2009-06-10
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of staff from the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, Department of Local Government and Housing. Some of these interpreters will be involved with our Statehood Steering Committee workshops later in the year.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from the member for Arafura indicating that she has resigned from the Public Accounts Committee.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Johnston, Dr Burns, be appointed to the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we now find ourselves in a remarkable situation where a minister of the Crown is required by this government of the Northern Territory, to participate in the Public Accounts Committee.
The purpose of the Public Accounts Committee …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is the member speaking to this motion or just making a public statement?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, and I hope to go there quickly. I was under the impression what people say in this House is a public statement. See? This is a microphone. They listen to it upstairs and type all day and produce a thing called Hansard, which the public can read. Are you so worried about what happens that you even deign to think that what is said in this place is a public statement that you have to try to lock that aspect of it down? Goodness gracious me.
Madam Speaker, we now have a committee with the sole function of looking at how the public account is spent by the government. It is the role of that committee to look at how the money this House passes laws for, is spent by this government.
We find ourselves in a situation where a minister of the Crown, a person with her Majesty’s permission, no less than the Leader of Government Business, will be sitting in that committee, if this motion is passed …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … policing, if you like, exactly what happens in that committee.
It will be interesting for the people who are listening to this debate and the people in the galleries, and even members of this House, to know that there are no shortages of committees in other parliaments where the government actually has the minority in the committee process.
This is an interesting situation. Because of its desperation to control this House, the government realises that it has a minority on the floor of the Chamber so, rather than reflect that in the committee process, it is going to come into this place and to try to jam majorities on all the committees. That is not reflective of the brave new world in which we reside.
The Public Accounts Committee, under the Labor Party, has done almost everything but look at the expenditure of the public account. Recently in the Public Accounts Committee, I had a surprising experience where we came to a general agreement on a particular thing and, then, the next time the Public Accounts Committee met it turned out that the Labor Caucus members had a little chat on the side and decided not to do that anymore. They walked into the Public Accounts Committee and announced that we were not doing that anymore, despite the fact that there was general agreement …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I remind the member for Port Darwin about the issue of privilege and that, potentially, what he is doing here is breaching privilege …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and I believe he should be warned in that regard.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin has not broken any privilege. He did not actually discuss anything that happened.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We had the Labor Caucus, meeting outside of the Public Accounts Committee, having …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is true. It is true, because they admitted it. Were you in the Public Accounts Committee when that admission was made? No ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I remind the member for Port Darwin …
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, I cannot hear.
Ms LAWRIE: There is a privilege around discussions within the committees of parliament. Surely the member for Port Darwin is breaching that at the moment by trying to quote from discussions that may or may not have been held within the committee.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Privilege relating to a committee is a very serious matter. However, it is my opinion that the member for Port Darwin is being very general in this matter and has not discussed anything in particular which happened in any committee. I allow his continued remarks, bearing that in mind, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If it gives comfort to the members opposite, I would not in any way breach any privileged information from that committee. Any detailed information we may have about the movement of particular finances, commercial contracts, and those sorts of things would not pass from my lips in relation to that committee.
I am talking about how the committee is administered. It is administered with the dead and arrogant hand of this government. Is it going to be the case now that we have backbenchers in that committee looking after the public account? No. A minister of the Crown will be sitting in that committee …
Mr Mills: The Leader of Government Business.
Mr ELFERINK: The Leader of Government Business, no less, will be sitting in that committee. What we will get out of that is the dead hand of this executive and arrogant government desperately trying to control people who want to look at what it is doing. That is what this comes down to. That is what this is about: a genuine committee of this parliament, with its terms of reference being to look at the public accounts - the Public Accounts Committee - is now going to have a Cabinet minister sitting in there policing it, trying to direct the Labor Caucus members as to the decisions they should make and what they should and should not look at.
Anyone with even the most minor understanding of how this place works, and the relationship between the parliament and the government, can know the absurdity of the Public Accounts Committee having a Cabinet minister sitting in it. It would have been the equivalent of the Pentagon getting someone from the Kremlin to sit in on meetings in the late 1980s. It really would have. I will tell you that my answer to that is most definitely nyet - nyet, nyet, nyet.
We cannot support this motion. If this government is not capable of producing the numbers it is required to produce, from its own backbench, because it sits in minority government, then it should sit in minority in the committee system as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, responding to the offering by the member for Port Darwin, leaving the Kremlin aside, it is obvious to everyone - and he said it at the end of his speech - that this is a situation where the government is a minority government. The Public Accounts Committee standing orders dictate that there are three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent on the committee. Obviously, if he can count, it is necessary for a minister to go on to the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee.
When I started in this parliament in 2001, I was very proud to be the Chair of the Estimates Committee. I will be proud to serve the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. I believe I bring much experience to that Estimates Committee, as a foundation member of that committee ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, not one of the members opposite has been a minister, so I will bring some interesting perspectives about the government, the functioning of the government, and the type of questions. I am a believer in the important and prime role of the PAC to investigate the public account, and I have always felt that. It is a very important committee.
However, I also assure this House that I will not be letting any conflict of interest stand in my way. If there is a matter that involves anything to do with any of the departments that I am in charge of, as a minister, I will be exercising a judgment in any potential conflict of interest ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: That further underlines why it is important. I will not preempt debate, but there is a motion coming on later about alternate members of committees, not only on the Estimates Committee, but also on the PAC.
When I was on the Public Accounts Committee, and its Chair, we were faced with a dilemma about a conflict of interest that arose with the former minister Dunham, who was the subject of a PAC inquiry into the way they fiddled the budget forward estimates to make it look as though they were spending more on police, education, and health in an election year …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: He was a bloke who would not stand aside. He was a witness before the Public Accounts Committee, he sat in deliberative sessions of the Public Accounts Committee, weighing his evidence, and the evidence of those who had spoken against him and put him in the slot, and it was completely inappropriate. I will not be revisiting that ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am wondering whether the minister is making a public statement, or addressing the issue.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, regarding the ridiculous issue that the member for Port Darwin has raised about members outside the committee discussing the issues in front of the committee, I would be very surprised if the opposition members do not do that, regarding the agenda items and the positions that they may adopt. If they did not, that shows a complete lack of communication in its ranks. I believe it is taking the rules of the committee to ridiculous extremes - unbelievable extremes - on the part of the government.
In summary, I am very proud to be nominated by my colleagues to sit on the PAC. I believe I bring much experience to the PAC, and I am very keen to work with all members of the PAC for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to move that, minister, because you have already finished speaking.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 221 petitioners relating to the proposed installation of overhead power lines infrastructure in the Marlow Lagoon suburb. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
re-assessment of the current proposal to include consultation with landowners and Palmerston City Council,
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is home to a vibrant and diverse multicultural community. Successive generations of migrants and their children and grandchildren have made an enormous contribution to the social, economic, and cultural development of the Territory. Our lives have been enriched by traditions of culture, music, art, dance, cuisine, religion, costume, and language. The commitment of multicultural communities to family and their capacity for hard work are well known and respected.
Last weekend, overlooking our beautiful harbour, the Territory’s magnificent Greek heritage was on display at the 21st annual Glenti on the Esplanade. Glenti has grown to be the premier cultural event on Darwin’s festive calendar. Conservative estimates indicate that this year more than 40 000 people attended the Glenti festival. The aroma of fine Greek food drew crowds to grilled octopus, calamari, souvlaki, yiros and honey puffs. I am told that more than three tonnes of octopus and one tonne of lamb were consumed.
The splendid colour and design of traditional costumes were on display, and traditional dance music and song expressed the Greek community’s love of life and celebration; plates were smashed, and an olive spitting competition was held. In excess of $40 000 was raised for the Starlight Children’s Foundation Australia, testimony to the Greek spirit of generosity.
Outstanding events like the Glenti do not just happen; it depends on hard-working organising committees, generous volunteers, sponsors, and the support of the community. I am sure the Australian Greek community in the Territory, and the wider community, will join me in congratulating all those who contributed to the success of this year’s Glenti.
Congratulations to the organising committee: Lilliane Gomatos, coordinator and founder, who has led the committee since the first festival in 1988; John Nicolakis, President of the Greek Orthodox Community of North Australia; Nick Poniris, Treasurer; Peter Karpathakis, John Halikos, Poppy Petrakis, and Nomiki Skoufellis from the Kalymnian Brotherhood; Steve and Angelica Poulos from the Hellenic Macedonian Association NT; Peter Dellis and Stavros Mostris from the Greek School; Evan Fitirikos and Helen Gordon from the Cypriot Community of the NT; Nick Halkitis and Nick Mavros from the Olympic Football Club; Michael Mellas and Con Boubaris from the Hellenic Football Club, Lianne Georges, CDU Hellenes Group; and Tony Miaoudis the Sister City Liaison.
Comperes and raconteurs, Jim Hatzivalsamis, Evan Papandonakis, and George Koulakis kept the show rolling with a combination of good humour, laughter, and exquisite timing. Talented local groups and performers from Sydney, Adelaide, and Greece entertained the crowds at Glenti 2009; music and dance are in the souls of the Greeks. I am sure all honourable members will join me in congratulating the Mediterranean Dance Group; the Greek band, Meraki; OPA School of Hellenic Dance; Cypriot Dance Group; Sizmos Dance Group; Kalymnian Dance Group; and the Ellas Dance Group. The enchanting and captivating voice of Keti Koullia thrilled and seduced the Greek Glenti patrons.
Glenti is evolving as a tourist attraction for the Territory; more and more interstate and overseas visitors are coming to Darwin to experience our marvellous celebration of Greek culture. This year, the Kalymnian Brotherhood sponsored eight delegates from the Kalymnos City Council and several veteran soccer players, over 35s, to visit Darwin. The Kalymnian players will challenge a team of local veterans in matches - the first match is tonight. It was my great honour to host a welcoming reception for the Kalymnian delegation at Parliament House last Thursday, and I particularly acknowledge Mr Phillipos Christodoulou, the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos; Mr Dimitrios Nomikari, the President of the Veteran Football Association, and Sakilarios Zervos, President of the Governing Council in Kalymnos. Mr Christodoulou was kind enough to extend an invitation to me, from the Mayor of Kalymnos, Mr George Roussos, to visit Kalymnos with a delegation from Darwin.
Another essential ingredient for a large-scale community event is resources. This government has provided financial assistance to every Greek Glenti since we came to office in 2001, and it contributed again this year. There are many other sponsors who deserve recognition for their support of Glenti.
I ask all honourable members to join me in congratulating the Australian Greek community in Darwin on a fantastic Glenti 2009. It was an absolutely fantastic weekend, and I know many members spent time there, including my colleague and friend, the member for Casuarina. It really is an event on the social calendar of Darwin. You could not begin to think of the Dry Season in Darwin now without the Glenti. I met many people who came from Melbourne for the event. It is a fantastic event; may there be many more to come.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for his comments in relation to the multicultural makeup of Darwin, especially some of the events he has just discussed. I had the honour, as I have since 2001, of being a volunteer at the Glenti and working in the bars, assisting some of those Greek volunteers to service the nearly 35 000 people who are believed to have attended the Glenti. It is a fantastic event.
There were also other events I attended: the reception for the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos and on Monday night and another huge Greek function at the Kalymnian Club where he was the guest of honour. It is fabulous to see the rich culture that still exists in Darwin and contributes to the nature of our makeup and our Dry Season events.
There was also another fantastic event which occurred in my multicultural portfolio on the weekend. The 111th celebration of the independence of the Philippines by the Filipino Association, along with its supporters: expatriate Filipino people who have moved to and contribute to the makeup of Darwin. There were also many other cultures participating in a fantastic event, where we witnessed cultural dances, cultural songs, and general costumes etcetera, which made it a great night. I was really pleased that I and some of my colleagues were there to enjoy that culture that exists in Darwin, and gives us that rich fabric which not only makes our lives worth much more, but also brings so many tourists to Darwin.
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Policy): Madam Speaker, today I report on the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the protection of sacred sites across the Territory under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. I acknowledge the members of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority who are present in the gallery.
This year marks 30 years of sacred site protection in the Northern Territory. It was in May 1979 that the first sacred sites act was passed by this Assembly. In the Northern Territory, we are privileged to be living in a community where the spiritual and cultural values of the Indigenous people of this land are still clearly evident, and where traditional ceremony and law is still practiced.
What is remarkable is that, through the sacred sites act and the independent and arms-length body that it established, we are able to reach a practical balance between Aboriginal cultural tradition and development. This is no accident. There is something very special about the authority and the work that it must do with a clear focus on the protection of sacred sites.
It must consult with custodians, respond to the applications of developers, be transparent and accountable to both Aboriginal custodians, developers, and users of land for its decisions. It must also be independent of other decisions regarding land use, and its decisions regarding sacred sites are independent of the government of the day.
Aboriginal members of the authority are all respected Aboriginal custodians. These people make up a significant representative group of traditional Aboriginal people who have knowledge and understanding of traditional and ceremonial practices across the Territory. I pay tribute to the current and former members of the authority who have shown true leadership in bringing together people and balancing culture with development. That is very important for non-Indigenous people and the multicultural society in which we now live in the Northern Territory. Some of those long-serving leaders have included the late Mr Rabuntja, who served on the first authority in 1979, Mr Harvey, Mr Hammer, Mrs Nellie Camfoo, Mr Bernard Abbott, Mr Pepi Simpson, Ms Clementine Puruntatemeri, and Ms Lena Pula have all served for extended periods of time. Mr Creed Lovegrove, Mr John Piening, and Mr Dick Kimber have also served long periods as non-Aboriginal members of the authority.
Madam Speaker, I ask all members of the Assembly to join in acknowledging the important work that the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority plays in supporting Aboriginal culture in the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report and I hope her throat gets better so she is feeling better. I acknowledge the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the role that the CLP played in setting it up. I believe that sacred sites have a very important place in the Northern Territory, and we really need to get to a position where all sacred sites are identified, preserved, supported, and promoted, both for the benefits of cultural understanding and enrichment, and historical basis but, also, to support further growth in the tourism industry and the promotion of the Northern Territory as a truly cultural jurisdiction in Australia.
There is a long way we need to go with the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, but there is great potential. It is a real opportunity to recognise the Aboriginal people as the original custodians of the Northern Territory.
I also believe that if we could identify all the sacred sites in the Northern Territory it would provide certainty for business and economic development as we move to future developments in the Northern Territory. By acknowledging where those sacred sites are, businesses can stay away from them and look at other areas in the Northern Territory. That is something that we should incorporate, as a parliament.
I also recognise that, in preserving sacred sites, we need to provide the security on some of those sacred sites. One example is Billygoat Hill in Alice Springs; a sacred site widely recognised. Something that we are seeing is increasing and continued levels of antisocial behaviour there, desecration of the sacred site. It is not what the traditional owners of that area, the native titleholders, want to see on that sacred site.
Dealing with the government, in trying to get protection over that area, to preserve that area, is impossible. My dealings with the previous minister, who was responsible for this area has not been fully forthcoming. The idea of removing people for fornicating, defecating, drinking, fighting, and having social unrest on that sacred site would be something that all Alice Springs residents would appreciate. I encourage the government to act on it ...
Madam SPEAKER: Madam for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge both members and also the staff from the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority, and the importance of the work that the staff do, along with the board members who take their role very seriously in the protection of sites that are so important to custodians. I join with the minister to acknowledge the important work of the sacred sites authority. I acknowledge the professionalism, capacity, and expertise that we have in the Northern Territory, with staff who work tirelessly to ensure that the information for those sites is collated so that the government and those sites are protected.
Minister, I agree with you; I believe the work of the sacred sites authority and the role of those board members is important.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite. I reiterate this authority is an example of Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people sitting together in authority, looking at development and at how they can preserve and protect sacred sites on behalf of Indigenous people. It is about maintaining our law and culture, our identity, and how we move forward, as Territorians, to give Territorians the growth that we all deserve while, at the same time, protecting sacred sites because it is a very important part of Indigenous culture. That is what we sell in tourism; that is what we sell as the Territory to some places outside of the Northern Territory, and it is very important. I am so happy to see the authority, both non-Indigenous and Indigenous people, sitting in the gallery today. I take the last seconds to say, welcome to Mike Gillam.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the exciting milestones reached in the landmark Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, the five-year, $672m project, which is a joint initiative by the Australian and Northern Territory governments, was signed less than 14 months ago. We are committed to improving the standard of housing and infrastructure in Indigenous communities. With SIHIP, both governments are determined to change the way housing is delivered in remote communities. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past, with insufficient funds and fly-in/fly-out work crews, building houses that do not meet the community’s needs, with no job or training opportunities for local Indigenous people, and no assessment of real value for money from the construction program. Our new approach is consultative; working with the community to deliver much-needed infrastructure.
Eight months ago, the Alliance contractors that will deliver the works packages on the ground were appointed. Earth Connect, New Future Alliance and Territory Alliance are required to be on the ground talking to the community about their housing needs; to design, build, and upgrade homes to meet those needs, and to ensure that there are real jobs and training opportunities on the ground for local community people.
It is a mammoth task which includes securing tenure to the land and delivering works packages with communities. Within the last six months, crews are already hard at work in the first regions which will benefit from SIHIP. This year, we will deliver around 100 new houses and refurbish more than 700 existing homes. As members will be aware, early works have been under way in the Tiwi Islands, Groote Eylandt, and in Tennant Creek, since April this year.
Territory Alliance will deliver $58m in works to the Tiwi Islands communities of Nguiu, Pirlangimpi, and Milikapiti. Following extensive consultation with these communities, the works will deliver 29 new houses and upgrades to 95 homes in Nguiu, and upgrades to 30 homes in the communities of Pirlangimpi and Milikapiti. These works will reduce overcrowding by more than 60% in these communities.
In Tennant Creek, the New Futures Alliance has worked closely with the Julalikari Council on the $35.6m works plan. By the end of the works, SIHIP will have delivered significant upgrades to infrastructure such as roads, drains, and other services to the standard of other subdivisions across the town, and upgrades to each of the 78 homes in those community living areas.
SIHIP will deliver $37.4m in works to Umbakumba, Angurugu and Milyakburra with Earth Connect. With that project, we will construct 18 new houses in Angurugu and upgrade more than 30 homes; build six new houses and upgrade more than 30 homes in Umbakumba; and build two new houses and upgrade 15 homes in Milyakburra. Community engagement has ensured that work on Groote Eylandt includes improved disability access to homes in recognition of the high rate of Machado Joseph Disease in that community. Major works are commencing in Tennant Creek, Nguiu, Milyakburra, and Angurugu this month, with Umbakumba scheduled to commence in November.
A significant difference in the way that SIHIP is delivered is the requirement to provide job and training opportunities for Indigenous people. In each of the three packages, at least 20% of the workforce will be Indigenous. Real results are already being delivered. For example, 13 Indigenous Territorians have completed the introductory courses in mining operations in civil constructions in Tennant Creek, and another 15 are undertaking that training now. Seven local Indigenous people are employed on the Tiwi Islands and six on Groote Eylandt, as part of the early works under way in these communities.
Decent housing is essential to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and I look forward to continuing to update the House on the ongoing works being delivered in this major project for the remote Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his ministerial report. It sounded like a broken record, because I am sure I have heard that a couple of times before. I do not believe any of the other times there have been any houses built either. We are hearing the same report and there has not been a house built.
The minister’s report would have been good if he had explained to us why the New Future Alliance is based in Darwin when all the construction is being done in Central Australia. It would have been good if he went to the point that now there are 20 hubs under the A Working Future policy we do not support anyone else, and how those people in those other 53 prescribed communities under the intervention will not be getting new housing. It would have been good if he spoke about that.
We know that this is the minister who has not built a house. This is the minister who cannot build a bridge at Daly River, despite promising that in 2005. This is the minister who cannot build a road that he says he is going to build. We wonder why we keep listening to this broken record; it is the same story again. People across the Territory are wondering when they are going to pull their finger out and do something. It is all about housing.
The minister could also get to the point and explain to the people of the Northern Territory what sort of housing program we will be operating in urban centres. While you are only delivering SIHIP housing in some communities, there are going to be many people moving into the larger townships who will be requiring housing.
We know that, under his stewardship, the number of public houses across the Territory has decreased. With the incompetence of the Planning minister, releasing land for private sector housing in urban centres is not occurring. We see the complete housing stock, both public and private across the Northern Territory, going backwards compared with our population increase. While that is occurring, and we have an incompetent minister running the housing portfolio, we are not going to solve the housing problems.
We will continue to see homelessness, overcrowding, antisocial behaviour, continued rises in alcohol consumption and abuse, because this minister is in charge; his stewardship is failing the people of the Northern Territory. He cannot build a road, a bridge – it is time for the Chief Minister to get rid of him …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the ministerial statement, and as soon as he said we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, I immediately thought: ‘Uh oh, what were the mistakes of the past?’
For instance, he mentioned that Aboriginal people need to be employed in the construction of houses. In many cases, that is exactly what they have done. On Bathurst Island, Aboriginal people are employed in the construction of houses. At Nauiyu at Daly River, many people are employed in the construction of houses. I do not believe it is fair to say that there were mistakes in the past, as a general statement. I do not believe that is right.
The other thing which concerns me is housing for remote areas has been built for the last 30 years. If we do not know what design is suitable for housing in remote communities now, I will go ‘he’. I would like to see at the end of this debate the amount of money the Commonwealth gave the Territory to build these houses. How much was spent on new design? How much was spent on architects? How much was spent on consultancy? How much was spent on everything else - bar the construction of the house? If we do not know how to build Aboriginal houses by now, then I believe it is a disgrace. If we are reinventing the wheel so the Commonwealth can say it is doing this grand scheme, and Aboriginal people have fewer houses than they would have if the money had been spent properly, it is a crying shame.
It is great to say we are going to build this number of houses; the Chief Minister said we will have 100 houses at the end of the financial year. That is 100 times what? The cost of a house - $500 000? We have not knocked the price of houses down yet, even though we have had many debates about this.
That means $500m will produce 100 houses, or whatever it is. There is much money going sideways instead of what that money was really for. That money is to put houses on the ground. I want to know, in the end, how much money is being spent on other things, rather than putting money into those houses.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am curious about who is the shadow Housing minister, with the deadly silence of the ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: … Deputy Leader of the Opposition, tweetie pie over there …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I believe it is very important that members get a briefing because the Alliance contracting is very different, member for Nelson. You are worrying about those costs for consultants? I share your concerns, but they are coming in, percentage wise, around what they have been in the past. But we are now getting true value for money; we know exactly how much a house costs to build and we are putting quality products into these houses. In the past, you got a $500 000 house which may have cost $200 000 to build. We now know the true cost of everything that goes into that house; we are building quality houses, and we are getting quality training projects as well.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Mr Tollner: He will be able to alternate himself off.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Fong Lim wastes no time. He is very disruptive in this parliament, but maybe he will show the courtesy of listening and, when he is speaking, I will show him a similar courtesy.
Madam Speaker, I move:
There are a number of members opposite who have not yet participated in an Estimates Committee but, as someone who has been through an estimates process, both as a member, Chair of the Estimates Committee, and also as a minister, I can say it is quite a long process. Most ministers get four-and-a-half hours, and the Treasurer, from recollection, gets seven-and-a-half hours …
Ms Lawrie: Seven.
Dr BURNS: Seven hours. They are quite long days and, from time to time, the committee must move into deliberative session.
Whether it is government members or opposition members, I believe that this particular motion affords an opportunity for people to have a rest. They are long days, there is much information, and they can be quite intense sessions. I thought it would be in the opposition’s interests for people to be able to alternate in these deliberative sessions. I believe that this motion is supporting the smooth and effective running of not only the Public Accounts Committee but also the Estimates Committee.
I was informed by the member for Port Darwin that the opposition have discussed this matter and it will not be supporting this motion. That is unfortunate, because I believe those members who have not participated in a Public Accounts or Estimates Committee process do not know what this motion is trying to do in supporting and giving members a rest, and giving other members experience at deliberative sessions of the Public Accounts Committee during the estimates process. This is vitally important.
I have had discussions with the Independent member of the PAC and Estimates Committee, and he told me that he supports this motion. He has also had discussions with the other Independent and informed me that, basically, the Independents will work out an arrangement of their substitution on the Estimates Committee. It is my understanding that the Independent member is quite comfortable with this particular motion.
To provide a little history on the Estimates Committee, although this motion also applies to the Public Accounts Committee, this is the government that introduced an estimates process into this parliament by having an Estimates Committee. Prior to the government doing that, the parliament would meet as a Committee of the Whole, and opposition members would have to submit questions in writing the night before the estimates …
A member: A week before.
Dr BURNS: I stand corrected …
Mr Mills: Rubbish! You could ask the questions off the floor. I used to do it.
Dr BURNS: We are talking about the process. It would be like sitting an examination …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and having the questions beforehand. We do not do that. We are saying that it is a free flow of questions, particularly from the opposition, because it is really an opposition forum. I know some opposition members have been preparing for the estimates, and that is great. Estimates are a great opportunity for both the government and opposition members alike to get across the business of government and ask important questions, not only of the minister but of the public servants who are accompanying the minister. It is a very important process for our parliament.
This is the government that introduced an Estimates Committee process. We were the last jurisdiction in Australia to do so. I travelled to Tasmania as the Chair and saw how the Tasmanian system worked, and we brought a modified version to the Territory. At the opposition’s request, there have been a number of changes made to the operation of the Estimates Committee. We have accommodated the opposition, such as initially allowing – and this continues today – opposition members to sub through, either as local members or as shadow ministers, to inquire of the minister and the departmental people who are there. I believe it is a very important process and this government has taken steps in regard to that.
This motion, given the current circumstances of the House, allows for the smooth running of the Estimates Committee, particularly in relation to the deliberative aspects of the committee. From time to time during the process, there are deliberative discussions that are held by the committee members. Obviously, I have come on to the PAC, as a member of the PAC and Estimates Committee. However, we are also saying that there will be alternate members who are nominated for the government members of the Estimates Committee, and they will be appropriately nominated.
I mentioned conflicts of interest before. This is a government that is very careful about those particular issues, quite unlike the previous CLP government. They did not like me mentioning it in the motion before, but I will say it again ...
Mr Conlan: Oh, say it again.
Dr BURNS: I will say it again, because …
A member: You were not here.
Dr BURNS: You were not there …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: … and you would not know. You might understand now that you have been through a couple of budgets and Estimates Committees. Essentially what happened, prior to the 2001 election, the then Treasurer, Mr Mike Reed, got Treasury to wind back, for presentational purposes, the estimates of expenditure for the financial year 2000-01, so that the department had - I forget; it was maybe $320m …
Mr Conlan: Come on, get your story straight.
Dr BURNS: … for Health, or somewhere around there …
Mr Conlan: Tell your story.
Dr BURNS: … so he sliced off $8m from that estimate. That is what it said it was going to spend in that financial year. He sliced $8m off and then, in the election run-up and during election time said: ‘We are spending an extra $8m on our Health budget’. The same thing happened with Police and Education.
There was a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into that particular matter. Obviously, Mr Dunham, who was the previous Health minister, gave evidence to the PAC about what he knew and did not know, and what it all meant, etcetera. However, he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee and he insisted - he had been a witness who had been cross-examined and questioned by the committee - he also sat on the committee while other people, including the former CEO of the Health department, gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee about Mr Dunham’s role, and what he said during telephone conversations he had with Mr Dunham. Then, Mr Dunham insisted on sitting in on the Public Accounts Committee deliberative sessions - deliberating over his evidence, giving weight to his evidence over others, and criticising other members’ evidence ...
Ms Lawrie: Unbelievable.
Dr BURNS: It was completely unbelievable. He was challenged on that, and he had the gall to say: ‘I am just sitting here’ ...
Mr Conlan: Oh, unbelievable. This is unbelievable. Get in the 21st century.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: I thought it was a major conflict of interest, Madam Speaker, and I believe any reasonable person would believe that. Mr Dunham insisted on sitting on that Public Accounts Committee, deliberating on his own evidence and weighing up the evidence of others who had put him in the slot ...
Mr Elferink: You are completely right. I agree with you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It was unconscionable. However, I digress, Madam Speaker.
To go through the nuts and bolts of this particular motion, these alternate members can be appointed, either when the Legislative Assembly is sitting or not sitting, so it gives flexibility around that. In terms of the alternate members on the government side, they are nominated by the Chief Minister and, on the opposition side, they are nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
There are reporting requirements for the Speaker to report to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on the advice by the Opposition Leader or by the Chief Minister to the Speaker. This ensures that there is clarity about the alternate member. There is also a reporting requirement for the Speaker to advise the Assembly exactly who those alternate members have been, and the timing of that.
It also clarifies voting at deliberative meetings, and reinforces the standing orders, which have been around for a long time in the Public Accounts Committee - from the CLP days to now – which state that there are three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent. We were the ones who allowed an Independent to sit on the Public Accounts Committee in 2001.
The last parts, 1D and 1E, are in accord with the standing orders. I am not aware of any time during the 27 years of the CLP that it moved to change the standing orders to give the opposition chairmanship and control over Public Accounts Committee. Perhaps the member for Port Darwin could clarify that for the House.
The Public Accounts Committee is very important, along with the Estimates Committee. I believe its current structure and function serves this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory well. This government has reformed the functions of the Estimates Committee and, to a large extent, the Public Accounts Committee, particularly in the interaction of the public accounts with the Auditor-General.
I have heard of previous Auditors-General who were quite frustrated that there was a lack of uptake of references by the Public Accounts Committee under the CLP government. It was not put like that by the previous Auditor-General, who was quite heartened by the way in which this government, when it came to power in 2001, took up references that were made by the Auditor-General - which is the want of the Public Accounts Committee - and investigated them.
Also, when there was a change of government, there was a change in attitude of departments in their response to comments made by the Auditor-General. In other words, the Auditor-General, in those times, was used to being ignored by departments. Now, there is a requirement on departments, by this government, that they must respond to comments by the Auditor-General, and they must point out what they are doing to address issues raised by the Auditor General. There may be times when departments have a completely different view to the Auditor-General, but at least they have to come out, in print, and say what the departments’ view is and what the situation is.
This is a government that is reforming the processes, and has reformed processes around the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. I am very interested to hear what the member for Port Darwin has to say, and also, presumably, the member for Fong Lim, about why they are opposing it. Why are they opposing the smooth running of the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee? It seems to me that they are being obstructive. Hopefully, they can count, and they understand the situation of this parliament, and why it is necessary to have alternate members, able to vote, particularly on the Estimates Committee ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You can have your say, or whoever on your side is going to have their say. I thought from the last motion that they would have seen the writing on the wall. Anyway, if they want to get up and oppose it, I believe it will show how obstructive they are to the smooth working of committees within our parliamentary structure. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is singularly the most spurious argument that I have heard this member run out - since yesterday, actually. I want to pick up on several of the issues he has raised.
It might be useful to look at how our parliamentary system works before we go into the detail of this particular motion. It is the tension between the Crown - which the ministry represents, because it has commissions of the Crown - and the parliament that represents the will of the sovereign people, which is represented in our system of government. That percolates down to the – this is very interesting. I was told that this minister would be very interested in what I have to say and I suspect that I will be shortly talking to the back of his chair ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is ridiculous. The Leader of the Government Business was having a conversation with the Deputy Chief Minister in regard to this motion, while he was …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. There is no point of order. Keep to the motion, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister claims it is the intent of the opposition to be obstructive; that could not be further from the truth. It is the intent of the opposition to use this minority government to reflect the increasing strength of this parliament over Her Majesty’s representatives in this parliament. The motion we had before was a deliberate and direct attempt to reassert Her Majesty’s representatives – that is, the government - in the committee process, because it is diminished on the floor of this parliament.
Where we have a minority government in the House, logic would dictate that we introduce the minority capacity of committees. The minister is being quite mischievous when he says: ‘There is a requirement for three Labor members to be on the committee’. That is true, but the committee can meet with a quorum of three, which means that even if the government is not able to provide a Labor backbencher, two Labor members, two Country Liberal members and an Independent can still make up a functioning Public Accounts Committee without offending the principles of keeping the ministry out of the committee which actually investigates how they spend the public account.
That is what this particular debate is about. What we see now is a system being introduced which has nothing to do with estimates. Yes, the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee are related, but there is not one word in this motion which refers to the Estimates Committee. This is an attempt to usurp the growing authority of this parliament’s committee system by the Crown and by Her Majesty’s representatives; namely, the ministry.
