days of what some people have described as, at times, rather boring rhetoric. It was quite an effort by all members of the PAC. Thank you for that and thank you to the staff who supported the Estimates Committee – a great job. Again, it is a learning exercise for the opposition. Last year they stuffed it up – you can expect that – with the first estimates they had to organise in a very long time. This year they still stuffed it up, but have probably learnt a few more lessons in the last couple of years about how they might run estimates next year. It is a learning experience, and sooner or later you will work out a balance of how you want to question ministers.
What struck me about estimates was that nearly everybody performed quite a good job, apart from the Leader of the Opposition, who is looking more and more desperate every day. I do not know what is going on in the Labor team, but your leader is looking desperate. She is looking frayed around the edges. The screeching and muckraking gets worse, and her position, as a result of that, looks worse.
I was stunned after coming in to the estimates committee, reading an opening statement and asking for questions, to hear the first question from the Opposition Leader about water. I thought I was answering questions on the budget. One would have thought first questions to the Treasurer about a budget that has just been handed down would have had something to do with the budget, but it quickly became apparent the Opposition Leader had no interest in the budget whatsoever. I saw that as somewhat of an endorsement of the budget. She was more interested in trying to throw mud. I found the line of questioning about the Middle Eastern sovereign wealth fund, people from which I had met some months before, bizarre, and why she was so interested in that and who I had met with.
She then threw the name of Denis Burke around, and it quickly became apparent she was not interested in discussions we were having about economic growth; she was interested in trying to throw mud and sully the name of another Territorian, Denis Burke.
That carried on for 45 minutes and then, after asking all the muckraking questions she could think of, she exited. I think the member for Barkly took over and started to ask some questions on the budget, which I congratulate him for. I am glad to see he has not plumbed the same depths as the Leader of the Opposition. He is feeling quite comfortable in his job and was happy to start interrogating the budget, rather than smearing the reputations of individuals.
The member for Barkly made a point before which I found funny. He accused us of being economic rationalists. Many people have said I am an economic rationalist, but that seems to be the opposite of what the guys opposite stand for. They are clearly economic irrationalists. Not only are they alarmists they are also irrationalists, which is a sad indictment, member for Barkly. Perhaps you might want to choose your words more carefully in the future, because the result of what you are saying is you are calling yourself an economic irrationalist, which I do not think is what you mean when you say you are nothing like us.
In relation to estimates, from what I saw – I paid a bit of attention during the last fortnight and ministers handled themselves very well. I am very proud to be in the team I am in. I heard the rhetoric and bile thrown to this side of the Chamber about how the Chief Minister acted during estimates but, again, it all comes back to the Leader of the Opposition. Her efforts to smear and muddy people’s reputations and to drag everybody into the gutter elicited the sort of responses she received from the Chief Minister. While those on the other side might want to make some fun with that, the Chief Minister did a great job of not engaging in the sort of nonsense the Leader of the Opposition was trying to drag him into.
All members performed well and I was especially impressed with our ministers on this side of the Chamber. They were right across their briefs and went in there with a willing spirit to provide as much information as they could to the Estimates Committee.
I was chuffed that government members of the Estimates Committee were prepared to ask questions. The member for Casuarina said this is his thirteenth estimates process, but only his second in opposition. When you find yourself in opposition and you have to sit there for six days straight, keeping your trap shut, it is difficult. The fact that government members on the Estimates Committee were asking questions was a sign they were awake, paying attention and interested in some of the topics.
I do not see it as others do, a tricky attack on the opposition, trying to take their time up. I did not see that at all, and in the six or seven hours I was there, I only received two or three questions from government members.
This budget has been well received. The fact I sat there and received very few questions about the budget was a ringing endorsement of it. The people paid to attack the government and be the opposition provided very little opposition at all, and that was an endorsement that this budget has been pretty well received, even by members of the opposition.
The budget is all about securing our children’s future and looking into the future. This budget has defined this government somewhat, because whilst we have talked about the government having plans, this budget is about the implementation of them. It is about action, doing things and getting on with the job.
It has put the Country Liberals Giles stamp on the executive arm of government, and it shows and provides that direction and action we have committed to and planned for so long, in opposition and now in government.
As I said, the budget is about securing our children’s future, which it does through three real measures. Firstly, dealing with the debt legacy we have been left with. The second area is dealing with cost of living pressures in the Northern Territory, and the third area – which we are unapologetic for – is driving economic growth in the Northern Territory.
In relation to the debt issue, I have talked at length about the dangers of intergenerational debt and said that we do not want to create a level of debt we cannot pay for; our kids do not need to be lumbered with debt. The last financial document the Labor government presented, the pre-election fiscal outlook, had projections in it showing that had it been allowed to continue without any change it would have amassed $5.5bn worth of debt. Our projections now, through tight fiscal management and putting some rigour into the process through driving efficiencies in the public service and looking at better ways we can do things, show that $1.3bn has been cut from that projected debt. That is a big saving in the outer years. Whilst the member for Barkly thinks, ‘Oh, well, these are only projections and they mean nothing’, those projections show what will happen if all things remain equal, spending continues the way it is intended and revenue comes in the way it is expected to. It will show where you have gotten to. Those projections are incredibly important when planning for the future.
You cannot take into account things like natural disasters or major business decisions which might impact on the economy into the future, but if all things remain equal those projections show where you are heading. To shave $1.3bn from a projected debt is a tribute to all Cabinet members who have worked so hard to find savings and efficiencies in their agencies without hampering service delivery and, at the same time, ensured we have the wherewithal to deliver on commitments made to the electorate.
The forward estimates also show that by 2017-18 we will be only $39m in deficit. Those years are way out in the forward estimates, and with a bit more belt tightening I expect we will be able to meet our commitment to balance the budget and remove that fiscal imbalance by 2017-18. We are on track to do just that.
Cost of living pressure was one of the points argued out during estimates. The Chief Minister tabled the Mercer report and explained what some commentators are saying about the Northern Territory being a cheap place to live. Most of us know that. We know we pay more for groceries, fuel, rent and some other things. Interestingly enough, we do not pay more for electricity. We use more electricity, but we do not pay more, and that observation was made by the Leader of the Opposition last week, acknowledging the fact that electricity prices are not high. What is high is consumption, and we use much more electricity in the Northern Territory than other jurisdictions.
To suggest electricity prices are causing cost of living pressures is wrong; it is electricity consumption. The cost of living should not be confused with the Consumer Price Index, because that measures the value of a basket of goods and how much it increases from year to year. We know life is more than a basket of goods. In the Northern Territory we do not have to cope with paying $80 or $100 per day for car parking. We do not have to cope with toll bridges, and gas bills to warm our houses. There is a range of things we do not pay for which are requirements in other parts of the country. I have a brother-in-law who drives an hour-and-a-half to work in the centre of Sydney. You would say, ‘Why would you drive one-and-a-half hours? Why don’t you just buy a house in the centre of Sydney?’ One-and-a-half hours outside the centre of Sydney he can afford to buy a house. If you want to buy a house in the centre of Sydney you will be paying a lot more than any house you can buy in the Northern Territory, so to suggest that ..
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Chair! The minister’s time has expired.
Mr TOLLNER: Mr Chair, thank you very much for this opportunity to explain the budget. I should have kept an eye on the clock as well, just like the member for Casuarina.
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Remainder of the bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time
REORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 89, the routine of business, I move that the routine of business be re-ordered so that the Assembly proceeds with the following routine: notices, petitions, government business, notices and orders of the day, and papers.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are happy to agree to the change of routine, but government is changing the routine of business again and we would be happy to agree to the seeking of leave if Question Time is included.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government business?
Mr ELFERINK: No.
Madam SPEAKER: Question Time is not included. Do you want to speak to the motion, member for Fannie Bay?
Mr GUNNER: I will speak to the motion. I thought that was coming up. I thought that by him seeking leave and then us saying ‘no’, we would go to a motion. But I am happy to speak now. We on our side believe that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are not playing silly games today. I move that the motion be now put.
The Assembly divided.
- Ayes 12 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): I move that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
LEAVE TO REMOVE QUESTIONS FROM THE WRITTEN QUESTION PAPER
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the Chair, as a matter of tidying up – I note the earlier comments by the member for Fannie Bay – I seek leave to have Written Questions 112 to 202 asked at the Estimates Committee considered answered and to have them removed from the Assembly’s Written Question Paper. I note the comments from members opposite in relation to some of them, in their opinion, not being answered. They are welcome to resubmit them onto the Written Question Paper.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): As the member for Port Darwin commented on, and as we spoke to the Estimates Committee report, we have flagged that some of those questions have not been answered. It seems a complicated way of getting there, because those questions are now on the Written Question Paper to be answered. However, we will be resubmitting those questions which have not been answered. The CLP asked us to put questions in writing. We have done that and we want answers. It was handled differently from minister to minister during the Estimates Committee process, so it became complicated in regard to which ones were answered and which ones were not. We will be resubmitting those questions for answers.
Leave granted.
LEAVE TO TAKE TWO BILLS TOGETHER
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the Chair, I seek leave to have two bills entitled the Correctional Services Bill 2014 (Serial 82) and Correctional Services (Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 (Serial 83) together be debated and in one motion be put, in regard to the second readings, the committee report stage, third readings of the bills, and that they be considered separately in the committee of the whole.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): This cognate matter has been raised before.
Mr Elferink: To reassure you, we are about to do a second read. There are two bills for the Corrections stuff. It will be on the Notice Paper and will not be debated until August at least.
Mr GUNNER: You say there will be two separate committee stages or one?
Mr Elferink: No, we cognate them, but when we reach the committee stage we will deal with the bills separately, otherwise you will be trying to navigate two bills at once. That is not a sensible thing to do. I either have leave granted or I do not.
Leave denied.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that the two bills entitled the Correctional Services Bill 2014 (Serial 82) and the Correctional Services (Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 (Serial 83) be taken cognate.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we ask the Attorney-General for an explanation as to why this must be done cognate. We have had not held a discussion in advance of this happening, so we do not know, on our side, what the need is for it to be done cognate. We have not had a briefing or any explanation. There are two bills there; we have not had the second reading as of yet, so we ask what the intention is behind this. It was the Treasurer who last sought this type of leave, for the Power and Water bills, and he agreed to do them separately because an explanation was not given for the need to take them cognate and notice was not given.
From our side, that is the precedent; if you want to take them cognate please let us know why in advance. The Treasurer, in acknowledging that notice had not been given, agreed to take the three bills separately, which seemed perfectly fine when it happened in the House. We seek an explanation.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, in winding up the debate, perhaps there has been a glitch in the system. I thought you had been advised. These bills are directly related to each other; one deals with the new Correctional Services Bill, which we are introducing to cover the field of Correctional Services. It then has consequential flow-on affects to other bills, which need must be amended as a consequence of the new Correctional Services Bill being introduced. As a consequence of that it would make common sense that they are heard together.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I need an office on the second floor.