I find it curious that the minister cites the example of Mr Dunham as some sort of fundamental repugnancy. Mr Dunham was a former minister of the Crown, who then, on the change of government, went back into the PAC, gave evidence, and listened to other people’s evidence about his conduct, on which the majority of that committee then made a report. I am not going to enter into that debate, suffice to say this: if it is repugnant for a former minister to sit in the Public Accounts Committee because of their connection with the Cabinet, then it must be utterly repugnant for a sitting minister - no less than the Leader of Government Business - to be the person sitting in that committee. Moreover, if you read the terms of this motion, it is now within the contemplation of this motion to find ourselves see members tag-teaming in and out of this committee, so three ministers are sitting on this committee.
That is a demonstration of the intended arrogance of this government, which is thunderous. I find it curious in the extreme that the minister finds our objection to this obstructive. If he had bothered to explore the issue further in the corridor when I told him – because I believe in giving notice of our intent in this House, something the government could learn from - I would have explained all this to him. It is spurious in the extreme and utterly inconsistent that the minister should come in and say a ministerial presence on the committee is repugnant and, then, put himself up as the person who should be present on the committee. It is irreconcilable with any form of logic. To go further and suggest a system by which we could find ourselves in the rather astonishing situation where we could, ultimately, end up with three ministers taking up government positions - there is nothing in the terms of this that I can see which prevents that from occurring. We suddenly find ourselves with a mini-parliament within a parliament, in which the Public Accounts Committee sees a majority government membership being run by ministers.
Madam Speaker, there is no conscionable way that I, as a passionate believer in the democratic system, and the Westminster system particularly, can embrace this particular approach. It is ill-considered. Actually, no, Madam Speaker, it is not ill-considered; it is deliberately considered, conceived and contrived to keep the arrogant hand of government across the institutions of this House.
The role of the Auditor-General was also discussed. For an experienced person such as the minister, who said, ‘I have experience with this committee; I know what I am doing, and I know what is going on’, to turn around and talk about the references of the Auditor-General, as the source of how this committee chooses to explore things, is to misunderstand the committee. The Auditor-General works for the committee; the committee does not work for the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General may suggest a particular path of investigation and, should that particular path of investigation be deemed worthwhile by the committee, then the committee may go down the path and investigate what the Auditor-General recommends to be investigated. It does not work the other way around.
The committee has the capacity to do any number of things to see how the public account operates. However, to do that, and do that effectively, the committee members have to rise out of their chairs and visit places. I provided the committee with an example - and I will repeat that example - of one of the things we could look at. How about going to the fire station in Iliffe Street and find out how many people, on which shifts, have the capacity to drive the Bronto, which is the firefighting vehicle used for fighting tall building fires? We have an increasing number of tall building fires. The information I have – and I do not know if it is entirely correct, but it would be nice to find out – is that only one shift provides a person licensed to drive the Bronto. For 16 out of 24 hours, the Bronto sits collecting dust.
That is the type of thing that Public Accounts Committee could be looking into, because it is not good expenditure of public monies to have a piece of equipment, with the value and the importance of the Bronto, sitting idle for 16 hours a day. Fires do not follow a timetable which accommodates the fire service. That is the type of issue I would like to see the Public Accounts Committee looking into. However, on the current structure, the Public Accounts Committee is interested in looking at anything but the public account.
We cannot support this motion simply because the motion will diminish, dilute, and further decay the capacity of this House to examine the functions of the government. The Public Accounts Committee has the function of seeing where money is being expended. Yet, the whole core of the government’s and the Leader of Government Business’s argument is how we rotate in and out of deliberative meetings through the estimates process. That is a technical and a side issue and, frankly, unconvincing. Nothing in this motion prevents or restricts these changes to the deliberative processes of the Estimates Committee. Everything in this motion nobbles the Public Accounts Committee with a ministry which, in its desperation, is trying its hardest to hold on to power and to stave off criticism. The criticism it wants to stave off is how the public monies are being expended.
If the government is so worried about it, all it has to do is lift its game and do it better. However, as we have become so used to from the members opposite, this is more about image and how it looks than how it works. I cannot fathom an environment where I have to sit, as a non-member of Cabinet, and fend off – and I know this will occur, as anyone with any experience will know this will occur – a minister, when that minister could be the person whose department the Public Accounts Committee is investigating. Moreover, if that minister suddenly realises that some other minister might be investigated, there might be a tag team. We get this notice saying that there will be another minister coming in: ‘We are going to tag another minister in because it happens to be their department’.
You are laying the groundwork for exactly what the Leader of Government Business found so objectionable, in the early days of their administration, when he mentioned Mr Dunham, and I agree with him. I agree that there was a certain inconsistency with that, and that is what I am talking about. For him to run that as an argument is to confirm the position we are taking on this side of the House.
Yes, it is inappropriate for a minister of the Crown to sit on the Public Accounts Committee. His argument was that it was inappropriate for an ex-minister of the Crown to sit on the Public Accounts Committee.
Madam Speaker, on that we are of one mind. I would then, of course, expect the Leader of Government Business to follow that logic and vote against this motion accordingly.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. The motion is a sensible measure to ensure that the parliamentary committee system for the Public Accounts Committee functions efficiently for the remainder of this term - that it functions efficiently. It is important to ensure meetings go ahead with quorums.
It is hard to understand where the opposition is coming from. I know the member for Port Darwin referred to the fact that the Auditor-General works for the Public Accounts Committee. That is not quite right. The Auditor-General works for this parliament; the Auditor-General is an officer of this parliament. I understood quite clearly what the Leader of Government Business was saying. It is in our Standing Order 21A to E that one of the duties of the Public Accounts Committee is to examine the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Legislative Assembly; that is one of the committee’s duties.
The Leader of Government Business said that, under the PAC we have under this government, we follow more of those referrals than the CLP did. That is what he said: we have followed up more on what the Auditor-General has done than previous PACs have. I believe that is a very important point made by the Leader of Government Business. That is one of the duties of the Public Accounts Committee. I welcome the Leader of Government Business coming on to that committee, with his experience and his understanding of how the process works. He has been a previous Chair, and the Public Accounts Committee, under his stewardship, took on some very important referrals, which he talked about. He talked about the fact that the member for Drysdale did not excuse himself from that committee when a quite clear conflict of interest came up.
The Leader of Government Business has made an undertaking that, when a similar situation arises - if a similar situation arises; I have much more faith in the member for Johnston than I do in the former member for Drysdale - then the Leader of Government Business will excuse himself from that PAC meeting. I believe that is a very sensible way of behaving. I have full faith in the member for Johnston.
I understood, clearly, that the opposition would support measures to ensure the Public Accounts Committee functions efficiently. I believe that is a very important thing for this Chamber to do; to have a Public Accounts Committee that functions efficiently. This motion complements the Parliamentary Pairs Agreement that we have in place right now – that exists in our standing orders. That is very important to note. This motion is complementary to the Parliamentary Pairs Agreement that is in place now between the government and opposition. That pair arrangement is working. This motion, an eminently sensible motion, will also work. I thought that was why were here: to work. When this government brings in a motion to ensure we can work efficiently, the opposition opposes it. The opposition is obstructing the efficient operation of this parliament.
I also believe we need to note and remember something very important. The government is not changing the makeup of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee now has three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent member. I am the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee as a government member. This motion does not change that. There will remain, at all times, three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent member.
It is quite clear, in the motion that we are talking about:
There will remain, at all times, three government members, two opposition members and one Independent member. It does not matter who comes in and out of the committee by way of the alternate members proposed in this motion. The makeup and the balance of the committee between the government, the opposition, and the Independent remains the same. The balance of the committee will not be changed by enacting this motion.
The opposition, by the opposition to this motion, makes no sense. This arrangement will provide more certainty around the timing of PAC meetings. That is a good thing. This side of the House believes it is important that the Public Accounts Committee meets regularly and, when a meeting is made, we can guarantee a quorum for that meeting, and that the Public Accounts Committee functions efficiently. That is what this motion ensures: the efficient functioning of the Public Accounts Committee. That is why I support this motion, and it is very hard to see where the opposition is coming from.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, there are some quite obvious reasons why the opposition is opposing this motion. I will outline them, for the illumination of the member for Fannie Bay, who cannot seem to come to grips with what is so abhorrent about having a minister as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee is set up to keep an eye on how taxpayers’ dollars are spent. That is the fundamental reason for the Public Accounts Committee: to keep an eye how the government spends the public funds. I can understand, having listened to debates about health and the like, when the Leader of Government Business who, at that time was the Minister for Health, said that he had no connection whatsoever to the department. The department did its own thing, he did his own thing; the two never married up, and they did not discuss operational matters. The minister was devoid of any involvement in operational matters. I understand, if that is the view of the Leader of Government Business, that the minister’s role is to have no say in the functioning of departments under their watch, he may see that there is no conflict with a minister sitting on the Public Accounts Committee.
I find that whole idea abhorrent. The Public Accounts Committee is about accountability and, if you have a minister of the Cabinet sitting in the room, how can you expect any level of accountability? What the government is proposing today is a complete corruption of the system.
How are we going to work estimates meetings? Do we have the alternate member? Goodness knows who the alternate member will be - maybe the Treasurer …
Mr Elferink: Members, it is plural in the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Alternate members. Maybe there will be a whole swag of them, maybe the Treasurer. Maybe they will even trundle in the corpse, he has seemingly no influence on anything these days ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find what the member is saying objectionable. He is referring to the Chief Minister. I give a fair amount of latitude, but I believe over the last day or so, the member for Fong Lim has plumbed new depths. I ask him to show a little respect. There are politics and a little spite also.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘corpse’. The government may appoint the ineffectual Chief Minister; the bloke who is like a rabbit in the spotlight, who cannot make a decision on anything. Maybe they will roll him into the Public Accounts Committee. Maybe they will decide to roll in the Treasurer, the person who has shown that they are very good at mixing up their words, not being diligent in their job. Maybe they will run her in there. Goodness me, you do not know where this whole thing could spin out to; it could go anywhere.
The Leader of Government Business talked about being experienced as a minister. The whole idea of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee is to question ministers. How can we ensure that the minister will not be asking himself questions during estimates meetings? Jumping and changing chairs - it is a ridiculous situation. It calls into question the whole idea of privilege and confidentiality of the Public Accounts Committee, when you can roll in minister after minister into those committee meetings. It does not make any sense.
How can a member - in this case the minister or ministers - develop any corporate knowledge of what has occurred in previous meetings when, in all likelihood, they will be moving one minister in to replace another minister to replace another minister. I understand what a tough job it is to be a minister - you seem to have to be in all places, at all times - and it is quite difficult to set aside the time to be at something as menial – as I am sure these guys across the room believe - as a Public Accounts Committee. It is similar to identifying which minister will be in town that we can trot along to the next meeting.
In my view - for what it is worth - the minister should have moved a motion to change the makeup of the committee to allow the parliament the ability to determine who is on the committee. I suggest: two from government, two from opposition, and another two that the parliament may consider.
I do not actually have a problem with the member for Arafura being a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I thought, seeing the way the government has been sucking up to the member for Arafura over the last few days, that it would not have a problem with that ...
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr Burns: You called her a rat. It is in the Parliamentary Record.
Mr TOLLNER: The Leader of Government Business made a derogatory comment about me. He knows that is not true, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he did not make a comment about you at all.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I am more than happy to read the Parliamentary Record of what the member for Fong Lim said in this place yesterday; it was very clear.
Mr Elferink: It was a metaphor, as I recall.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue your speech.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, yesterday I referred to people leaving the Labor Party like rats from a sinking ship. That was in no way a personal referral to the member for Arafura …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I am not going to be caught up in this ‘he said, she said’ nonsense. I have no problem with the member for Arafura being on that committee. The member for Arafura has turned up to a few meetings of that committee this year. I might not agree with many of her political views, but I have no dramas at all with the way she carries herself in those committee meetings. I would not have thought the government would either. However, it has decided that this is a perfect opportunity to rig a committee to put out grassfires as they occur. This motion is nonsense and it should be resisted by every clear-thinking member of this place.
The Public Accounts Committee is about accountability, and making sure that ministers and their departments are accountable for the taxpayers’ money they are spending. It is an extremely important committee. The Estimates Committee is a function of that committee, and that is another important committee of this parliament. We should be very careful with the way these committees are made up. It is like having the mother of a convicted rapist sitting on the jury. That is not on and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is being highly offensive in making that analogy.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, stay to the point, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I thought that was the point. There is every reason to be concerned that this committee will be corrupted with the addition of a minister sitting on that committee. The whole function of that committee is corrupted. It is hard enough now being a member of that committee because the three government members on that committee see their job, not as digging to find information, but more to stop information surfacing. Every effort made to investigate and gain information is invariably stopped by the three government members on that committee.
The member for Port Darwin spoke this morning, in the earlier motion that the minister moved, about the way the committee has tried to go out and do site visits and do a little tyre kicking to see what is going on. Every time that these things are raised and discussed, we found out that the three government members have caucused amongst themselves, outside the meeting, and resolved to do something different ...
Ms Lawrie: You do not ever caucus? Is that because you two are going for numbers?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I am not going for anything. The committee is already having trouble functioning because of the way the government members are operating on that committee - it is having major trouble …
Ms Lawrie: You are pathetic!
Mr TOLLNER: I understand, member for Karama, that you have no idea about this because you are not in the meetings.
Ms Lawrie: Really?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes …
Ms Lawrie: I would have no idea how a PAC operates?
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, now you are saying you do ...
Ms Lawrie: I sat on the PAC as a backbencher, you clown.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. We are trying to listen to the member for Fong Lim, and all we have is government interjections all day long. They are completely irrelevant, and I cannot hear him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair and stay on the point, please. It is not a conversation across the Chamber; it is a conversation through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I will direct my comments through you, but I did not believe I was straying from the point. The point is that this committee is already having trouble functioning. I believe that is common knowledge. I believe most people - most public servants - would understand that. They know that they are going in with concerns that they do not want to throw their minister into it, or whatever. But the fact is, it is not functioning well.
We have a situation now where the government is proposing that it is going to alternate government ministers - whenever and whoever it likes. This is a ridiculous situation. We will want to have a chat about health and, goodness me, who will we get turning up to our meetings? The member for Casuarina. If we want to have a chat about tourism numbers, goodness me, who will lob up? Who will be the alternate delegate for that meeting? None other than the Leader of Government Business, the Tourism Minister. If we want to ask about Treasury and what Treasury does, who do you think is going to lob …
Ms Carney: The next Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER: Correct, the next Chief Minister - the Chief Minister-in-waiting. Maybe we will want to ask a few things about the SIHIP program, and we will get Noddy, the big brave member for Daly turning up ...
Dr Burns: What happens if we want to ask questions about Discovery?
Mr TOLLNER: What if we do want to ask questions about Discovery? We may get the Minister for Racing, Gaming, and Licensing along ...
Mr Elferink: I would love to hear what he has to say about Mr Hale.
Mr Giles: Let us talk about Mr Hale at Discovery.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Yes. This goes back to what I always believed about the Labor Party, not just here in the Northern Territory but across the country: you never believe what they say; you always look at what they do. Always look at what they do. The purpose of this move is not about increasing accountability or ensuring that departments and ministers are going to be accountable; this is all about how the government can spin a line to the public. That is what this is about. The government knows it, we know it, and everyone in the public knows it. The fact is that you are cooking the books. You tried to …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! These are wild allegations about cooking the books from the member for Fong Lim - not substantiated. The CLP is the only party in this parliament with that track record.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Need I even bother speaking to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Member for Fong Lim, were you inferring improper administration in your comments?
Mr TOLLNER: No, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: In that case, I will allow it.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If there was an allegation of the books being cooked, then that allegation, you would hope, would be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. For instance, if there was an allegation that the books were being cooked in Tourism NT - I am not suggesting that there is an allegation to that effect, but if there was - we wonder who the government would roll out to be the alternate delegate to those PAC meetings, when it is investigating whether the books had been cooked at Tourism NT. I will bet London to a brick - as sure as God made little apples - that it would be none other than the Leader of Government Business …
Ms Lawrie: You would be wrong.
Dr Burns: … already a member of the PAC, you goose. He does not understand ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: He does not understand. That is the whole point about this: the Leader of Government Business fails to comprehend that we do not understand this; we do not understand it at all. All we understand is that this government is not about accountability. It is not about being open, up-front and honest with Territory people - it is not about that at all. This government is all about spinning a message, putting out propaganda, and putting out a PR exercise; that is what this government is about ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is what this government is about. It has no concern about accountability. How, for goodness sake, is the Leader of Government Business going to ask questions of himself as the Tourism Minister, when he is in the estimates hearings? Do we really perceive that he might be jumping out of this chair and running into this chair, and there will be no interjections in the time it takes him to get from that chair to that chair? Goodness me – this is a ludicrous situation. It has come about, quite clearly, because of a lack of leadership from the Chief Minister. It has come about because the Chief Minister, like a rabbit in the spotlight, cannot control his Caucus or his members, to the point where he has now become impotent ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: We have a Chief Minister who is like a dead man walking. He has no influence whatsoever. The strings are being pulled …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 77 - I move the member for Fong Lim be given an extension of 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Braitling; I was just warming up, getting to the crux of the matter. This is about a Chief Minister who has lost control of his party, a Chief Minister who clearly cannot control his own party …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What is the relevance to the debate on the motion of the PAC alternate members?
Mr TOLLNER: Ultimately, what it is about …
Madam SPEAKER: Please, member for Fong Lim …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You may continue, member for Fong Lim, but can you keep it to the point, please?
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. How can you debate a motion, when you cannot debate the circumstances that call for that motion to be put in the first place? The circumstances that call for the motion we are debating – there would not be a problem if you had a Chief Minister who could control his Caucus. That is what it is about. That is fundamentally what this whole motion is about. The fact that you have let it go, the whole ship is shaking …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: ... the whole ship is shaking; people are departing like rats from a sinking ship. You find yourselves in this situation where you have to come in and alter the makeup to the Public Accounts Committee. That is what this is about. Somehow or other, you say that this is a sensible amendment. Goodness me – a sensible amendment? Sensible in what regard? The only thing sensible about it is the fact that you are trying to cling on to power any way you can. That is what this is about.
This is not about the good governance of the Northern Territory: looking after Territorians, ensuring taxpayers’ dollars are spent correctly, looking after Aboriginal people on remote communities who are suffering all sorts of dreadful circumstances, or keeping criminals off the streets. This is not about any of that. This is about keeping your grubby hands on the levers of the Treasury. That is what this is about ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms Lawrie: You are so wrong and you are so offensive. You do not understand how good government works.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: You do not have a clue. No wonder you were kicked out of federal parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, it is obvious the truth hurts ...
Ms Lawrie: No, you are just offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I have just ripped the scab off a pussy, oozing sore; that is what this is about, and the government is offended by it ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, order!
Mr TOLLNER: I can understand why the government members are upset, because the fact is that is what this is about ...
Dr Burns: I believe your side is upset with you.
Ms Lawrie: Public servants listen to you attacking their professionalism.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is what this is about. This is about trolleying in whatever minister the government wants into the Public Accounts Committee. It is probably the most important committee of this parliament - that is not undermining other committees - a very important committee, and the government wants to be able to trolley in ministers at will to sit in, to ensure that the Public Accounts Committee inquiries are going nowhere. That is what this is about. It is about corrupting a system that is put in place to make sure that the government is accountable. That is what it is about.
The idea is that backbenchers, people who have some level of independence from the Executive government, sit on that committee to hold the government to account. But that is all out the window and the government is going to trolley in ministers to sit on that committee. That is why we are opposed to this. The government has asked the question: why are we opposed to such a sensible measure? That is why we are opposed: (1) it is not sensible; (2) it is everything but sensible; and (3) it undermines completely the whole idea of a Public Accounts Committee.
I do not understand why it even bothers having a Public Accounts Committee, if that is what it is trying to do. If it is trying to put up a faade of accountability, it is not doing a very good job. This is a shameful motion, and it goes to show how far some of the fascists on the other side go to hang on to power ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Ms Lawrie: No wonder you lost your seat in federal parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw the comment.
Mr TOLLNER: Which comment was that, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to withdraw the comment. You are well aware …
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw it, whatever it was.
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Leader of Government Business.
Mr Elferink: No, he has withdrawn it.
Madam SPEAKER: He has withdrawn. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand a feigned sensitivity - it feigns sensitivity. Every opportunity it has to shut a person down …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This man is very offensive, and he is using offensive and unbecoming words. It is well-known in this Chamber, and in the public, that the member for Karama has Jewish roots …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … to accuse this government of being fascist. I know that, from what the member for Karama has told me, she finds that absolutely disgusting and offensive. The member for Fong Lim is plumbing new depths, but this is the lowest.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, the member has withdrawn the comments. Member for Fong Lim, I remind you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! There are far too many interjections this morning. There are also a large number of very personal and unnecessarily offensive …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning.
Mr Conlan: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I tell you what, I will make it easier for you.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you of Standing Order 62(1), that no offensive unbecoming words towards a member must be withdrawn; Standing Order 62(3), that offensive unbecoming words used towards a member can only be done by way of a substantive motion; Standing Order 63, the Speaker to intervene when there are offensive and disorderly words; and Standing Order 64, the Speaker to determine if a word is offensive.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am in your hands, as always, as far as what is offensive and what is not. I, obviously, do not have a serious grip on what some people find offensive and what others do not, but I am to be guided by your wisdom.
There is nothing simple about this, or, as the member for Fannie Bay said, ‘sensible’. There is nothing sensible about this motion. This motion is all about reducing the accountability of ministers, departments, and further concealing how taxpayers’ dollars are being spent and accounted for.
I find the idea that you can trundle a minister in - any old minister - to any meeting, abhorrent. There are a whole range of analogies I could go into here. However, I will not; I have already been given an extra couple of minutes to conclude my remarks. I will leave it at that.
Madam Speaker, I am going to oppose this motion in the fullest sense.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call you, member for Nelson, I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of participants in the Parliament House public tour program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome. I am sure they are wondering what is happening.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very serious topic and, as the member for Fong Lim said, any clear-minded person would find it easy to oppose this particular discussion. I do not believe it is as simple as that. Things have changed in this House that many of us did not expect, and we are covering ground that many of us have not thought about, especially in relation to the effect these changes will have on the running of the parliament, which includes the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee.
I spoke to the Clerk about this motion. On the surface, I thought it was reasonable, but one thing I enjoy about parliament is the ability to hear both sides of the argument, and it is not much good making up my mind without hearing the arguments.
The government is still the government; there is no doubt about that. The standing orders for the Public Accounts Committee state that the government should have the majority of people on that committee, which also leads to having that majority on the Estimates Committee.
There has been talk that perhaps it could be solved using a quorum; that the quorum for the PAC would be four and the Estimates Committee would be four. From an Independent’s point of view that is likely to leave me out of the debate. I do not necessarily agree with that. However, I understand it is an option.
The standing orders do not say a minister cannot belong to the PAC. They do not say that the Speaker cannot belong to the PAC. I cannot see that written in them. It probably does not say many things. It was, obviously, drawn up when the government had a majority. Therefore, we have standing orders based on the premise that a minority party does not exist. We now have to come to terms with that. I am taking into account, especially, what the member for Port Darwin said about the issue of a conflict of interest.
We are not yet at the Estimates Committee, but we have a Standing Orders Committee. There are some issues that need to be clarified, regarding ministers working on the Estimates Committee and the PAC, to ensure there is no conflict of interest. There were some guidelines written which gave the PAC rules to enable a judgment about whether a minister could sit on the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee.
We do not want to experience the same problem that the member for Johnston spoke about, when a previous member of parliament, the former member for Drysdale, appeared to have a conflict of interest by being on the Public Accounts Committee, as well as being the subject of some of the discussion that was occurring on that committee. We do not want that to recur.
I do not know whether it is possible for this debate to be delayed to cover some of those issues. The reality is that we have a Public Accounts Committee. The government, even though it is a minority government, has to have the majority - according to the Standing Orders Committee - on that body. Perhaps the government needs to - and this is not trying to be personal - talk to the Independent member for Arafura, to solve this issue.
The Chief Minister said that he has some agreements with the Independent member - this is not saying anything disparaging about voting on budget matters or voting against a no-confidence motion. It is possible for the government to come to an agreement with the member for Arafura. To some extent, that would solve the problem of having ministers on the Public Accounts Committee.
There are other issues. For instance, could you end up with three ministers at the Estimates Committee? I am not sure that would be a good look. You might get away with one minister - and I could live with that - but there is the possibility of having three ministers. Again, there is nothing in standing orders that says that cannot happen.
However, I wonder whether we should put a stop to this debate for the moment and say: ‘We have heard what all sides of parliament are saying. Can we come up with some solution before next week or by tomorrow that looks at the conflict of interest and at the possibility of an arrangement with the member for Arafura?’ This would allow more time after the sittings to look at this matter, in the light that it is something that we have never looked at before ...
Mr Elferink: We would support a motion to come back tomorrow.
Mr WOOD: I am happy to put forward a motion, Madam Speaker. I am not sure of the words I should use at this stage, but I would be happy to ...
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot put forward a motion while there is one before the House. You can make an amendment. If a motion is already before the House, you cannot put forward a new motion, but you can move an amendment to any motion.
Mr WOOD: I put an amendment to the motion, Madam Speaker, that the debate on this motion be postponed until tomorrow, or next week. I do not know whether parliament can …
Mr Elferink: It would have to be tomorrow.
Mr WOOD: It has to be tomorrow. I will change that: the debate on this motion is postponed until tomorrow to allow the Standing Orders Committee to discuss the matters that have been raised today to see whether a more satisfactory arrangement could be made that would …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I note that it is nearly the lunch break. The issues raised regarding the guidelines, conflict of interest, and the numbers of ministers on the PAC, are important questions from the member for Nelson. Similarly, the member for Port Darwin raised those workability issues. There is an opportunity after Question Time for the government to respond to those issues. If those responses do not go far enough or bring satisfaction, then there is always the opportunity at the end to deal with that issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you wish to, you can seek leave of the parliament to do what you have just said, or you can move that amendment. Is that what you have done? You have moved an amendment?
Mr WOOD: Yes. A point of clarification, Madam Speaker. At the end of this debate, I could move a motion which might allow more time to …
Madam SPEAKER: To move a motion, member for Nelson, you may seek leave to bring forward a motion on the House, or you can move an amendment now.
Mr ELFERINK: For the sake of order, Madam Speaker, I suggest that when we get to the end of the motion, the member’s amendment will read: ‘and that the parliament determine the matter on tomorrow’s date’, as an amendment to the motion.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, as a point of clarification, there is nothing preventing the member for Nelson concluding his remarks after the lunch break. That gives the government the opportunity to talk to the member for Nelson, as an Independent, about his concerns and how they can be resolved.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, you do not want to do it on the floor of the House?
Madam SPEAKER: We have reached a stage where there is a level of confusion. I am going to adjourn the Assembly for the luncheon break, and I suggest that these concerns are discussed between all parties …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I have just adjourned the Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK: I want to confirm that the member gets to complete his comments after lunch, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: After Question Time.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment there was discussion in relation to the motion, and I was looking at the possibility of moving an amendment to this motion. I have since had discussions with the government, and I have also referred those discussions to the opposition.
Instead of moving that amendment, Madam Speaker, I will talk about the guarantees that the government has given me. Whilst these guarantees are not exactly what I prefer, I believe they are better than we have at the present time. Regardless of what is happening at the moment, we are going through unchartered waters, but we still have to pass the budget and run the Estimates Committee. Once this process has been completed, we will need to work out how these committees - the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee, and all the other committees - will work. I believe there is much work for the Standing Orders Committee to do in relation to how these committees will work under a new regime.
The government has said - in closing this debate - it will guarantee the following:
1 No more than one minister will be an alternate member at a time;
I will speak on some of those matters. The first item is that no more than one minister will be an alternate member at a time. That might not quite overcome my concerns about having an Estimates Committee where you could have up to three ministers sitting at the table in front of the public. This reduces that chance to two.
I take the point that, generally speaking, the government members do not interfere in the running of the Estimates Committee. Occasionally, they might ask a question but, overall, if you go back year after year and look at the running of the Estimates Committee, it is pretty rare for the government to get involved. It normally allows the opposition and the Independents to have a free rein, except where you get some bone of contention that might crop up in relation to standing orders - the same discussions you would have regarding whether matters before this House can be allowed under standing orders. You can have those debates but, generally speaking, that is about as far as it goes.
The second item is that no minister will be an alternate member when direct matters of their portfolio responsibilities are before the PAC or Estimates Committee. That will be an interesting opportunity to find out how that will work in reality. The Leader of Government Business said that there may also be some consideration that a minister who has held a portfolio 12 months previously, may not be on the Estimates Committee, so that there is no chance of a perceived conflict. It may even make the present minister feel quite uncomfortable, if the past minister was sitting on the same table as a member of the Estimates Committee. That could arouse some debate, but at least there is recognition that possible conflict of interest could occur, and we have to be aware that it may happen.
The third item was that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly will draft guidelines on conflict of interest for the PAC to consider. I imagine that they need be drawn up pretty quickly for the PAC to endorse. It is an area that, unfortunately, has nothing written about it. We have conflict of interest guidelines which are more in relation to our personal dealings with the public, or a minister’s dealings with a company; the conflicts of interest where you may gain monetary advantage. However, we are not talking about that type of conflict of interest; we are talking about a conflict of interest that may come before the committee that will have to be considered by the PAC.
The last item is that the government will refer to the Standing Orders Committee in the August sittings the matter of committees and committee membership. That would allow more time for a full debate on the whole issue of how committees are to be run. It is something that the Standing Orders Committee would be taking advice on and looking for precedents.
I understand where the member for Port Darwin is coming from. He sees a more holistic approach - if I can call it that - about the principles of good governance. I would be the last one to knock anyone who was supporting the concept of good governance. I have to balance that with the reality that we are living in at the present time; that we have a minority government, a budget to be passed, and the Estimates Committee process to go through. I also balance that with the existing standing orders on committees, which talk about the government having the majority and the casting vote. If you take it on the surface, at least, there is nothing in our existing standing orders that says a minister cannot be part of a committee. In fact, on some of our smaller committees, which you would not say are as public as the PAC - and I am not downplaying the debate that we are having at the moment - ministers are members on other committees. For instance, the Speaker is on the Privileges and the House Committees, and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has a member who is a minister.
There is some precedence for ministers on committees, although I note those committees are more in-House committees, rather than a public committee such as the PAC, which is the one that people will see, in the flesh, through the Estimates Committee.
I am concerned that there will be the perception with ministers on one side of the table and ministers on the other side, regardless of whether they are quiet or silent - and I believe they will be. However, that perception is going to be hard to avoid.
Madam Speaker, I accept the assurances of the Leader of Government Business in relation to this. It is a difficult time. It has left me thinking about many things relating to how workable the parliament will be over the next few years with a minority government. It is something I did not expect to have to worry about a couple of weeks ago ...
Mr Elferink: A week is a long time in politics.
Mr WOOD: Yes, a week is a very long time in politics. I am coming to terms with new issues. However, as I have said before, parliament is not a toy. It is something I have to make sure that I look after, if you can put it in those terms, because it is a serious matter how we run the workings of democracy in the Northern Territory. Much as I understand the principles the member for Port Darwin has put in his debate today …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In case he needs it, I move that the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Much obliged. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not watching the clock; I was trying to think of what I was saying. This probably reflects on the difficulty of this debate. With the assurances that the government has given, though I do not believe they are perfect, they are at least a good start. I will support this motion, if for only one thing: for good governance, from the point of view that we have to get the budget through, and we have to get the estimates done. What happens after that? Let us see.
Hopefully, the Standing Orders Committee can develop some guidelines and processes that will help us through this stage, because it is important. I also have to put my two bob’s worth in as an Independent. I treasure my opportunity to be on the Estimates Committee. People think you are a glutton for punishment, and sometimes it is very difficult being on an Estimates Committee, but I find it one of the most important parts of being in parliament.
It is a very important part of parliament; it provides an opportunity that I would not have at any other time to question ministers and departmental heads, and it also allows the public to hear about the important things that are being done by government, good or bad. It gives an opportunity for the government to put their point of view out there as well.