I was interested in what you were saying, minister. My understanding is that the second bill you will introduce is a consequential-type bill, if it is affected by the first bill. If that is what it is, I would not have any trouble supporting it.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): What I said before, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BILL
(Serial 82)
and
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (RELATED AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 83)
(Serial 82)
and
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (RELATED AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 83)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Correctional Services Bill 2014 and the Correctional Services (Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014.
These bills deliver on the government’s commitment to provide an improved and robust foundation for the administration of sentences and the management of offenders in the Northern Territory. The existing Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, enacted in 1980, has been amended many times, but has not been the subject of a wholesale review. It has now become antiquated in its scope and does not accurately reflect changes and advancement in the correctional services of the Northern Territory, both in practice and terminology. The Correctional Services Bill 2014 has been a long time coming, and I am very proud to be introducing it today, in light of the commissioning of the Darwin Correctional Precinct at Holtze in the near future.
The Correctional Services Bill 2014 will repeal and replace the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act with a legislative model that reflects current correctional services approaches, and is both transparent and practical in its approach. It will underpin future correctional services management in the Northern Territory.
The bills that I am introducing today are the result of a stocktake of the Northern Territory’s current correctional services practice against the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. They are also the result of an assessment of correctional services and sentence administration legislation in other Australian jurisdictions, consultation with Northern Territory government agencies and feedback from external stakeholders, including the legal profession, independent statutory authorities and relevant unions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have provided feedback to date. Some of this feedback has resulted in changes to the bills. I would be happy to consider further suggestions in the two months the bills will now lie before this House, prior to debate. Should sensible amendments be suggested during this time, committee stage amendments may be considered.
Where necessary and practical to do so, concepts of the current Prisons (Correctional Services) Act have been maintained, with the necessary terminology modifications. I would, however, like to draw your attention to some of the major provisions of the Correctional Services Bill 2014 that are new or are a modernisation of the existing act.
The bill contains new statutory roles and responsibilities for the Commissioner for Correctional Services, general managers, regional managers and correctional officers. These positions replace the roles of the Director of Correctional Services, superintendents and prison officers. Probation and parole officers will replace the roles of parole officers, probation officers and surveillance officers.
The commissioner has broad powers to enable him or her to manage all prisoners in custodial correctional facilities. The power extends to those persons who may be in a correctional centre but are not prisoners, such as support persons and infants who are residing with their mother. The commissioner also has powers to manage non-custodial offenders:
The bill clarifies the circumstances in which a prisoner is to be considered to be in ‘lawful custody’. The concept covers situations where a prisoner is being transported between centres, or is on some form of authorised release or leave of the correctional centre.
‘Non-custodial offenders’ are defined as those persons undergoing prescribed sentences to be served in the community.
Consistent with the government’s Sentenced to a Job policy, the bill makes it clear that the commissioner can direct sentenced prisoners to work. Prisoners on remand are able to work, if they consent to do so.
There is a new provision that gives the commissioner the discretion to charge for all or part of a particular service or program delivered to a prisoner. The intention of this provision is to give the commissioner the ability to charge for a service or program that may not be part of the ‘core’ sentence or correctional services programs. The provision also allows for charges in relation to repatriation costs. The provision is a means of ensuring that correctional centres in the Northern Territory can fiscally support and expand the range of programs and services offered for prisoners. The intention of the commissioner is to only charge prisoners for services and programs if the prisoner has a positive balance in their trust account. Although a negative trust account balance is unlikely to exist as each prisoner’s trust account will be closely managed by the Commissioner, the bill requires any negative balance to be written off upon the prisoner’s release from custody. I thank the legal profession for their council on this issue.
The offences in the current act have been redrafted to be compliant with Part IIAA of the Criminal Code. There are also a number of new offences. In particular the bill introduces a ‘change of name without permission’ offence for prisoners, as well as an offence for prisoners who possess prohibited things, including mobile communications devices. Importantly, and in contrast to the current act, the bill contains the four standard regulatory agency offences of ‘falsely representing to be an officer’, ‘obstructing an officer’, ‘providing misleading information’ and ‘breach of confidentiality by an officer’.
Although previously a condition of employment, the bill now specifically allows for the commissioner to drug and alcohol test employees, at any time, and check their criminal history for current or spent records.
The bill notes that a person is in the custody of the commissioner once a remand or imprisonment order of a court has been made. This includes circumstances where there is a time lag between the order being made and the paper form of the warrant being received. In particular, the bill clearly establishes that the person becomes a prisoner the moment the court order is made.
There are new provisions allowing the commissioner to request health information pertaining to a prisoner from the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health. This will ensure the prisoner’s treatment can be managed appropriately and expediently. This part of the bill is consistent with the approach taken in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. There are also specific responsibilities upon the commissioner to provide prisoners with access to healthcare.
New legislative protections have been inserted regarding the use of force. The commissioner is required to ensure, as far as practicable, that force is used as a last resort. In particular, the use of force by a correctional officer must be reasonable in the circumstances and the correctional officer must reasonably believe that the purpose for which the force is to be used cannot be reasonably achieved in another practicable way. This reflects the ‘last resort’ principal for the use of force.
A new provision provides for the Territory to recover costs if an offender destroys or damages a monitoring device or any other device or equipment owned by or provided by the Territory.
Finally, and in addition to the leave permit schemes in the current act, there is a new type of prisoner leave permit called ‘administrative home detention permit’.
‘Qualifying’ prisoners are those who do not have a non-parole period fixed as part of their sentence of imprisonment, have less than 12 months to run on their sentence and have served at least 50% of their actual imprisonment term. This includes prisoners serving partially suspended sentences.
Prisoners who are detainees under the Serious Sex Offenders Act, youth prisoners, immigration detainees, prisoners who are serving a mandatory term of imprisonment for a violent offence under Part 3, Division 6A of the Sentencing Act, and those serving indefinite sentences are specifically disqualified.
It is intended that most prisoners released on an administrative home detention permit will be released on the condition they wear an electronic monitoring device. An administrative home detention permit is characterised as a monitoring order in this bill, and prisoners released on such a permit will be subject to the compliance mechanisms in this bill for such orders.
The commissioner can revoke an administrative home detention permit for any reason and, where a breach is identified, the bill enables correctional officers to return the prisoner to a custodial correctional facility or other appropriate place to serve the remaining term of imprisonment. Strict conditions and stringent monitoring procedures will be imposed, and the safety of the community will remain paramount.
It is envisaged that prisoners subject to an administrative home detention permit will have a structured day, whereby they must have a job, be involved in educational or training programs, be part of voluntary community service as a means of offering restitution to the community or be gaining vocational skills.
Administrative home detention permits will:
(a) assist to achieve behavioural changes by providing the supervised reintegration of prisoners into the community towards the end of their sentence
(b) provide cost-effective community-based management of offenders as an alternative to imprisonment
(c) extend the Department of Correctional Services’ capability to implement the philosophy of ‘through-care’ by providing a further option for a prisoner’s case plan
(d) provide offenders with the opportunity to improve family cohesion and function, and
(e) act as an incentive for prisoners in correctional centres.
I will provide an update to this House as soon as practicable after the act has been operational for 12 months, on the administrative home detention permit scheme. I will now turn my attention to various parts of the bill.
Chapter 1 Preliminary Matters: this chapter is the preliminary matters part and incorporates the short title, commencement clause and notes the application of Part IIAA of the Criminal Code to the offences in the bill. This chapter also sets out the definitions and interpretation clauses, as well as setting out the application of the bill to both prisoners and non-custodial offenders. Importantly, Part 1.2 clarifies that once an order of a court to remand or commit a person into custody has been made, the person becomes a prisoner and is in the commissioner’s custody, regardless of whether or not a warrant of commitment has been issued.
Clause 8 of the bill notes that where a court, or a person, or other body authorised to do so, commits a person into custody, including committing or remanding the person to a particular correctional facility, the person is committed or remanded into the custody of the Commissioner for Correctional Services. This chapter will facilitate changes to the way warrants are issued under the Justices Act and Supreme Court rules, because, rather than committing the offender to a particular correctional centre or simply into custody, a warrant will commit a person into custody of the commissioner.
For this purpose, the Correctional Services (Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill amends the Justices Act for the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. We will be working with the Supreme Court into the future to work through the issues for that court. However, immediate change is not necessary, as the provisions will deem a prisoner to be in the commissioner’s custody. The provisions allow the commissioner greater flexibility in the administration of the offender’s time in custody, and allows for the prisoner to be placed in the most appropriate location as determined by the commissioner.
Persons committed or remanded to a place that is not a custodial corrections facility or into the custody of a specified person, for example, a hospital if a person is found unfit to plead under section 43ZA(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code Act, or into the custody of the sheriff in civil contempt matters, are not considered to be in the commissioner’s custody as a prisoner. The provisions also clarify when a person is in lawful custody and when they are unlawfully absent. If a prisoner is unlawfully absent, Part 3.4 allows for the prisoner to be arrested without warrant by a correctional officer or police officer.
Chapter 2 Correctional Services Administration: this chapter provides for the establishment of the various custodial correctional facilities and community correctional facilities. It empowers the minister to appoint the Commissioner for Correctional Services, previously known as the director, who has the overall responsibility for the control and management of offenders, correctional services establishments and any person accommodated at those establishments who are not prisoners. The commissioner is also responsible for the security and good order of these facilities, the management of offenders and the management of persons attending or visiting these locations. The commissioner has the powers of a correctional services officer.
The chapter also provides for the commissioner to appoint:
general managers of correctional centres, previously superintendents
correctional officers, previously prison officers
regional managers, who will be responsible for the day to day control and management of community, corrections facilities and non-custodial offenders, and
probation and parole officers.
The chapter also enshrines the role and responsibility of official visitors. The bill maintains the requirement for the minister to appoint at least three official visitors for each of the custodial correctional facilities. An official visitor must visit a custodial correctional facility at least once a month and must inquire into the treatment, behaviour and conditions of the prisoners. The official visitor must report his or her findings, if any, to the minister. The bill also provides clarification around the termination of the appointment of an official visitor. Official visitors will continue to play a vital role in overseeing, monitoring and reporting on the treatment and conditions of prisoners in the Territory’s custodial correctional facilities.
This chapter also empowers the commissioner to allow volunteers to assist with certain functions, for example, assisting in the supervision or provisions of activities that have a supportive and beneficial function for prisoners and non-custodial offenders.
Importantly, this chapter of the bill bolsters the capacity of the commissioner to order drug and alcohol tests, in Part 2.4, to ensure the integrity of employees. This power is further complimented by empowering the commissioner to request criminal history checks, in Part 5.2, for employees, volunteers or official visitors. Although these tests and checks should be a condition of employment or appointment, the bill expressly provides the commissioner with the power to undertake these checks. The ability to drug and alcohol test employees will bring the department into line with other industries and may mitigate the risk of employees entering the workplace impaired by alcohol or drugs such that they could pose a risk to the health and safety of themselves, other staff or persons in their control.
Chapter 3 Custodial Correctional Facilities: this is the chapter that contains the majority of the operational matters necessary for managing custodial correctional facilities.
Part 3.1 Management of Prisoners: Part 3.1 deals with the management of prisoners. This part allows for the searching of prisoners, including their mail and any personal property. The part allows for the intimate searching of a prisoner by an authorised health practitioner. The provisions require at least one person present to be of the same sex as the prisoner.
The remission of sentence provision in the current act has been omitted and a new clause has been inserted that empowers the commissioner to release a prisoner from custody up to seven days prior to their official release date, if the commissioner considers it appropriate to do so. This will allow for flexibility in managing the repatriation of prisoners.
The youth transfer provisions allow for the transfer of youth prisoners or youth detainees from their respective facility or centre to another. Youth detainees under the Youth Justice Act will only be transferred to a custodial correctional facility in accordance with the new section 154 of that act, as set out in the Correctional Services (Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014.
This new section 154 allows for the temporary transfer of youth detainees to a custodial correctional facility if certain circumstances prevail. Currently, section 154 is inflexible as it only allows the transfer of an individual detainee, not groups, and only in cases where the safety of another person is or was threatened.
The new section 154 allows for the superintendent of a detention facility to make an interim order for the transfer of a detainee to a custodial correctional facility for up to three days. If necessary, the superintendent can apply to a magistrate for the detainee to remain at the facility for another seven days. This process alleviates the administrative burden of having to return to court every 24 hours to have the transfer order confirmed, even where the circumstances have not changed. The bill ensures that detainees must be accommodated separately from all prisoners.
The provisions in this bill relating to prisoner misconduct essentially reflect what is provided for in the existing Prisons (Correctional Services) Act with the addition that where a prisoner has committed misconduct that caused damage to property owned by a person other than the prisoner, the prisoner may be ordered to pay restitution for each item damaged or destroyed.
The division relating to health and welfare retained the structure of the current act, however, the bill has clarified the role of the commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health in the arrangement and provision of healthcare. The division includes a cause relating to the provision of health information by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health. Only current information appropriate for the care or management of a prisoner need be provided. Importantly, the commissioner is required to ensure any health information is accessible only by persons authorised by the commissioner, and the commissioner will be issuing directions about the obtaining of, storage of and use of such information. There are also provisions allowing for a medical practitioner to provide treatment to a prisoner without their consent where they are at risk of serious harm. There is also a provision allowing for the general manager to request that a medical practitioner administer medication to a prison without their consent. In making such a request, the general manager must be satisfied that doing so is necessary to prevent the risk of harm and is the least restrictive intervention available in all of the circumstances.
Part 3.2 Visits and Communications: the bill enables prisoners to receive visitors, subject to the necessary search and screening requirements. The commissioner retains the ability to prohibit classes of persons from visiting, and the general manager may prohibit entry to any individual where they consider it appropriate. However, for lawyers and priority visitors, for example the Ombudsman, members of the Legislative Assembly and judges, the general manager can only refuse entry if it is necessary in order to maintain the security and good order of the facility. Once in the facility, a correctional officer can terminate a visit where appropriate, and this applies to lawyers and priority visitors. General managers cannot audibly record lawyer and priority visitors’ visits, but may observe these visits and visually record them. This is generally for safety reasons and to view the possible exchange of items.
This part notes that a prisoner may make telephone calls, subject to the commissioner’s directions, and may send and receive mail. A prisoner will not be prevented from calling their legal practitioner unless the general manager reasonably believes it is necessary to maintain the security and good order of the correctional centre.
The part notes that the prisoner must not be prohibited from receiving mail that is a protected/legal item and Part 3.5 places limitations on how protected/legal items may be inspected. Following feedback from the legal profession, the intention of section 48A of the current act will remain in order to protect legal privilege. That is, if a correctional officer reasonable believes mail contains prohibited items or is suspected of not coming from a legal practitioner or protected correspondent, the correctional officer must inform the general manager and the general manager must arrange for the purported legal item to be inspected by a nominated examiner approved by the minister. For legal items, the nominated examiner may be a legal practitioner. A similar process has also been established for protected correspondents. Mail and documents to and from protected correspondents can only be inspected by a nominated examiner.
The provisions ensure that appropriate recognition is given to the role lawyers and protected correspondents play when advising or communicating with a prisoner. I thank the legal provision for their comments on these issues, which I believe have led to more robust protections for their correspondence in this bill.
Maintaining the intention of the current act, the bill requires the commissioner to take all reasonable measures to ensure that every prisoner has access to a religious or spiritual advisor of his or her particular faith or belief system, within reason.
Part 3.3 Leave Permits: this part authorises absences from a correctional centre through a leave permit scheme and includes the administrative home detention permits which I discussed earlier. In addition to administrative home detention permits and in line with the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, the bill maintains the commissioner’s power to grant a leave of absence from a correctional centre. The commissioner may use this power for education and training, employment, compassionate reasons, recreation, participation in community projects, integration into the community or other such reasons as the commissioner considers appropriate.
As part of a uniform national scheme, the bill maintains the provisions of the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act pertaining to interstate custodial leave permits and leave of absence in relation to a foreign proceeding or investigation, with the necessary terminology modifications.
Part 3.4 Maintaining Security and Good Order – Use of Force: this part incorporates the use of force provisions discussed earlier, and notes that the commissioner is mandated to issue directions about the use of force.
Part 3.5 General Matters about Custodial Correctional Facilities: this part contains various miscellaneous matters concerning custodial correctional facilities. As discussed previously, Part 3.5 contains the provisions for dealing with confiscated protected/legal items. Protected or legal items have a special status under this part and can only be inspected and dealt with in a certain manner.
As discussed earlier, this part contains a provision that allows the commissioner to charge a prisoner a fee for providing certain services or programs to that prisoner, or to recover costs. This part also notes that the commissioner has the responsibility to maintain a prisoner’s trust account.
This part also sets out a requirement that prisoners are to have access to this act, any regulations made under this act and the commissioner’s directions which relate to the conduct and entitlement of prisoners. This does not extend to directions that relate to matters of security.
Chapter 4 Non-custodial Offenders and Community Correctional Facilities: Part 4.1 of Chapter 4 applies to non-custodial offenders as well as prisoners released from a correctional centre on an administrative home detention permit. This part allows the commissioner to approve work projects and rehabilitation programs as ‘approved projects’ under section 3 of the Sentencing Act, and outlines the monitoring powers and devices that may be used.
This part also provides a probation and parole officer with the power to ensure that a non-custodial offender complies with the conditions of their order, essentially mirroring the powers previously provided to surveillance officers under the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act. It includes the ability for the commissioner to place or attach a monitoring device on an offender. The Department of Correctional Services is in the process of introducing electronic monitoring devices that can monitor the location of offenders. This will be a critical tool to assist in the monitoring of non-custodial offenders and will complement other monitoring mechanisms deployed by officers.
The bill also allows for regulations to be made regarding the administration of monitoring tests, including a breath test, breath analysis, blood test, saliva test and urine test. Regulations are being prepared for this purpose.
Chapter 5 General Matters: the bill maintains the offences currently provided for in the Prisons (Correctional Services) Act, but frames them to be compliant with part IIAA of the Criminal Code. The bill also introduces a number of new offences. They are:
an offence for prisoners to possess a prohibited thing, including mobile communications devices. It is a defence if they have the consent of the general manager
an offence for any person to possess prohibited things at a custodial correctional facility without the permission of the general manager
an offence for failure to provide a name and address at either a custodial correctional facility or a community correctional facility
the inclusion of the four standard regulatory agency offences of ‘falsely representing to be an officer’, ‘obstructing an officer’, ‘providing misleading information’ and ‘breach of confidentiality by an officer’
The serious offences in the act carry a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. This is consistent with the current act. The maximum monetary penalties for these serious offences have been bolstered to 200 penalty units to be consistent with other Northern Territory statutes and similar offences in other jurisdictions.
The offences of failing to supply a name and address, name change by a prisoner without permission, loitering and failing to leave a custodial correctional facility carry a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment or a 50 penalty unit fine. The offence of removing property from a correctional centre without permission carries a monetary maximum penalty of 50 penalty units. This is consistent with the approach to this offence in Queensland. If the case warrants it, the Criminal Code offences and a number of other offences in the Summary Offences Act will apply to conduct engaged in in a correctional centre.
Part 5.2 sets out various administrative matters for the agency, including protections from liability, including a six-month time limit on commencing proceedings for criminal and civil matters, provisions regarding alcohol and drug testing, approvals for drug and alcohol tests, and the aforementioned criminal history checks for staff and volunteers, and offenders.
As good correctional services departments are expected to have detailed and secure information systems in place, this part of the bill places a requirement on the general manager to keep records of important information relating to each prisoner, including the order or other authority under which the person is a prisoner and details of every occasion on which force is used by a correctional officer in relation to a prisoner.
This part of the bill also enables biometric identification systems to be used in any correctional services establishment. Such identification systems ensure that each person who enters the facility for the purpose of conducting a visit or carrying out duties is the same person who leaves the correctional centre after concluding that visit or carrying out those duties or activities. There are safeguards in the bill, including penalties for the breaches of confidentiality, to ensure that appropriate practices are adhered to. This part also establishes the concept of commissioner directions, which all correctional services officers, employees, agency and volunteers will be required to comply with.
Chapter 6 Repeals and Transitional Miscellaneous Matters: finally, the bill provides for various savings and transitional matters to facilitate the transition from the current act to the new act.
I will now briefly discuss the standard clauses of the Correctional Services (Related and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014. This cognate bill incorporates related and consequential amendments to acts and regulations that are associated with the Correctional Services Bill 2014. Specifically, the bill updates the terminology across the statute book to match the new terms used in the Correctional Services Bill and inserts or amends clauses to ensure they are consistent with the Correctional Services Bill 2014.
Some of the key provisions of this bill are:
changes to the Justices Act to clarify that a warrant is not a necessary requirement in order to transport a person ordered into custody to a custodial correctional facility
changes to the Police Administration Act to allow correctional officers to assist police in bringing accused persons before a court who have not yet been remanded or committed into the custody of the commissioner
clarification in section 63A of the Sentencing Act that if an offender is unlawfully absent as defined in the Correctional Services Bill whilst serving a term of imprisonment – the period of the unlawful absence does not count as time served. Conversely, where a prisoner is lawfully absent, as defined in the act, the period of lawful absence does count as time served; and
as discussed previously, the insertion of a new section 154 in the Youth Justice Act.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of these bills, including the legal profession, legal assistance services, statutory bodies, the judiciary, unions, staff associations, the youth justice advisory council, other government agencies and, most importantly, I wish to recognise the tireless efforts of staff in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Department of Correctional Services and the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. I commend the bills to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
TREASURY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 80)
(Serial 80)
Continued from 13 May 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, as we know, this bill relates to the government’s budget and, essentially, will pass on the numbers. However, it is important the opposition puts on the record its objections to two aspects of this budget on which we urge a rethink.
This legislation makes it more difficult for young homeowners to get into the market. By restricting first home owners’ assistance to buy new homes, the government is doing three things. Firstly, it is saying to young first home buyers, ‘Good luck, you may never be able to afford a home’. By forcing them to construct a new residence in Rosebery, Bellamack or Palmerston, where the costs could be upward of $600 000 or $700 000, the government is essentially breaking their hearts. How does a young couple with small savings purchase land and build a house for almost $750 000?