It may not be perfect, but we have to pass the budget and it has to pass it through the Estimates Committee and, after that, let us see what happens.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I had proposed to speak on this prior to the member for Nelson before lunch but, as luck would have it, I am glad it panned out the way it did, because there are some further comments I would like to make, based on those made by the member for Nelson.
Backtracking somewhat, I reiterate the concerns of the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim, and those of the opposition as a whole; in particular, the perception that Territorians will have of the Public Accounts Committee. It is fair to say that the PAC is the most important parliamentary committee that we have, and for the government to be so shabbily tinkering with it almost beggars belief. I do not say for a moment that the matter does not involve some thought. I thought, however, that the government would have given it the thought and attention it deserves, rather than cobbling together what it says is the only answer.
There are some other ways to go. One way is to have two government members, two opposition members, and two Independent members. Another way is to reduce the number of ministers. The member for Barkly, with great respect to him, by any measure, is not the busiest minister in the Cabinet. Corrections and Justice were split several months ago, and I believe he has something else, Transport which, until recently, someone else had that as well. This demonstrates - they are two things off the top of my head - that the government has not given this matter the sort of attention it should.
It has also been shabby that the opposition has not been consulted in any way, shape or form, about what the government considers is a difficulty. We were not consulted, as I understand it, before notice was given yesterday of the motion. I withdraw that. We were consulted, but I understand that very little discussion was entered into.
It is also my understanding, that over the luncheon adjournment, while the member for Nelson discussed it with, I believe, the Deputy Chief Minister or the Leader of Government Business, the opposition was not involved in those discussions, although we did speak with the member for Nelson after he had his discussions with the government.
With respect to the member for Nelson, bully for him for securing what he sees as concessions. But a backroom deal might work in the Labor Party, but it should not really be the bread and butter of the parliament of the Northern Territory. The parliament should formally record the concessions and they should be a part of this motion. I believe that is good and common sense.
On that basis, I formally move an amendment that will capture the guarantees or concessions outlined by the member for Nelson and that these are incorporated into the motion:
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the amendment.
Ms Lawrie: What is the amendment? We need to see the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe we need to have that written.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand the Leader of Government Business has that in a written form in front of him.
Ms Lawrie: No. What is your amendment?
Mr ELFERINK: The amendment is that the concessions, as outlined by the member for Nelson, be incorporated into the motion. This is an awkward way to go about it, I concede that, but from the outset, the whole process …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you resume your seat while I take advice?
Member for Nelson, this amendment involves something which you have spoken about. For us to deal with this, we need to have a copy of whatever you were talking about.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I have a copy of an e-mail. With all due respect to the member for Araluen, it was not a backdoor deal.
Madam SPEAKER: I am asking if you have something, could you table it?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am happy to table that.
Madam SPEAKER: Will you table that document. Thank you.
Before we go on, we have to table these two documents. Is there anyone wanting to speak on the motion that was originally before the House, prior to speaking about any amendments? No.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I suggest a five-minute adjournment while this is all photocopied and passed around to members.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will allow you to speak on the amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: I will contain myself to the amendment, Madam Speaker.
Whilst we appreciate that this is awkward for the House, I apologise. I am certain the member for Araluen also feels awkward with the structure of this amendment which has been brought about by a situation where the government has tried to do what it always does and has suddenly stumbled over the fact that they are a minority government, and they now have to negotiate with other parties in this House.
Over the lunchtime period, I have spoken to the member for Nelson, and he described to me certain amendments or offers made by the government in relation to this motion. No such communication came from the government. It would have been interesting, if the government had bothered, because they know what my concerns are in relation to this matter, and they made …
Dr Burns: You had a week to get back to me, and you never did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Get used to it. This is how you treat people. This is how this government has been treating this House for the last few months. Now, the Leader of Government Business is bent all out of shape because it has happened to him. Well, guess what? I knew …
Dr Burns: I am saying that you undertook to get back to me, and you never did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I did this morning, in the corridor. I am not going to be taken in by this minor debate.
The government has a much easier solution available than what they are doing at the moment. The member for Araluen hit the nail on the head: lose a minister. That way the government will be able to meet the requirements and principles of responsible government, as well as meet its committee responsibilities in this House.
The shemozzle that we have seen unfolding today - this lack of understanding about the new environment in which we exist - demonstrates that this government is not capable of adapting to the challenges before them. I am not going to bang on about this for hours; I want to keep my comments short in relation to this amendment. If the government comes with a series of suggestions to the members opposite or the Independents and says, ‘This is what we can do’, then make it part of the terms of reference you are introducing in the original motion. Bring the amendments, as part of the terms of reference, into this House and amend it yourself. That is the fix. Then you will get the support of the member for Nelson and, I presume, the support of the member for Arafura. Then, you would have the required numbers to get this through. That is not what has happened. Conversely, you could have picked up the phone and asked us. That is another option. That did not happen, because we are still not used to this new environment.
I maintain my objection to having ministers inquiring into themselves on how they spend their money. That is a fundamental objection I carry. However, whilst I agree with the member for Nelson that these proposed concessions are far from perfect, they are a step in the right direction. I note that it was the member for Araluen who had sufficient foresight to offer this as a potential compromise. I am still far from pleased, but what the member for Araluen is doing is correct. It is bringing in these concessions, ‘Oh, we will promise to do this’; but you will not find it in the standing orders.
According to the Chief Minister - from his own lips - the standing orders are what matters. If the standing orders are what matters, then the standing orders and the terms of reference of the committees should reflect the will of the parliament, not some promise made on the tail end of a debate: ‘By the way, we are just going to do this anyway’.
Madam Speaker, I support these amendments, much as I am disinclined to, because they are a compromise after a fashion. However, I am still deeply uncomfortable about what the government is doing. The answer is quite simple: lose a minister or change the structure of the committee - either one, I do not care. Lose a minister - problem solved; it is that easy. Unfortunately, government’s arrogant and dead hands will continue to lie over this parliament, and it will be up to us to prise its fingers away - finger by finger - until such time as it realises that it is a minority government and, for the first time since self-government, this House is gaining an ascendancy over the Executive, which is fit and proper.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, I reject outright the comments by the member for Port Darwin. They are highly offensive ...
Mr Elferink: You are offended by everything. What is it this time?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Sometimes I believe that what the member for Port Darwin projects on the government’s intentions and actions are actually a reflection of what he would do. Quite frankly, look at the record of the government. We will stand on this record. We made a commitment to introduce a fairer and more robust Estimates Committee process. Previously, questions had to be written and given to ministers a week prior to a meeting of the Committee of the Whole. What a farce that was: to be the last place in Australia without a properly functioning Estimates Committee to properly scrutinise the budgets. This government introduced that.
The Estimates Committee has evolved and changed over time, such as the meeting times and other aspects of the Estimates Committee. This government has a proven track record of looking at the workability issues as they arise and dealing with them. Arising out of a minority government, we have workability issues regarding the government membership of the PAC and the Estimates Committee. We have been up-front about that in our discussions with the members opposite. The member for Port Darwin received one week’s notice of the government’s intentions to deal with the issue of alternate members. We all know - and we knew before we were a minority government - that with three backbenchers, the hours required to sit on the Estimates Committee process were going to be extremely difficult. Anyone who has been a member of the PAC and Estimates Committee knows that. I have been a member, I was a backbencher, and I sat on the PAC and the Estimates Committee and they are incredibly difficult hours for people to work. I know the opposition like to think that we are lazy, but I do not see them working those hours.
The government asked how to deal with the workability issues, and arrived at alternate members, providing for both the opposition as well as the government in all fairness, recognising within the makeup of the committee the issue of the Independent and that more work needs to be done on that issue in the future. Very reasonably, to change the PAC membership structures is an issue the Standing Orders Committee would need to attend to, because it involves the standing orders.
Reasonably, we should not rush willy-nilly down that path before we have seen how the PAC and estimates week unfolds. We need to see what occurs at estimates with the rotation of the alternate members; how that works for the functioning of the Estimates Committee and the PAC. We have to look at that, see how it works, and use the time appropriately for the August sittings reference for the Standing Orders Committee to look at the committee memberships, in the full knowledge and context of what happens during the estimates process next week.
During debate, issues were raised around potential conflict of interest, and the government has no desire whatsoever to behave as others have in the past, where you have a conflict of interest on matters for which you are responsible. For this reason, we have looked at a series of commitments to take us through the PAC and estimates process next week but, also, to make a reference to the Standing Orders Committee about committees and committee memberships and how they will operate, in the August sittings.
There is no desire by this government to have ministers sitting and presiding, in a deliberative sense, over matters for which they have direct portfolio responsibility – no desire - and we are happy to make a commitment on the Parliamentary Record about that.
We also recognise that one person’s view of conflict of interest may not match another person’s view. That is why we have given a commitment that the Clerk of the Assembly will draft the guidelines. The government is not drafting the guidelines; the Clerk of the Assembly, who has years of experience in parliamentary matters, is the one who has been given that task, recognising though, that the guidelines need to go to the PAC members to scrutinise and have a discussion about prior to estimates.
The commitment about referring to the Standing Orders Committee is significant in saying that the PAC and estimates will operate through next week; alternate members will come on and off. The government has given a commitment that ministers with direct portfolio responsibilities will not be presiding over matters that they are responsible for. We will need to use that alternate member situation, for example, when there is a deliberative discussion over the portfolio matters that the member for Johnston has responsibility for; he will not be sitting in on the deliberative matters on the PAC. While the Estimates Committee has a discussion as the PAC …
Mr Elferink: None of this was explained before.
Ms LAWRIE: Anyone who has been on the Estimates Committee, as a member of the PAC, understands how that works; how you go into a room separately and have a discussion to capture the elements and essence of the sessions that have gone before you. This amendment is a political stunt cooked up by the member for Port Darwin. I saw him pass a note over to the member for Araluen …
Mr Elferink: Yes, because we were expecting it to be incorporated into the motion.
Ms LAWRIE: … about doing an amendment. It is a political stunt, to run the line that he wants to push: that a minority government cannot work in the Territory ...
Mr Elferink: I am not saying that.
Ms LAWRIE: You are wrong about that. A minority government can work in the Territory ...
Mr Elferink: You need to start talking to people.
Ms LAWRIE: We have, and will continue to have, a good working relationship with both the Independents. This has been shown today: issues arise, the government recognises the issues, and we have taken the time and the effort to work through the issues, with very clear commitments that I am making now, as a member of the government, and the Leader of Government Business will be making when he wraps up the debate on this matter. We do not need an amendment, because our word in this House is good.
We do not come in and mislead the parliament, because you would take us to the Privileges Committee for that. We have ministers sitting on the Privileges Committee. We have ministers sitting on the Standing Orders Committee. We are not going to do the ‘well, just lose a minister’ stunt, over which the opposition is leading with its chin. Not one of them has been a minister. I assure the House that, with the example they used of the minister for Corrections and Transport, there is more work in those two portfolios than you can poke a stick at. They are critical portfolios for the Territory, which is why we gave those two portfolios to a minister. There is a massive body of work, particularly in the regional transport strategy that is occurring but, also, significantly regarding the bush camps and Corrections. Your stunt of, ‘Well, just lose a minister’, and your answer of ‘it is all good, let us move on’ is not going to wash.
We are genuine about our commitments. I am talking about the commitments. The Leader of Government Business will be talking about the commitments again, and he indicated that he would table the commitments made, in writing, in this Chamber. We would not mislead this House. We have no intention of corrupting an estimates process that this government genuinely introduced so that fair and thorough scrutiny of the budget occurs - we take that seriously. It needs to and should occur; good government is about thorough scrutiny of the budget.
Madam SPEAKER: Any further speakers? Is it on the amendment?
Dr BURNS: I was going to speak in conclusion, but if he wants to speak on the amendments, so be it.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): As a matter of fact I do, Leader of Government Business.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, just speak, thank you. There is no need for the extra comments.
Mr TOLLNER: I was just doing that, Madam Speaker. I am cognisant of the fact that the Leader of Government Business regularly interjects during my arguments, and it seemed that he was again trying to cut off my contribution.
Listening to the Treasurer was quite enlightening. The Treasurer again reaffirmed her aversion to work. I believe she used the line of: ‘Estimates Committee is very demanding; PAC is very demanding; it is not fair on three members of the government to have to sit there the whole time and actually work’. We have seen that attitude in the past. Prior to being the Treasurer, she was the Leader of Government Business, and moved and organised that the parliament sit for much reduced hours because people could not operate after working a long day. I believe that is a shameful position to take, particularly in a matter as important as this.
I have been handed a copy of the amendment, and I am heartened to see that the Leader of Government Business will not be asking himself questions on estimates or at any other time. I am still very much concerned, even with these amendments, about what the guidelines will be on conflict of interest, and what constitutes a conflict of interest. I note that the Clerk is to draft these guidelines, but it would be more suitable to discuss these changes when we know what the guidelines on conflict of interest are, and what constitutes a conflict of interest.
I thought that the matter of having a minister of the Cabinet sitting on the Public Accounts Committee was a clear conflict of interest in the first place. I do not know how you will be able to ameliorate that problem. I am keen to see what the Clerk will draft to ensure that the Cabinet ministers do not have a conflict of interest when they are grilling other Cabinet ministers, who they are in solidarity and unity with on a party and Cabinet basis.
The issue of the changes could have been made - I agree with the member for Araluen. It points to the fact that the Treasurer is not one for hard work. She was not up to the job of Transport minister or Corrections minister - both were previous portfolios that she held, which have been moved on to the member for Barkly in an effort to shirk some work.
I cannot understand, now that it has taken such a blow to its numbers, why the government would not look at reducing the ministries. Surely, it is not that complicated? From a parliamentary perspective it is not that complicated. The time that we discuss legislation in this place is minimal. Most of the time, we listen to ministers rabbit on about how wonderful they are and how wonderful the government is. Quite clearly, as I said in the debate on the previous motion, the sole goal of this government is to talk itself up; there is nothing else. It wants to cling to power at any cost, and this is another example.
The government did a backroom deal with the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson put the wood on them – pardon the pun – and he has gained some concessions out of them. I can see that some of them are concessions. The fact that the minister will not be questioning himself is a concession, but it is still a corrupt decision. It corrupts the whole idea of the Public Accounts Committee and, for that reason I cannot support the motion or these amendments. The amendments may do something but, ultimately, the PAC will be polluted with a conflict of interest. A Cabinet minister will be questioning other Cabinet ministers, people who he has sworn solidarity with, and I do not believe that is a good look. That would not operate in any other parliament around the country.
There is no doubt about it; minority governments have worked well in other jurisdictions. It is a shame that this minority government is setting off, almost immediately, on a very poor path, and will soon find that it is in a completely dysfunctional position. I believe it is already at that point. The government is leaderless; it is wracked by infighting and smears, and it airs its dirty laundry in the media - no one is off limits; the members will bag each other. It is very sad to see.
I cannot support the amendment or the motion. It is a corruption of the role of the PAC and it creates conflicts of interest. Privilege and confidentiality will be, pretty much, out the window, and the taxpayer will have no assurance about where and how their money is being spent and whether it is being properly spent.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am a little confused with the opposition, because this is its amendment and the member for Fong Lim is opposing it. I do not know whether it is my lucky day today, but it seems I have had to make decisions all this afternoon. In relation to this one, whilst I see the sense in this amendment, I must have faith in what people say. The Leader of Government Business has said he will guarantee that these amendments go through. He will say it in his summing up of the debate today, and I accept that. If it does not happen, I will vote against this motion.
It is a sensible amendment, but I am not going to vote on it. It sounds stupid if I vote against something which I believe is a sensible amendment. I recognise what the Leader of Government Business has said to me: that he will guarantee these four items on the amendments. Sometimes, you have to trust people in this world. It can come back to bite you sometimes, but the Leader of Government Business has said that, and I accept it. I will abstain from voting on this amendment and then we will come back to the vote on the motion.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this amendment.
I thank the member for Nelson for believing that I will be making this commitment. I will be reading what the commitments are and I will table them in this parliament. I agree with the member for Nelson; that there needs to be a modicum of trust. I believe that sometimes things can get over-complicated within this place.
In conclusion, I have listened to all sides of this debate. I have listened carefully to what the member for Port Darwin said. At one level, taking away the political prism through which the member for Port Darwin has spoken on this, and some of the political elements and hyperbole, he had some very valid points. I listened carefully to what the members for Port Darwin and Nelson said. That is why, as the Leader of Government Business, I endeavoured to try to find a solution to the issues that have arisen. As the member for Nelson said, we are in unchartered waters.
As the member for Port Darwin acknowledged, since he had his initial briefing by the Clerk things have changed; the world has turned a few times since then, the position has changed, and this is now a minority government. That was also acknowledged by the member for Nelson. He also acknowledged we need to make arrangements so we can progress through estimates, pass the budget, and ensure supply.
In that spirit, I gave a number of assurances to the members for Nelson and Arafura, as follows:
1. No more than one minister will be an alternate member at a time.
At one level, that is probably the simplest aspect of conflict of interest. In the conversations I have had with the Clerk, he acknowledged that it is all complex but, out of all the issues, this is probably the simplest: when a minister has a direct conflict of interest because of their current portfolio. I also acknowledge that there would be situations, for example, when the Health portfolio is before the Public Accounts Committee, when it would not be appropriate for me, as a minister, to be on the committee and that another minister should alternate with me, because I have had that major portfolio area for the past 12 months. The government will be endeavouring, through its rostering arrangements, to address those important issues.
3. The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly will draft guidelines on conflict of interest for the PAC to consider.
I have asked the Clerk to be as quick as possible with this task. I have discussed this matter with the Chair of the PAC and he has agreed that we should get that before the PAC as soon as possible - meaning before estimates next week - so that we can have an initial meeting and then another meeting to work through some of those issues. I am sure the members opposite are going to raise a number of issues in relation to what they perceive as a conflict of interest. However, we have to be practical in this and look for direct links.
4. The government will refer to Standing Orders Committee in the August Sittings the matter of committees and committee membership.
This is something that the government has acknowledged. That is why, in this sittings of the parliament, the only nomination that has come forward in conforming with standing orders was the PAC and Estimates Committee, because that is the only committee that is meeting during this sittings of parliament. We recognise and have acknowledged that we need, as a parliament and as a Standing Orders Committee, to have some discussions about the makeup of committees.
Speaking briefly about a couple of issues the member for Fong Lim raised, I put more store in what the member for Port Darwin said than the offering by the member for Fong Lim. We are in politics and he raises political issues: that is what he does and that is how he sees his role. However, he has had a misunderstanding of what happens in the Estimates Committee within the Northern Territory parliament.
Since I have been here, member for Fong Lim, the government has viewed estimates as a major forum for the opposition and Independent members. It is very rare for a government member to ask a question or participate in the question sessions within the estimates process. Members opposite who have been through this before will acknowledge that, in the main, government members do not participate. The Chair, obviously, participates in adjudicating, moving us through the various output areas, and addressing matters to do with points of order or other issues that may have been raised. Member for Fong Lim, it is not the case that the government members ask many questions - you could probably count them on the fingers on one hand - during any estimates process, which is probably - I do not know - about 11 sessions or thereabouts.
I pick up on what the member for Araluen said about the time when the opposition had four members, and soldiered through estimates. I am the first to acknowledge that this was physically - and in every way - a great challenge for the opposition, even though it had two members that it could sub on and off. I acknowledge the effort and courage that the member for Araluen, the member for Greatorex, the former member for Greatorex, and the former member for Katherine - who was ill at the time - showed in getting through very long sessions.
The member for Fong Lim can say we baulk at work or whatever. He probably needs to talk to some of his colleagues who went through that time, day and night, to find out what a physical challenge it is. I am also laying on the table today, that there may be times - I am not talking about alternate members – when one of the other members - whether it be the member for Nhulunbuy or the Chair - needs a half-an-hour break to do whatever. I believe it is appropriate that someone else comes in and subs while they do whatever. I am putting that up-front. They might need to get something to eat, have a pit stop - whatever you want to call it – and I believe that is appropriate. For any deliberative session that is called, those members will have to return, because this government has given an undertaking that, in deliberative sessions, there will only will be one minister as an alternate member.
I hope that we can come to some agreement. This not only affects the government members, the two members of the PAC - the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin - are also affected by this. One would hope that the opposition – and I believe that the government’s motion will be passed - take advantage of that, to give its members, where appropriate within its strategy, a break within the estimates process.
The government has given a number of undertakings, which I have read out and which are being tabled. As the government has stood by its word with the member for Nelson and the hooning legislation, CDL, and a number of other things it has dealt with, in this case the government will stand by its word. The challenge for the Public Accounts Committee is to look at the issue of potential conflict of interest in a realistic way. The government is happy to work with that regarding what happens next week during estimates, and in the longer term, in what happens within the Public Accounts Committee. The Clerk has already shared with me some ideas, which seem quite reasonable. He did flag that it is a complex issue, and I hope that, with goodwill, we can work through those particular issues.
Madam Speaker, for the reasons I have outlined, the government will not be supporting the amendment, but it will be standing by its commitments that I have tabled and spoken about. Nonetheless, the government will be voting for its substantive motion about alternate members on the Public Accounts Committee and Estimates Committee. I commend this motion to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two matters before the Chair. The first is the motion as moved by the Leader of Government Business, and the second is the amendment as moved by the member for Araluen. I will put the amendment first.
The question is the amendment, as moved by the member for Araluen, be now agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as moved by the Leader of Government Business, be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising on 11 June 2009, adjourn until 4.30 pm on Friday, 19 June 2009, or at such other time as notified by the Speaker, with one hours notice being given to the Government and the Opposition Whips and members, of such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to the sessional order.
Madam Speaker and members of the House, this is a strictly procedural motion and I hope it will go through easily.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the motion.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for Friday 19 June 2009 be as follows:
(1) Prayers
(2) Petitions
(3) Notices
(4) Government Business – Notices
Once again, it is a procedural motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Once again, it has the support of this side of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Order of the Assembly dated 30 April 2009, the following Budget Papers 2009-10, together with the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41) be referred to the Estimates Committee for inquiry and report:
Budget Paper No 1 – Budget Speech, 2009-2010;
Budget Paper No 2 – Fiscal and Economic Outlook, 2009-2010;
Budget Paper No 3 – The Budget, 2009-2010;
Budget Paper No 4 – The Infrastructure Program 2009-2010;
Once again, it is a procedural motion and I will make it a hat trick.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): No bowling that I could produce would prevent him from scoring a hat trick, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that was a yes.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to return to the Remuneration Tribunal powers to set capacity-type entitlements for members of the Assembly. In 2006-07, the Remuneration Tribunal received legal advice from the Solicitor-General and the Solicitor for the Northern Territory that the tribunal does not, as was previously thought, have the authority to determine ‘capacity’ or non-personal remuneration entitlements relating to the provision of facilities in order to enable the performance of the functions of a member. This includes matters such as provision for electorate offices, staff, office equipment, motor vehicles, communications, postage, childcare, and travel entitlements, other than travel allowance.
In response to the legal advice that the tribunal could not determine these types of entitlements, two sets of administrative arrangements were tabled in the Assembly in 2007 to reinstate those entitlements. These arrangements comprehensively identified those matters outside the tribunal’s power and provided the Speaker with the authority to vary these capacity entitlements in respect of individual members, where warranted.
I note that no additional arrangements or entitlements have been granted by the Speaker to date. In 2008, the Speaker wrote to me, as Chief Minister, to express the view that the administrative arrangements and the division of entitlements, setting responsibility between the tribunal and the Speaker, was not an optimum arrangement. The Speaker requested that consideration be given to amending the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act to return these powers to the tribunal.
The government agreed that there were benefits in having the tribunal, as an independent expert body, resume responsibility for these entitlements, and this bill seeks to achieve this outcome.
The intention is to provide the tribunal with the power to set all MLA entitlements except basic salary, which is set by reference to federal parliamentary salaries; staffing, other than electorate staff for ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, Independent members and the Office of the Speaker; and office space, furniture and equipment provided to ministers, the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Independent members, and the Speaker in their Parliament House offices and any other non-electorate office accommodation.
I note that non-electorate staffing and accommodation and related entitlements have been the decision of the Chief Minister in the past, generally, in a budgetary context. It is proposed that these matters continue to be dealt with in this way.
The amendment bill contains a provision which enables the matters that the tribunal does not have the power to determine to be listed in regulations. This will give greater transparency to these matters while, at the same time, enable ease of updating the list to reflect changes in technology, etcetera.
I turn now to the key features of the bill. The bill contains an expanded definition of ‘entitlement’ to include capacity-type entitlements. To complement this definition, the bill proposes new clause 4(1B), which makes it clear that the tribunal has the power to determine capacity-type entitlements. This covers matters such as establishing or maintaining offices associated with the function of a member including: staffing and equipment; the payment or reimbursement amounts to cover expenses incurred in relation to the offices; official travel including travel for accompanying persons; motor vehicles; and certain childcare expenses.
The bill also contains a transitional and savings provision to ensure the existing capacity entitlements, determined by the Chief Minister, and tabled in the Assembly in February and November 2007, to continue to have effect until a determination by the tribunal for any such entitlement takes effect.
A further matter has been included in the bill in relation to resettlement entitlements for MLAs. In the tribunal’s 2007-08 determinations, provision was made for a resettlement allowance for MLAs elected at or since the June 2005 Northern Territory general election who (1) are not able to access a pension or superannuation benefit for their Assembly service immediately after ceasing to be an MLA, and (2) lose their seat or are not renominated by their party to contest their seat, except by reason of misconduct.
This allowance is designed to address the inequity in superannuation entitlements between members elected before the June 2005 general election and those elected at or since that time. The allowance provides a financial buffer for those persons not entitled to an immediate superannuation benefit in respect of their Assembly service in contemplation that the person may not immediately obtain new employment.
There is some doubt as to whether the tribunal has the power to determine entitlements for persons who are, in effect, no longer Assembly members. This clause seeks to make it clear that the tribunal has this power, and to provide a framework for the entitlement. The tribunal will continue to set the amount of the benefit through its annual determination for MLAs. This amount is currently the equivalent of 12 weeks of the basic members’ salary. The conditions under which a member will be entitled to such a benefit will be set by regulation. The regulations will reflect the conditions currently in the RTD, but prescribing this in a regulation rather than in the act will permit flexibility to modify the eligibility for the entitlement should legitimate new circumstances arise.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws, including updating superseded references and correcting typographical errors, grammatical errors, and omissions. None of the amendments in the bill amount to changes in government policies or programs.
I now outline some of the amendments within the bill. The bill amends a number of pieces of legislation to reflect changes in the system of local government following the enactment of the Local Government Act in 2008. References to the ‘community government councils’ are, therefore, omitted from the Anti-Discrimination Act, AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act, Darwin Port Corporation Act, Energy Pipelines Act, Evidence Act, Gaming Machine Act, Liquor Act, and the Education (College and School Councils) Regulations. Where required, these references are substituted with references to ‘Local Government Shire Councils’.
The Electrical Workers and Contractors Act, Building Act, and Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act are all amended to omit references to the ‘Power and Water Authority’ and substitute with references to the ‘Power and Water Corporation’. The amendments result from the enactment of the Power and Water Corporation Act. Similarly, the bill updates references in the Crown Lands Act and Litter Act to omit ‘Conservation Commission’ and substitute it with the ‘Parks and Wildlife Commission’.
Section 5(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is amended to take into account the changed regime of motor vehicle fees and charges as a result of the introduction of the Motor Vehicles Fees and Charges Regulations.
Further, the bill omits the phrase, ‘unless the contrary intention appears’, from the definition sections of a number of acts. This amendment reflects current drafting practice and ensures consistency across the statute book. This amendment will have no change to the interpretation of the act, as currently, under section 18 of the Interpretation Act, the courts will apply interpretation provisions except so far as the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires.
A number of changes are also made to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Sections 81(8) and 81(15) of the act are amended to omit references to the repealed Companies Act and the National Companies and Securities Commission, and are replaced with references to the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
There are other amendments made by the bill which are of a very minor nature, and are generally self-explanatory. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act to confirm, by declaration, the application of that act since 1 January 2001, and to validate the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under the act since that time.
The Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act commenced in 1983 and relies on the Water Supply and Sewerage Act for its application. On 1 January 2001, the Water Supply and Sewerage Act was repealed and replaced by the Water Supply and Sewerage Services Act. Recent legal advice is that the jurisdiction of the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act is unclear due to the repeal of the Water Supply and Sewerage Act. The bill, when passed, will place the jurisdiction of the act beyond doubt and give certainty to the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Board, the plumbing industry, and the community.
The bill removes all references to the repealed Water Supply and Sewerage Act, and has a new application provision that does not refer to another act. The sewerage districts, water districts, sewered areas, and water supply areas declared under the repealed Water Supply and Sewerage Act, to which the existing application section refers, have evolved between 1983 and 2000. The declarations of the districts and areas during this period appear in numerous Gazette notices by technical descriptions using a combination of lot numbers, areas, points, bearings, and lengths. The bill has a provision that declares that these districts and areas continued to apply on 1 January 2001.
The bill defines these districts and areas as ‘relevant areas’. These relevant areas will apply during a prescribed period, which is from 1 January 2001 to the commencement of the proposed amendment act. Therefore, new declarations will be required concurrent with the commencement of the proposed amendment act.
The distinctions between water and sewerage districts and areas are not required for the purposes of the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act. Accordingly, the bill introduces a new term, ‘Plumbing Licence Area’. The new application provision applies the act to plumbing licence areas. The bill provides for the minister to declare plumbing licence areas by Gazette notice. The bill also provides that a plumbing licence area may be defined on a map or plan.
Current practice in similar cases - for example, building areas and planning scheme zones - is to use compiled plans prepared by the Surveyor-General which have legal status. This provides a product that is more readable and better understood by the user, and is more efficient as a record of the facts, particularly for recording amendments. The compiled plans for the proposed plumbing licence areas are based on the districts and areas as defined by the numerous technical descriptions in Gazettes before 31 December 2000. The end result will be clear plans that define the application of the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act.
Provisions in the act refer to inspectors and approvals that no longer exist due to the commencement of the private certification under the Building Act in 1993. At that time, the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act was not amended to reflect these changes. Accordingly, these provisions have been updated in the bill to reflect current practice.
The bill provides for Authorised Officers and defines them by reference to the Building Act. Authorised Officers will carry out functions, such as audit and investigation, that remained the role of the Building Advisory Services Branch in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure after private certification commenced.
The opportunity has been taken to make other minor changes on advice from Parliamentary Counsel. These changes relate to current drafting practices and include changes in numbering style, changes from penalty to maximum penalty, change of the reference act in the definition of apprentice, and changes to section 43 to confine it to work carried out under the act.
However, there are several significant policy issues relating to plumbing regulation in the Territory that need to be addressed in the future. A full review is proposed in due course. Such a review will provide an opportunity to address policy and operational concerns with the act and to examine the plumbing licence areas in light of the building areas declared under the Building Act.
In the meantime, this bill preserves the status quo and provides the legal certainty the industry and the community requires. Industry and the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Board have continued to operate on the assumption that there is jurisdiction and no persons have been prosecuted during the time of uncertainty.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 6 May 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we will be doing nothing to stand in the way of the passage of this bill. Payroll tax is one of those taxes which everyone hates except the Treasurer. I understand the necessity of the payroll tax arrangements from a Treasury point of view, despite the fact that I am no great lover of payroll tax.
Payroll tax is an unusual tax because it is a tax on an employer for employing a person. In this jurisdiction, as in every other jurisdiction, the state government taxes people for employing other people. There are thresholds involved, and there are tax rates which are slightly different in each jurisdiction. Those thresholds cover the overall size of the payroll. I believe it is $1.25m at the moment - someone nod. A $1.25m threshold, is that right? If a company’s payroll is $1.25m or more, then it has to pay a payroll tax, which I believe is currently 6.7% or thereabouts, and the government or the state level government receives a little money from it. It is one of the major earners for many jurisdictions. In each jurisdiction, each state level instrument is different.
In the Northern Territory, many of the institutions which have a payroll larger than $1.25m are organisations which operate not only in this jurisdiction, but also other jurisdictions. A little history is that once upon a time, even income tax in Australia was levied by the states; it was not levied by the Commonwealth.
I believe it was during World War II when the states started handing over the very lucrative income tax - which is a tax levied on a person for drawing an income - over to the Commonwealth. It would be a politically courageous government which would stand up today and argue or insist that the powers to levy income tax be returned to the states. It is so institutionalised now at the Commonwealth level that such an arrangement would not only be politically courageous but also would be administratively very difficult to unpick, in the 60 years since World War II.