Secondly, the government is risking the urban decay of older housing stock, which young families will no longer be able to use the First Home Owner Grant to buy. The aesthetic appearance of our cities and towns is important. When young families move into these premises they look after them. These older houses are a vital part of the look of our city. Are you ready for these places to become derelict?
Thirdly, the government’s intention is to restrict this incentive and assistance to new stock, therefore directly undermining the market of established housing stock. Investors who own these properties have just lost a significant part of the market cohort that may have purchased existing properties. This is a bizarre move from a government which is supposed to be all about the free market and getting Territorians into homes.
The money being saved in this move was prosecuted in the estimates hearing, and it relates to about $5m, which flies in the face of the extravagance we have seen in other areas of the budget. We have witnessed, for instance, the Chief Minister’s department grow by $33m. It is $5m in an efficiency measure that will have a serious impact on young families moving into their first home, when we have other budget appropriations that are excessive.
Housing our young people and not tampering with this sector of the market is worthy of consideration. It is not worthy of the paltry saving of $5m. The opposition urges the minister to reconsider.
I also note that this legislation contains your increase in the cap as it relates to bookmakers. The Territory opposition is concerned this move will cost jobs. Unibet has already left for Queensland, and that was always a danger. Again, the revenue this will raise is a drop in the ocean, but at what cost is this measure?
There are several hundred jobs in this industry in the Territory, an industry we capitalised on with our tax regime. Many companies are leaving Tasmania to come here for that very reason, and that is what we saw in terms of capitalising on a tax regime. We are now giving them a reason to leave. The opposition believes this is short-sighted and something which appears to not be very well thought out.
The Treasurer, in a previous speech, tried to define a semantic comment after I used the term economic rationalism. The definition of economic rationalism around ideology can be related to efficiencies driving savings in education, increasing class sizes, reducing teachers, reducing support staff pro rata and cutting global school budgets. This is the economic rationalism that I challenge. These savings are at any cost, and I discussed this with the Treasurer during estimates. The opposition puts this fair and square in terms of the ill-conceived changing of the First Home Owner Grant to generate small efficiencies and savings in what could be a more global outcome of young families being able to purchase existing stock with assistance and move into their first home.
Young families could use existing stock and celebrate that infrastructure within our suburbs. Those entrepreneurs in the market who own older stock could participate in supporting young Territorians, as well as being in what the government describes as a market-driven economy. So we have put these fair and square to the Treasurer; we believe they are worth considering and we raise these points in opposition to this legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow Treasurer for his comments. There are a couple of things I will comment on in relation to his speech.
He is wrong when he talks about bookmakers in Tasmania. There is no doubt the Tasmanians reduced their taxes or charges levied on bookmakers, in an effort to try to steal bookmakers from the Northern Territory but, to date, that has not happened. No bookmakers have been stolen from the Northern Territory, member for Barkly, despite a lower tax rate. The reason they choose to stay here is not because of the taxes charged; it is because of the regulatory regime which operates in the Northern Territory, which is seen as robust, secure and providing certainty for operators. In that case, you are wrong. The Chief Minister and I were at dinner only a couple of nights ago with a corporate bookmaker who has set up in the Northern Territory. He had the opportunity to set up in Tasmania, but has chosen to be in the Northern Territory. That is good news and also highlights the importance of a strong and robust regulatory regime when it comes to dealing with bookmakers.
Bookmakers were consulted in relation to the increases in their rates, and nearly all of them said they could live with the increases which were put in place. It is important to note the importance of us maintaining a revenue base in the Northern Territory and I note – I think it was the member for Nelson who commented on something I said during estimates about wanting to see the end of all taxes. Of course we would. We would all like to see free beer, cars and petrol, but it was a tongue in cheek comment to say that we are looking to maintain a low-tax jurisdiction.
The complicating factor is that if we want to maintain revenue in the Northern Territory, we have to be aware of our own revenue-raising efforts. The Commonwealth Grants Commission, as members know, will mark us down if we are not seen to be doing our fair share of revenue-raising, so for that reason it is important to make sure that is maintained to a level in the Northern Territory. It was why we looked at the transfer pricing of minerals last year and how it affected the budget. It was one of the great things about Treasury and the tax office in Treasury, the way it looked at raising revenue here. Whilst it did not place a big impost on miners, it added another $10m in revenue to the Territory coffers and maintained the GST revenue we receive from the Commonwealth, along with other grants. It is important to maintain our revenue-raising in the Territory because if we do not do our fair share of lifting, we lose revenue from the Commonwealth.
The other aspect in this bill is the changes we made to the First Home Owner Grant. I did not have an opportunity to complete my comments during the last debate. I was going to talk about what this last budget was aimed at, and I did mention that we are looking at debt reduction, cost of living pressures and what drives economic growth, as well as maintaining that strong drive for economic growth. As I said, it is all about securing our children’s future.
A big part of that is the cost of living. One of the cost of living measures we have in place is the changes to the First Home Owner Grant because as we all know, allowing the First Home Owner Grant to be used for existing places puts upward pressure on property prices, and that feeds into rents, which feeds into cost of living pressures. The government has made a deliberate decision to focus the First Home Owner Grant on new developments, encouraging people to build new houses and to do everything we can. When it is combined with large land release programs we want to try to cap the growth in price pressures in the property sector.
In that regard, the changes we have made to the First Home Owner Grant, while upsetting some people who thought they would be able to receive the grant for an existing property, will work in conjunction with that big land release program to reduce the cost of living for Territorians. We know the biggest driver in the cost of living in the Northern Territory is the extraordinarily high cost of housing and accommodation.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I will not keep people here any longer than necessary. I thank the opposition Treasury spokesman for his comments. I thank all colleagues on this side of the Chamber for their support in these measures, and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 86)
(Serial 86)
Continued from 15 May 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the repeal of part 11 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act.
This legislation for the Territory has not been thought through. There has been no consultation with the NT industry, and the vast majority of the 83 licenced travel agents in the Northern Territory do not want it. The industry here is hurting. It is a small industry with small margins, and the abolition of the licensing scheme would throw open the door to unprofessional operators. Licensing is not red tape; this is consumer affairs common sense. It is rare when business says, ‘Stop, do not do this’, but that is what it is telling us. The licence scheme, as it stands, is mature good governance in this industry. There is a character test. To gain a licence you cannot have a criminal history, which includes, for example, dishonesty, fraud or physical violence, and you must provide at least two good character references. If you are licensed you cannot be a bankrupt person. The licence means you cannot walk out of Berrimah gaol into a travel agency.
Once licensed, an agent must carry on his or her business honestly and fairly at all times. This is not regulation gone mad, it is common sense. The licensing scheme is a worthy one, with a very small fee, which ensures that when a member of the public uses a licensed agent they can be sure they are getting someone who knows the business, is of good character and honest. Operating without a licence carries a hefty fine of up to $360 000. It keeps the shonks at bay and the industry in the Territory trustworthy.
In his second reading speech the minister spoke of an industry-wide code of conduct. With the greatest respect, minister, the licence scheme and the fine are a greater deterrent. Industry self-regulation is no substitute for solid regulatory-based deterrents. I strongly urge the sensible members opposite to vote on this legislation in the negative. These travel agents are your constituents, and by scrapping the licence system you will be doing them a great disservice. This bill comes on at a time when the industry needs government help, not government indifference, but the government is turning its back on Territory travel agents at a time when they need help.
Minister, $5m worth of government travel has just been awarded to two interstate travel corporations: Qantas Business travel out of Perth and Flight Centre Corporate Management out of Brisbane. We have been informed that 10 local travel agents have lost this business. They are asking where the tender was for this work, and reliably informed us there was no tender. Could the 10 local companies have competed for it if the market had been tested? Again we have been reliably informed that they could have, so what is going on with a situation where $5m worth of government travel has just been awarded by the government to two interstate travel corporations – Qantas business travel out of Perth and Flight Centre corporate management out of Brisbane – with 10 local travel agents missing out on this business?
Small businesses in the Territory are crying out for help, yet with this move you have jeopardised 10 businesses by allowing $5m worth of business to go to Brisbane and Perth. Members opposite, especially in Darwin and Palmerston electorates, should be asking the same question. It is a disgraceful decision and one which should either be reversed or, at the very least, put back out to tender to test the market, so a clear alternative for those members opposite with Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs seats – this decision must be tested. You need to ask questions of your executive leadership group, and your alternative is that this decision can be reversed. The alternative position is to put $5m worth of work out to tender to test the market.
Which departments are involved in this latest move? Who made the decision and how much Territory taxpayers’ money has been awarded without a tender? These are serious questions on the back of an estimates fortnight …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I think it is Standing Order 82 – divergence from the topic. We are debating a bill and what the member opposite is talking about has nothing to do with the bill we are debating.
Madam SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order.
Mr McCARTHY: This is serious business about travel agents and is very straightforward. You are bringing this legislation to the House, we have just completed an estimates fortnight and we have to do our research. This material has come directly from the travel industry in the Northern Territory. This is a natural consequence of an opposition doing its job and getting out there, unfortunately, with very tight time frames in relation to this bill. But we were on the phone and this information came straight back. This is about the travel industry and its legislation.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I apologise, as it is actually Standing Order 67: digression from subject. We are debating a bill to do with the self-regulation of travel agents around Australia. The minister is trying to bring into this debate another matter entirely, when there are other avenues. I am not worried about the debate that you want to bring on, member for Barkly, but you should do it at the appropriate time. Whilst we are debating this bill, we should stick to the topic.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have been listening to the member for Barkly and from where I sit he has been talking about travel agents. There is no point of order. Member for Barkly, continue your discussions, but please talk in regard to the bill.
Mr McCARTHY: The minister will have a chance to respond to questions in relation to this debate and I am sure members on the opposite side of the House will be very interested in hearing those answers. It is the minister’s choice, but the debate is about the travel industry, and at the moment …
Mr Tollner: It is about a bill, mate, not the travel industry. Debate the bill.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 82. The member for Fong Lim is showing dissent and he needs to be careful.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: The travel industry is hurting in the Territory, and what it does not need is a change to the licensing regime that will leave them more vulnerable. What it needs is a chance to tender on market business – I am reliably advised of $5m worth of business.
We must support our travel industry in the Northern Territory. Legislation should be enabling good business and the entrepreneurial nature. Members opposite choose to define me as an economic irrationalist – here I am fighting for private enterprise to receive its fair share and to ensure it does not cop bad legislation.
There is no need to remove licensing conditions. It is not thought out and we have been advised by the industry that it does not support it. We have been advised that there has been no consultation and there is grave concern about $5m worth of work which has gone out the door to interstate companies. Every member of this House should be concerned. Minister, you will have your opportunity to debate the opposition’s position on this bill. You will also have the opportunity to outline for all members why. Was it your decision? Which departments were involved? Who made the determination that means $5m worth of work has slipped through the net of local business in the travel industry to two interstate companies?
There is no need for any manic behaviour, minister. You have an opportunity to put this matter into context, but as I said during this debate the Northern Territory opposition cannot support the repealing of part 11 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act. We say this legislation has not been thought out, and in representing the close, professional and tight-knit travel industry, we want to know why $5m worth of work which did not go to tender has ended up in the hands of interstate operators and has been denied that market test for our homegrown, local travel agents who are, at the moment, doing it tough. They need a government which cares, has compassion and will listen. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will talk about the history of where this travel agent legislation originally came from about 20 years ago. I listened to the member for Barkly and I am not sure what he is talking about, but some of the history of this legislation is that when we looked at travel compensation about 20 years ago there were many travel agents going belly up, especially in New South Wales and Queensland. I am not sure about the Northern Territory, but at the time all states came together and decided they would introduce a travel compensation scheme.
Part of that was also about the licensing of travel agents. Some concerns expressed in the Northern Territory at the time were that many small businesses, such as caravan parks like my own, which were selling local tours would have to be licensed. There were some exceptions in the Northern Territory, and that was allowed for in our own legislation.
However, the problem with our legislation was that many people in the travel industry at the time did not want to join the national compensation scheme and had some concerns about licensing. If I concentrate on that compensation scheme, they all contributed a share to that fund, and if anyone went belly up, we would then pay the money. One or two companies here have recently gone belly up and people have not received any money. If were in another state we would have received money.
Twenty years ago, the travel industry here decided it would introduce two options. One was to join the national scheme with all other states and the second was to take out private insurance. That private insurance was established with a company called Zuellig, which still offers insurance today. All states decided that the Northern Territory would not be accepted into that national scheme. It was to be all or none, so the only option open at the time for the government was for those people who wanted to join the national scheme, and not take out Zuellig insurance, to be given an exemption.
I understand that exemption has continued over 20 years until today. I made an inquiry when this first came up about six or eight weeks ago, and I asked how many people had private insurance through a scheme like Zuellig. The answer was none, which meant that every travel agent in the Northern Territory was saying to government that they wanted to insure with the national scheme, knowing it would not accept them and, therefore, there was no insurance. That is the situation today.
My reading of this legislation is that all states have now recognised that a national compensation scheme needs to be self-administered, rather than controlled by government, and as far as I can see this legislation in that area makes no difference.
Mr Tollner: The scheme is being wound up.
Mr HIGGINS: Yes. The matter of licensing travel agents is another issue. As I have not seen the code of conduct established by the voluntary scheme, I cannot compare that to the legislation, but that would be something I would look at. Part of the problem is that when we get rid of this – I hope the new voluntary scheme does not force all of the smaller people deemed as travel agents – taking a booking on behalf of someone else – to go to this licensing scheme, because that definitely would not reduce red tape.
Because it is a national initiative to withdraw this legislation, this side of parliament will support it. I would support it on the basis that the compensation scheme never existed and never functioned properly in the Territory, and the classic example was – I think there were two; I might stand corrected – I know there was at least one company that went belly up in the last twelve months. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I find myself in a difficult situation, mainly because I did not realise this was coming up at these sittings.
I have tried to work in relation to this and I have been speaking to a senior person in the travel industry in Darwin. I am not here, minister, to necessarily knock what you are doing – the travel industry has independent people in it and some people connected to larger travel agency bodies Australia-wide. There was a meeting up here of, I think, AFTA, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, and two people attended that meeting, which had something to do with the changes that were to occur. The person I spoke to also was not necessarily against what the government is doing, but felt that all they had received was this letter from the Senior Director of Gambling and Licensing Services. The letter says:
The Northern Territory government has supported a national move to deregulate travel agents across Australia. Deregulation will result in a reduction of red tape for travel agents, as you will no longer be required to submit returns or obtain a licence to operate. As part of this move the Australian Federation of Travel Agents (AFTA) has prepared a charter and code of conduct for travel agents and is implementing a travel accreditation scheme, which will require travel agents to self-insure.
While the scheme is voluntary, it is expected the promotion of the scheme by AFTA will ensure customers are aware of the value of dealing with accredited travel agents and that the industry will embrace the self-regulation. We encourage you to participate in the voluntary scheme, and to find out more information please visit the AFTA website.
To implement this change the Northern Territory government is introducing a bill to repeal part 11 of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, which deals with the requirement for travel agents in the Northern Territory to be licensed. It is expected that that this bill will be passed and come into effect by 1 July 2014; however, should the bill not be in effect by 1 July 2014, it is expected to be in effect shortly after.
You are therefore notified that travel agents licences will not be subject to the annual returns or annual fees which would otherwise have been due by 30 June 2014.
Please note that consumer complaints will continue to be dealt with by NT Consumer Affairs. Should you require any further information please contact on 8999 7824.
I asked the person who presented me with this letter, ‘Has the government organised any meetings with the travel industry?’ and they said no.
Minister, I do thank you, as I received a quick briefing before we came in to debate this. I appreciate that and I gained an understanding that the government is arguing that the Australian Federation of Travel Agents was the body organising some of this discussion. But as I said, my understanding is that two people turned up for that meeting. You could argue that it is the travel agents’ fault, but travel agents might be like people in the horticultural industry. There are people who are independent and people keen to belong to an association.
That does not mean the government has no responsibility to make sure it gets the word out to those people who may not be associated with the bigger body that these changes are coming.
I am concerned that I do not know whether travel agents in Darwin or the Northern Territory – I think there are 83 travel agents – support this. The government has said, ‘It’s a bit like we are telling you this is what we are going to do’. I do not see anything in the second reading speech to say you have been discussing this with travel agents. It says:
- The measure will also ensure the Northern Territory supports deregulation of the travel industry across Australia.
- The Australian Federation of Travel Agents has developed a charter and code of conduct for travel agents and is implementing a travel accreditations scheme. This new voluntary, industry-based accreditation scheme is designed to replace the current government licensing regime.
That sounds very good and perhaps that should be mandatory, but it is not. It is only mandatory to people who want to belong to AFTA or ATAS, as it is called later on. Minister, is there a danger that people with a few dollars in the bank who do not require a police check could start up a travel agency if they wanted? One of the arguments is if you are accredited with ATAS you can put a big sign on your window saying, ‘I am an accredited travel agent’, sending out the message that if you deal with that agency, you know you are dealing with one that is approved, reliable, you will not receive a shonky deal and will be safe.
That is fine, but I can imagine someone setting up a travel agency in a suburban shopping centre, ‘Fred’s Fantastic Travel Agency’, who does not have the AFTA sign. People do not know much about the ATAS sign and believe he is a local fellow and will support him. However, there is nothing to say this person has some accreditation and no basic checks you would hope anyone who went into this industry would have.
It is funny we take away the red tape for travel agents, but not for doctors, teachers, electricians or plumbers. If we took away the red tape and said, ‘Anyone can be a plumber as long as he knows how to put cleaning fluid and glue on two pipes.’ That would not be very good either. We have regulations to protect people those professions serve.
We have had cases in the Northern Territory, one recently. I think the person went to prison for it. A travel agency went belly up and a number of people lost their money. Whether the existing legislation was the problem and it should not have happened, I do not know. I have not looked into why that happened. Will this legislation stop that from happening? I do not know. This is one of the difficulties I have with this legislation. I have spoken to a senior person who has been in the travel agent industry for many years, and they are saying they have not been consulted enough about this. The government has said, ‘We have held some consultations through the federal body’, but that is voluntary. People belong to it and two people turned up for a meeting.
I would feel a lot more comfortable if this legislation was delayed until the next sittings, so I can have the chance to talk to a larger range of travel agents to find out what they mean, otherwise I am voting blind on this. It may be that parts of the industry are slack and not doing their job and are happy to go along with the status quo because they might make some financial savings, I do not know. Although, this person I spoke to has insurance called legal liability insurance, so they are making sure they are covered.
I did not know which bills were to be put forward. I asked and at the last minute today I found out there were two bills to be debated, this being one of them.
I would be flying blind if I supported this. If I do not support it it is not necessarily because of what the Labor Party says; it is because of what I know personally about the issues in relation to what travel agency people I have spoken to have said. I would much prefer this bill – and I spoke to the minister during sittings today about it – to be deferred until August. I would then come back and say whether this is something I can support wholeheartedly or not. The only reason it cannot be taken to August sittings is that the government is concerned about having to pay license fees. The licence fee is $50, and maybe they are concerned that if it starts in August they might have to refund. I am not sure that is a big issue.
I have given it as much thought as I could. Many things happened this afternoon, but it would not be a wise decision for me to support something I have yet to be convinced by the industry about. I would like to talk to many other travel agents, because I am not sure about it. If they support it and I find that the majority of people think it is a good idea, after they have been consulted and as long as they know what is going on, then okay. I am not a travel agent and I expect the industry can provide advice on these things, but the person I have spoken to is concerned about the lack of consultation.
I know that lack of consultation exists, because I received a phone call from Alice Springs the other day in relation to what the member for Barkly spoke about: that the government is deciding to put some of its travel arrangements through the Qantas business line and Flight Centre, which are based in Perth and Brisbane, so our money goes there. We have decided that is how the government’s online bookings will go. It does not send a good signal to local travel agents. If you delay this legislation you might have a chance to discuss some of these issues. Many in the industry knew there were rumours flying around but, until the other day, the person I spoke to had only just had a meeting about it. I am not sure who asked who to come, because they are concerned that this is the thin edge of the wedge.
The minister might say it is irrelevant to this matter, but it is not irrelevant to the travel agents’ industry. They are connected in the sense of – do we support the travel industry? They are small businesses and, as I said before, walk down to the mall and count the number of empty shops. Small business is an important part of keeping families and the economy ticking over. Travel agents, 83 of them, probably employ two or three people. I spoke to one recently, not far from here, and they are concerned about their future. If the government pulls out some of its bookings they will be struggling to survive.
Sometimes people, especially governments – this is the argument about TIO – do not wipe off things based on an economic advantage. For instance, if you sold TIO you would lose 235 jobs, which represents 235 families.
They are people who go to schools, spend their money here and pay rent and mortgages, etcetera. You will have six people working in a QBE office, probably at the Casuarina shopping centre. It is the same with travel agents; if you do not look after them, they will go under. They all have families and many are long-term residents of the Northern Territory. You might make what I call technical savings by booking down south, but have you worked out the social and economic losses we would suffer if those travel agents go out of the door?
We are talking about a particular bill, but we are also talking about the future of the travel industry in the Northern Territory. I would be much happier if I knew the travel industry supported what the minister has put forward today.
I understand there are some complications in the industry, but I have not had enough time to make a decision that I would be comfortable in supporting this tonight. When I say I will not vote for it, I will not do so this time. If it is delayed and comes back after I have had more time to discuss this with the industry, I might change my mind, but I would be letting down the people I spoke to if I supported it, because that would be the wrong decision to make. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments on this bill, and I particularly thank the member for Daly. The points he made about travel agents were spot on; after he spoke, he said, ‘I hope I was not wrong’. Changes have brought into question the need for the travel compensation scheme, which is the industry insurance scheme operated in all Australian jurisdictions, except for the NT. It has never operated in the Northern Territory, and the member for Daly was right.