Therefore, states turned to this rather surprising tax, as time passed. To tax an employer for employing people always struck me as an unusual tax. Knowing employers as I do - and many of them do have payrolls of greater than the $1.25m threshold - it is not a tax which is popular amongst employers. I am sure the government acknowledges that.
However, without entering into a long debate about the philosophical constructs of payroll tax and whether it should exist, this act is, basically, designed to reflect the acts in a universal way across all jurisdictions. The effect of this legislative instrument is that, if a person who is doing payroll in Western Australia for people who work in the Northern Territory or for South Australia, they do not have to pick up a different legislation; they can read their own legislation. Whilst the rates and the thresholds might be slightly different, the rest of the instrument will operate in very much the same fashion.
In accordance with making it a little easier for companies to pay tax, this is a commonsense approach. It is supported by the opposition and, whilst I am not a great lover of payroll tax for the reasons outlined, we understand that this small gesture towards business goes some way to making business a little easier.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. The Payroll Tax Bill 2009 will enact new payroll tax legislation and repeal the existing Pay-Roll Tax Act. This bill will reduce costs to business and reduce red tape. It delivers on a national commitment to reduce payroll tax red tape and compliance costs.
The goal of the national harmonisation project is to see that the legislation and administration of payroll tax is as consistent as possible across all states and territories. All governments taking part in the project have agreed they retain autonomy to continue to set their own tax rates and thresholds. That is fundamental. This autonomy allows for a competitive tax environment for each state to set rates and thresholds at levels which allows it to raise appropriate revenue to fund the services it provides.
As the Treasurer explained in the second reading speech, the new act will be identical as far as possible to the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian acts, and is consistent with the payroll tax legislation existent in Queensland.
This bill will see some significant policy changes for the Territory. It moves the question of the payment of payroll tax provisions for the labour services of contractors from a common law test to a clear set of relevant contract provisions within this legislation. I understand, through the Treasurer, that the Territory Construction Association and the Housing Industry Association are both supportive of the introduction of the relevant contract provisions.
It will extend the current payroll tax exemption for wages paid by public benevolent and religious institutions so it is also available to all charities other than universities and commercial activities. This extends the current exemption for public benevolent institutions to employees exclusively engaged in work of a kind ordinarily performed in connection to religious, charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or even patriotic purposes. A worthwhile objective, I am sure we all agree.
It will also introduce a payroll tax exemption for wages paid to employees participating in voluntary work for bushfires and emergency relief, and an exemption for wages paid as maternity and adoption leave for a maximum 14 weeks. This benefits both employers and employees and enables employees to engage in voluntary work and emergency relief work, which I am sure many of our members have experienced in their electorates.
The legislation will not impose payroll tax on wages paid by employment agencies to temporary staff in certain circumstances where the wages would be exempt if paid directly by the client. This seems very sensible. For example, when the client is a public hospital or charity, the NT currently imposes payroll tax on such payments.
Harmonisation with payroll tax laws across Australia benefits the 83% of payroll tax registered businesses in the NT who also employ people interstate. It will deliver payroll tax savings for businesses of about $1.3m. Added to the $1.7m a year saving as a result of 2008 harmonisation measures, the first stage of the project, businesses should see total payroll tax savings of about $3m. I believe this will encourage further development of the Territory economy.
It is important to note that, with the combination of the NT’s tax rate and its very high tax-rate-free threshold of $1.25m, the second highest in Australia, the Territory has a very competitive payroll tax scheme. We are the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for small business. In the current economic climate all measures benefiting business are welcome – the flow-on effects and employment are very important at this time.
The Treasurer is doing an excellent job managing the budget and the taxation base, but there is always more to do, which is why we are debating this bill. I support this bill. It will reduce the compliance burden on business and that protects Territory jobs across all sectors of our economy.
I believe more exemptions for maternity leave and adoption leave, with the continuation of the exemption for apprentices, will encourage increased workforce participation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure there is a formula which says that the length of the speech is inversely proportional to the complications and thickness of the bill before the House. The Payroll Tax Bill is one of those. The member for Fannie Bay just showed me how complicated and large this particular bill is. It is something for insomniacs because it takes a fair amount to go through. If you are into algebra, you can also find some relief in reading the Payroll Tax Bill, because there are some equations in it that would make my old maths teacher, from many years ago, turn over in his grave.
When you see formulas like this to help work out the payroll of an employer over the threshold - which is [TW-[TW over TW + IW x TA x C over FY]] x R - one wonders how complicated the world is, when all we are doing is taking tax from an employer. I can see why employers must find it very difficult to run their businesses when you have fairly detailed and complicated formulas to work out your tax.
I survived reading most of it; I did get lost in the different types of groups, but I stumbled my way through. There are some interesting areas in relation to non-profit organisations and various matters. I will ask some questions during estimates, but one area I thought was interesting related to clause 47 on page 28 under the heading ‘Agreement etc. to reduce or avoid liability to payroll tax’. Part of this clause stood out - bearing in mind what the member for Port Darwin is going to talk about in another bill – and I quote clause 47(3):
This is interesting. The bill is discussing avoidance measures a company might put in place, and perhaps doing that through various transactions. The commissioner does not just have to say he is satisfied there could be something untoward, he has to say: ‘These are the facts and these are the reasons I have made my determination’.
I highlight that now, because we are dealing with this particular tax at the moment, but I believe it is relevant to an interesting debate, that I am sure is going to come up, regarding stamp duty tax. It seems to me that was a much fairer application of the law in relation to whether someone had deliberately tried to avoid paying payroll tax.
I do have some other questions, which are not anything serious. I thank the minister for the briefing. Every time I see those two gentlemen, I go in the other direction. Since reading the Payroll Tax Bill, I wake up at night with nightmares, but I will eventually get over it. It is a complicated bill. It is not the easiest thing in the world. I will have to stick to planning and things more sane …
Ms Purick: More sexy things.
Mr WOOD: Yes, sane things, where logic applies. This is in the area of spiritualism and mystics.
It is obviously needed for the Territory because, basically, it has - using one of these ‘in’ words – harmonised - we used to do that in the Darwin Chorale, I was not very good at it. However, that is what they are doing; they are harmonising. I can see those two gentlemen over there harmonising. They are harmonising this with the other states so that, generally speaking, issues relating to payroll tax which apply in the Territory will apply in other states. That is good, especially when you are dealing with companies that work throughout Australia, which do not want to have a whole pile of regimes that make life complicated for them.
Madam Speaker, I see the benefits in this bill and I will support it. I will raise the other issues I have in the committee stage.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support for the Payroll Tax Bill, which puts in place initiatives that were announced in the Territory Budget for 2009-10.
As you heard from members, key to it is our commitment to the national project that reduces payroll tax, red tape, and compliance costs for businesses. It is a rare thing in payroll tax. We know business does not like it, but we also know it is a necessary taxation regime at the state and territory government level, but we do what we can to ensure that we are reducing red tape for business and reducing its compliance costs.
The bill before us includes the second stage of a process that began in 2008, in the harmonisation of our own payroll tax legislation with all the other states in eight key areas. The bill puts in place payroll tax legislation that is almost identical with legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania. South Australia has recently passed legislation that adopts full harmonisation from 1 July 2009, and it is also consistent with legislation in Queensland.
This is an especially important move in the Territory, because about 83% of payroll tax registered businesses in the Territory also employ interstate, meaning that most will enjoy the benefits of the consistent legislation. On top of the red tape reduction, this bill will result in payroll tax savings for businesses of about $1.3m. This adds to the $1.7m a year savings as a result of the 2008 harmonisation measures. Businesses will then see a total payroll tax saving of some $3m.
Reducing the compliance burden on business is part of the government’s goal of protecting Territory jobs across all sectors of our economy. In addition, we believe new exemptions for what was going to be maternity leave and adoption leave, along with the continuation of the exemption for apprentices, may also encourage increased workforce participation.
I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution to the bill. I give notice that I intend to move a committee stage amendment to the bill, based on an excellent suggestion by the member for Port Darwin, to introduce a paternity leave exemption on the same terms as the maternity leave exemption in this bill.
The bill also provides for provisions - which were road tested with the TCA and the HIA in terms of harmonisation before adopting them - looking at providing employers with a set of practical tests that approximate the common law employer/employee test. All states other than Western Australia have relevant contract provisions. These provisions have been in place since the 1980s in Victoria and New South Wales. The Territory Construction Association and the Housing Industry Association were consulted prior to taking these measures to my Cabinet colleagues. Both were supportive of the introduction of these relevant contract provisions.
Madam Speaker, I will be moving a committee stage amendment introducing paternity leave exemptions. I point out that there were other matters - and I thank the member for Nelson for obtaining a briefing – and initiatives which are also important; for example, the charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose in the payroll tax exemption. This initiative ensures that the terms are not defined and they take their ordinary meaning. It is an extension of the current exemption that exists for public benevolent institutions. For example, an organisation may be philanthropic because it donates to benevolent institutions that provide direct aid to those in need, rather than providing the aid directly itself. Examples of this might include the Myer Foundation or Philanthropy Australia. I have previously worked for an organisation in the disability area which relied solely on philanthropic donations.
Examples of patriotic organisations, which would now enjoy an exemption to payroll tax, might include the various veterans’ organisations or the RSL, with the exemption provided in respect of employees exclusively engaged in work of a kind ordinarily performed in connection with the religious, charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose of the organisation.
I know the member for Nelson had some questions in relation to clauses 47 and 59. I am assuming the member wants to deal with them in committee but I can talk about them now, if it helps ...
Mr Wood: It would have to be through the Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 47, dealing with payroll tax and the avoidance measures, replicates section 11(a) in the current Pay-Roll Tax Act. Section 11(a) has been part of the act since 1985. The exact clause is part of the harmonised payroll tax scheme and is in the harmonised acts of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, and a similar provision is in all other state and territory payroll tax legislation.
Payroll tax is triggered when there is an employer and employee relationship, where the business engages the worker directly and the worker receives wages. One scheme for avoiding payroll tax is for the worker and the business to agree to pay another person who is related or connected to the worker. Clause 47 allows the commission to disregard this arrangement and treat the payment as if it is wages and, thus, subject to payroll tax. A common example is where a business engages a company related to the worker, yet the worker provides the services for the business, instead of the business engaging the worker directly to provide the services.
The member for Nelson also had queries in relation to clause 59, Local government business entities. The exact provision is part of the harmonised payroll tax scheme and is in the harmonised acts of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania. The current payroll tax has an exemption for local government. The bill provides the same exemption, but adds additional rules for local government subsidiaries, to ensure a local government body cannot exploit the exemption.
Clauses 58 and 59 provide an exemption in the Payroll Tax Bill for local government entities including any wholly owned subsidiary. Clause 59 provides that the exemption for the subsidiary has two requirements, being: it can only relate to an activity on behalf of a local government authority, and there is a requirement that the payroll tax equivalent is paid to the holding local government body.
The first condition stops the local government body using the exemption to conduct non-local government commercial activities. This means a local government body cannot use a subsidiary to venture into other non-local government business areas without paying payroll tax. This ensures there is a level playing field between a local government subsidiary and the private sector.
The second condition ensures the local government subsidiary obtains the exemption when performing local government activities, although the cost of payroll tax is to be included in the costs of the subsidiary. This provides competitive neutrality with other businesses that may tender for local government work.
I know that the member for Nelson may have further questions, but I wanted to put on the record the advice I have received in relation to those two aspects.
We have heard that the Territory has a very high tax-free threshold of $1.25m, the second highest in Australia. Basically, we have calculated that for businesses with wages up to $5m, the Territory has the most competitive payroll tax scheme, as it has either the lowest or second lowest effective payroll tax rate.
The government has an election commitment to reduce the payroll tax rate from 5.9% to 5.5% during this term. This is still a commitment we have, and the $10m reduction in payroll tax is set out in the forward estimates. We already reduced the payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 5.9% in 2008. We also increased the tax-free threshold from $600 000 to the high limit area where it is now, at $1.25m. Essentially, payroll tax is paid by large businesses operating in the Territory; the small businesses are out of the payroll tax realm.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and we will go into committee for a committee stage amendment for payroll tax exemptions for paternity leave.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Payroll Tax Bill 2009 Serial 42, together with the Schedule of Amendments No 14, circulated by the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 52, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: I was going to talk about clause 48.
Madam CHAIR: Yes, you are welcome to do that.
Mr WOOD: Treasurer, my questions are not too in-depth. You mentioned before patriotic, yet there is no definition of patriotic. I did not know whether someone who sells many Aussie flags, koala bears and echidnas is a patriotic business. How do you define what is patriotic and what is not, and why is there not a definition in the act?
Ms LAWRIE: All the exemption definitions - for example, benevolent - are based on common meanings. The Commissioner for Taxation ultimately makes a decision on that, but ‘patriotic’ is taken as its common meaning. I used examples like veterans organisations and the RSL, which would fall within the recognition of that definition.
Mr WOOD: On another matter, where you have a charitable, non-profit organisation that operates second-hand clothing stores, like Red Cross, St Vincent de Paul, those sorts of places, do they come under any of this bracket? In theory, they are profit organisations if they are making money from the business.
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that where they are exclusively engaged in benevolent work they fall within the exemption. Where they compete against other stores, they may not.
Mr WOOD: If there is a private, second-hand clothing store in Darwin, for instance, and there are religious or benevolent institutions also involved in second-hand clothing, would they then have to pay payroll tax?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised it is about whether they are exclusively engaged. I am loath to make calls that a Commissioner for Taxation might more properly make. I will give the example of the benevolent institutions such as the Red Cross and the second-hand clothes stores they operate. My understanding of their operation is they are largely run by volunteers. Staff who may be involved in the operation of second-hand store would, potentially, be involved in other aspects of the Red Cross operation and, therefore, a Commissioner of Taxation would look at that and it may, indeed, meet the test of benevolent in the full extent.
Mr WOOD: The decision about who pays what is the commissioner’s job, who makes a decision based on investigation of the particular enterprise. Is that right?
Ms LAWRIE: In the first instance, there would have to be a claim in that regard for a VAT exemption from the benevolent institution. The test would be applied by the Commissioner for Taxation.
Clauses 1 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move amendment 14.1. I propose the following amendments to the Payroll Tax Bill 2009 with changes in section 3 that provide a payroll tax exemption for wages paid or payable to an employee for maternity leave or adoption leave, and to Schedule 2 of the bill which contains a number of Northern Territory specific provisions. We believe the maternity and adoption leave exemptions in proposed section 53 will provide an incentive for Territory employers to provide paid maternity and adoption leave for their employees. This may encourage increased workforce participation, especially by women.
Following the introduction of the bill, the member for Port Darwin wrote to me suggesting that this exemption should be extended to paternity leave. We believe this is an excellent suggestion, and one that the government is very pleased to adopt. As a result, Schedule 2 of the bill is to be amended to introduce a payroll tax exemption for wages paid for paternity leave for a maximum period of 14 weeks of wages. A note is to be inserted into the proposed section 53 to signal that an exemption for paternity leave is contained in Schedule 2 of the bill. This note also advises that a paternity leave exemption is not included in the payroll tax legislation of all other jurisdictions. I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution, and I commend the amendments that have been circulated to honourable members of the parliament.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I acknowledge the Treasurer’s flexibility in relation to this matter. I have lost a bet, however. There you go, that happens. I cannot really claim to have thought of this. We are served by people who work diligently in our offices; this was pointed out to me as an issue by someone else - Francine, well done, and I am grateful to her for pointing it out. If I was to claim ownership of this exclusively, it would be remiss of me, and I shall not do so. However, it is a fair and sensible amendment within the scheme of the legislation. I am grateful for the acknowledgement from the government for where it has come from, and I also acknowledge the real source.
Madam Chair, I indicate to the government our full support for this particular amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 116, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 14.2.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 6 May 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in responding to this bill, it is an occasion that I have cause to express my ongoing irritation at a practice in this House which has been continued in relation to this bill.
The practice I refer to is that of ‘omnibusing’ bills to change different parts of legislation, when those items of legislation which are being proposed to be amended have very little bearing on each other. This is one of those examples. I am always a little cautious when I see these omnibus-type bills come in because they contain an inherent political trap.
I was still receiving advice when I gave notice yesterday of a motion which I will be moving shortly, or at the completion of the second reading debate. It is an ongoing thing - it has been a moving feast for me - gaining advice on this. I have received Treasury briefings in relation to the bill, as well as briefings from outside Treasury by people in the industry who have to work with these legislative amendments. That is why I gave notice yesterday that I may be moving a motion. I can now indicate that I shall be moving the motion. The motion seeks to separate one of the legislative instruments which is incorporated in this bill.
This bill effectively changes three items of legislation, in relation to penalties: the Taxation Administration Act, the Stamp Duty Act, and the First Home Owner Grant Act. One could be forgiven for thinking, on first blush, it would be appropriate to change those three elements of legislation in the same bill because they would relate to each other - buy a house, pay stamp duty, some taxation implications flow from it.
However, there is very little that is similar between what is sought to be passed by the First Home Owner Grant Act and what is sought to be changed in the Stamp Duty Act. I appreciate and understand that the First Home Owner Grant Act is to be amended to enable the Commonwealth’s First Home Owner Grants to operate in the Northern Territory. I definitely have no objection to those. I have some concerns that I have expressed that in the past, but I am not interested in challenging these particular amendments before the House in relation to the First Home Owner Grant Act.
My concern flows from amendments to the Stamp Duty Act. I am now stuck in the precarious situation - and this is the political problem I was referring to - of wanting to pass one part of this legislation, and wanting to challenge or question another part of the legislative instrument. But, because it is a single legislative instrument changing three bills, I am stuck with this horrible situation where I either have to vote for something I do not agree with, or vote against something I do agree with. That is the annoying problem that comes up when we omnibus bills.
Whilst I accept that, from time to time, this process is necessary; it is necessary in those environments where the change to one legislative instrument automatically and completely has an effect on another legislative instrument, and they have to be bound together because they are almost indistinguishable. You have situations when, for example, you change the law of de facto relationships, which would affect 40 or 50 different pieces of legislation, and you roll them all up into one and pass it as a single package.
However, in this instance, the Stamp Duty Act is trying to deal with a tax avoidance scheme which has nothing to do with First Home Owner Grants. I am now stuck with a situation where I am challenged by a problem I have with the Stamp Duty Act, whilst I want to pass the first homeowner amendments.
I will now draw the members’ attention to the concerns that I have in relation to the Stamp Duty Act. Never come between a tax man and the people they are trying to tax, because governments have to fund themselves. I have used the phrase before: governments are addicted to taxation income - and that is entirely true. Governments will seek to raise revenue by all manner of taxations, levies, and goodness knows what else, and I do not have a major problem with that, because governments need to function.
However, there is an element which seems to permeate taxation law more than any other form of legislative instrument: the arbitrary powers given to Taxation Commissioners. I draw your attention particularly to federal taxation law and, I suppose, Northern Territory taxation law. Part of the changes to the Stamp Duty Act were described by the Treasurer in her second reading speech, and I quote the Treasurer:
It takes a little reading but you get there eventually. I go to the explanatory notes, where the Treasurer was referring to the introduction of section 56CA, which is clause 25 of the bill. At this point it says, and I quote from the explanatory notes:
The scheme to which the Treasurer was referring in the second reading speech:
I will stop there because that is the expression I wish to refer to. Having read the Stamp Duty Act, and trying to get my head around it, the expression ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’ is a common expression in the legislative instrument. You will find it peppered all the way through - I guess it would be there about 40 or 50 times. For a determination of whether a commissioner will go after a particular type of sting, it is the commissioner’s decision to determine whether a scheme is an avoidance scheme.
What does the commissioner think about when they are making such a determination about an anti-avoidance scheme? I turn to section 4B(1) of the act, Tax avoidance schemes, on page 16. Without reading it all, a tax avoidance:
… scheme includes:
(a) an agreement, arrangement or undertaking:
It is a fairly broad definition. In short, whatever the commissioner reckons is probably a better definition to apply to the Taxation Commissioner.
I am not suggesting for a second that the Taxation Commissioner should be deprived of the capacity to look at a particular scheme and say: ‘Goodness gracious me, that one has hairs on it; it looks like an avoidance scheme’. However, by creating a legislative instrument in which we use the expression ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’, we are placing in the commissioner’s orbit a power to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Perhaps I should demonstrate an equivalent. For arguments sake, if a liquor inspector walked into a pub and thought: ‘Goodness gracious me, I am looking at a crime or an offence against the Liquor Act’. The Liquor Commissioner does not shut the thing down; it goes through the Liquor Commission which, essentially, sits as a court, and another body determines the guilt or innocence of the licensee. It is, ultimately, a court which determines the guilt or innocence of the breach of the legislation.
That does not occur when we are dealing with the Taxation Commissioner. All the Taxation Commissioner needs, in their orbit of influence, is to merely be satisfied. If the commissioner is satisfied it is an avoidance scheme, a person who has a scheme identified finds themselves going to court to demonstrate that they are not operating a tax avoidance scheme.
It would require some letters between the Taxation Department and various lawyers and financial representatives but, ultimately, the determination is made by the commissioner, not an independent arbiter. This is where I come into conflict with the act, because where you see the term ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’, throughout the Stamp Duty Act, more often than not - not always - in the Stamp Duty Act the expression ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’ takes on the flavour of a shield. Which means that where the ‘Commissioner is satisfied’ appears, there is some taxation law applied fully towards a particular taxpayer which would lead to an unjust outcome. The commissioner, if satisfied that would happen, could place a shield between the tax and the taxpayer. In that form, the commissioner’s satisfaction is an extension of what you would call a common law power of discretion which is enjoyed by all people who are administrators.
However, there are on occasions in the legislation, where ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’ takes the form of an offensive weapon - a sword if you like, rather than a shield. In that instance, the commissioner will determine that something is an avoidance scheme. That is what occurs in this particular instance. I note comments made by the member for Nelson, in the legislative instrument prior to this, that there were greater restraints in that legislative instrument than are expressed here.
What I was intending to do, after trying to separate the bills from each other, was to bring in an amendment which would read: ‘this section applies if the commissioner can demonstrate to a court’. This would have to occur twice in that section. I received some advice on this issue, and it would be difficult to go down that path in such an arbitrary fashion. I do not intend to do that. I intend to, during the committee stages of this bill, appeal to the Treasurer to go back and look at this. The reason I say this is simple, and it comes from the Treasurer’s own words, which I quoted earlier, and I quote again:
This means it is easy to prove. According to the Treasurer, you can pick one of these avoidance schemes a mile away; they are easily identified; you can pick one and see what it is. Therefore, why do we default to this standard process of saying: ‘The commissioner just determines it, go and prove your innocence’? We have a system of law which presumes, as a general rule - with the exception of tax law and a couple of other laws - that you are innocent until proven guilty. A commissioner simply determines this is a tax avoidance scheme. If it is easy to prove, then why not prove it to a court? It would be a fairer way to go about this ...
Ms Lawrie: Give the lawyers more money.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. One of the people in industry I have spoken to …
Ms Lawrie: One person in industry is opposed to this? One?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You do not even know what I am going to say, do you? One of the people I spoke to has a client who spent tens of thousands of dollars dealing with a determination over a two-year period; it was difficult for that person. It is well and good for the executive arm of government and its public service to say: ‘This is how we go about these things’. However, there is a real implication that when these determinations are made it costs the taxpayer thousands to fend one of these things off. It is quite conceivable that the Taxation Office may choose, at some point along the road, to discontinue an audit, for argument’s sake, but not before the taxpayer has parted with $10 000 or $20 000 seeking legal advice on that particular audit. There is a legal cost which is automatically incurred by the taxpayer because of a determination by the Taxation Commissioner.
However, there is not necessarily a legal cost if the Tax Commissioner says: ‘Hang on, if there is an element of doubt about this particular avoidance scheme, maybe I should not proceed, because I have to prove it to the court’. In those instances, it is more likely that a taxpayer would not incur thousands of dollars of legal costs than the current system and what is being proposed. Because it is such an easy thing to identify - the Treasurer said you can spot these transactions a mile away:
This is easy. You can spot one of these blokes. If that is the case, reverse the onus. It will not be hard to prosecute. Police officers and other government departments run prosecutions all the time. We should be sending a signal to the business community which addresses a growing concern that there is a certain arbitrary nature to the way these revenues are collected.
Other advice I have received deals more generally with taxation and revenue-raising measures, and they have concerns about the increasing difficulty in advising clients of legislative instruments which are nebulous in their intent. If you need a descriptor of what is nebulous, go back to the definition of tax avoidance schemes: whatever, wherever, whether unilateral, bilateral, multilateral, whether enforceable or not. That is fairly nebulous, and in a tax environment, particularly those people who give tax advice, we have to be careful that the pursuit of revenue does not subordinate the proper processes of a clear and certain approach to taxation collection. Whilst revenue is important - I acknowledge that - I have reservations about that section.
During the committee stages, I will ask that we defer this and send it back to a drafter to try to find language which reflects the comments I have made. I ask honourable members to turn their minds to this issue because I believe in the principle that we have a duty to the community we serve to pass good law which protects its interests as much as the government’s interests.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me to have a briefing on stamp duty, which is a fairly complicated business. I wonder why. As I said at the briefing, all you are doing is trying to receive some tax from the sale of a block of land. That little equation seems to head off in countless directions, which means that you have to have some complicated legislation to trace who is liable for what and who is not liable for what. It is a pity that we cannot simplify some of these complicated processes.
Of course, there are people who try to avoid paying tax - not only payroll tax, but other forms of tax. I compare what the member for Port Darwin was talking about, and what clause 47 in the Payroll Tax Bill says. I read clause 47 in the payroll tax section so that I have an understanding of it – and what appears to me is a different approach to determining if someone is avoiding their responsibility. Clause 47 states:
(1) If any person enters into any agreement, transaction or arrangement, whether in writing or otherwise, under which an individual performs, for or on behalf of another person, services in respect of which any payment is made to some other person related or connected to the individual performing the services and the effect of the agreement, transaction or arrangement is to reduce or avoid the liability of any person to the assessment, imposition or payment of payroll tax, the Commissioner may:
(2) If the Commissioner makes a determination under subsection (1), the Commissioner must serve a notice to that effect on the person taken to be an employer for this Act.
(3) The notice must spell out the facts on which the commissioner relies and the reasons for the determination and, for this section, has effect in relation to agreements, transactions and arrangements made before, on or after the commencement of this section.
Then I look at the section the member for Port Darwin raised in relation to an avoidance scheme. Section 56CA of the act states:
(1) This section applies if the Commissioner is satisfied:
(a) any of the following entitlements of a person is reduced (including reduced to nil) as a direct or indirect result of the arrangement:
(i) an entitlement in the distribution of the property of a corporation as a shareholder on the winding up of the corporation as described in section 56C(6);
(2) Unless the Commissioner is satisfied the arrangement is not a tax avoidance scheme or part of a tax avoidance scheme:
I am asking these questions to get an answer; these are not easy bills to go through. I see that there appears to be two different approaches to the avoidance of tax.
I do not want to go into more detail about the bill. That is my main concern. I also had a briefing with the member for Port Darwin about this matter. Once again, I thank the minister for the briefing; it is not the easiest stuff for people to go through. I believe that is the case when people keep trying to think up strange ways of avoiding tax. It would be nice if we could eventually simplify some of these things, but I suppose I might be utopian in my approach to this when, in reality, that cannot happen.
I am interested in your answers to the query about the commissioner’s satisfaction regarding tax avoidance.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will address the matters raised in the contribution by the members for Port Darwin and Nelson in my wrap up now, recognising that the member for Port Darwin has flagged a motion and I have flagged that the government will not support this motion. We will go to that debate at the end of the second reading.
I thank the members for their contribution to debate and for receiving a briefing from Treasury officials. As everyone recognises, this legislation is complex and, I believe, availing themselves of those briefings helps other matters - that will not necessarily be the subject of the committee stage debate and discussion - be understood in the context in which they are being provided and brought forward.
We have a series of amendments to our revenue legislation, and some I recognise by the comments from members opposite, will be contested, particularly the anti-avoidance measures on stamp duty. But others, I see from the contributions, have been seen as reasonable and accepted. Leon Loganathan, the warrior of tax lawyers, actually thanked me, recognising that we have picked up some of the provisions from industry suggestions in some of the stamp duty changes we were making in this revenue legislation, particularly regarding whether someone was entering a contract, etcetera.
Not everything my taxation specialists in Treasury do is evil. I recognise, as the member for Port Darwin said, along the lines of ‘do not stand in the way of a taxation revenue person and the revenue’. I have found, on the whole, genuine willingness and interest from Treasury officials in discussions at the end of a calendar year on some of the options for a fairer tax regime that I want them to consider in the construction of a budget. I believe the revenue legislation before us recognises this; where they see areas emerging that are of significant concern to revenue officials, particularly areas of avoidance - and as long as there is a taxation lawyer, there will be avoidance schemes.
From time to time, every Treasurer in this House, looking at budget measures, will be closing the latest loophole a taxation lawyer has found - a gross avoidance scheme - to ensure the jurisdiction’s revenue is protected. I make no apology for the measures before the House at the moment. Closing a loophole around a gross avoidance measure which, on my advice, has only been used once in the Territory, I believe is an indication of just how gross this avoidance measure has been. Appropriate action has been taken by Treasury officials on my request to bring forward changes to appropriately deal with this avoidance measure.
We have received feedback from industry; the industry was consulted. We have held discussions and their revenue circulars have gone out. There was general acceptance that this was a gross avoidance measure and they have no problem. There is one person, in a taxation/legal practitioner sense, who is highly offended by it. I do not question that because they are making a great deal of money. This individual worked very hard in a smart way to create this avoidance measure and would have made a lot of money continuing the avoidance measure. I see that someone out there is not happy with this.
However, as Treasurer, I will defend the Territory’s revenue base and listen to what I have found to be very reasonable, practical, and sensible officials of Treasury, in revenue, who recognise where gross avoidance circumstances are occurring.
There are a range of revenue measures in the legislation and also the new Penalty Units Act, which puts in place a number of initiatives that I announced in the budget. The revenue legislation provides a range of reforms that increase taxation equity but also reduce red tape. A key proposal is to improve the equity and simplicity of the landholder stamp duty provisions. The Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill will ensure that stamp duty is payable for the acquisition of valuable landholdings of large listed companies and trusts, when such an entity becomes the subject of a takeover or merger.
Thank you, Western Australia; it was the first jurisdiction to go down this path; I have had a look. I did not do it last year. I did consider it, but I wanted to be more prudent and see what would occur in Western Australia and what attitude the Commonwealth Treasury would take to this measure from Western Australia. We have had the time to test it and we are confident in moving forward, because this is a matter of equity. Someone buying a house pays stamp duty, so why should a major listed company, purchasing significant landholdings in the Territory, not have to pay?
The stamp duty rules on landholding trusts will also be aligned with the rules that apply to companies. Along with provisions to address a known tax avoidance scheme, which I will go into further details about, these amendments, we believe, will make landholder stamp duty schemes simpler and fairer.
Two measures which demonstrate we have actually listened to business, and are taking a very fair approach in the measures before the House, are included in a response to a request by Territory lawyers and conveyancers through the Territory Taxation Administration Liaison Committee.
The first will allow the purchaser to be substituted with a related person in certain circumstances without double duty consequences. The second removes the requirement to lodge cancelled agreements unless a sub-sale of the property has occurred. This is a fair and reasonable approach to stamp duty. These measures ensure that taxpayers are treated fairly; they reduce the red tape for taxpayers and the compliance costs for the government.
Even in a tough budget, the government has to ensure tax is targeted appropriately. To this end, the bill also includes a number of stamp duty exemptions for individuals, business, and non-profit organisations such as: exemptions for trailers and caravans from motor vehicle registration stamp duty to ensure Territory trailer and caravan dealers maintain competitiveness with other jurisdictions which provide similar stamp duty exemptions; extensions of the exemptions for public benevolent institutions so that these exemptions are also available to benevolent, charitable, philanthropic or patriotic organisations; exempting first home saver accounts from life insurance duty; and exemptions for leases in retirement villages from stamp duty, that would otherwise be imposed on the up-front premiums, to reduce costs to pensioners and seniors. These measures are forgoing revenue, but we saw an opportunity to be fair and reasonable in our approach in these measures.
Turning to the Penalty Units Bill, the legislation allows for monetary penalties for offences to be expressed in penalty units, and provides a mechanism for quickly and efficiently providing an across-the-border adjustment of financial penalties. It makes sense. This ensures that there is a simple way of maintaining the real value of penalties, because penalties cease to have a significant deterrent or punishment effect if, at the very least, inflation is not taken into account.
The new act provides for the revenue unit value to initially be increased from $110 to $130, which recognises the increase in the CPI since 2002 when the revenue unit was set at the value of $110. We are playing a little catch-up. We will provide for that revenue unit to be increased in line with the CPI index for Darwin, and these changes will allow the deterrent value of penalties to be maintained. We have it in this bill because we do not shy away from the fact that this is a revenue raiser for the government.
Regarding the anti-avoidance provisions - that we will ultimately agree to disagree on, as I will pursue them with vigour because I back my Treasury officials in protecting our revenue against gross avoidance measures – these are required to counter a scheme that is being used in the Territory - once that we are aware of – that if not addressed could, potentially, significantly erode our stamp duty collections. Opposing the provisions means agreeing with people entering into artificially structured transactions to avoid duty which, I believe, would be grossly irresponsible. This would result in revenue loss to the Territory that could be used to fund schools, police stations, police, and hospitals.
The only stakeholders who would oppose these provisions are those who devise and sell artificial avoidance schemes. These people charge fees to businesses to attempt to find and exploit possible taxation loopholes. The avoidance scheme that these provisions prevent is aimed at either reducing a person’s entitlement on the winding-up of a company in order to avoid duty, as this is the landholder trigger, or enabling a person to obtain control of a corporation without making a taxable acquisition of shares.
Well, come on! Come in spinner - gross avoidance measures …
Mr Elferink: You have not listened to what I said.
Ms LAWRIE: Gross avoidance measures. These amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions - because you stopped at ‘satisfy’ and you did not read below it when you went to clause 25.
These amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions because there are no commercial reasons for framing a transaction in the manner covered by these amendments other than to avoid stamp duty. For example, what ordinary transaction would see a person divest themselves of their ordinary rights as a shareholder, to be entitled to the property of the company when it winds up, unless the aim is to transfer the shares without triggering the landholders stamp duty liability? It is a gross avoidance measure. The legislation contains a clear example of this type of transaction within proposed new section 56CA. What ordinary transaction occurs where one person cedes control of a corporation to another person without selling the shares, unless the aim is to avoid tax?
Northern Territory Treasury has advised me that they are not aware of any ordinary business transaction that would be threatened by these provisions ...
Mr Elferink: My point precisely.
Ms LAWRIE: The commissioner has issued a guideline on all of the proposed landholder amendments, including the anti-avoidance provisions, which makes it clear that the provisions apply only in circumstances set up to defeat the payment of stamp duty under landholder provisions. It contains an excellent example of the artificial nature of the possible abuse these provisions prevent. Instead of an ordinary share sale transaction, a person pays for a power of attorney to allow them to control the voting power of the shares and, therefore, control the decisions of the company. The anti-avoidance provisions are modelled on similar provisions in the Victorian stamp duty legislation, which have been in place for five years without acting as a barrier to ordinary business.
South Australia also has anti-avoidance provisions in place to counter this scheme, which were introduced in 2000 as part of significant changes to its landholder scheme.
The member for Port Darwin raised the issue of the commissioner having to be satisfied. This clause is only being aimed at gross anti-avoidance. As I have said, the commissioner has put out a guideline. Any decision of the Commissioner for Taxation can be objected to ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, that costs.
Ms LAWRIE: Any objection prompts an internal review, in the first instance but, ultimately, it can be appealed to the court or a tribunal. The member for Port Darwin is concerned about the costs. I am reliably informed that the tribunal is cheap; it costs $10 ...
Mr Elferink: What, a lawyer costs $10?
Ms LAWRIE: The Territory Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal costs $10 …
Mr Elferink: Yes, but do your clients get represented?
Ms LAWRIE: … and you do not need legal representation.
If you have an issue with a decision made by the Commissioner for Taxation, you can go to the Territory Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal, pay your $10 - you do not need legal representation. It can be as cheap as $10 to challenge a decision made by the Commissioner for Taxation. That is a pretty fair test in testing the reasons for the commissioner’s determination.
I pick up on the member for Nelson’s concerns about the determination by the commissioner, picking up the provisions within the Pay-roll Tax Act in specifying the reasons for their decision. The commissioner always gives reasons for using anti-avoidance provisions. If there is an objection, the Taxation Administration Act requires the commissioner to give the reasons. The commissioner always gives the reasons; that is the way the commissioner operates. Importantly, if there is an objection to the decision or determination, they are actually required, under the Taxation Administration Act, to give their reasons.
Are there checks and balances in place to make sure we do not have some rampaging Commissioner for Taxation making all sorts of strange decisions - maybe if they were a Liquor Commission inspector rampaging around making decisions -- according to the analogy that the member for Port Darwin was talking about? Are there checks and balances in the legislation …
Mr Elferink: No, you have missed the point.
Ms LAWRIE: I am sure the Commissioner for Taxation is thorough in setting out reasons for a determination. Are there checks and balances in place to enable objections - at a $10 cost – to test that objection? Yes, there are. That is why I am confident the measures before us to address a gross avoidance loophole are fair and reasonable. They operate in two other jurisdictions without any difficulty or problems, and without any kickback from industry …
Mr Elferink: They do not exist in all jurisdictions though, do they?
Ms LAWRIE: We have not had any kickback from industry on these and, other than one person, all others we spoke to said: ‘We get it; it is fair. We do not have a problem with it because we would not structure ourselves in that way unless we were trying to do a gross avoidance’. I am sure the member for Port Darwin will beat the drum on this issue, but I will be resolute in ensuring that we will protect the Territory’s revenue from gross avoidance schemes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the bill be now read a second time …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I am working on the advice of the Clerk, so I hope I am doing this right. At this point I seek leave to move the motion I gave notice of yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe it is after the passing of the second reading.
Mr Elferink: I am sorry, I was advised that it was – okay, that is fine, as long as I - I am happy to play the game, through whatever hoops.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe it is after the passing of the second reading, but I will obtain some advice on that.
Mr Elferink: I was advised I would have to do it prior to the question being put but, after this, I will be guided by your wisdom, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I hope we are right. I will just look at …
Ms Lawrie: I asked the Clerk for confirmation on this previously; it is after the second reading.
Mr Elferink: I do not mind how we do this, as long as we go through the hoops.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move the motion which I gave notice of yesterday. I will read the whole motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Members: No.
Mr Elferink: You do not even want to talk about it?
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr Elferink: Dear, oh dear. Okay.
Madam SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly that we go into committee.
Mr Elferink: Yes, Madam Speaker.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 43) and the Penalty Units Bill 2009 (Serial 44) under the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie.
Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 43):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, there are several issues to deal with. The first is the refusal to pull this bill apart. I want to hear from the Treasurer why it is necessary to roll the first homeowners amendments into the same legislative instrument as a tax avoidance amendment to the Stamp Duty Act, when the two issues are utterly and completely unrelated.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to answer the question by the shadow. It is appropriate for amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act to be contained in the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill, as the bill amends legislation administered by the Treasurer to implement policies announced by the government as part of the 2009-10 Budget.
There is no reason for the provisions of the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill to be divided into a separate bill. The amendments proposed, in relation to the First Home Owner Grant Act relate to capping eligibility to the grant and an ancillary of administrative power to allow the commissioner to obtain valuations of property for the purposes of determining whether homes and land fall within the value cap.
The aim of these measures is to improve the targeting of homeowner assistance. The government has previously aligned the eligibility criteria for the grant and the stamp duty concession and they are administered in tandem. It does not make sense to debate these amendments separately, nor does it make sense for amendments to be made to the First Home Owner Grant that are not mirrored in the stamp duty concessions. From a wider policy perspective, separating specific components of budget-related bills would set an undesirable precedent.
This bill reflects a set of initiatives that are important components of the Territory budget and should be taken as a whole.
The opposition has the ability, as it will exercise, to consider them carefully and form an opinion on whether it can support them. It is not for you to exercise any provisions that you are not happy with, excise the ones you do not like, and seek to debate the rest. Any amendments that you wish to recommend can be moved in the committee stage for the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill without separating them into two bills. We can deal with your issues in the committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK: This is issue: we have two legislative instruments, changing two different pieces of legislation, and they can be dealt with discretely. Why not roll the Financial Management Act from yesterday into this? And why not roll the payroll tax into this? It is all under the umbrella you just described. Why not amend those five bills?
We did it because this is a vehicle by which something you know is not universally supported by industry. You use the First Home Owners Grant as a cover to dodge that particular bullet. The political issue we have been confronted with is, by loading this with the First Home Owners Grant, if we vote against it, there will only be one question put: whether the bills should pass. There is only one bill to pass. Then, out goes the press release: ‘CLP try to take the First Home Owners Grant away’. This is the type of political stunt pulled repeatedly in this place. I come in and say: ‘Can we pull these two bills apart?’ That is the purpose of the motion I put forward, as the Treasurer knows. I am trying to separate it out, as I explained at the beginning of my second reading speech. I did not mind and I had no problem with that particular law being changed. However, she has not described how these two bills interconnect at a detailed level.
She says it is all part of the revenue process of government. True. However, the bills, from what I can see, do not relate on an intimate level. These laws can be changed independently of each other. This should be the threshold question any Treasurer or minister asks when they bring a bill into the House: can these bills be dealt with discretely? I specifically used the example of changes to the definition of de facto, which affects a raft of legislation. I can understand why it comes in under that structure.
However, to use one legislative change to mask the effect of another is improper use of the legislative process. The concern I have is, all of a sudden, I have this one stark choice. Every member of this parliament shares the same choice: do we run the risk of being branded as going against the First Home Owners Grant Bill, because we have the audacity to argue that an element of another part of the bill is less than perfect?
We have this problem. I am frustrated that we are having this argument again in this House. It is unnecessary; it is bad legislative conduct and it is demonstrative of a government trying to protect itself with an increasing level of arrogance, which has led to the problems we have seen in this House today. If the government continues down this path it will resonate into the community. I will be saying in the community that the government put tax powers through on the back of the First Home Owners Grant legislation, because that is what you are doing.
By the way, to suggest I am in some way trying to support a gross tax avoidance scheme - I am not, not for one second. I am suggesting that if it is so easy to prove, take it to an independent arbitrator, such as a court. You say it only costs $10 to appeal to the tribunal. The hell it does! It costs $10 to lodge the matter, but no one goes to the tribunal until they have sought legal advice. This could be so easy, if we allowed this to be separated out, taken back to be talked about in another environment, and try to find some level playing field because, at the moment, we have this outrageous situation where I will be asked one question: whether I support the First Home Owners Grant, or the enabling legislation for the federal expenditure on the First Home Owners Grant, and thereby, whether I support a new taxation power. It is one question.
That is an outrageous situation to put this House in. Should the Country Liberals form government at some point in the future - and I make no presumptions – and should I be fortunate enough to become a minister, I will make it clear to people that where legislation can be dealt with separately, it will be dealt with separately. I will not hide behind first homeowners to try to shove through new taxation powers.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I have explained this to the member for Port Darwin, and I will explain it again. Stamp Duty and First Home Owners Grant are administered in tandem; they are linked. Also, they are all part of the revenue measures that the government has made in policy decisions in Budget 2009-10. They are linked. That is why they are cognate bills, joined together before the House, when they are linked measures. It is standard practice.
He is running this line that, somehow, we are masking our range of revenue measures, which I announced in my budget speech …
Mr Elferink: No, you are masking a power.
Ms LAWRIE: … and we are masking them behind the First Home Owner Grant, which is before the House today. What kind of masking is it, when you go out on the front foot and talk about it in your budget speech and in your budget presentations? Then Treasury puts out its revenue circular and talks about it in detail as well. The revenue circular is distributed far and wide and I will table that. Then it is debated, discussed, and specifically pointed out in the second reading debate before this Chamber. Further, we are debating it in the committee stage.
Therefore, to say that, somehow, we are trying to mask the range of revenue measures - in particular, the issue of the avoidance scheme behind the First Home Owners Grant - is patently absurd. If I had not talked about it in the budget speech or to the industry, if Treasury had not put it out in a revenue circular, if we had not been discussing and debating it in the second reading debate and, if we were not in the committee stage right now discussing it, I guess you could say we were trying to mask it. However, we did all those things. We have been up-front - absolutely clear - about what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we are doing it.
Further, regarding the remedy which the member for Port Darwin suggested to meet his concerns about taking the matter to an independent arbitrator of a court, I said that any determination on the gross avoidance measure by the Commissioner for Taxation can be appealed. It triggers an internal review system in the first place. But, ultimately, an appeal can go to either the court or the Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal. It costs $10 to lodge a matter with the tribunal – it is not a large fee.
The member for Port Darwin says that no one would go there without legal representation. That is not true. Treasury has advised that a case has gone there without legal advice. Okay? This is the absurdity of the argument the member for Port Darwin is running. The gross avoidance scheme anti-avoidance measures contained in this bill somehow provide for too much determination powers in order to satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation it is not a gross avoidance scheme. You are not happy with that. You are still not happy with the internal review, which is triggered once someone objects; that an objection can go to the court or the tribunal and the tribunal cost is $10. Your remedy is - off to court you go, where it will cost people more.
Member for Port Darwin, we have not been hiding or masking this; we have articulated, a couple of times now, why we have brought these measures in tandem before the House, and why we are debating them in tandem before the House, in both the second reading and committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK: She and I can continue batting this back and forward all night. She knows - and you can tell by the very careful language - about the issues I raised, particularly in relation to this stunt of marrying up these two utterly independent pieces of legislation. They are utterly independent, they do not relate to each other, except by saying: ‘It is all part of our revenue’. The Financial Management Act and the Pay-roll Tax Act are too, but we have dealt with them separately. This is just a vehicle to get a power through, which she knows, despite her own assertions to the contrary, the industry is not happy with ...
Ms Lawrie: One person.
Mr ELFERINK: That might be the case ...
Ms Lawrie: One person.
Mr ELFERINK: Even if it were the case, that was not mentioned in your second reading speech that people objected, or even that one person objected ...
Ms Lawrie: I talked about it in the …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, we could continue this debate, but the debate has been had. It is a stunt which this House has become used to seeing from the government; a government which is haemorrhaging members. I wonder if they sit around upstairs and think to themselves: ‘Why does this happen? Why are people turning against us? Why are people frustrated with us …
Ms Lawrie: Go back to the data.
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Why do people perceive us to be arrogant? Why is it that our numbers went from 19 to 13 to 12 in the space of seven or eight months? Why is all this happening?’ Yet, they continue to pursue these courses of action. Good luck to them, because all they are going to do is clear the way for a change of government. If they do not understand that, it is their folly and, frankly, our gain.
Madam Chair, these sorts of stunts, and the way they operate in this House, has cost them dearly. The way they operate in the community has cost them dearly, and it will continue to cost them dearly. As it continues to cost them dearly, that is fine from a political point of view, but the point is we have a serious job to do; we pass the laws of this jurisdiction, which people have to live and work with. I understand people are not always going to be happy with the laws we pass, but to try to avoid going to a debate, or a vote on these sorts of issues, by marrying up parts of legislation in this fashion, is too cute by half.
Mr TOLLNER: Treasurer, are you aware of other jurisdictions in Australia which have found that Taxation Commissioners have become a law unto themselves, and where the government has found great difficulty in reining in some of the decisions that Taxation Commissioners have made?
Ms LAWRIE: A classic display of what is fundamentally wrong with the member for Fong Lim. I had to assure public servants, after the last time I appeared in this Chamber in committee stage debate and the member for Fong Lim was asking questions of me, that he did not mean to insult them, their professionalism, or how they go about their work.
They are all very highly intelligent people and, when they heard what the member for Fong Lim had to say, they really felt that he was attacking their professionalism. In that ridiculous question from the member for Fong Lim, he is attacking the professionalism of the Commissioner for Taxation, and the many staff who work in the revenue section of Treasury. It is absurd. No one enjoys paying tax. I am yet to find anyone who enjoys paying tax. It is very rare to find someone who thinks paying tax is a good thing. Even those who understand that tax pays for the roads, the schools, the police, and the fabric of our society still do not enjoy paying it. People are employed to administer the taxation regime for each state and territory and the Commonwealth.
I have come across a few taxation revenue employees since I have been Treasurer, and I hold them all in the highest regard. They are highly professional, capable, honest, and trustworthy people. They do a tough job. At a bar or a pub they probably do not confess readily what their job is. But, my God, they do a good job. Every one of us in this Chamber, and outside this Chamber, benefit from the job they do.
They protect the revenue base of their jurisdiction, here or elsewhere, so we can build the schools, pay the teachers, ancillary staff, teachers’ aides, and the caretaker who cleans the yard. You are absurd, member for Fong Lim, and I am calling you out on your absurdity.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much for that piece of enlightening advice, Treasurer. I was not attempting to smear public servants. I was asking you what I thought was quite a simple question. Are you aware of any circumstances, anywhere in this country, in any jurisdiction, where Taxation Commissioners have become a law unto themselves?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to respond. No. Not elsewhere and not here.
Mr TOLLNER: Treasurer, I call your attention to a circumstance I was involved in. I do not have the exact particulars with me, but it was a well-known case around Australia where the federal Taxation Commissioner started making private rulings in relation to company share ownership schemes. These rulings were taking place on an extraordinarily regular basis. They were happening all around Australia and affected thousands of people who were taking shares in companies that they worked for. It was encouraged by many people on your side of politics, and it is something that I support. I believe there is great merit in employees being able to own a share of their own company. A number of accountants around the country used these private rulings as precedents and sold similar schemes to companies which did not have private taxation rulings. It all came to a head - and I may be wrong on the figures – when the Taxation Commissioner determined that all these schemes were in breach and he wanted to collect something like $3bn revenue from these companies. It would have sent many companies to the wall.
Consequently, parliament and a range of parliamentary committees discussed the matter and legislation was drafted to create a new office called the Inspector General of Taxation. The Inspector General’s role was to oversee determinations made by the federal Taxation Commissioner. This position was created, a person was appointed, and the first task the Inspector General of Taxation was given was to check on the determination the Taxation Commissioner had made in relation to these company share ownership schemes. The Inspector General of Taxation came back and reported that the Taxation Commissioner had erred.
What do you think would be the likely outcome of such a report by a person in a statutory position? Do you think that the Taxation Commissioner would accept that and say: ‘I erred; I made a mistake’? No, that was not the case at all. The Taxation Commissioner basically said: ‘Up yours. I do not recognise who you are. You have it wrong. I stand by my determination’. The matter carried on. It was very detrimental for a whole range of people.
Treasurer, I do not believe public servants go out to try to hamper business or individuals; I believe they act with the best motivation. I find it outrageous that you would suggest I am bagging public servants by asking you a question which I already knew the answer to; that Taxation Commissioners have, in effect, become a law unto themselves. You may not recognise that. I understand, at the time, that you were in the Territory parliament and it would not have been an issue that greatly occupied your time. I understand that you were not aware of this.
However, I was in the federal parliament at the time and I was contacted by constituents who were victims of the Taxation Commissioner’s rulings. I was contacted by people, not just from my electorate, but from around the Northern Territory and across Northern Australia. I have dozens of pieces of correspondence on my files from people from far-flung places who were impacted by that determination.
Treasurer, all I want is some assurance that you have taken into account the risks of these things. By your own acknowledgement, you were not aware of any of this stuff. I asked you, and you said, ‘No’ and sat down. They became a law unto themselves; that is what happened with the federal Taxation Commissioner. I would hate to see a situation like that occurring in the Northern Territory. You have given me no reassurance whatsoever that what you are introducing is not a step in that direction.
Ms LAWRIE: The description of ‘law unto themselves’. If you want to go to that particular ruling and the debacle which occurred as a consequence – okay. It was well-documented and debated in the media.
The description ‘law unto themselves’ - which is your bizarre, basic way of talking about this - is what I disagree with. Our Commissioner for Taxation does not give rulings. You were talking about an example in the federal sphere where it was a subject of rulings that were being provided. We have a different taxation administration in the Territory. Maybe you do not understand that and did not participate in the debate and discussion about taxation administration, but it is different. They do not give rulings. The example you spoke about, at length, are rulings by a different taxation administration system.
Do I believe there are checks and balances in the system and in taxation administration? Yes, I do. It has gone, I guess, to the core of the discussion the member for Port Darwin and I have had - legitimate debate and discussion. When the Commissioner of Taxation makes a decision, they have to provide reasons - in this instance he has to provide reasons for his decisions, which can be objected to. Okay? A person says: ‘I disagree with that. I have the reasons and I disagree’. An objection automatically triggers an internal review in Treasury of that decision – the first trigger, if you like; the first check and balance.
If the decision holds after the internal review, the person can then make a further objection. They have two courses to take. They can either go through the court, or they can go to the taxation tribunal which I referred to in debate and discussion. It costs $10 to lodge with the Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal. You do not need legal representation. At every step along the way, there are checks and balances to scrutinise the decision by the Commissioner of Taxation.
Mr TOLLNER: Treasurer, I have no faith in your competence to hold that position. You have proven this time and time again. You are not across your brief, you are lazy in the extreme, and you are deceptive. By trotting in and marrying this legislation up with first home ownership legislation, is deceptive in the extreme ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you still going for leadership over there?
Mr TOLLNER: It is deceptive in the extreme. Treasurer, there is no way I will support this aspect of your legislation, irrespective of the fact that you have it tied with something very important like the First Home Owners Grant, because you are not a person capable of doing the hard work. You are not a person capable of doing the hard work …
Dr Burns: Look at the portfolios she holds.
Mr TOLLNER: I asked her a very simple question. What did I get in response to a simple question: is the Treasurer aware of any instances in Australia where taxation commissioners have, in effect, become a law unto themselves …
Mr Conlan: I believe the Treasurer’s face.
Mr TOLLNER: I quoted one example. The Treasurer said: ‘I know all about that’. Why did you not say that? The Treasurer knows nothing about her brief; she is not across her brief in any way. The Treasurer is an embarrassment to the Territory, and I feel ashamed that I live in a jurisdiction where we have such an incompetent Treasurer. I asked a question and she abused me about public servants, for goodness sakes. I do not know how that can possibly be related to the question. It is typical of this Treasurer; when she finds herself in a corner with a question she cannot answer, the only thing she can resort to is abuse. It is shameful, and it is shameful for everyone in this place who has to deal with you, Treasurer. You are an embarrassment.
Bill, as printed, agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Penalty Units Bill (Serial 44):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as printed, agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; reports adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
APPROPRIATION (2009-2010) BILL
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from 9 June 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I always give a budget reply, but this year is the first time in my seven years that I was not here for the budget, and I have been playing a fair amount of catch up. There are some areas I will not be spending very much time on, and I suspect this budget reply will be shorter than ones I have traditionally given.
One of the areas I will not be spending much time on today is the area of child protection. I am keen to drill down into as many parts of the budget and comments made by the ministers and others in the area of children and families and child protection, in particular. I have reason to believe that there is a fair amount of smoke and mirrors going on with costing and some confusion with the Territory budget and the Commonwealth budget. I put the minister on notice, in a fairly agreeable way, that at estimates I will be pursuing some of the questions regarding costs.
In addition, I will be asking some general questions, based on many of the things that have been happening in the public domain in the last few months. Even though I have not been at work all the time, I have been watching media reports and I know that, sadly, Coronial inquests in the Northern Territory attract a great deal of publicity. It is a tragedy when any Coronial inquest occurs, particularly when it involves children, and there have been two inquests. One is finished and the other will be finished, I believe, in October. There were some public comments and evidence given that I believe is relevant and, time permitting at estimates, I hope to get to some of those matters.
In relation to the Attorney-General’s area, I was a little surprised at what I considered to be a relatively modest series of increases to a range of areas, in particular under the heading of ‘Court Support and Independent Offices’ on page 95 of the Budget Paper. In Budget 2008-09 there was an allocation of about $46m, compared with Budget 2009-10, where the budget allocation is about $48m, which is not a significant increase in the overall scheme of things and, I believe, has been met with a level of disappointment.
In relation to some of the public comments made - in particular, I refer to media releases - I see that there is a reference to the Territory government allocating - by a jointly issued media release dated 5 May by the minister for Justice, the Minister for Correctional Services, and the Chief Minister - $400 000 to upgrade and install new videoconferencing facilities with witness box recording capability to protect vulnerable witnesses. I look forward to hearing some specifics on that; in particular, where is it going to occur. Is it Darwin, Alice Springs, or Tennant Creek? Is it a bush court? If not a bush court, why not? The bush courts need some upgrading. I also ask whether the upgrading, if it is in Alice Springs, will adequately address those matters raised by Justice Eames in April last year, particularly the abandonment of a sexual assault case because of the scathing criticisms His Honour made in relation to equipment at the Alice Springs Court House. I will pursue further details on some of the ministers’ and the government’s announcements.
It is very easy to put these things in a media release and hope that Territorians will buy it hook, line and sinker. Our job is to scrutinise and examine, not what the government has done with its money, but what the government has done with the public money of all Territorians.
I am not surprised that there has been very little said, publicly at least, by the government in this budget or beyond it, regarding the Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill, which was introduced in February 2008, and debated in May, I believe. There was much said by the government about how wonderful that particular act would be and how it would have so many benefits to crime reduction in the Northern Territory. I note there was - unless I am missing something - nothing in any of the media statements or any of the ministers’ comments, publicly, in this place or beyond it, with respect to how well the Youth Justice Act has been going.
The reason this is relevant is so much of the puffery of this government, from the budget and other areas, is about addressing crime and how well the government is doing. I am putting the Attorney-General and others on notice that I will be asking questions about how well the much-lauded - by the government at least - Youth Justice Act - in particular with the family responsibility agreements - have been going, and we will want some details.
It is not good enough for the government to come in, say that various legislation or policy initiatives are going to achieve XYZ, when we had grave concerns whether they would. As part of the estimates process, we need to ask some of those questions.
In relation to Corrections, I noted a fairly modest increase in the Corrections budget. It was in the second week of the February sittings that the new minister for Corrections was like a broken record talking about a new era in Corrections. I wondered how the new era in Corrections was going to translate in the budget. On the figures I have, there has been a very modest increase in the budget for Correctional Services comparing Budget 2008-09 and Budget 2009-10. There is $82.5m in 2008-09, and up to the budget allocation of $86.7m in 2009-10. One wonders how flash this new era - new era, new era - in Corrections will be, with such a relatively modest amount of money injected into it.
I put the new minister, who I am sure is just beside himself with excitement about his first estimates, on notice that we will be asking some good questions in estimates. I hope, minister, you have not been pulled to one side by some of your colleagues, who I feel certain say: ‘Look, the trick with estimates is never to answer a question. If you do not know the answer a good fallback position is look at the CEO or, as you have so many public servants to choose from, look at one of them and say: “I think it would be best if Mr Smith answers this question”’.
You have a fair amount of flexibility, and anything goes, but I would be very grateful if you would have a fair dinkum crack at answering some of our questions. I do look forward to it.
Time permitting, I also hope to ask you about the recommendations from the Women in Prison report by the Ombudsman. No guarantees, because we always tend to run out of time. In any event, I look forward to asking some questions in that area.
There are a couple of things from a local point of view concerning Alice Springs. I do not believe Alice Springs did very well at all from this budget. I am concerned, for instance, about - and I have misplaced some paperwork, here we go - very little - nothing, I believe - in the budget to address ongoing problems associated with land development shortages in Alice Springs. That is disappointing. I understand that the Alice Springs Town Council has estimated the town needs about 100 new housing blocks per year to maintain the rate base in Alice Springs. I am advised that in the past five years the government has only turned off 80 blocks. I thought, even in tough financial times, a little more attention could have been given to Alice Springs and to this area in particular.
I am also concerned, after the media release from the Minister for Central Australia on 5 May, saying on the first page and I quote:
I have not seen anything yet. I admit that I have not finished the process, but I have not seen anything about money allocated, let alone a commitment to fixing the police communications system in Alice Springs.
The Leader of Government Business will remember the police communications system in Alice Springs very well because, in April 2007 when the parliament sat in Alice Springs, that was one of the top three issues. He said: ‘If people ring 131444, they pick up the phone’. There have been problems ever since. In fact, there was an article on 24 April in the Centralian Advocate headed: ‘Cops Cope With 2000 Calls’ – 2000 calls. The first paragraph of this news article is as follows:
For a town the size of Alice Springs, 2000 phone calls a week is an extraordinarily high number. They are just the ones who get through; the ones who do not hang up because they have been waiting. It is not the fault of any person at the police station, whether they are a police officer or a civilian helping out or working in the communications section. There is a fundamental problem with the police communication system in Alice Springs. A couple of years ago I asked the Chief Minister, who was then Police minister, some questions about it. The Police Commissioner came in and said: ‘Yes, there are problems, but then there was another problem’.
It does not matter what we do to raise this issue, you people have not fixed it. I urge you, again and again, to fix this issue. I do not believe this system can be described as adequate; we all know it is not. Why on earth money has not been devoted to fixing it, I do not know. We do know - I believe it was last year, possibly earlier; no, last year - a person in South Australia, I believe, was commissioned to undertake an independent audit of the communication system. This report has never been produced or tabled in this parliament. I do not believe I have heard anyone from the government talking about the report. We all know it is around so, maybe, it would be an opportunity for the government to get the report, look at what the government’s doing or not doing, as the case may be for Alice Springs, and say: ‘We really need to fix this police system’. Alice Springs misses out again.
Therefore, when the Minister for Central Australia said in his media release: ‘core services are being boosted to police’ - the communications system of the Alice Springs Police Station is a core service. I do not believe the Minister for Central Australia was as truthful as he could have been when he said in his media release: ‘core services are being boosted to police’ because, if core services were being boosted, you would have the money to fix the communications system.
What else has Alice Springs missed out on? The Ombudsman’s Office has been in Alice Springs since it started, probably in the mid- to late-1970s. It was one of the last bastions in Alice Springs. It was one of the things people in Darwin have that we had in Alice Springs as well. But, no, what has the government decided to do? Close the office. If there was a proper degree of attention and commitment to Alice Springs, this government would not have let it happen. Shame on you all for letting it happen. For about 30 years, the Ombudsman’s Office has been functioning in Alice Springs and, yet, you are going to watch it close. It has closed and you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves.
The relevant minister - I believe it is the Chief Minister; and I note he has not replied to a letter I wrote some months ago to him on this – will say: ‘Not as many people as we think desirable are attending the service’. That is part of the reason why the government does so badly in Alice Springs. It does not boil down to raw numbers all of the time; there is a principle. Do you think the people of Alice Springs should have an Ombudsman’s Office they can walk into, if they want to? You people think not. We, on this side of the Chamber, believe the people of Alice Springs deserve to have the Ombudsman’s Office in Alice Springs. If we were sitting on the other side of the House, we would have kept the Ombudsman’s Office open.
But wait, Madam Speaker, there is more! What else has the government not done with respect to Alice Springs? It has not tried hard enough with respect to another core service, a public utility - the Motor Vehicle Registry. I am pleased to say, this received some publicity very recently. As a local member, I have been approached about this and I know my colleagues have been contacted also. This might not seem very important to those of you in the Top End. However, let me tell you, it is important to my constituents; therefore, it is important to me. It is also important to me as a person who lives and works in Alice Springs. The hours of the MVR have been cut back. Not only has it physically moved and made it much more difficult to physically access, but its hours have reduced - from 11.30 am to 4 pm. This is the Motor Vehicle Registry - a public utility.
It has been noted, with interest, that the Power and Water Corporation has opened a pretty flash new office in Alice Plaza, but it is in stark contrast to the plight of the Motor Vehicle Registry in the Greatorex Building. Why do those two public utilities have different hours of work? The reasons stated, not by a government minister – and the Minister for Central Australia should have put his hand up to this and made a comment, but he did not, or the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure should have put her hand up and made a comment, but she did not – it was fobbed off, it would seem, to a public servant, who said that part of the reduction of hours was because 75% of customers came in between 11.30 am and 4 pm. What is the message that this government sends to the people of Alice Springs? Make sure you have enough numbers, make sure you pay your bills and attend public utilities during particular hours, because it suits us better and it will cost us less.