Across Australia the scheme is now seen as unnecessary and is being wound up. In relation to consultation, it has been a national push. The Northern Territory is doing its part as a jurisdiction in the nation by supporting this legislation. It has been pushed by travel agents across the country through their organisation, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, and I have been informed by AFTA that it has consulted widely. The member for Nelson spoke to me earlier about meeting with a travel agent who said it was the first they had heard of it and they asked why we had not consulted with them.
It is the job of members of AFTA to understand what their representative organisation is doing, and what has been put forward and agreed to by all other states and territories is to support this legislation. I hear the call about licensing; agents will no longer require licensing. I disagree that will take away from the industry and allow more rogues into it.
Some time ago I left the financial advisory industry, and to be licensed for that industry is an extraordinarily difficult feat; I was talking to the member for Blain – who has also had to qualify for that – about it. There is an enormous amount of rules and many regulations about how financial planners and advisors operate and, irrespective of the fact they have this stringent licensing regime and a detailed and almost draconian system of regulation, it does not stop people being ripped off.
You mentioned one or two travel agents in the Northern Territory. It is not hard to think of a number of financial advisors who have not only provided poor advice, but have gone broke and left a trail of destruction. My point is that it does not really matter about the licensing of things. What matters is how informed the consumer is.
That is the crux of the matter because the Australian Federation of Travel Agents has made commitments to run an advertising campaign encouraging people to use AFTA agents and make sure they are getting a proper, above board, deal. The best thing you can do to make sure people are not ripped off and that the system is maintained is to make sure people go into transactions with their eyes wide open and understand some of the pitfalls. The fact that the Australian Federation of Travel Agents is providing that sort of information negates the need for licensing.
Getting rid of licensing is another effort to reduce red tape, not only in the Northern Territory, which is why we support it here and the fact that it is supported by travel agents, but across Australia. It is seen across Australia as a red tape reduction measure, and it will reduce compliance costs to the travel agent industry as a whole, as well as particular individual travel agents.
I have no hesitation in bringing this bill into the Chamber, and I wholeheartedly support it. It is being driven by travel agents. I understand and have sympathy for the member for Nelson, who has had a travel agent come to him to say they have not been consulted, but travel agents across the country have been consulted. The fact that it has agreement across the country provides me some comfort and makes it easier to do business in that industry. Madam Speaker, I am more than keen to commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 9
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Mrs Price Mr Wood
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
TABLED PAPER
Inquiry into Stella Maris Report
Inquiry into Stella Maris Report
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, by motion of 5 December 2013, this parliament resolved to establish an inquiry, pursuant to section 4A of the Inquiries Act to investigate and report on the proposed grant of a lease over Lot 5260 Town of Darwin, known as Stella Maris. The report was provided to Her Honour the Administrator on 25 May 2014. The Inquiries Act requires the Administrator to lay the report before the Assembly no later than the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly which commences more than 14 days after the receipt of the report. That is today.
Accordingly, Her Honour has provided me with the report, which I am obliged to table, pursuant to Standing Order 253. The Inquiry into Stella Maris report was prepared by Commissioner John Lawler. The report contains some damning findings about how the former Northern Territory Labor government put together a secret, smelly deal to give their Unions NT mates a rent-free, long-term lease for a $3m CBD property on the eve of the 2012 election.
The revelations would be concerning to the majority of Territorians, who expect government decisions to be made in the best interests of the community. Without having read the whole report, what is most notable is that the report raises serious questions about whether the former Deputy Chief Minister, now Opposition Leader, and the former Lands and Planning and Environment minister, now the Deputy Opposition Leader, are fit to remain in parliament.
Described by the commissioner as having acted with bias in favour of the union movement, the report found that Delia Lawrie hatched plans in 2007 to orchestrate the granting of the Stella Maris lease to Unions NT. In 2009 she received a pitch from Unions NT for the organisation to be granted that lease. She sat on the pitch document for three years, by which time the commissioner said its contents were irrelevant. However, in 2012 she dusted off the out-of-date Unions NT submission and set to work manipulating the process so her union mates could receive the lease.
She enlists the then Lands and Planning minister, Gerry McCarthy, in an orchestrated manipulation of the Cabinet process to deliver Stella Maris to the unions, just as she had originally planned in 2007. The commissioner finds that Delia Lawrie’s involvement was critical to closing down the recommended open expressions of interest process, saying:
- It is unlikely that the submission would have gone to that Cabinet meeting or that the letter of offer would have been made on 3 August 2012 without Minister Lawrie’s intervention.
In doing so the commissioner found that she had involved herself in a process that was not proper and was unfair to the public and other community groups. The then Lands and Planning minister, Gerry McCarthy, was also found to be complicit in the corruption and rorting concocted by the then Deputy Chief Minister, Delia Lawrie, to financially benefit her Union NT mates. The commissioner found Mr McCarthy’s role in the deal was not accountable, responsible or in the public interest.
Mr McCarthy’s decision to grant the lease was unreasonable because he did not have the necessary information to justify selectively choosing Unions NT over any other group. His own Cabinet submission argued strongly against granting the lease to Unions NT without an expression of interest process. Knowing precisely what the reaction to this decision would be, Mr McCarthy avoided scrutiny and controversy by implementing a public information blackout, with no announcement of the benefit the Labor government had just provided to its union mates.
The report also clearly exposes a direct link in this dirty rort between Delia Lawrie, Gerry McCarthy, former ministerial advisor Wolf Loenneker and Union NT boss Alan Paton in putting this underhanded deal together. It reveals how the former Labor government negotiated the deal with Unions NT bag man Alan Paton at the same time he was employed as a ministerial advisor. The code of conduct that applies to all members of the Legislative Assembly outlines how members must act honestly in all official dealings and must not mislead the public, that a member must act with integrity, honesty and seek to ensure their decisions are reasonable and a properly informed judgement about what will best advance the common good of the people of the Northern Territory.
Not worrying about the best interests of the community was clearly in the view of the Deputy Opposition Leader and the Opposition Leader, who were the key architects in stitching together the deal to broaden the income base of Unions NT which, in turn, financially backed the Territory Labor Party.
MOTION
Print Paper – Inquiry into Stella Maris Report
Print Paper – Inquiry into Stella Maris Report
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He has to seek leave, not move.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Chief Minister did seek leave to defer his comments to a later date.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It takes one dissenting voice on seeking leave, and we have dissented clearly.
Speaking on dissent and seeking leave, the government is attempting to gag the opposition from responding to an outrageous slander and slur that the Chief Minister has made against me, as the member for Karama, and my colleague the member for Barkly. At the very least, if they stand by what they say they will hear what we have to say.
Leave denied.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion, we have not yet received the report into the inquiry; it has been tabled and is about to be distributed. It is not passable, nor can it be reasonably expected that a detailed response be made to the report’s findings and recommendations in the course of debate today. I reserve the right to make some remarks today and elaborate on them in this Assembly in the future.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us deal with the first thing; the Chief Minister moved that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that I continue my remarks at a later time.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): I have no issue with the printing. I thought that was happening because it was being provided around the Chamber.
We have not been given an advance copy of the report and no notice of adverse findings has been provided to us, consistent with the principals of natural justice and an explicit undertaking made in writing by Commissioner Lawler.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find it curious that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to speak about a report she has not yet read. The reason the Chief Minister …
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, sit down, member for Port Darwin.
Ms LAWRIE: We have not been given an advance copy of the report and no notice of adverse findings has been provided to us consistent with the principals of natural justice and an explicit undertaking made in writing by Commissioner Lawler.
Procedural fairness was never on the Chief Minister’s agenda; what is the Chief Minister’s agenda? Why has he spent in the order of $500 000 …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is digressing from the debate. The debate is …
Madam SPEAKER: What is your standing order?
Mr ELFERINK: It is Standing Order 67, from memory: digression from subject. The debate is specific as to whether or not the Chief Minister continues his remarks at a later date.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, this goes to the fact that the Chief Minister is seeking to continue his remarks at a later date, and in doing so he is trying to gag the opposition and stop us talking about the very report he has tabled in parliament tonight.
That goes to the motion on whether or not he can continue his remarks at a later date, therefore effectively gagging the opposition. Why would he want to gag the opposition? Why would he want to spend $500 000 investigating a lease which does not exist?
The inquiry was always a politically motivated campaign to distract attention from a desperate Chief Minister …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is a specific motion and her comments are very general. I ask that it be ruled that she does not digress from debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there has been a fair amount of digression by everyone at many times during speeches and debate on this legislation. There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: In the run-up to the inquiry, the standing of the CLP government was in freefall, following the imposition of savage cost of living increases and constant infighting …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is ridiculous. I move that the motion be now put.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Ms Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Mr Vatskalis
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as to allow the opposition to debate, to a limited extent, the Stella Maris inquiry.
Madam SPEAKER: There is still a motion to be put before the House, and that is that the Chief Minister’s comments be referred to a later date.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister has taken a photo inside this Chamber on his camera. I ask that that be dealt with by you because it is in breach of standing orders and he should admit as to whether he took the photo. Members opposite saw the photo taken.
Now, will he deny taking a photo in the Chamber?
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, that is something I can take on board and I will discuss it with the Clerks, but I want to sort this motion out in regard to the Chief Minister’s comments being deferred to a later time.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports from Members for Fannie Bay, Wanguri and Nelson
Travel Reports from Members for Fannie Bay, Wanguri and Nelson
Madam SPEAKER: I table three travel reports from the members for Fannie Bay, Wanguri and Nelson, pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 17
Message No 17
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received message number 17 from Her Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed during the May sittings. The message is dated 5 June 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
It is with great sadness that I note the death of Peter Mahony. Peter was awarded the Chief Minister’s Medal for Volunteering Service at the NT Volunteer of the Year Awards at Parliament House only five or six weeks ago. Everyone involved with Peter’s journey, including those involved in his volunteer work, was impacted by his life. A quadriplegic since 1978, Peter worked tirelessly to support people with disabilities at a state, national and international level for 35 years. He volunteered countless hours, served on many committees and played a major role in advising service providers and governing bodies on the needs of people with disabilities.
Peter joined the City of Darwin’s Disability Advisory Committee as a volunteer committee member in July 1992, and he was still an active member of the committee until the time of his death. The City of Darwin’s Disability Advisory Committee informs and advises the council on its responsibilities to people with disabilities and the council’s provision of services and facilities.
The committee meets five times per annum, runs an annual community forum, a series of events for Disability Awareness Week and also holds an event each year for the International Day of People with Disability.
Peter volunteered his time to support all of these events and meetings, as well as assisting council officers to keep up to date with the latest disability policies, trends and issues. In 1996, Peter became the inaugural Chairperson of the City of Darwin’s Disability Advisory Committee and held the position for 13 years. An ardent advocate of access and equity issues, Peter’s leadership of the committee created a professional and progressive group with an excellent reputation both within council and the community. His willingness to share the access difficulties he experienced in his daily life, and his knowledge of building codes and standards, was of great benefit to the council.
Peter’s passionate and practical approach assisted the Disability Advisory Committee to achieve many things, including:
the development of the community access plan 2012-17
the installation of two liberty swings in regional playgrounds in Darwin
the installation of an aqua fit in each of the council’s three swimming pools
a pool sling hoist plus an adult change table and ceiling hoists installed in the accessible change room at Casuarina swimming pool
disability parking bays painted blue to increase their visibility and raise public awareness of their positioning and purpose
the ‘In the Blue’ television campaign to raise awareness of disability issues, particularly around parking and access
initiating public forums and inviting representatives from transport and other service industries to interact with the public about access requirements and needs
the positioning of disability car parking adjacent to Raintree Park, rather than less suitable locations previously preferred by the council
the purchase of a stage kit with an accessible ramp which is available free of charge for community groups to hire from the council
an increased time limit for parking in disabled parking bays
improved access at Parap shopping centre, and a ramp installed to the post office
improved access to the Nightcliff shopping centre and the removal of steps as a result of lobbying by DAC for some years
improved access and exit points on footpaths throughout the CBD
improved access to Casuarina Square shopping centre through lobbying centre management
working with the NT government to achieve inclusive access to Darwin buses and bus stops
improvement to the Rapid Creek foot bridge to provide inclusive access.
People of Darwin, and those with a disability, have benefited greatly from Peter’s work over many years. He was extremely passionate about raising awareness of the needs of people with a disability and improving access throughout the community. A committed volunteer, Peter displayed intelligence, sincerity and courage in advocating for the rights of people with a disability and was a deserving winner of the Chief Minister’s Medal for Volunteering Service.
Peter was a man of great courage and persistence. He continued to serve the community, even when he suffered setbacks such as ill health. He confronted obstacles such as negative attitudes or apathy towards the disabled and concentrated on the task at hand, never losing sight of the overall goal. His death will be a blow to all who have come to rely on his guidance and counsel, and the world is a lesser place for the loss of such a great human. Peter leaves behind his son David. He will be remembered.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, given the government has today, yet again, used its gag powers to prevent the opposition from talking to the tabling of the Stella Maris inquiry report, I will commence again in adjournment debate.
We have only just received the report into the inquiry on the Stella Maris site. It is not possible, nor can it be reasonably expected, that a detailed response be made to the report’s findings and recommendations in the course of debate today. However, I reserve the right to make some remarks and elaborate on them in this Assembly in the future. We have not been given an advance copy of the report and no notice of adverse findings has been provided to us consistent with the principles of natural justice and an explicit undertaking made in writing by Commissioner Lawler, but procedural fairness has never been on the Chief Minister’s agenda. What is the Chief Minister’s agenda? Why has he expended in the order of $500 000 investigating a lease which does not exist? This inquiry was always politically motivated, campaigned to distract attention from a desperate Chief Minister leading an incompetent and uncaring government.
In the run-up to inquiry, the standing of the CLP government was in freefall following the imposition of savage cost-of-living increases and constant infighting. The Chief Minister’s leadership failings and the government’s lack of direction were apparent to all Territorians in the home, the workplace, the public sector and the private sector. Longstanding CLP supporters had disowned the Giles government; many will not vote for the CLP again.
The government was also under pressure on matters of probity. The Chief Minister refused to explain why matters exposed on the Four Corners program about the Jawoyn Association were never properly investigated. Serious questions were being raised about the approval of a huge water licence for former CLP candidate Tina MacFarlane. In recent times, other serious issues about probity have arisen concerning the CLP slush fund Foundation 51.
Conflicts of interest inherent in the appointments of Graeme Lewis as Chair of the Land Development Corporation, and Peter Maley to the office of the magistrate, have been exposed. But the Chief Minister refuses to provide an honest and full account of these appointments; what is he hiding?
His appalling performance during estimates hearings when questioned about these contentious appointments speaks for itself. This is not a government that can hold its head high on matters of integrity, accountability and probity. Among many examples are recent admissions by the Minister for Land Resource Management that he had met, in secret, with former CLP candidate Tina MacFarlane before she was awarded a lucrative water extraction licence for her property.
In a further moment of rare frankness, the minister also admitted, under questioning, that he had spoken behind closed doors with Peter Maley about a water licence subsequently granted for Blackbull Station, a property in which Mr Maley has a direct interest. This was after denying, in written answers to estimates questions, that he had even spoken to Tina MacFarlane or Peter Maley about water licences. It is little wonder that the government has resisted opposition demands that it hold an independent inquiry into all water licences granted by the CLP since it came to office. The double standards are very clear.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, this week I am pleased to have in my electorate office Jack Lake, a work experience student. I have not had a work experience student before, but I remember those days in Year 10 very fondly. I did my Year 10 work experience at Clayton Utz when it was on Smith Street. When I graduated in law from university, Clayton Utz was the first law firm I worked at. Jack, there might be bright things in store for you in the future.
Jack is 15 years old, he is in Year 10 at Palmerston Senior College, and it was fantastic that he approached me about doing work experience. Unfortunately for me, and probably for Jack, I have not been around much this week due to estimates hearings. I am pleased Jack was able to pop into Parliament House, witness some of the hearings and be taken on a tour of the fifth floor. Jack has helped a lot in our office this week. Angie, my electorate officer, has been looking after him and trying to provide stimulating tasks for him.
There are limitations to what someone on work experience can do, but Jack has, by all accounts, put his hand up for, and approached, everything enthusiastically. He has been reviewing newspapers for me, something that I class as a very important job. I need to know if there is anything happening in my electorate. He has been sending mail-outs to my constituents and working on my Territory Day barbecue. He has been undertaking mail-related activities, answering the phones, liaising with constituents – which is fantastic – and no doubt he has taken away some valuable experiences from that.
He has been undertaking deliveries and various other activities, which may sound like menial administrative tasks, but they are tasks Angie and I do every day of the week. Some people think this is a glamorous job, but I can assure everybody that the glamorous component is about 0.001%. The rest of it is creating and putting up posters and newsletters around the electorate. He has also been doing some filing and stocktaking, again, learning some valuable skills going into the future. Thank you, Jack, I hope to see you tomorrow; I have a busy day, but we will catch up for coffee. I would love to hear what you think about what a local member does.
On 30 May, it was my pleasure to take Angie, my electorate officer, and Justin, my Whip advisor, to the Australian Institute of Office Professionals National Office Professional Day breakfast. I try to attend every year, as it is a wonderful event. It used to be called National Secretaries Day, but we have moved on and the Australian Institute of Office Professionals has a membership base far broader than the specific role of secretaries and PAs it once had.
We were entertained by guest speaker, Mark Bunn, who is a former AFL player. I thank Kathryn Ward, the president of AIOP, who is a friend of mine. She is a treasure and is doing wonderful things with the institute. I thank Christine Heness, administration officer and committee member of AIOP. She approaches everything with a smile, so it is always a pleasure to bump into her. There is finance officer, Jenny Washington, who is also finance officer at Gray Primary School, so I spend a lot of time with her, and membership officer, Linda Heidstra, who is the personal assistant to my colleague, John Elferink, and she does a wonderful job. She is extremely passionate about AIOP. If you are thinking about joining or signing up your staff to it, send them to Linda and she will have them signed up in two minutes flat.
I also thank the general committee members of AIOP, Mary Fleming, Kerry Heness – who most people would know is the personal assistant to minister Chandler – Christine McLeod-Curran and Kim Morrissey for their contributions to AIOP. It was a great breakfast with a great turnout and I look forward to next year.
The Palmerston Football Club held its annual general meeting on Wednesday 28 May. You might have seen the front page of the Palmerston Sun, which had a photo of a very sad looking girl hugging a soccer ball on the Gray field, because it looked like we would not have enough volunteers to fill the committee. Thankfully at the AGM, which it was my pleasure to facilitate, there was a wave of support from parents and helpers. It was a very interesting transition for the club. Most of the people on the committee and most of those who give all of their weekends and week nights to support our wonderful club do not have children who play for the club. We have now seen a wave of mums and dads come forward, which is brilliant. I welcome and thank new president, Erynn Hughes; vice president, Frank Van Rensburg; and secretary, Melissa Stokes. I have to thank Melissa, as she has already taken such a load off. She is in the canteen non-stop with her beautiful daughter helping out, and her presence in the club and support of the canteen has been a breath of fresh air and a sigh of relief. Thank you very much, Mel, you are a champion.
There is also Katy Chin, our treasurer, who we love. She does an outstanding job, and now that Melissa has stepped into the role of helping out with the canteen it has freed Katy up to focus on her real job as our treasurer. We have a new registrar, Lilisa Baptista, and public officer, Bill Miller. He is a veteran of our club who will never go away – he cannot go away because he lives on-site, so it is a bit of a catch there for old Bill.
We have committee member, Scott Fulmore, who has decided he will focus on fundraising, which is fantastic, especially as we have just received an $11 000 sewerage bill from Power and Water. The committee member looking after sponsorship coordination is Jim Keogh, which is, again, something we need close focus on. Other committee members are Dee Keogh, Rachael McKay, Chris O’Neill, Rod Reid, Catherine Main, Alfredo Cardellini, Josh Solomon, Natasha Jenkins, Kerry Heness and Sebastian Baust.
As you can see, we have a full committee, and I look forward to working with you all over the next 12 months; I hope your enthusiasm remains high, as we need you. We need new people, fresh blood and younger parents coming through to support our great club, and like I said at the AGM, if you guys are not there helping, the club does not exist and you will have to stop bringing your children to play on a Sunday because it cannot run without volunteers. Thank you so much, it is marvellous and I am so happy the result was good.
Palmerston was treated to a wonderful visit from Costa Georgiadis from the gardening show. It is not a secret that I love gardening, so I was very excited to meet Costa. Driver Primary School in my electorate has a Stephanie Alexander farm, which Costa has visited. I did not have a chance to meet him then, so this time I spent quite a bit of time with Costa. We had the Tropical Garden Spectacular, in which the member for Nelson whooped everyone’s bottoms in the gardening olympics; if you put a few chickens around, gardening experts go weak at the knees, so he has that all figured out. I will be remembering that for next year.
I also spent time with Costa at Palmerston Christian School, and I thank principal Ken McAllister for hosting the morning. I had not been to Palmerston Christian School before, and it was beautiful. The kids seemed to embrace the message, and Costa said it was lovely to be part of the lemonade tree planting. Hopefully I will be invited back in a few years’ time to taste the wonderful produce.
We followed that with herb spiral planting at Gray garden. I thank Dan from Aweganics, who helped us build the herb spiral a couple of weekends before, and then we finally planted it, which was awesome.
I also thank Ana Abbott, who has a vision for a garden at Palmerston Christian School, which she has started. She has a dream, and Costa was 100% on board with it so hopefully, Ana, you have been inspired to continue on with that dream. I am sure kids at the school will benefit from the fruits of your labour for many years to come.