I do not believe this is satisfactory, and it goes to the beads-and-trinkets approach of this government. I will not have the opportunity, as it hardly ever occurs in estimates, to ask specific electorate questions. It would be great if we had a whole day on electorate questions for all of us. I have been to estimates many times now and I know it will not happen. That is why I have decided to spend more time now talking about some electorate issues.
I also believe it is important that these issues are raised because Alice Springs did not do well in this budget. It is a shame we are just being done over, little by little - whether it is a few hours of cost cutting at the MVR, everyone ignoring the problems at the police communications centre in Alice Springs, or the Ombudsman’s office closing, it is little by little - and it is a malicious, pernicious way of approaching the people of Alice Springs, the town where I live.
There is an artist in Alice Springs named Nicky Shonkala, who designed a T-shirt that is available in Alice Springs. If things were a little different, I would put it on, but I cannot put a T-shirt on as deftly as I might ordinarily. This T-shirt has the postcode 0870 on it, and it is a terrific thing. Nicky sells it to tourists and locals alike in Alice Springs, and we proudly wear these T-shirts; this is who we are. Many people would not know the postcode of Alice Springs and, when people look, you can embark on a good story about Alice Springs.
If I could, I would wear this T-shirt every day I come to parliament, but I cannot. I am just going to hold it up so those on the opposite side of the Chamber have some prodding about Alice Springs. I am not saying that you always know where it is, but this is the post code, and we do not wear our heart on our sleeve, but we certainly wear our postcode on our chests.
We ask that, although this government has not been very good for the people of Alice Springs, members of government pull their fingers out and at least get the next one right.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the 2009-10 Budget as delivered by the Treasurer during the last sittings. Undoubtedly, it was a tough budget to deliver in such tough and unprecedented economic times which have hit globally, and with no jurisdiction in Australia unscathed. However, despite the global economic downturn, I have strong faith in the Treasurer and the government to manage the Northern Territory’s fiscal matters for a strong and positive future for Territorians.
As a Territorian for more than 20 years, I survived years of arrogant and indulgent CLP governments and have witnessed, since 2001 when Labor came to government, a turnaround in the Territory’s economic position, which saw the Labor government pull the Territory out of a black hole, with more than $100m in debt, and turn that around and deliver six surplus budgets. This was, at the same time as delivering record expenditure, improving the lives of Territorians through improvements to key areas such as health, education, and law and order, which has seen jobs and infrastructure in those areas increased and, with it, service delivery for the benefit of all Territorians.
Budget 2009-10 will deliver for Territorians, including my electorate of Nhulunbuy, by protecting jobs, building vital infrastructure and boosting investment in core services. This budget delivers a record $1.3bn infrastructure investment to protect Northern Territory jobs that will deliver a number of projects for the North East Arnhem Region. Record infrastructure funding protects and creates jobs, including jobs in my regional area.
In a bid to support the creation of jobs and training, and real opportunities and employment outcomes, Nhulunbuy Regional Job Training Hub is on track to start up in July. $250 000 has been allocated for this purpose, as per a commitment undertaken by the government in the lead-up to the last election.
Tennant Creek will also see the establishment of a job hub, as the member for Barkly spoke about yesterday. This affirms the government’s commitment to providing strong support for regional economic development.
The Nhulunbuy job hub will act as a one-stop shop to provide an analysis of the job market in the East Arnhem region, a better understanding of what jobs are available, and facilitate the matching of training requirements and skills of jobs seekers to those available jobs. The concept and subsequent model has been established with wide input from stakeholders, and will serve all in the job market, but Indigenous people in particular.
The operation of the hub will be timely, coinciding as it does with the tender process for various contracts for a range of projects, not the least of which is the Strategic Indigenous Housing Improvement Program, which has, as part of its contractual arrangements, a commitment to train and employ locals, ensuring outcomes for Indigenous people. This will include a skills assessment of local unemployed Indigenous people, the opportunity for pre-vocational training, employment of local Indigenous people, and developing career pathways for them.
The SIHIP program will deliver around $672m for much-needed housing across the Territory, including $33m for my constituents in Galiwinku, $16m at Yirrkala, and $1.6m at Gunyangara. New houses and housing refurbishments will endeavour to address the overcrowding and fairly appalling state of housing in remote communities - and not before time. To address the disadvantage amongst Indigenous people and to close the gap, housing has to be, will be, and is being, addressed.
Recognising that, universally, education is a cornerstone in all people’s lives, it is, rightly, at the heart of the Closing the Gap policy on addressing Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory. My constituents and I, including those in remote locations, welcome the injection of funds which support building kids’ and communities’ futures.
At the community of Yilpara on the shores of Blue Mud Bay, $1.5m has been committed for the building of new school infrastructure, which will see this community of more than 200 people graduate from having a homeland learning centre to small school status, with full-time teachers living in the community. Those full-time teachers are already living there. This project has been supported with the construction of two new teacher houses to accommodate staff, as well as a new ablution block for students which was completed last year. It is a source of much pride for the community, not the least of which is traditional owner and senior man, Mr Djambawa Marawili. It is also a source of much pride for Yambirrpa School Council and the teachers and staff of Yirrkala Homeland School, who are completely dedicated to delivering a future to people in homelands communities.
In fact, I will be visiting Yilpara this Friday as part of the celebrations associated with last year’s historic High Court decision recognising Yolngu ownership of the inter-tidal zone. I last visited in February, when architectural plans and drawings for the new school buildings were on display and the subject of maths and measuring activities for children in class was debated.
It is worth noting that my region, as well as the neighbouring electorate of Arnhem, represented by my colleague, the minister for family and community services, will see the benefits of $13.8m in primary schools for the 21st century under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Amongst the beneficiaries of this funding in my electorate are the homeland communities of Borrowuy, Gan Gan, Dhalinybuy and Garrthalala. Each of these communities will share in $2m, which will see the construction of a new school building in each of those four homelands.
To the north of my electorate on Elcho Island, Shepherdson College and the community of Galiwinku welcome the $3m which will see a multipurpose hall constructed on their campus. Yirrkala CEC will also see a new preschool facility, in addition to $1.2m for the construction of three new classrooms. Nhulunbuy Primary School will see approximately $1.5m for the conversion of a covered area to a multipurpose hall. These are just the figures for infrastructure.
The Northern Territory government is investing a record $808m in education and training as part of Budget 2009-10, an increase of 70% since 2001. In the East Arnhem region alone, $37.24m is dedicated to early childhood, primary and secondary education in 11 remote schools in the region. Putting on my hat as a parent of school-aged children, I appreciate and applaud the value this government places on education.
This government recognises, as do I, that homeland communities are important places. They are places where people are strong and healthy and where culture thrives. The Northern Territory government will continue to support homeland people to remain on country, on the land that supports and sustains them culturally, physically, and spiritually. It is worth mentioning that last year, at the community of Garrthalala in my electorate, seven young people graduated with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education, the very first homeland students in the Northern Territory to achieve this.
Earlier this year, I attended a similar graduation at Yirrkala Community Education Centre where another two students graduated with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. What a far cry this is from the days of the CLP government when there were no Year 12 Indigenous graduates in remote Territory schools. The CLP was so committed to Indigenous education that, in 1980, it closed the only boarding school in the Gove region for Indigenous students, Dhupuma College - no consultation or notice, it waited for students and teachers to leave at the end of term and then closed the doors never to reopen. I find it ironic to hear members of the opposition now talk about how we need to have boarding schools.
This government is delivering a record budget, in excess of $1bn, in the health sector for the health and wellbeing of all Territory families. That is a record figure for health. Health funding has increased 117% under Labor; a further $15.46m has been budgeted for non-acute health and community services in the region.
At last we will see $1.16m to create four respite beds at Gove Hospital to provide care for those who are aged or disabled. This will reduce the situation of individuals and carers, in need of respite, having to travel to Darwin and away from family and country. It is still not enough, but it is a start and I will continue to engage with my colleagues at Territory and federal levels to address the deficit in funding facilities for aged and disabled Territorians in my electorate. I welcome the appointment of my federal colleague, Hon Warren Snowdon MP, to the new role of the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery. This new portfolio highlights the Rudd government’s commitment to closing the gap on Indigenous health and is an important step forward for Indigenous Territorians.
As for dental health, I welcome the elevation of the importance of dental and oral health services with an additional 4000 dental appointments as part of the blitz across the Northern Territory, including remote services. I will be even happier when I see water fluoridation across the Territory as a key preventive measure. This, and additional funding of $750 000 ongoing, will improve access to dental health services.
With the recent completion of an $800 000 upgrade to the Yirrkala Health Clinic, the community now has a well-equipped dental room. I acknowledge the efforts of dentists like Dr Neil Lancely and Dr Denise Salvestro who practised in Nhulunbuy for a number of years, but in the last few years have dedicated themselves to providing dental services to very remote communities. It is a significant undertaking in resources and the dedicated people who deliver these services. Last week, when I was at Laynhapuy Aviation waiting to board a charter to visit the communities of Mapurru and Galiwinku, I was chatting with some of the members of the health clinic from Laynhapuy Homelands who were preparing to board a charter to Yilpara to conduct a dental clinic. They travelled with considerable luggage, including kits of instruments, cartons of toothbrushes and toothpaste, and even the dentist chair was loaded on. I do not believe people in urban areas appreciate what goes into delivering such services in bush communities and the costs associated with them.
Law and order is a subject close to people’s hearts and, indeed, it is this government’s commitment to make our streets safer, which is why Budget 2009-10 delivers a record $279m for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. I am sure the members from the Palmerston area welcome news of the new Police Beat in the same way that my constituents of Galiwinku welcomed their new police station and a permanent police presence.
I was really pleased to attend the opening of the new police station in March. I visited again last week and took the opportunity to meet and talk with the OIC and a couple of his officers, as well as members of the community about how the new service is going. Overwhelmingly, and not surprisingly, the response was extremely positive. Residents feel safer, the streets are quiet at night and, importantly, the new police officers and their families are embedded in the community and are enjoying the fishing.
Under the banner of safer communities, I also welcome ongoing funding to the East Arnhem region including $500m for Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy Community Corrections to monitor and supervise adult clients, including successful reintegration into the community. It is through programs such as these that we can work to support offenders and mitigate against having them back in the cycle of re-entering prisons. Having taken the opportunity to request a tour of Berrimah prison and the Don Dale Centre recently, I have a clear idea as to why this government has committed to building a new prison. Current facilities are old and crowded. The original building design is based upon a prison in Canberra, I understand, and is entirely inappropriate for the tropics. It is not only an unacceptable place for prisoners, but is unacceptable for those employed by Corrections who work there.
Under the banner of community development, as mentioned by the minister for Communications yesterday in his speech, the government’s commitment to, and partnership with Telstra, the NLC, and Rio Tinto Alcan has seen the laying of 800 km of fibre optic cable from Jabiru to Nhulunbuy, a project which is almost completed. A final $2.8m from the Northern Territory government will see this project completed in the next financial year. We have enjoyed ease of access to high speed Internet access since December, and the benefits have quickly unfolded for nine remote bush communities in delivering better health and education services and opening up new economic opportunities.
I appreciate this has not been an easy budget for the Treasurer to oversee and deliver. However, since 2001, this government has demonstrated sound economic management, delivered six surpluses and, in spite of the global economic downturn, it will continue to grow and develop the Territory to make it the best place to work, live, and raise a family. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will speak on this bill, albeit briefly. I will save much of it for estimates. Like the member for Araluen, I was not here for the delivery of the budget, so I have been wading through it ever since.
I find it interesting that the government boasts about delivering six surpluses. It is worth pointing out that those surpluses were delivered under the sound economic management of the federal Coalition; the most successful government in the history of Australia, under the stewardship of John Howard and Peter Costello, who delivered record surpluses. This is why we have seen the states and the territories prosper so well over the last few years.
It is also worth pointing out we are now embarking on some of the biggest debt this country has ever seen - in fact, the largest amount of debt this country has every seen - in excess of $200bn. It will take lifetimes to pay off. It is no coincidence the Territory government and, indeed, many state governments, will be delivering deficit budgets.
Regarding the Territory government’s boast about the amount of money that it is spending on health, I will touch on a couple of my portfolio areas. I will save the bulk of this for estimates when we can go into more of the nitty-gritty. However, I will touch on health and Central Australia. I will do what the member for Araluen did and bring in some of the electorate matters.
The government boasts about the $1bn it is spending on Health. It is no mean feat; it is an enormous amount of money to spend on Health. For 2008-09, the combined state and territory health budgets was in excess of $90bn - something along the lines of $92bn to $94bn. Obviously, the larger states of New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland have a sizeable chunk of this, but the Territory is getting there, with over $1bn being spent this year.
It is also worth noting that less than 4% is spent on preventative health, which is a tragedy. The bulk of it goes into the acute sector - in other words the hospitals, doctors, and nurses – yet, not much is focused on the preventative health side - less than 4%. If you extrapolate that into the Territory Health budget, it is not much in preventative health. Of course, $1bn – we have to be spending much money because there are so many problems that have plagued Northern Territory Health. We have some of the longest waiting lists in the country. The ED waiting times at the Katherine Hospital, for example, are 43% for Category 2, which is fairly urgent where people should be seen within 10 minutes, but only 43% of people are being seen on time. It is a huge backlog that we are seeing in our Territory hospitals.
Presentations each year are over 100 000 - I do not have the figure in front of me - but it is somewhere between 110 000 to 130 000, in that ball park, and 54% of those are Indigenous Territorians.
It comes back to preventative health business. The amount of money we are spending on preventative health, to stop people getting sick in the first place - particularly Territorians living out in the remote communities, homelands, wherever it might be - is not enough. I am talking about simple stuff such as having kids clean their teeth and wash their hands. There is a big onus on the parents to be doing this sort of thing and making sure that these kids do this. However, it is much more than that. The 4% of the budget spent on preventative health measures - that is, illness prevention - particularly when you see the huge number of Indigenous Territorians who are coming through our hospitals, is clearly not good enough.
As I highlighted, we have some of the longest waiting lists in the country. The critical shortage of nurses is a problem right across Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory. This was identified in a Coronial last year about the nurse staffing crisis consuming the Royal Darwin Hospital. There are issues with GPs at the Palmerston Super Clinic. When one gets sick, there is no GP on duty, despite these GPs who are flown in from Fremantle and other parts of Australia being paid $190 per hour, accumulating, in some cases, over $10 000 for a few days work. It is a huge amount of money being spent in these jurisdictions, and not much focus being spent in the regional and rural parts of the Northern Territory.
I believe there is a great imbalance. When you are seeing 50% of the number of presentations by Indigenous Territorians coming through the hospital system, you can see it is a bit skewwhiff. I have noticed in the budget the failure to provide adequate funding for our regional hospitals. When the new Health Minister started, he proclaimed that quality health care should not be dependent on where you live. That is a terrific thing to say, and I believe he is dead right but, unfortunately, he is not backing it up. He is not putting the money where his mouth is.
In this budget, we see $700 000 allocated to the Katherine Hospital; $400 000 to the Tennant Creek Hospital; and, $200 000 for Gove, all the while saying it does not matter where you live, everyone is entitled to equitable health care. It might be equitable health care, but it is not equal health care, particularly when you see the imbalance in our regions.
The regions are being treated as second class compared to Darwin. No one is begrudging the money and the attention which needs to be focused into Darwin - it is the capital city of the Northern Territory, there is no doubt about it. However, you cannot say that people should have quality health care and it should not be dependent on where you live, when you are offering figures such as this. I know the member for Nhulunbuy will be interest to hear of the $200 000 for Gove Hospital, considering it is her constituency. $400 000 for Tennant Creek is not good enough is it, member for Barkly, considering you tabled a petition yesterday about maternity services? I am sure you are very distressed, quietly, to hear the amount of money being put into a hospital such as Tennant Creek, a great town of Central Australia. $700 000 for Katherine is not much money to provide proper health care services for one of the great towns of the Northern Territory. We only have five towns or cities in the Northern Territory, and Katherine is the third largest of those regional cities, and it receives a very small piece of the pie.
Regarding the lack of specialist services and maternity services in regional hospitals, a petition was presented by the member for Barkly about the lack of maternity or obstetric services at Tennant Creek Hospital. I know that you cannot just pluck an obstetrician out of thin air. It would be great if you could do that; they are hard to find and they are very expensive. But money will buy you what you want. We have seen this happen in Gove, to the tune of almost a $700 000 per year job, when you go on the rates being paid to keep an obstetrician at Gove Hospital. Yet, we have the situation, where those in the Barkly at Tennant Creek Hospital have been sent to Alice Springs at 36 weeks. For many of those people, it is foreign country and not conducive to optimal health care or optimal birthing. We are not seeing much of that in the budget either.
The lack of hospital boards, I know, has caused a problem. The member for Johnston is aware of the debate that has taken place in this House about the lack of hospital boards and the lack of hospital board reports. I noticed a couple were tabled in the last sittings; Katherine and Tennant Creek Hospital Board reports have finally been tabled, which is pleasing to see.
Regarding the oncology unit, it is eight years down the track and we have laid a slab of concrete. This was a promise by the government in 2000, while in opposition, by the then Opposition Leader, Clare Martin, who promised to build the Northern Territory an oncology unit. Yet, we still see no oncology unit. Some nine years after that initial promise, we see a slab of concrete. If it was not for the help of the federal Coalition under the stewardship of Howard and Costello, we would not be this far down the track with the oncology unit.
I want to touch on security at regional hospitals. This is not in the budget at all. The member for Johnston will be aware of this argument. It was a very heated and emotional debate we had late last year, following the assault on a five-month-old baby girl at Royal Darwin Hospital.
Yesterday, in the Centralian Advocate, the Health CEO, David Ashbridge, was quoted as saying:
It is well and good to suggest it is an accredited hospital and, therefore, the security measures in place are adequate. Royal Darwin Hospital is also an accredited hospital which met all the national standards, yet it was found to be inadequate in its security. In fact, there was only one camera in place in the children’s ward, in the kitchen. This is alarming.
I believe if the government was serious about the protection of children, particularly vulnerable children, in our hospitals - let us look at the Alice Springs Hospital. I have some recent experience with it. It is very easy to walk into the maternity section at Alice Springs Hospital. It is also very easy to walk into the special care nursery, which is the most alarming part, because the special care nursery is where those children are left alone for long periods of time. Most of the babies are still with their mothers but, if there is an issue and they are put into the special care nursery, they remain there - sometimes for days, hours, whatever it might be - and they are often left alone.
It is very easy to walk into the maternity ward and it is very easy to walk around the Alice Springs Hospital. It is alarming there is no allocation of money to urgently implement proper security measures, as recommended by the Coroner for RDH following the disturbing incident highlighted by the Coroner last year. In our other hospitals - not just Alice Springs but also Tennant Creek, Gove, and Katherine - every child deserves to be protected. It is the foremost core function of the government to protect children. To have Health CEO, David Ashbridge, saying security measures will be upgraded by 2012 is very disturbing. It is appalling. The hospitals, the Health CEO - and Health Minister, the man who is ultimately responsible, is leaving himself wide open for perhaps another attack. God hope it does not happen.
The disease control budget has been cut, I notice, by $3m. I find it extraordinary, in the current climate, to reduce the spending on disease control, when the NT has the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the country. It is worth remembering that it was the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who brought the Northern Territory great shame by sweeping child abuse under the table by failing to act on the Little Children Are Sacred report. The reason why Mal Brough and John Howard acted on the Intervention - like it or loathe it - was because Clare Martin failed the children of the Northern Territory and failed to act on that report. In this current climate, where child protection is so sensitive - it has never been more sensitive than it has been in the last couple of years - we are seeing $3m cut from the disease control budget.
A couple of days ago we had another Coronial inquest into the death of Kunmanara Forbes, a 15-year-old girl from Mutitjulu, who took her own life. I will read you the conclusion from the Coroner:
One of the recommendations from the Coroner to the death of this young girl was:
The Northern Territory government, the Health department and the Health Minister have indicated they will not be taking up that recommendation; they will not be implementing an adolescent health service within the department of Health in the Northern Territory. This is a recommendation by the Coroner, who would be the expert in this field, after the death of another child in the Northern Territory; someone who was 15. Yet, the Northern Territory government has said - and if the ABC is accurate, through the Health department - it is not feasible to implement such an adolescent health service.
There is plenty of money in this Health budget - $1bn. The protection of children is paramount if we are going to be any sort of society, particularly in this climate where child protection and child abuse are at the forefront of everyone’s mind in the Northern Territory; as a result of this government’s failure to act on the Little Children Are Sacred report, a failure still fresh in the minds of most Australians.
Yet, here we have a 15-year-old girl who has taken her own life. The Coroner has said an adolescent health service would be the way to go, and the department has now said, no, this is not feasible. That is shameful. Mental health services in the Northern Territory are very poorly resourced. Adolescent mental health services are almost non-existent, so much that we see children with mental health problems often turning to chemical drugs - even what some might consider lighter drugs such as marijuana; but it is hydroponic marijuana, which is chemically grown. These kids are smoking this stuff and it is causing all sorts of mental health problems for them. If they have a bad reaction to this, where do they turn? There are not many options for these children, as a result of the very poor and, in some cases, non-existent mental health services in the Northern Territory.
We have a classic case here. It has been spelled out over 22 pages by the Coroner, highlighting the circumstances surrounding the death of this young 15-year-old Mutitjulu girl, who slipped through the net. The Coroner has recommended an adolescent health service within the Northern Territory. However, the Health department has said that is not feasible. I hope the minister is aware of this, and he will look at it seriously. He has shown he is able to turn things around and make decisions, some say backflipped, but others might say thank goodness he did. We saw it with the reporting of swine flu, to make these new cases public. Let us hope he takes the recommendations made by the Coroner seriously.
Another failures is the government is unable to provide satisfactory accommodation for expectant mothers who had to be flown from Gove to give birth to their children. You would be very aware of this as well. The Health department said: ‘Okay, we have some accommodation for these mothers who are flying in at 36 weeks pregnant in the Wet Season and are being offered accommodation for $50, $60 a night’. I do not know about people who live in Darwin, but when you travel to Darwin, as I do - someone who lives in Central Australia - you are at the mercy of hotel accommodation.
There is nothing available that is appropriate for a heavily pregnant woman for $60 a night. There are a couple of places around town you could probably get for $60 a night, but you would not want to be putting someone who is 36 weeks pregnant or more into one of those accommodation places, particularly if they have family. They might have other children or their husband with them. That was an absolute blight. I do not know how many women were given this type of accommodation because, with the outcry and the public meetings you helped convene in Gove, Madam Deputy Speaker, it forced the government’s hand to find an obstetrician and reinstate obstetric services in Gove very quickly.
The lack of supported accommodation, generally, is a problem across the Northern Territory for those who have to travel to our major hospitals. The member for Barkly would be well aware of that, as I mentioned before, with regards to maternity services. However, the same applies to renal services and a whole range of health care services in the regions. Those who travel to the major hospitals, mostly Alice Springs and Darwin, have a lack of supported accommodation.
The blatant refusal by this government to allow PATS for Centralians with cancer to travel to Adelaide has been an absolute point of difference between us and the Labor Party. This is from the back of a business card for the Department of Health and Families. Anyone who is in the Department of Health and Families who has a business card, has their name and title and everything on the front, and on the back it says, ‘We value respect and cooperation, responsibility to society, pride in our work, and we are here for our clients’. This sounds contradictory to the refusal by this government to allow cancer patients in Central Australia to travel to Adelaide - if it completes the oncology unit; I give the benefit of the doubt to this government.
I met with the former Minister for Health and he said: ‘That is like saying people in Tennant Creek might want to travel to Mount Isa or wherever’. There is no case for people in Tennant Creek to want to travel to Mount Isa, but there is case after case in Central Australia. It is clear: people in Central Australia want to be able to maintain the choice and, obviously, the surrounds and your environment is conducive to appropriate health care and recovery.
That has been left out of the budget for 2009-10. The minister did say those with private health insurance can travel where they want. Of course, they can - no kidding. They can travel where they want if they have private health insurance; you can do that anyway. This is not about those with private health insurance, this is about those who cannot afford it and require the help from the government to get through this difficult time.
We have seen delay after delay with the Emergency Department at the Alice Springs Hospital, which included a botched tendering process. It cost the Territory taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars to go back to that tender. The federal government came to the rescue. It is very interesting that the federal government allocated $13m-plus in its recent budget for the construction of the Alice Springs Emergency Department. The Territory government, while it is not in this year’s budget papers, was allocated, in 2007, $6m for the construction of a new Emergency Department at Alice Springs Hospital.
I do not know if it is a total of $19m to construct the new Emergency Department at Alice Springs Hospital. Does it mean the original plans stay? Do we go back to the drawing board again? The original plans were for a $6m Emergency Department at the Alice Springs Hospital. The federal government has given us $13m-plus, so are we going to keep the same plans, build the same one for $13m, or does it mean that it was a completely botched process in the beginning and we are going to get, basically, a half-baked, inappropriate Emergency Department for the original allocation from this government of $6m?
Regarding the insensitive surroundings; there is nothing for breast screening in the Northern Territory. I wrote to the Minister for Health on 3 April regarding the breast screening clinic for women in Central Australia. I suggested to the minister that the rooms - I will read from the letter I wrote:
Essentially, it is one big open room, where you are all hauled in, and you are at the point where you are asking: ‘Am I positive or am I negative, I do not know? The person next to me can go, but the other person over there is in tears, and who knows what the next level is going to show up?’
I highlighted this to the minister. He wrote back and said the facility at Eurilpa House was purpose designed and meets accreditation requirements for breast screening and assessment service. That is what he said. Too bad, tough luck, it meets all the requirements. It is like a leaf out of the Health CEO’s book when he said the security cameras and measures at the Alice Springs Hospital meet all the requirements. They may meet the requirements, but it is not good enough, it is very clear that it is not good enough. It is disappointing not to see anything in the budget. I thought I may have written to the minister in time to see something in the budget.
In the first parliamentary sittings in his new job, minister Vatskalis, the member for Casuarina, was confused about the numbers of people attending the hospital Emergency Department; he could not get the number right. It took him about three or four days to understand that. He was unable to state why hospital annual reports had not been tabled. He denied the Territory needs more nurses, and offered excuses, not solutions, for the disarray of the Health department. It is no wonder we need to spend so much money on Health, because there is such failure throughout the Northern Territory Health department, unfortunately. Despite the great work that goes on and the – can I have some more time?
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member have an extension for a period of 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, honourable members, and I will not take up the whole 10 minutes.
Despite the great work that goes on, and the enormous pressures our health care workers are under, I do not believe they are receiving the total support or commitment from the Northern Territory government, particularly in the regional areas such as Tennant Creek, Gove, Katherine, Alice Springs, and the more remote parts of the Northern Territory.
I will touch on Alice Springs and the land shortage. I do not know if anyone knows how many house and land packages are available in Alice Springs. The answer is zero. There are no house and land packages available in Alice Springs as we speak. This is absolutely staggering. If you are trying to grow and build a town, attract professionals or other people to the town to the bring their skills or whatever it might be to a town, and they are looking to build a life and invest in the town, they might want a house and land package. However, there are none available in Alice Springs at the moment. There is a land shortage, despite the amount of space we have in the Northern Territory, and there is a housing crisis in Alice Springs.
The Mereenie Loop did not get a mention; it has been left off again. The government committed to this quite a few years ago and said it would finish it, but it has changed its mind. It is the inner loop the government is going to complete, and not the outer loop. This is a major tourism infrastructure program for Central Australia and the Northern Territory. Without being too parochial, there is no mention of the Mereenie Loop which is about the Territory and tourism in the Northern Territory.
This is despite a $300 000 tender which has just closed for a new GPS and mobile phone ready travelogue. You can drive along the Red Centre Way, which includes the Mereenie Loop, and tourism features will come up on your mobile phone along the way. Perhaps, instead of having a sign on the side of the road, it will be mobile ready available - on your mobile phone - and also available on GPS. This tender has just closed, but you cannot receive - $300 000, Minister for Central Australia, you might be interested to know, is what the contract is; it runs for 44 weeks - mobile coverage. Even if you could, you cannot drive along the Mereenie Loop Road, because it is not complete, unless you have a four-wheel drive. This is not money well spent. It is not money focused in the right areas; particularly when you cannot get mobile phone coverage that far out of Alice Springs. They say 99% of the country is covered, but it should be 99% of the population, not 99% of the country.
I agree with the member for Araluen about the Ombudsman’s Office. Despite the new revamped Chief Minister’s Office in Central Australia, and all the money being put into that, and another one being opened in Palmerston, we see the Ombudsman’s Office in Alice Springs close. It is an absolute shame and tragedy for the second biggest town in the Northern Territory. I cannot believe there is no avenue for complaints against the government in the second largest town in the Northern Territory. I believe it is permanent, but I do not know. I have heard the government say they are looking at perhaps opening it up again. I will believe it when I see it.
While I know container deposit legislation is on the government’s radar for 2011, it does not really do much to address the litter issues facing Territory towns right now. The Alice Springs Town Council has introduced a liquor litter charge. It is going to whack drive-through bottle shops with $60 000 per year, which equates to a wage or a couple of wages if you work in a bottle shop, and $7500 if you are outside the CBD.
I do not know how they came up with that figure, but the Country Liberals opposed what the council was doing. Our solution was for the government to fund the municipal councils, particularly the Alice Springs Town Council, in the form of grants so they can run the CDL program. It was done with great success in 2006 when it gave a grant of $10 000 to the Alice Springs Town Council to run a cash for cans program; it was a huge success. It was so successful that the council ended up throwing some of its own money in because people kept turning up with bags of cans.
If you could roll this out on a much bigger scale, the issue could be addressed immediately and the impost on businesses would not be needed. It is a tragedy that these businesses will be forced to pay around $60 000 to the council so it can roll out its own cash for cans program, without any support from the Northern Territory government.
The council has asked the Northern Territory government to grant it about $200 000, I believe. It probably needs more, but $200 000 would go a long way to addressing the litter problem in Central Australia. It would create a workforce and you would immediately see some of those cans and bottles off the streets. By the way, the council initiative is only targeting cans and bottles. The multinationals like KFC and Subway - there is plenty of their stuff on the streets of Alice Springs - are getting off scot-free, while the local businesses, the ones that live in town, employ local people and invest in the town, are the ones being slugged. It does not add up in my book. It is a shame not to see anything in Budget 2009-10 for this.
We will support the passage of this bill, but I am sure we can predict the response from the government. It is very quick to blame the CLP for all the issues and problems the Northern Territory faces. The reason why it keeps blaming the past, and it is stuck in the past, is because it has no concept of the present and no vision for the future. It is very easy to blame the past, and go back 20 years or 19 years ago. I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk about something that happened 19 years ago. The Labor Party members have no concept of the present and no vision for the future. The past is the past; let us move on.
Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of an orderly transition, the Country Liberals will support the passage of this bill.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member for Greatorex towards the end, regarding the cash for container scheme. We have a statement before the House at the moment. I believe the member for Brennan is the only member from the opposition who has spoken about it. Six or seven of members from our side have spoken about it, and we welcome the member for Greatorex speaking about that statement and expressing some support from the CLP for the cash for container scheme; that would be very welcome.
I support the budget. It is a budget being delivered in very tough times. The Treasurer has described it as one of the toughest, or the toughest budget, since self-government. While the Territory economy is still growing, we are not immune to effects of the global financial crisis. That is clear and is something we have debated quite often in this House in recent months. We need to remember, in the context in this debate, that our budget has taken a hit - a big hit - because of the exposure of our budget to Commonwealth receipts.
The rest of Australia has been hit much harder then we have. We have to recognise the flow-on effect and the impact it has had on our budget and the difficult job the Treasurer has had in framing this budget. This is why you have to respect the efforts of the Treasurer in delivering a budget which targets keeping people in jobs, keeping our economy strong, and keeping the Territory growing.
At the core of this budget is the decision to invest $1.3bn in infrastructure - $1.3bn for housing, roads, schools, and the community; $1.3bn to create over 2500 construction and related jobs. This is a fantastic effort, and an unprecedented spend on infrastructure. The Treasurer, Chief Minister, and the government have to be congratulated for doing this. I believe the efforts of Cabinet were very good in making the decision to have this as the first infrastructure budget which has surpassed $1bn - at $1.3bn. It is targeted at protecting Territory jobs and building infrastructure that the Territory needs to support our strong economy and growing population. This responsible investment, at the core of our budget, will support 2500 jobs across the construction sector and our economy. The $1.3bn investment in infrastructure is a 47% increase on the last budget.