I would finally like to give a shout out about the formation of the Palmerston Lions, which is happening again in Palmerston. It is on 28 June 2014 at 7 pm. You can come to The Hub and it will be the Palmerston Lions’ charter night. I am very excited about that. I have been tasked with being the games master for the evening, as well as being responsible for the issuing of fines. I need a bit of upskilling in that department, and Connell Brannelly, who is leading the charge for Palmerston, is doing a brilliant job. I am so pleased that he has such faith in our area. As we all know, Lions do great things, and they have some plans under their belt already. I am not at liberty to announce them, but make no mistake, as these things transpire, I will be informing parliament and Territorians of the great work the Lions Club is doing in Palmerston for our community.
We have also had eight weeks of Activate in Palmerston, which was fantastic. Thank you to the 17 people plus Kayla, who attended my Follow the Leader walk, and thank you to the 43 attendees of my Hobart Park walk at 6 am every Thursday morning. It was a tough eight weeks, but we did it. I trust you all enjoyed it and I look forward to working with Palmerston council next year on that fantastic healthy lifestyle program.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is probably appropriate tonight, after the tabling of the Stella Maris document, that I talk about planning.
I think it was late last year when there was an application to subdivide a block of land on Stow Road. It was rejected by the independent Development Consent Authority on the basis the subdivision was inconsistent with the intrinsic element of the primary purpose of the rural living zone – RL – and it did not comply with clause 11.11 in relation to minimum lot sizes and clause 11.4.3, lot size and configuration in the subdivision of rural and unzoned land. The DCA was not satisfied that there were any special circumstances in relation to that matter. It also believed that if this subdivision was approved there was the potential for more small lots in the area, and that had the potential to increase rural living density with no assessment having been made as to the ability of service infrastructure to accommodate such an increase.
It also said no special circumstances were demonstrated to support the application. Community expectations are that lots in zone RL will have a minimum area of 2 ha. Another meeting was held last Friday which was, surprisingly, not advertised in that sense. It was advertised that there was another application to subdivide that block of land, but it was not advertised that it was on behalf of the minister. I intended to go to the meeting – I put in a submission – but I had just been to a funeral and did not feel like attending that meeting. I thought I had already stated my arguments previously and would repeat them. However, lo and behold I found out the agenda had marked on it, ‘on behalf of the minister’.
What I thought was a normal Development Consent Authority meeting had been ordered by the minister. What is peculiar about that is the minister has used a clause that is rarely used, section 85(3) of the Planning Act, which allows the minister to take over the role of the independent DCA himself, and that is what appears to have happened.
My understanding is that, once again, the DCA rejected it. I cannot say that for sure, but my impression is the DCA was not happy with this application because it was a repeat of the previous one. This application had already been rejected twice by the Development Consent Authority.
I was upset that a minister should look at interfering with the independent Development Consent Authority’s role. What concerned me was that this block of land is owned by a member of the Palmerston branch of the CLP. I should make it clear that I do not have a problem with the person who owns the land. That person has every right to apply to subdivide their land, and that is not the argument here. The argument is about how that application is dealt with. Normally it is dealt with through the independent Development Consent Authority. The minister decided to take over the role of the DCA and make a decision. I see a clear conflict of interest. It is interesting to look through some of the recommendations in the Stella Maris report. In relation to recommendations 18 and 19 it says:
- Ministers, members of the Legislative Assembly and senior executives of the Northern Territory Public Sector often face challenges in understanding and contextualising integrity in decision-making and in managing conflicts of interest, both real and perceived. Further enhancing the Ministerial Code of Conduct will help in this understanding.
New ministers who may not have been exposed to these challenges before entering the Legislative Assembly, are vulnerable. Ensuring an experienced person is available to provide advice in dealing with these issues is an important preventative strategy in ensuring good governance and accountability.
- I recommend the Northern Territory Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures, with additional support, be appointed the Northern Territory Integrity Commissioner to provide advice to ministers, the Legislative Assembly and Northern Territory Public Sector similar to the role of the Integrity Commissioners in other jurisdictions.
Recommendation 19 says:
- I recommend the Integrity Commissioner (appointed as per Recommendation 18) provide advice to government on any further legislative or other changes that would strengthen the Northern Territory Integrity frameworks.
For a long time I have said to people who have come to me about cutting up their blocks, ‘Look, you cannot subdivide your block because the minimum lot size is 2 ha. If you want to cut it in half the minister is not going to do that, because if the minister just picked out one block, he would be seen as having favourites.’ What the minister should do, if enough people agree, is look at rezoning a section of land which includes a number of those blocks. That should only be done after consultation with the community to see what the practical outcomes are in relation to infrastructure that might be required for an increased number of houses on that area, and to find out what people feel about blocks of land being cut in half.
Those are the things I would expect to be a fair way of looking at whether we break up blocks of land. Instead, even though I have been saying to the minister that surely we will not pick one block of land and give permission for it to be subdivided, lo and behold, he does exactly that. Does he wonder why I think there has been favouritism? That is why he has a clear conflict of interest.
What also concerns me is that the DCA has to produce a report to go to the minister. The DCA heard the matter on Friday. I was interviewed by the NT News on Monday night, and it sent me a copy of some questions it had sent to the minister’s office. I will read from some of it:
- Hey, mate.
This is to the journalist, David Wood.
- Answers below are under your questions. All seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup to me. Gerry is on a mission.
A question goes on to say – this is to the minister’s office:
- Why is the minister using that section of the act? Has it been used before for a subdivision?
The response was:
Section 85(3) of the Planning Act was used because I believe the reasons stated for refusing the application were wrong.
One can only presume that meeting on the Friday was a waste of time, because the minister had already made his decision and the Development Consent Authority had not given him its decision from the meeting. That is bewildering. I would be asking the minister who contacted him about this subdivision? If you are open and transparent, who alerted you to issues related to this block of land?
Someone contacted my office and said this will go through, and I did not believe them; I thought it would go to appeal. There are many issues that need to be addressed here. It might be a small block of land, it has nothing, from my point of view, to do with a person applying for a subdivision. It is the way in which the minister has handled this situation.
If the government can say, ‘Labor Party, look at the problems here, we have a Stella Maris report which says that you did favours for mates’, then I am saying, ‘Government, if you want to do the same thing and think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, how about you inquire into what is going on with this subdivision?’
I think it is worthy of inquiry, because my mission is to make sure things are done properly, in an open and transparent manner.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of things within my electorate of Johnston.
It was great to hear the announcement by the Minister for Disability Services and the Minister for Education about funding of $118 000 for Down Syndrome NT and Project 21, which is in my electorate, in the hallway of Rapid Creek shops in Millner.
The member for Karama and I have spoken many times about the need to continue funding this excellent program which caters for clients with Down Syndrome leaving school and trying to find meaningful work and training. I take the opportunity to thank the minister for Disabilities, minister Lambley, as well as minister Chandler for the joint funding for that project, which means so much.
In the scheme of things, $118 000 might not seem much when you are talking about a $6bn budget, but for the people involved in that program it means a lot. The member for Karama, the Leader of the Opposition, is heavily involved with Project 21. For Rachel, Fiona and Sandy and everybody else who works there and volunteers their time, that announcement was very well received.
Project 21 is a fantastic program which includes many things. It involves, first and foremost, a lot a passion and commitment from volunteers and the people who work there, dealing with the issues of having children and supporting people with Down’s syndrome. Project 21 contains many different areas. I take the time to go there and speak to people. Many of the clients pop in to see me every day and have a chat when I am in my office at Rapid Creek, and I enjoy those conversations. I always rock up at the shop to say g’day and grab a coffee. They have moved into a retail side of things and are now training clients in Project 21 to be baristas.
They also have the Walking in my Shoes – WIMS – shop, which I am glad to say is where I buy my shoes from. I am wearing them tonight and am very proud of that, because it is a small part of supporting that project and it is very important we give everybody an opportunity to live a normal life, and encourage that. I thank the ministers and the government again for doing it.
I have a quick update from my electorate about doorknocking and community barbecues. I held a pizza evening at Litchfield Court and Progress Drive, which was very well received; I enjoy getting out and doing what I was elected to do: listening to people. Residents and others had the opportunity to talk to me about their issues and concerns. Some have very good ideas. We need to listen to, as well as learn from, many different people around the Territory. It was a great opportunity to chat to many residents about some of their matters, particularly about housing, which I will be writing to the Minister for Housing about, to do with repairs and maintenance, general behaviour in that area of public housing in Litchfield Court, what that entails and how I can assist them in any way I can.
It reminded me of how we had a week of estimates last week – my pizza night was on a Friday, which we set up for, and talking to the many children and parents who came out for a feed on pizza and a drink of water touched my heart and reinforced that we can make a small difference in people’s lives.
A teenager there pulled me aside – he was running amok and I was keeping an eye on him – when his mates left and said, ‘I really appreciate this because I probably would not have eaten tonight’. That is what I said; we can make a small difference. There is a lot of argy-bargy in here, many arguments and discussions, and that is what we are supposed to do in our jobs. It is unfortunate sometimes. Some of us do not like each other and some do, but when a teenager comes to you and says, ‘Thanks very much, I would not have had dinner tonight if you had not come here’, that is how we can make a difference.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, if I appear angry in this debate it is because I am. I have just witnessed the member for Nelson crucify me and put my name up against the Stella Maris inquiry, when he has no idea what the process is. There is one thing I pride myself on, and that is playing with a straight bat. He has accused me of making dodgy deals when he cannot, and will not, say it outside. The process has not yet been completed.
The DCA meeting, in regard to a subdivision application in Howard Springs, was on Friday. I am yet to receive the report and I have not made a decision in regard to it. The questions asked by Mr Wood from the NT News were in regard to how we came to be using this process, and that is calling in and having the DCA act on my behalf. I am angry because I have used the legislation; there is nothing untoward in this and I have used the most public method I have, which is the legislation, and it is accountable.
Using the DCA in this manner is in the legislation; it is not wrong. It may be outside of what the member for Nelson wants or wishes for the rural area when it comes to development, but nothing has been done in this regard that is wrong, and if he does not apologise I will take this further, because the member for Nelson has erred. He has made accusations in this Chamber tonight which are wrong. Decisions in regard to the development in Howard Springs have not been decided yet.
The DCA sat on Friday, on my behalf, taking evidence and using the legislation, as I have a right to do as the minister, but a final decision has not yet been made, and for the member for Nelson to suggest it has is wrong. The legislation allows me, as the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, to question or call in information the DCA or other departments have provided. In this case, there have been some errors of judgement over the years, and seeing some of that information called me to make the decision to have the DCA act on my behalf, in accordance with the legislation – hold a hearing – but it just happens to be outside of what the member for Nelson wants for his rural area.
I will tell you some of the reasons, member for Nelson, why I called this in. One reason provided by the DCA was that it was out of character for the area. We are talking about a 2 ha block which already has two houses on it on a corner road with two driveways, that just happens to sit across the road from six other single-dwelling houses. How that can be called out of character for the area is beyond me. There will be no changes to that block if I decide to approve it. To have the member for Nelson suggest the deal is done is wrong. The DCA sat on Friday and I am yet to read its report. I do not even know what information is in it. Once I do that I will make a decision, and if the member for Nelson is man enough to apologise I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016