The construction industry is a strong driver of the economy. The Territory government is committed to maintaining a strong construction sector, shouldering the sector during a time when we see a drop in private investment, as the credit market is squeezed by the global economic downturn impacting on our nation. This infrastructure spending will help to ensure we keep our skilled construction workers in the Territory while, at the same time, investing and rebuilding our schools, improving our roads, and providing more housing. This budget also includes a record $118.9m to rebuild Territory schools.
This program includes the roll-out of the Henderson government’s commitment of a $300 000 upgrade of every primary and large group school across the Territory over this term. We are also working in partnership with the federal government which, like the Territory government, is responsibly investing in public infrastructure to stimulate economic growth.
My electorate has a significant number of people who have lived in the Territory for a long time, and who have made a significant contribution to the development of the Territory. I believe it is important for the Territory to look after our senior Territorians. This is why the Territory has the most generous concessions in Australia for women over the age of 60, and men over 65. Our commitment to senior Territorians has seen Labor continuously working to improve the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. Budget 2009-10 continues to support pensioners across the Territory by insulating them from the increases in power and water tariffs through the freezing of tariff rates for the holders of Pensioner and Carer Concession cards; free driver’s licence renewals; and, increasing the motor vehicle registration subsidy from $104 to $150 per year.
The scheme also provides pensioner concessions for local council property rates; garbage charges; interstate and overseas travel; and prescription glasses. Seniors will also welcome, I am sure, the major boost to public dental services that will see an additional 4000 dental treatments. Budget 2009-10 provides $1.5m to reduce dental waiting lists and improved remote area services. Ongoing extra funding of $750 000 from 2010-11 will continue the boosted service. The additional funding will provide more dentists.
I believe all senior Territorians can make an ongoing contribution to the Territory through an ongoing role in the workforce, community involvement, or being a grandmother or grandfather. They make an ongoing contribution, and that is why it is good to see these new measures. Free driving licence renewals; increased motor vehicle registration subsidy; and frozen power prices in this budget, on top of our ongoing concessions, make this the most generous scheme in Australia.
Budget 2009-10 also includes record funding for housing, with a 92% boost from last year. The Henderson government is planning for the future. Our Housing the Territory policy delivers affordable housing, more land release, and better public housing. Budget 2009-10 supports this plan with $390m for housing, including $78.5m to refurbish 730 existing public houses, and $23.4m for new and upgraded public housing. This is an important investment. Budget 2009-10 also supports the development of a new affordable housing rental company to help meet the need for quality affordable rental properties for low-income earners in the Territory.
This is an important initiative which I believe will lead to a significant change in how we house Territorians, manage our waiting lists, build our housing, and manage our housing. We have much work to do, and it is great to see that we will start the changes in Parap. Our plan to redevelop public housing in Parap will include one of the Territory’s first projects by the affordable housing rental company through the development of the Parap Gateway.
As members are aware, or should be aware, the Territory is facing a number of challenges in housing at the moment, including the cost of rent, the availability of land, and the amount and style of public housing. We acknowledge that our booming economy and the highest population and employment growth in the country has put pressure on the housing market.
Recently, the Chief Minister and the Minister for Housing announced Housing the Territory, which includes plans to get more affordable housing on to the market, new public housing places, more land released, and additional transitional and short-term housing.
As part of the Chief Minister’s announcement, he confirmed our election plan and priorities for the redevelopment of public housing on Parap Road - the Parap Gateway. The redevelopment of the Wirrina complex will be our first priority. The Wirrina complex is the high-density, high-rise flats on the corner of Gregory Street and Parap Road, opposite the Cheesecake Shop. Demolition of Wirrina is expected to be under way by December, although there is a chance it could happen earlier. Territory Housing is working with tenants to find them new homes. No one will be left without a home. This will happen over the next few months as Territory Housing matches tenants up with vacancies across Darwin and Palmerston.
There are more than 60 units at Wirrina, and over 4000 public housing properties in the Darwin area - over 5000 if you include Palmerston - so this is definitely manageable over the next four to six months. This is a difficult time, I predict, to find people new homes, because you have to wait for vacancies. But, as I understand it, the effort to find tenants new homes is happening faster than expected. This is good news. The minister and the department are doing an excellent job in working with the tenants, which means there is a chance that we could demolish Wirrina earlier than expected.
Wirrina will be the first redevelopment partnership between government, the private sector, and the new affordable housing rental company, and will be a mixed tenure development - a mixture of public and private housing. We will start formal consultations with the community this Dry Season with plans for the development. The Minister for Housing and I have now met several times with the Wirrina residents, and we will keep working with them, although their numbers are quickly diminishing. We have also met with the Parap Residents Association.
The Pitscheneder complex, as part of the Parap Gateway, will be the next priority. Pitscheneder is the last set of public housing units on Parap Road, on the left as you approach the Stuart Highway. This development may include the Territory Housing homes adjacent to the Pitscheneder complex. The site will be redeveloped for accommodation for seniors. There are large numbers of seniors in Darwin living on their own, or as a couple in three- or four-bedroom homes. If we can provide them accommodation in the seniors’ complex, we can house a family in a home. This will help us meet the demand for public housing and free up more public houses available for rent.
As we move closer to the redevelopment of Pitscheneder, Territory Housing tenancy managers will commence the consultation process we are currently working through with the Wirrina residents. There will also be a formal consultation with everyone in the general community about what we build on that site. The next priority will be the public housing complexes between Pitscheneder and Wirrina, as part of the Parap Gateway.
The Chief Minister and the Housing Minister are committed to the redevelopment of other older public housing complexes in the future, which include the Kurringal complex in my electorate and, I am sure, complexes in other electorates. In 2005, we redeveloped part of the Kurringal complex when we knocked down five of the eight housing blocks to build the Kurringal Seniors Village. This was a good start in improving the general area, but we definitely have more to do for neighbours and tenants.
Our public housing reforms are about providing a better living environment for everyone: tenants, neighbours, and nearby businesses. Our plans, including a Police Beat in Parap, will help take the pressure off hot spots along Parap Road. It is great to see the funding for this plan to redevelop public housing in Parap in Budget 2009-10. We are delivering on an important election commitment for the electorate of Fannie Bay.
I also want to talk about roads funding in this budget. Budget 2009-10 boosts the roads budget to record levels of $322m, including $77m for repairs and maintenance. The Territory’s road network is pivotal to the economy by providing functional transport, ensuring goods go to market, and providing access to remote areas. Roads are also important to go to work in the mornings, I find, or even more importantly, going home from work. I believe most people enjoy the drive home more.
One project people in my electorate are looking forward to is the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication; it is a key major project in the roads budget. The duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive for $6m is an excellent project. This project will remove traffic bottlenecks and improve road safety. On the way home, people hate the zipper merges from town to Woolner Road - the two lanes into one - and they will love this project to duplicate Tiger Brennan Drive from Dinah Beach Road and Woolner Road. It also provides a signalised intersection at Gonzales Street to provide safety improvements for motorists accessing Dinah Beach boat ramp and Tipperary Waters.
I spoke earlier about the NT and federal government working together on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan to stimulate the Australian economy. The Territory has been successful in attracting significant new roads funding in this package, including $1m for a roundabout on Woolner Road to improve traffic flow on the current intersections of Brewery Place, Bishop Street, and Iliffe Street. Federal funding of $250 000 from black spot funding will also contribute to this project, with Darwin City Council making up the remainder.
Woolner Road is a council road, but this project is a good example of all tiers of government working together, with the Territory government’s Department of Planning and Infrastructure supporting this funding application. This section of road is a busy juncture, with recent residential developments in the area also contributing to increased traffic. The Territory government, to complement this project, will improve cycle path crossings and other road and safety measures at the Stuart Highway and Woolner Road intersections. This is an important black spot to fix for people going to work, but also for people going to the Stuart Park Primary School and the Stuart Park Childcare Centre.
I agree with the Treasurer; this is an unprecedented budget for unprecedented times. It is a budget which concentrates on core government business, keeping people in jobs, keeping our economy strong, and keeping the Territory at the forefront of growth. Madam Deputy Speaker, for these reasons, I am very happy to support this budget.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, the budget is a very important issue which many of us will talk about, some at length and some in depth. I will reserve some of this for the estimates.
My electorate is in Drysdale in Palmerston, so I will definitely talk on some of those issues. However, I am sure I will also go into some of my portfolios like sports.
One can say it is good to see there is further money for our headworks programs in the Palmerston East suburbs and those areas around Bellamack. However, as has been highlighted today, we are only looking at about 90 properties out of Bellamack this year, which is a downturn, like the economy, on the various promises of the government; a downturn that this great Territory cannot really afford to have.
Unfortunately, Darwin and the Northern Territory as a whole, needs to keep up the number of housing land releases. With only 90 expected from this particular project, on some figures the government put out through some different brochures, we could be anything up to 1500 lots of land short for 2009 - a huge number of land lots behind the number projected which is required to keep up with the growth rates. It is good to throw the money around but, if you do not have the outcomes, you have nowhere to go.
It is good to see the progress of the Palmerston GP Super Clinic. Unfortunately, the term ‘super clinic’ has been overused by this government. It has proclaimed many times that the after hours clinic is a super clinic, when we all know that is not quite so, but it is a great way to promote it in a glossy brochure. I hope the additional $8m furthers the clinic so it provides the services we need in the Palmerston region, like dental care.
We look forward to the headworks of the Rosebery primary schools and the middle schools, because we are very much behind the times in building more schools in the Palmerston area, with a great need for larger schooling to cover the growth ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, a reminder about cell phones and laptops with sound, thank you. You have the call member for Drysdale.
Mr BOHLIN: There is the continuation of the Bellamack headworks. It puzzles me how it took this government so long to sign up contracts there. We have seen them continually put out their glossy brochures for Palmerston, sprout how they are doing a great job, and put out more information but deliver nothing. It is time they started building the development. I noticed last week they started. I drove past where they are doing the development and it is looking good, but it is a shame it has taken nearly two years. It is a shame we will see only 90 blocks out of the land this year. There are developers struggling under the rule of the government due to its inaction. It talks about what it is going to do, and it promises, but it fails to deliver.
If you talk about the fun side of life, the Palmerston water park was an election promise by the Labor government. It is good to see in this budget they intend to put the money on the table and deliver it. But have you secured the land, have you discussed this in great length and detail with the council it will affect? Have you decided who will pay for the upkeep of this rather large facility, because it will be a great burden on Palmerston residents and their rates? It is a great thing to have but it still has to be paid for year after year. Look at Leanyer, where the government picks up the bill.
Will it be that Palmerston residents receive their water park, have the shiny brochures put out - thrown into our letterboxes - and then we will receive the bill? Pay it out of your rates as an increase? What other detriment will the water park have on our existing pools and aquatics? Could this facility be combined into the existing pool and the land nearby, to create one large facility, so you will have the pool which is used reasonably well, and it will have a greater attraction to many more people? It will be a better and more used facility, perhaps a more economically viable facility. But, if you put the water park next door, with your glossy brochure, who will want to go to the pool, where you have to pay? All of a sudden, we have an asset which is so underutilised it is not economically viable anymore. It will hurt Palmerston residents.
One would hope you consider that. I know that some sit on the front bench near this lovely little gap, and they smile and smirk, but their planning has been poor in the way they go about doing their business. Sometimes, I wish they listened occasionally and used some advice. Of course, it will be up to the government, for the length of time they are there, as to whether they take that action and work in conjunction with landowners, the council, and the people to make a wise decision that will properly benefit Palmerston residents into the future.
We see that, after a newspaper article in the Territory Regional Weekly the member for Braitling and I featured in a couple of months ago, there was an announcement for the Palmerston boat ramp. You put it out in your election campaign then went quiet. The member for Braitling and I, on 9 April - I think it was - were in the newspaper and that same morning - so the ink had dried on the newspaper and is sent around the Territory – there was a media release from this government saying: ‘Yes, the Palmerston boat ramp is coming. Great! But, gee whiz! We have not built a boat ramp before. We do not know how to build it or what to put there. If you have any ideas, please send them in’. There is a need to consult, there is no doubt ...
A member: There is also a master plan.
Mr BOHLIN: There are some master plans, and there are many boat ramps around. However, it is blatantly obvious that if you have missed the mark and you are responding ad hoc to newspapers, your planning will be lacking. The people who saw that and took any notice of the media release knew you had been caught, proverbially, with your pants down, and it was a pure reaction. I am sure there are plenty of boat ramps and plenty of fisher people who can tell you what is needed.
There is already a plan put forward by the council in the area, the Palmerston City Council, which is a good starting point. Why not speak to the council, and discuss it with them? It is a good idea, a good starting point. Put that out as a starting point and ask for comments, and maybe you would reach somewhere quicker, because we know you are not really good on delivering.
I notice there is $1.9m for continuing works at the Stuart Highway and Deviney Road intersection. I am not really sure the last time there were any works done there, so I am confused why we have used the words ‘continuing works’. Is that just a play to see if you can pretend you are doing some highway works? I do not remember the last time you did any works there or, if you did, it has to be more than three years ago. However, it is good to see some upgrades. Any work on our roads is good at the moment, because they are lacking in maintenance, and they have been for approximately two years whilst you have busily spent the GST revenue on other major projects which caught your eye so you could put out a glossy brochure ...
A member: Frivolous spending.
Mr BOHLIN: Frivolous. I note under the Palmerston Regional Highlights, there is $1m for a six-bed residential care unit for young people at risk. It sounds good, and I probably support the idea. We have one in Casuarina called Casey House. However, if it is like Casey House, I do not want it, because it is not properly controlled in the way a residence is expected to be. It draws in trouble at times. There are needs, but we need to know the plans. I look forward to consulting with the government on its intent for the six-bed residential care unit for people at risk, because there are kids out there who need help. There are kids out there - whether it be Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, or Tennant Creek – who need extra care. In that aspect, I commend you for putting forward the idea, but it needs proper consultation because, if it is done wrong, it only brings trouble. You need to be able to at least care for them. There is a good point, but there is definitely a downside and we need to know more.
The Palmerston Health Precinct, which is tagged on to the Palmerston GP, has $2m for support services. These are ongoing funds you discussed before, and definitely the Palmerston residents have shown they deserve this level of service. In fact, they deserve a hospital. They deserve a proper accident and emergency, and they deserve to have their rural neighbours supported by a hospital as well. I hope you can open up your eyes and your ears and start moving forward towards that, because that is where we should be heading. To develop and grow this Territory proud, we need to have the proper services.
This brings me to the sad part. To this point in the budget, I see you have only allocated $0.96m - so you are trying to brag – or $960 000 for additional ambulance services in Palmerston. In your media release of 5 January - I believe it was, off the top of my head - with the Chief Minister and one other member of parliament on that side, you said we were going to have a 24-hour additional ambulance service in Palmerston after the end of June. The information to hand suggests that to operate the additional service 24-hours per day we need $1.4m. This is not a figure I have plucked out of the air; it is a pretty accurate figure. The figures in your media release in January suggested a figure of $2.25m, off the top of my head, and all we have in this budget is $0.96m.
I believe it is time the Chief Minister apologises to all the residents of Palmerston and says: ‘Whoops, sorry, I have run out of money in the till and I cannot supply the services to Palmerston I promised’. The Chief Minister did promise an additional 24-hour ambulance to the Palmerston and rural area. Looking at this budget, and everything surrounding it, he is going to fail and refuse to supply it to the Palmerston and rural residents. If that is the case, be mature enough to stand up and say: ‘Due to certain x, y and z reasons, we are not going to do this any more’. Do not just sit there quietly and pretend it is not happening, because people are noticing. In fact, it was on the radio the other day.
There are some interesting things, if we look nationally, around environmental issues. The Labor government in the big smoke in Canberra talks about its emission trading scheme and the like, yet, here in the Territory, we have put so much care into our environment that we have only allocated $0.4m for wildlife protection across the Top End - $400 000 is the entire amount for wildlife protection across the Top End; $360 000 for pest research and control, including ‘buffaloos’ - as written in the budget paper - pigs, cats, wild dogs ...
A member interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: It is written as ‘buffaloos’ in here. We have ‘buffaloos’, pigs, cats, wild dogs, cane toads, horses and donkeys in the Top End. There is only $360 000 to protect our environment against those pests. There is $330 000 for wildfire suppression strategies in the Top End. We know there are certain issues, but it is about the environment and, as it goes up in smoke - like some of this budget should - it needs to be looked at in a more detailed way.
There is only $100 000 for advice to landholders on weed management. I know it may be piggy-backed off other things, but $100 000 for the entire Northern Territory to give advice to landholders - and we know the distance some of these officers will need to travel to speak to these people and to look at the problems they have. Is this really being serious about our environment and weed management? Or have they cut more off the budget, skimmed a little off and said: ‘I hope no one sees that? It is good. We can print another glossy brochure’.
My favourite is that we dropped the ‘m’ part out of this, so we no longer pretend we are talking in the millions - $50 000 for the management of threatened species. I hope like heck I am not a threatened Labor Party species, because with $50 000 you do not have much saving in you. I have written some notes on this paper, which I really cannot repeat, but if they are serious about the environment these are some pretty poor figures, and they should be embarrassed.
Yet, we have $610 000 for a Herbarium plant collection and information services, which is good; it is part of our museums. I like that. However, look at the fact we are only going to put $100 000 for advice to landholders on weed management. We heard in this parliament only one or two months ago about the weed problems we have, yet we have only put in $100 000 to try to do something about it, which is pretty ridiculous.
I go back to the $10m for the Bellamack seniors village. Every time the Planning minister speaks she fails to be concise with her words, or say what she means, that the seniors village maybe xyz under her 15% for affordable housing. The seniors village will have to be part of the 15% for affordable housing, but no one on that side will come out and state what they believe is affordable housing for the residents of Darwin, Palmerston or anywhere, for that matter.
If the government cannot work out those basic figures by now, how can we trust you to manage all of this, if you cannot state what you believe will be affordable housing prices or affordable land prices? They are simple figures. You signed a deal with the company the other day so you have to know what the figures are, and what their expectations are. You must have done a deal to say exactly what that affordable housing will cost.
Tell the public; they want to know. The people in the Territory need to know where their next land is going to be, how affordable it is, or whether they are going to have to pack up and leave the Territory. You have made a mess of it - made an absolute mess of it. You have stated that there is 15% affordable housing, so you must be able to say what it is. You must have a figure in your head, on the paper, in the books, or in the contract. Let it be public knowledge. Let people ask: can I afford that? Do I now need to seek financial management so I can achieve my goal of owning a home in the Northern Territory? People need to plan for this. To think the government does not have the figures to announce in public suggests it has not planned anything but its next glossy brochure.
It is very good at the glossy brochures, postcards and the like. But I have danced around the Bellamack seniors village because I have become quite caught up in the 15% of affordable housing. It irks me that there is not enough land in the Northern Territory for a family to reach the Australian great goal of land and home ownership. It irks me that late last year, we saw people living in their cars out the back of Parliament House because the government has failed to manage this great Territory properly.
There is $10m for the Bellamack seniors village. I want to know: what is your time frame for this delivery; what is the plan; how many beds? What is it going to look like? If you have put pen to paper and said: ‘This is the dollar value, it fits within our 15% affordability’, you must have an idea what it is going to look like, to be able to come up with a figure, and what will it supply to our seniors. We have many seniors and many lovely families connected to them and they want to know. They want to know what is on offer. What is the government going to put on the table for them? You have written it in this book. We have at least been spared the glossy page for it and the glossy brochure in our letterbox at this stage. Anyway, now I have said that, we will probably receive one of them. We need to know what sort of time plan. When are we going to deliver it? Which part of this year, next year, the year after, are we going to deliver this stuff? Or is it going to be a rollover plan, an oncology unit that never appears?
While I am on that, I will touch on the home ownership scheme, which was talked about today: $12.6m for a home ownership scheme for low- to middle-income earners to purchase a home. After listening today, I ask: how much income does a person need to fit within that level of middle- to low-income earner? How much money does someone actually need to be earning to realistically afford a home? Interject properly and speak up ...
Mr Knight: Have a look at Homestart.
Mr BOHLIN: Right. If we look at Homestart we know there are many problems with it, but you cannot admit to it ...
Mr Knight: What?
Mr BOHLIN: There is. I asked for a briefing many months ago, and I gave him a scenario and it never came back to me ...
Mr Knight: We have just released Homestart.
Mr BOHLIN: My mistake. What was your old program called?
Mr Knight: HomeNorth.
Mr BOHLIN: Where is the land for these people to buy? What will they have to earn to be able to afford it?
Mr Knight: It is $85 000 for a couple and $65 000 for a single.
Mr BOHLIN: That is a lot of money. For a single - $65 000. What about all the people in the Territory who are only earning $35 000 or $45 000? Are they never going to be able to afford a home? You need to be realistic. The problem is you continue to strangle land release so people cannot afford to buy. You know it is the case. You only have to speak to any one of the fancy home builders and they will tell you that they have problems with it. They will tell you they need more land and you are not releasing it in enough time.
I will leave the rest to estimates, because it is about sports and it takes me all over the Territory.
Palmerston is a great city in its own. It has a great council with plans and leadership. It has some great MLAs. Everyone I know believes in the Palmerston region. They believe in continuing to grow that area for the benefit of everyone. They want to know what is happening in their world. They want to know when we are going to have good land released and how much the affordable land pricing is. The government has had plenty of time to create those figures. It is time it started putting those figures out instead of the glossy brochures.
There are some interesting things for the Palmerston area. I am extremely concerned Palmerston will miss out on its 24-hour additional ambulance service. We need it; the entire Darwin greater region needs the additional 24-hour service. We need to be able to look after all the people who are sick and injured at any time.
We need to know what is going on with our water park. I am sure there are many residents who will enjoy that water park and will have a great time - like the wave pool - but we need to know if you are consulting with the council and the landowner to get a balance so we do not overburden the local residents with extra rates to cover the cost of this expensive project. We need to know it is not going to make the current pool redundant, so it becomes unviable. We need to know the planning is sustainable and smart for the Palmerston people, because Palmerston is beautiful and vibrant and it will continue to prosper, but it needs proper management and not some of the stuff we are seeing.
I have three minutes, so I will take the time to mention that the Palmerston rural residents in Marlow Lagoon are concerned about the intent to put through the overhead power lines. It is not in the budget to go underground or to divert, but those residents would like to meet with the minister responsible to have a proper, calculated discussion as a group, not as individuals. It will be in a venue which belongs to the people, which is our electorate offices. There we can have a proper discussion. I will sit back and listen and let those who are, potentially, responsible for destroying these residents’ land values talk to them and explain what the processes are, where we are going to go, and see proper planning and sensibility occur. I look forward to that happening soon ...
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extra 10 minutes to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you very much, but I am not going to use it. Let us see that proper planning goes on …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, please pause. Those members who are having private conversations, lower your voices, please. Member for Port Darwin, I am asking those in conversation to lower their voices. I cannot hear the member for Drysdale. You have the call, member for Drysdale.
Mr BOHLIN: You are wasting my time.
Let us see if the government plans properly for the Palmerston area. Feel free and come and talk to us, because we are the elected members out there. We are not some placed and planted government employee - which we have seen in recent times – who is being paid ridiculous money to represent this team.
The offer stands: if there is an issue in Palmerston, this government has an open door to my office, which is the electorate office of the people of Drysdale. They have an open door where they can come and discuss it with me and those concerned residents of Palmerston at all times. Then we can plan properly because, at the moment, the lack of consultation, land release, the additional 24-hour ambulance service, a hospital, and planning is ridiculous. It is crazy to even believe they have their fingers on the pulse. I look forward to seeing this budget move. I look forward to seeing the results of the weeks that pass afterwards and to a very bright and prosperous 12 months.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard members opposite describe this budget as a great budget for difficult times. It is so interesting, because I look at the current debt levels of every man, woman, and child in the Territory. In the last eight years, when we have experienced some of the best financial times in this country, the debt levels have risen for Territorians. However, on the federal scene, they actually went down to zero. What a great job the previous federal government did in relation to managing the budget federally, to the point where, when they left government in November 2007, there was a $23bn bank sitting around. We would be far better if we had that money still sitting there. However, given the current economic times that the world is experiencing, we would be worse off had that surplus not been there and the debt not been paid off.
The Northern Territory government, since 2001, has had an unexpected windfall of around $1.2bn. It is interesting, when I hear the government saying how great it has been, and the money it has spent on this, that, and everything else. Of course, we all know that spending money does not necessarily get outcomes; money is an input as opposed to an output. However, I hear them say: ‘We have spent this and we have spent that, and record spending, and we spend far more than the previous CLP did when it was in government’. I suppose, with an extra $1.2bn in your back pocket, you can do many things and spend much money. You can increase the public service by almost 3000, you can keep employing people and keep racking up the debt. The last time I checked a number of years ago, we were up to about $16 000 per head, for each man, woman and child in the Territory. I note it is currently in excess of $20 000.
There is not much being spent on some of the little things - at least I cannot find it in the budget. I would like to talk about a number of things that are not happening as a result of this budget; some of the things that perhaps could happen if the government looked at being equitable across the board in all electorates.
The first issue I address is that of law and order in my electorate, and the youth in the northern suburbs. I will include the other electorates in the northern suburbs, because some of the members opposite who are from the northern suburbs have the same sort of problem with some of the youth issues. It is a major concern. The youth out there, basically, make up 18% of our population and they are 100% of our future. We are obliged to look after them, to give them direction, and help them get through some of those difficult years. This means we will need to have some youth programs. In fact, we will need quite a few youth programs to look after them and give them alternative things to do. Boredom is a great problem for young people. If they do not have anything to do, they simply sit around in parks, do graffiti, and smash things, simply for a little excitement.
Young people, since time immemorial, have always been looking for a buzz, and it seems that is the very nature of youth and hormone fluctuations: they go out and they do silly things and get themselves into trouble sometimes. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they do not. Some do a little, some do a lot. There are those out there who are looking for something alternative to do. As a community, it behoves us to actually supply some of those things, which might include drop-in centres.
If one goes back in history - and I speak about the Top End and in the areas around my electorate - many years ago, we used to have a facility called the Red Cross Fire Escape. It was a great facility in the northern suburbs, run by some wonderful people who gave their time and their hearts but, unfortunately, were not prepared to have their cars scraped down the side with 20 pieces. The people who kept getting thrown out of these youth drop-in centres because of bad behaviour were not actually getting thrown out for very long; they were allowed back in. Therefore, the good kids who were being bullied all left, so we had half a dozen kids in a government-sponsored pool hall, basically.
They are not the things the government needs to look at. The government needs to fund good things like hubs, neighbourhood activity centres, where there are numerous things for young people to do: all sorts of activities from rock climbing, abseiling, football, cadet units - there are a whole range of things the government could do if it used imagination and put a little funding into the early intervention programs that everyone in the world is looking at.
The key words are ‘early intervention’. I ask the government to look at its budget and where there might be a little room to look at some of those early intervention programs. You do not have to go very far; you can Google some of them. It is that simple, type in Google and you come up with some great ideas.
Neighbourhood activity centres are a way to involve all people in the community, from the older generation to the younger generation. Those in the middle are out working hard. Many mums and dads are working, or the partners are working, to make the house payments - I will deal with that later. House payments are consuming a fair amount of family incomes. We need to give the community these sorts of things. If we do not, the downstream problems which occur are enormous. The health and legal issues, the general cost to the community in policing, and the cost of graffiti, crime, damage and, generally, the rehabilitation costs of either incarcerating these young people or very high cost programs to get them back on the straight and narrow when they have fallen off the straight road and got themselves into drugs or, sometimes, worse situations.
That brings me to the subject of Police Beats and police around our suburbs. I note the Chief Minister, even tonight, was going on about how great Police Beats are. If you take the Police Beat at Casuarina Square for instance, where most of the young people in my electorate seem to congregate these days, there is a police station not 50 m from the property line where the Police Beat is on the other side of the road. From my former life as a police officer I still have many friends, and I am told by many of these people that the police officers consider this a complete waste of money. They can actually walk across from the police station to get there. The Police Beat, obviously, takes staff to run it; people have to be there. They see it as a waste of police resources that could be better applied in other areas. However, I understand the government is trying to get some political points out of doing this sort of stuff and, perhaps, some good spin.
I would like to see more Police Beats; in fact, some more support for Community Patrols and a closer liaison between Community Patrols and the police in the northern suburbs. The Community Patrols do a fabulous job of going around and operating as free eyes and ears on behalf of the community to pass that information through to the police, so the police can be far more effective.
There is an old saying: if you know where the needle is in the haystack, you do not spend much time looking for it; you can go straight to the problem. This is what Community Patrols do. However, there seems to be reluctance to support Community Patrols. I ask the government to consider perhaps taking or shifting some of the dollars from various places and encourage those who have charge of the budgets, the CEOs, to look at some of those things in the community which can be of great benefit.
They open a Police Beat at Casuarina Square, yet they do not support the continuation of the TIO office there. Just down the road from Police Beat, we have the TIO office which is about to close, which will force many of the people in my electorate who go to Casuarina and do multiple jobs and tasks in one day, to go to town and do those things in the city.
This also raises a problem for the disabled people who live in my electorate. Given that I am assisting the shadow minister for disabilities, it comes under my portfolio. I have these people approaching me in my electorate office saying: ‘How are we going to do this, especially in the Wet Season? If you go into town, it is pouring with rain, it is stinking hot and, if you are in a wheelchair, for instance, you have to negotiate crossing the roads to get from the bus terminus through to the TIO Office’. There is rain, there are people, there are kerbs, there are all sorts of problems they have. You open the police office, yet you do not support the continuation of TIO, or even an agency out there.
These are some of the things the government could look at - alternatives. I know that the TIO is a statutory body and they are supposed to be able to look after themselves, but we are talking about services to disabled people by the government and looking at ways that we can be creative. If they cannot afford to keep their full office open, at least have an agency. Perhaps they could get a bit of a corner in the Police Beat office, and we could set up a little TIO office there for people to get some basic services.
I also raise policing in the northern suburbs in relation to the Police Traffic Branch. There are rumours abounding that, due to budgetary constraints, the resources of the police force are being put all over the place. In fact, no one knows about it; even Vince Kelly from the Police Association is asking for an independent audit as to where the police officers are. I cannot say where the dollars are going, but my understanding is that they have increased the size of the Missing Persons Bureau, so it can go out …
Dr Burns: You can ask the commissioner next week in estimates.
Mr STYLES: They have increased the size of the Missing Persons Bureau. That is great because they are looking for an extra 300 police officers they cannot find.
I hope the government might listen to the opposition regarding some of the issues raised and actually deal with them. I have a large number of people come into my office complaining about the driving standards. They ask where the police traffic section is. Where is the money being spent on law and order and maintaining safety on the roads and in homes and other places? This morning, I was driving along McMillans Road and I got to Lee Point Road and there was a red light. I was in a line of traffic and the lights turned green for us. No one could move because four cars came sailing through the intersection while we were sitting there with a green light.
The minimum time changing from red to green is about two seconds. These people were well outside the intersection when their lights were red, and they were just sailing through and we had to wait. Not only does that hold traffic up, but it is extremely dangerous. I hope one day that the children of some of these people in this House are not coming through an intersection to get T-boned, and we have to go and cut the bodies out of the car. I do not know whether members opposite have ever done that - never had to cart kids out of cars in pieces. I can tell you, it is not a very pleasant sight or job.
The government needs to spend a bit of money and maintain the traffic section. It needs to increase the numbers of police vehicles out there, so that we have a deterrent, because there is not much deterrent out there at this point in time. People are speeding. You are doing the speed limit on Bagot Road and people are flying past you. We have speed cameras there, but there is only a couple of them, and they are not always there. People look in the paper which says the speed camera is not going to be on Bagot Road today, so they roar down Bagot Road and pass everyone. We need to spend some money on law and order issues. If you do not have law and order, what do you have in the community? Not very much at all.
That brings me to the next issue. We have young people out there who want things to do; they want to have a bit of fun. They are not bad kids. In fact, 99% of kids are not bad; they will get through. I can say that from experience with nearly 20 years working in the community. I have seen most kids get through. They all bump the fences along the way, they have a few issues and a few problems, but they all get through. However, there are a number of young people who, through choice, decide that they want to go against everything. It is very difficult to convince some of them they need to change their ways. I note that on our side, we talk camps - boot camps or whatever term the government wants to call them - but they are correctional camps.
I note recently there were 20 places funded through Balanu and Brahminy, yet there were only six places taken up. I had to ask a few of my good friends in the police department: ‘What is going on, folks?’ They say there are plenty of kids out there who need it and they are at a loss to know why the government has not taken it up - or the Police department has not. It would be good if the minister for Police could ask the Commissioner for Police why there are kids running around out there who need that help, and why they are not in these places. That is a good question that we might ask them.
The next issue I get to in my electorate are the elderly people who wander in the door. Again, this is about spending money on law and order and fixing some of the basic issues. The elderly people will not go to an ATM. They see all these young people hanging around, and they have lost the confidence to move about this community and feel safe. They will go into the bank. I had one old lady who came in about a month ago and said she will not use the ATM anymore; she goes down to the bank. She used to put her money into her handbag and clutch it to her shoulder and, then, walk out in fear that someone was going to take the bag. She now hides money in the place that my mother used to hide her money - where Mum always thought it was pretty safe, and it probably is a lot safer than in the handbag.
We have elderly people who will not go out walking at night. They are saying they will not go out and walk at 5.30 pm because people knock them over, they may steal from them or take their mobile phones. These are the issues that I do not believe are being addressed sufficiently.
On 18 April, I got word from a number of my constituents who were in the Casuarina Cinema car park on the top floor. They went to the movies, came out, and eight of them had their windows smashed in, in one night. We do not seem to hear about some of these things in the paper, and they certainly do not seem to appear in the Neighbourhood Watch meetings.
Regarding violence in schools - and I talk from experience here - the ability of school-based police officers to get into classrooms to build a rapport with young people - and this all has to do with early intervention and investing time and money in early intervention so that you can manoeuvre these young people off in the right direction. At the end of June 2005, the government decided that they would not have a drug education program in schools; we will go for a new program. Well, I have to tell you that the new program - that was not finished and still has not been fully written - just was not available. So, what happens? Police officers are dragged out of school. When you actually have look at where juvenile crime has gone, it is actually going up and the problems are increasing. Why? Well, perhaps its because the government has taken them away. They have stopped spending the money where it needs to be spent; that is, in early intervention.
While I am talking about school-based policing, let us talk about school-based nurses. School-based nurses are also in crisis. They cannot get staff, the people out there have been spread so thin, and people are not being replaced, and this impacts. The lack of spending in these areas impacts on people’s feelings and on their ability to go to work and do the job effectively. We all talk about effectiveness and efficiencies in delivering services that saves the government money. It saves the community money because people get more done.
However, when you do not look after people in the community - you do not pay them enough, you do not replace them, you shift them, or you give them way too many duties - then people get saddened and depressed and they just think: ‘Why would I want to go to work?’ So, sick leave goes up. If you look at the sick leave in a number of Health areas and the Police department, and they are atrocious.
Violence in schools - here we go. School-based police officers were dragged off to do all sorts of responsive or reactive policing, as opposed to proactive policing. I do not think that the government wants to spend any money on proactive policing, as they do not understand what the benefits are of some of the proactive early intervention program around. I ask them to please come and talk to me and I can give you some background information on some of those things. Violence in schools is one of the issues you teach young people in Transition. You teach them how to stand up for themselves, not to put up with things, to report things early, and you build up rapport with them.
However, as a community, we are losing the ability because the government will not spend it in what they say is a great budget for difficult times.
Regarding laneways in my community, I know that the Neighbourhood Watch people, the Darwin City Council are the people have made application to government for funding so they can actually close some of these laneways off. I am a great believer in closing some of these off. I do not agree with selling them, but government could invest some money out of this great budget in assisting some of these problem laneways by putting fences up so that when we actually do get on top of some of these law and order problems that we have in the community, we can reopen them so the good people of the community and my electorate can actually re-use these laneways. Of course, we have to get on top of some of the antisocial and crime problems.
That brings me to driver’s licences. Older people now get free driver’s licences, but the youth have to pay for them. What we find is people come in and say, how come I go in there one day and these are the rules of getting a driver’s licence, you are actually examined, and people say, oh, you did not pass your licence because you did this. The next time you go in, you have to wait, sometimes up to six weeks because of lack of funding from the government and the Motor Vehicle Registry does not seem to have enough driver’s licence examiners, so you just have to wait. So they go along, they pay their fees again, they do what they were told last time and they fail. And they say: ‘Hang on, the last time the other examiner said I have to do this’. ‘Oh well, you cannot do that, I am saying you do this’.
There is confusion reigning out there between young people. I had, not just one, but a number of young people come in and say, this is terrible, we have to wait, wait, wait, and wait. It is a big thing to young people to get their driver’s licence. So what happens is, some of them end up going out there, they want to drive the car, they know they can drive, they have sort of almost passed, they believe they are okay, so they go out there, they get caught driving without a licence or have an accident, they are then hit for the rest of their lives under the MACA scheme, they have pay all the fees and medical bills for some poor sod who they had an accident with. It is just a terrible situation, and again, it is because government does not seem to want to fund some extra positions out there to provide a basic service to our community. I am not talking about luxuries; I am just talking about basic services for driver’s licences.
So another issue comes in, and this again comes down to funding, it comes down to staffing, and it comes down to basic provisional services. A guy lost his job recently as a result of the recession, or the current financial problems that we are having here, loses his job, and he wants to become a taxi driver. There are taxi drivers out there, there are taxis parked, I know there are 25 taxis, three of which are on the road at night time, and 22 of which lay idle because we cannot get drivers. So this man comes into my office, and says, this is terrible, this is disgusting, I have to wait three months for a criminal history check so I can get a licence so I can get a job. That is appalling. Three months to get a criminal history check done, and it is going to cost him a fair bit of money, just so he can go and get a job. So what is he doing now? He is sitting on the dole, just waiting around for a criminal history check. It is appalling.
There are many people who come in and say there is just an extraordinary delay in getting criminal history checks done. They find that absurd when we are trying to get people into work. We are trying to provide jobs, create jobs, and get people to come here for the fantastic lifestyle. Crime rates are on the increase. You cannot get a house, and if you can it is going to cost you a fortune. You cannot rent a place because you cannot afford it. But then you cannot get criminal history check done to get a job, so what do people do - they are leaving.
If you go to Malak Caravan Park or KOA Caravan Park and you talk to the people who are residents there - I get to talk to new people from time to time - they leave because it gets too expensive. It is a failure of government to spend money in providing dedicated services.
I look at some of the other problems around my electorate where there are people who are sleeping around shopping centres in my electorate. One of the particular problems is at Wagaman shops where people seem to like to camp around the shops. One poor shopkeeper has to come out every morning with his hose and disinfectant and clean up where people have been defecating at his back door in the little alcove which seems to be the local toilet.
These are issues that the government is saying it is addressing but this has been going on for an extraordinary amount of time. Getting people back to country, and into all sorts of supported accommodation - that is hard because we used to have in excess of 6000 Territory Housing properties and I believe we now have just over 5000. There has obviously been many sold off. I do not know whether that was to prop up previous budgets or something.
Those are just some of the law and order issues that this budget perhaps will address. I hope so but I am not confident that they will.
I would like to move on the education. There are some issues out there and I do not know if this is new to the government, but if they do know about it, it is a shame because they do not seem to be doing much about it. If they do not know about it, well I am the messenger. I am giving you some good news.
Dr Burns: Like the postman.
Mr STYLES: Yes, that is it; I can be the postman too if you like. Middle schools are an issue that I hope the government has tried to address, but I do not think they have. It is counsellors in schools. There is evidence around the world to suggest that people are moving away from middle schools because of some of the social issues that are coming out of the particular way that they are set up. The pedagogy that occurs in middle schools, great, I do not have a problem with that. However, it is the actual location.
When you shift these middle schools, you build big buildings at great expense to the taxpayer and you move all these young people in and we find that the people who are the role models of this school, for instance on the male side, are boys 14 years old, which is the worst year of a boys’ life. The average of the greatest number of hormonal fluctuations in a males’ life is when he is 14 years of age, and these are the role models in the school. We wonder why we have problems with Year 7 and 8 students, looking up to these fine young people who are going right off the planet and there is no one else there that they can look up to as a role model.
Mr Elferink: Yes, I am in that awkward period between eight and 80 as well.
Mr STYLES: You have been in it for most of your life. We need counsellors; we need funding for counsellors. This is just in my area and I am sure that most of these other electorates and all the members of this House probably have schools in their area where they desperately need these services to get these young people through.
If we do not guide them now, then where are we going to be? We will have many issues with kids running wild, and we will have many juvenile problems and juvenile crime. We will have juvenile courts full of young people who have no role models and are creating havoc out there, getting themselves into trouble and then going to court and saying, I do not know what I did. Then when they look for a place to go for some rehabilitation there are only six places being used and we have this money going to these facilities like Balunu and Brahminy and only six people are using these facilities. It is a disgrace that the government does not have its eye on the ball when it comes to some of these issues.
These are basic issues that I am sure that members are finding in their electorate offices. If they are not, then perhaps they need to get out and find out just what is going on in relation to their great budget for difficult times.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member for Sanderson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to my colleague, the member for Fong Lim.
I ask the government to consider school-based nurses, school-based policing and early intervention. If they have not considered putting extra money into it and extra staffing into it, then if you want to fix the problems before they start, you have to get in early, and invest the time, the money and the community spirit into these young people so they do not go off the ropes and end up costing us a squillion dollars down the road.
I come to some of the health issues that I am having in my electorate in relation to the government’s failure to spend money in the appropriate areas. The first issue is getting to the hospital. If you do not have a car, and if you are injured – and we all know there are probably not enough ambulances - but if you get an ambulance, and you go to hospital, that is great. If you have a car, that is great too; you can either drive yourself if you are able, or you get someone to drive you. However, when you get to the hospital, you must park about 2 km away. You cannot park anywhere outside the car parks, because that area has big signs saying it is subject to traffic infringement notices and if you park in the wrong spot you will get a traffic infringement notice Parking at the hospital is a major issue. I am hoping the minister might look at the budget and alleviate that particular problem so we do not have the issue of people who are sick having to walk for anything up to a kilometre because they cannot park in hospital grounds.
The other issue for seniors in my electorate is catching buses. It is in interesting process. We are not that far from the hospital, but for some it is too far to walk. If you are sick, you are probably not going to walk to hospital anyway. I feel for my colleagues in Palmerston, because it can take you anything up to two to three hours to get to the hospital. It is about providing the right funding through this great budget in difficult times for the basic infrastructure of transport and bus services to get these people to the hospital.
This brings me to disabled access. A person came into my office and said: ‘Why is the government not spending money ensuring there is access for wheelchairs at the new waterfront area?’ I found out about this yesterday. You go to one of the new hotels and from the wave pool to the hotel you cannot get a wheelchair in there. There is no access!
A member: That is illegal.
Mr STYLES: Yes, it is. It is a bit like parking buses in Knuckey Street outside the Mantra. I went there one night, when the bus arrived, we could not move. We had to sit there, waiting and waiting.
On school dental clinics: there is a great school dental clinic at Wagaman Primary School; they cannot find the keys. That is how long it has been since it was used. I went there for a school council meeting and the issue was raised and I said: ‘Can I have a look at it?’ and they said: ‘We have to find the keys.’ They said it used as a storeroom! There are people in my electorate who are going to need the government to invest in basic services in schools so our young people are getting seen to and looked after.
I know there is this program that says: ‘We are here one week and there the next week, and over here another week, and we are sharing these people around.’ These poor dental technicians are being moved all over the place to the extent that some of them are getting stressed. I would like to see the government, in this great budget for difficult times, make use of some of these dental clinics to get the service running.
As for the beautification program at the airport entrance, they are trying to save money on cutting grass. Obviously the lawnmowers cost too much to run. The grass is encroaching closer and closer to the intersection. Soon you will probably not even see ‘Welcome to Darwin’ as it will be overgrown with grass. Perhaps they can find a few dollars for the beautification program they so proudly talk about and get the grass cut.
The government gave the Darwin City Council a grant and about $250 000-odd dollars was spent at the Wulagi shops. The people in the shops cannot believe what they have. They have barriers that prevent people from walking straight into their shops; they have to walk around. I ask them to spend a few dollars trying to get some decent planning and consultation. Consultation would be great. The people in my electorate are eagerly waiting the spending of those dollars on the beautification program that has been promised.
I will talk about the golf club. I have had plenty of golfers approach me. I live near the golf course and they drop by and say: ‘We need a clubhouse; the roof is leaking, it is just about falling in. This is supposed to be Darwin’s premier golf course’. We have a convention centre that is now, hopefully, bringing lots of people who play golf to Darwin, yet, they come out and walk into a shed, and that is supposed to be Darwin’s premier golf course. It would be great if the government invested some money through Sport and Recreation, or facilitated the golf club to get some freehold land so they can borrow some money so they can do these things.
In this great budget for difficult times, I would like to see the government spend a few dollars, or facilitate private industry and clubs to build something, and give them the capacity to do it themselves. It is not going to take much. There is tourism potential there, and it can bring in many tourists in the winter months to play golf tournaments.
It is good that the government is going to spend $1bn on power because I have to tell you that the lights are still going out in my electorate. In Wulagi, just a couple of days ago, it was out for quite some time.
I would love the government to spend a few dollars on the Marrara sporting area car park and provide some car parking. Whenever there is an event there, it is atrocious. It is another area that needs to have some money spent on it.
We also need some basic stuff like play equipment in the parks. Previously, members of government have promised play equipment here, there, and all over the place, but we want to see it. It would be great if we could get some dollars to spend on basic services for young people who live in my electorate.
We need pedestrian crossings, especially on Yanyula Drive. We have young people trying to get across what would be a fairly major road, and they have a bit of trouble getting to school. We need crossings on McMillans Road to get people out of Carnoustie Circuit at Northlakes across a six-lane highway. These issues do not seem to be addressed. We have graffiti all over the place. We need some walkways. We need something done. We need some lighting in walkways.
Housing: 10 years ago, the land aspect of housing used to be 21%; now the land value is in excess of 40%. Territory Housing stock is going down, and young families in my electorate are living with mum and dad because the government seems to think that they have this great budget for difficult times, yet, we are in trouble because we have young people and young families who want to buy a home, who want to stay in the Territory, want to live and work here, but they have been hampered by this great budget for difficult times.
Madam Speaker, I commend these ideas to the government and hope that someone might read this and put some of these things in place.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 9 June 2009.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support CDL, but it is qualified support in the sense that I would like to see further detail on the program before it is rolled out: to find out exactly how it is going to work, the cost impacts, any potential negative impacts for the business community, if any, and the positive impacts for the community of the Northern Territory more broadly. I would also be interested to see how the program is expected to work in areas outside the urban centres of the Northern Territory. I am keen to understand why the expected time frame for delivery is going to take as long as it will take.
People in my electorate of Braitling are concerned about the roll-out of CDL and, as I understand it, across Alice Springs more broadly. There is the new liquor litter levy soon to be introduced in Alice Springs to try to clean up alcohol waste litter and the container deposit legislation could take over from that. I would like to see CDL move in a lot quicker.
CDL has been in South Australia for many years. This government has been in power for eight years now. I recognise a new minister has come in and has sought to bring CDL to the table. I do acknowledge that after eight years they could have done something much sooner than what they have done. The liquor litter levy in Alice Springs will bring about a negative impact on the economy in Alice Springs. We have not heard whether it is a legal charge or not in terms of the court system. CDL is a model that can move forward to stop that liquor litter levy in any way.
I would also like to see how the impact of CDL may be able to restrict, or stop altogether, any recycled materials from Darwin being utilised as land fill in the Northern Territory. Most people who recycle their recyclables would be upset to know that recycled material is getting buried in the ground and is not getting reused in the Darwin area.
I do not have a lot to add, except to say that I am very happy that the minister has brought this on. I am happy to see that the minister and Independent member for Nelson are working together with a committee. I am disappointed that the member for Fannie Bay is on there; I think the member for Brennan should have been on the committee. We support this with in-principle support, based on those concerns I outlined about the actual detail on the potential economic costs of the model, for business and for government, and how we understand, through government modelling, that it will clean up the Northern Territory, but also work to establish or initiate business in the area that would relate to CDL in the Northern Territory.
I urge the minister to bring CDL on as quickly as possible. I also ask her to consider a proposal that I put forward in an adjournment debate at the last sittings, and what the member for Greatorex mentioned earlier today in his budget reply speech, and that is the potential opportunity to provide financial support to the Alice Springs Town Council to implement a temporary CDL model, to clean up the liquor rubbish around Alice Springs rather than the council, by lack of this government’s efforts, being forced into the position to tax landlords of premises with alcohol takeaway outlets. That proposal, while passed by council, I understand there may be some litigation that may be proceeded by landlords of those premises in Alice Springs, who are unhappy with having to pay a $60 000 levy to council, which will be used to run a model of cleaning up litter within certain parts of Alice Springs. I do not believe that is a fair impost on an investor who owns a building, especially when that charge for the investor may not be passed on to the alcohol retailer who is a tenant of premises in the Alice Springs district. That is why I have in principle support for CDL. I would like to see it moved along faster so that this charge is not brought about.
We all acknowledge that there are alcohol problems across the Territory and Alice Springs, but where the landlord can pass on the additional cost of that liquor litter levy, of up to $60 000, to a retailer, all that will do is drive up the price of alcohol, which for people who sensibly consume alcohol is an unfair impost and an inflationary measure, or to create savings, it will place an economic restraint on those retailers, potentially forcing people out of jobs to save money to be able to pay for that bill.
I do not want to shed criticism on Alice Springs Town Council. I respect its positive approach to doing something about this, but I criticise the Labor government for taking eight years to come up with a model that is reflective of legislation in another jurisdiction in Australia. I recognise that the member for Nelson has been trying to pursue this matter for some time. There are members in this parliament who grew up with either a model of CDL or a model of recycling and it is the norm for those people to do that. It is very funny to be in a place where recycling is not the norm, whether that is through CDL, kerbside recycling, or otherwise. At my place, when I put the rubbish in the bin, I still separate my recyclables, chuck them in the big green or yellow bin, and send them to the tip.
This CDL statement is very welcome; it is a long overdue statement, by both the CLP as well as the Labor government. I do not believe that society generally would feel that recycling is too great an impingement on everyday lifestyles. CDL will have some negative connotations for different people across the Territory, and I recognise there will have to be a change process. The benefit for the government and for the minister is that on this side of the House we will support the process. I do not believe there will be much political pain from this side of the House, minister. The sooner we can move forward with CDL, the real potential of creating green economic industries in the Northern Territory, to make this a viable model and one that is not reliant upon government handouts, will be positive. The in-principle support is around ensuring we see the detail and we make sure that the Territory taxpayers are not going to have a financial burden for now and forever …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, it now being nine o’clock, would you like to have an extension of 10 minutes.
Mr GILES: I can finish my comments at a later date.
Madam SPEAKER: You can do that or you can have 10 minutes now.
Mr GILES: I will finish my comments at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter before the Chair is now adjourned until the next sitting day, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
I propose the Assembly do now adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A (b).
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks this evening on Commander Anne-Marie Murphy who was awarded an APM in the Queens Honours.
Anne-Marie was promoted to the rank of Superintendent in 2002. Since this time she has performed mostly in the role of the Commissioner’s Staff Officer from 2002 to 2008. In 2006, she played a significant role in the planning and coordination of the Northern Territory Police contingent that travelled to participate in the dedication of the National Police Memorial in Canberra on Police Remembrance Day. As a result of her involvement, her efforts were recognised through a Deputy Commissioner’s Letter of Recognition.
In 2007, Anne-Marie was the inaugural recipient of the Patricia Brennan Award in recognition of her significant contribution to women in the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. On 18 September 2008, she was recognised by Commissioner White with a certificate of appreciation for her dedicated and exemplary work as the Commissioner’s Staff Officer since 12 December 2002. In late, 2008, Anne-Marie was transferred to the position of Divisional Superintendent of the East Arnhem Operational Service Division, operating from Katherine.
On 2 March 2009, Anne-Marie was promoted to the rank of Commander, Strategic Planning Command. This promotion was due to her demonstrated managerial and leadership strengths, her understanding of multicultural issues and the depth of experience gained whilst working with the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
I send my personal congratulation to Anne-Marie Murphy. She has served the Northern Territory Police and the Territory generally in an exemplary manner.
Captain Grant Arthur Chambers has been awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for meritorious achievements as the Acting Brigade Major of Headquarters 1st Brigade, Royal Australian Navy. Captain Chambers’ indefatigable efforts as Acting Brigade Major of Headquarters 1st Brigade have been instrumental in the successful preparation and deployment of the first rotation of the first division rotation model. He has ensured the smooth, effective coordination and planning for the deployment of over 1200 soldiers on operations to three different operational theatres. He has made an indispensable contribution to the Australian Defence Force’s operational commitments. Congratulations to Captain Grant Arthur Chambers CSM.
Warrant Officer Class 2, Michael William Shaw has been awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for meritorious achievements in logistics support at JLU North Royal Australian Navy. Warrant Officer Shaw has consistently produced outstanding results over three years at Joint Logistics Unit, North, directly benefiting logistic support to operations and regional commitments. His outstanding service has been achieved across a range of responsibilities. Additional to his core role is the regional inspector of food stuffs. He consistently displayed the highest standards of leadership, commitment, tenacity and professionalism; in particular, his performance during Operation Outreach, the Aboriginal Assistance Mission was exceptional.
I congratulate the recipients of the 2009 Queens Birthday Honours List and, on behalf of my colleagues and all members of this House, thank each of them for their contributions to the Northern Territory.
I would also like to make some comments this evening on behalf of, I think, all of us and our Indian community here in Darwin. We are a very proud multicultural community in Darwin and having spoken with leaders of the Indian community yesterday and today, I know there is an enormous amount of stress within that community in regard to what is happening in Sydney and Melbourne.
The community was happy for me to talk this evening. This is a very proud multicultural city and we never want to see, nor do I believe we will see, similar issues being played out here. I have also spoken with the Vice-Chancellor of the university this evening to see if there has been an increase in enrolments at the university from the Indian community. India is a very important source market for overseas migrants to Charles Darwin University. I relay to the broader community that our university is welcoming of students from whichever country they come from around the world. People are welcomed with open arms in the Territory. It is another reminder to all of us as we see these types of events unfold, and I agree with what the Prime Minister said tonight: they are isolated, and wherever you go in the world issues like this arise. I am sure police and other law enforcement officers in Sydney and Melbourne will deal with the culprits, whatever their motivation is.
We do not see those issues here in the Territory. I do not believe that we ever will. Our sympathies go out to the Indian community of Darwin at this time.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is not very often that I agree with the Chief Minister’s comments, but what has been happening down south in the Indian community is extremely concerning and alarming. I have a friend who resides in India, a gentleman I met in the late 1960s through my family. It is what you could call a classic example of a pen pal. On a day after the riots in the southern states, he sent me an e-mail saying he was most concerned about what was happening. He did not understand it and asked why the Australian community was doing this. I sent an e-mail back to him saying no, it was not right, and it is not like Australia, and I did not understand what was happening.
I have read in the papers that some of the Indian students in the community are looking to come to the Northern Territory. If this is the case, then that is a good thing because they would find a much better place to live and study up here.
Tonight, I bring concerns to the House in regard to Power and Water and the delivery of power services to the rural area, in particular, Humpty Doo. We hear of the issues with Power and Water and their power services to the northern suburbs, but the residents of Humpty Doo have been suffering and struggling with intermittent and poor power services for many years, and it is not getting any better.
I will relay a case study of how bad it can be. This is a family who lives in Thomas Road in Humpty Doo. They moved there in November 2008 and, since that time, they have experienced in excess of 60 outages ranging from fluctuations - which is power off and immediately back on - to general outages which last from minutes and, sometimes, hours. On 19 May this year, this household experienced seven outages between the hours of 5.30 am and 7.30 am, which also affected 360 homes in the area.
Following these outages on this particular day, the family sent an e-mail to the Chief Minister’s Office regarding the issue. That, in turn, was referred to the Minister for Essential Services, minister Knight, for comment. To this date, which is now mid-June, they have not received any further correspondence from the Minister for Essential Service’s office in regard to the problems in Humpty Doo. That is four weeks later; there is not even an acknowledgement of their concerns from the minister’s office.
On that same day, given their frustration with the problems with the power, they were compelled to contact MIX 104.9’s talkback show to discuss the issue further. At the time, they advised a particular person at the station that they had experienced over 50 outages in a period of six months. Following on from their conversation, a Power and Water Corporation representative advised the family that, from the period 31 December 2008 to 19 May 2009 their area had only experienced 36 outages. They dispute that because they have, thankfully, kept a very good record of the outages. By their calculations, the period identified by the Power and Water representative was not for a six-month period, and he seemed rather lax about the number of outages experienced. In other words, he was not really that concerned.
This particular household has kept the documentation and, following the initial seven outages they experienced in that early morning on 19 May, the outages that they have experienced since that time are: 19 May 2009, 6.55 pm - fluctuation, power off and immediate return; 23 May 2009, 5 am to 6.30 am – outage; 25 May 2009,11 am - fluctuation, 28 May 2009, 7.55 pm, fluctuation; 2 June 2009, 4.58 pm, fluctuation; 3 June, 10.35 pm to 1.35 am, outage; 6 June 2009, 12.55 am, fluctuation; 6 June 2009, 2.50 am to 3.07 am, outage; and 6 June 2009, 5.59 am, fluctuation.
What this means is, apart from perhaps the inconvenience of the power going off, it upsets a whole range of electrical appliances in the house, and to be so regular, in the last six months, this family have paid for the replacement of a split airconditioning system, and they have had to have their water pump repaired. As some of the members in this House would be aware, many people in the rural area have pressure pumps; they do not have their water tanks on stands. They need a pressure pump to get water into the house, and this is the water pump that they are talking about. Water pumps do not like being turned on and off from a power source.
As these outages occur almost daily …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this year we are celebrating the 21st year of the Greek Glenti Festival. I am sure the Darwin community enjoyed another marvellous weekend of Greek festivities, food, culture, and music. The Glenti is now the largest multicultural event on the Northern Territory cultural calendar. More than 30 000 people attend it each year. It has become the event to welcome the Dry Season in Darwin. Mr Tony Miaoudis organised the very first Glenti in 1988 at the Greek School and a crowd of 10 000 people was attracted. Of course, the Glenti outgrew the Greek school grounds after its first year, and it has been hosted ever since at the Esplanade, with many Territorians attending all weekend to join the festivities, share the Greek culture, and especially to get a taste of tantalising Greek delicacies for sale, including some of the Greek wine and Greek beer.
The Glenti has raised over $100 000 for children’s charities over the last few years, a magnificent effort. I congratulate and sincerely thank the dedicated coordinator, Ms Lilliane Gomatos; Mr John Nikolakis, President of the Greek community; Mr Tony Miaoudis; the Glenti MCs, Jim Hatzi, as everybody knows him in Darwin, Evan Papadonikis and George Koulakis.
This year, we enjoyed the company of the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos, Mr Philippos Christodoulou; a Greek singer, Ms Keti Koulis, and we had a reporter from TV Channel 12 reporting on the Glenti. The Over-35 soccer team is also here to participate in games this week.
It is a hard job to prepare the Glenti, to coordinate this year for two-and-a-half days, because it started on Friday afternoon. There was a lot of assistance from other associations, the Greek Orthodox School, the Olympic and Hellenic Soccer Clubs, the Hellenic Macedonia Association, the Kalymnian Brotherhood, the Cypriot Community, the Hellenic students from CDU and, for the first time, representatives from the Darwin/Kalymnos sister city, with their food stall providing Greek delicacies and, most importantly, the many generous sponsors and supporters.
This morning, I walked down the mall and a number of Greek people involved with the Glenti asked me to pass on their sincere thanks to the Chief Minister and the government for the support of the Greek Glenti. Without the support of the government, and the personal support of the Chief Minister and other members of parliament, they would not have been able to present what they present every year to the community of Darwin.
I would like to talk briefly about the upgrades in my schools in Nakara and Alawa. The Nakara Stage 2 upgrade has now commenced, and the builder, Sunbuilt Pty Ltd, has already erected a fence and started demolition for the upgrade. The building company Build with Pride Trust has already started the demolition and work at the Alawa Primary School. Both are $2m upgrades and expect to finish most of the work during the mid-year break.
I recently attended a function at Alawa Primary School to celebrate their successful Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program. Alawa has become a demonstration school for the Northern Territory, and the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program has the potential to change our children’s habits for a lifetime. The program takes full advantage of the Alawa Primary School’s farm, and will allow the children from Year 3 to follow the steps of growing, harvesting, preparing and sharing. Alawa is now in the process of receiving quotes to build a four bay kitchen on the school site, where students can cook food they have harvested from their farm when it grows.
With the guidance of the kitchen specialist, the class will cook different foods once a week in their cooking lessons, such as Vietnamese vegetarian rice paper rolls, hot and sour fish soup with broccoli, and peach and pistachio tarts. This experience will broaden the children’s experience with different foods and will also give them the opportunity to make and taste foods from different cultures. The Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program will also create an authentic learning environment for children to apply that will develop their literacy and numeracy skills, starting with measuring, sorting, costing, reading recipes, recording, writing menus, and researching.
The Alawa Farm was also on show, with the school very proud to show off the new calves, Edna and Eddie, generously loaned to them by owner and pastoralist, Phil Howie of Maneroo Station in the Douglas Daly Region. The calves have stayed in the school grounds for eight weeks and have become a focus of learning for the students. Unfortunately, Edna and Eddie have to return home to Maneroo Station next week, and I happily agreed to pay for the bus hire so that Year 5 and 6 students, together with Principal, Sharon Reeves, and parents could accompany the calves home. We will be gathering at school next Thursday morning at 8 am to farewell Edna and Eddie and the busload of Alawa students.
This was the result of successful partnership between Alawa Primary School and the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, which is collaborating to teach Alawa students about the Northern Territory pastoral industry and about bringing the bush to the city.
I thank Barry Lemcke, from the Department of Primary Industries, who was the overseer of the calves’ welfare and is a regular visitor to the farm, and the one who helped the children to look after the calves.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the organisers of the Finke Desert Race for putting on a spectacular event again this year. I had a great weekend camping with friends and family, and participating in some of the events and some of the functions of the big event. We congratulate the member for Drysdale for participating in the race. I am thankful that no one was badly hurt in the race. It is a great event for Central Australia, the Northern Territory, and for Australia, more broadly. The opportunity to expand Finke to be a worldwide event is enormous. I would love to see it on a Wii game or a Playstation game, or one of those other games in the future. It has great potential.
I also thank the people from Batchelor College for the invitation to the graduation ceremony last week. I do not have all the names of the people who were successful in graduating, but it was another solid occasion of witnessing people who are attending educational institutions and performing well.
I want to touch on one issue that happened yesterday in parliament. Many people ask me in the street how am I going in parliament and I say I am going all right, it is pretty good, and that we should sit more than 36 days a year and do much more business. In some ways, this parliament is the laughing stock of the country in the number of days we sit, the limited amount of business we get through, and the limited number of people allowed to speak on certain subjects and certain bills.
Yesterday was another occurrence, where, as professionals, who earn more than a minimum of $120 000 each, we did not work more than seven-and-a-half hours in the day during our sitting time. Most Territorians who have a full-time job work more than seven and half hours a day. I know that we work outside of those hours, we do extra work and we get up at 5 am to start our days, and all that. But when we are sitting in parliament people generally see that parliament is a joke at certain times. We have had our adjournment debates cut back to five minutes. The government knocked off parliament before 7.30 pm last night. People think that 7.30 pm is late, but keep in mind that for those listeners out there and people who read Hansard, we work from 10 am to 12 pm, have a two hour break, because after two hours of work you need to have a big lunch, and then, listeners and readers, we work from 2.00 pm to 7.30 pm or before 7.30 pm - that was less than seven and half hours that we worked yesterday.
That is a disgrace. People in the Northern Territory expect more from their politicians in the amount of work that they do. There are plenty of bills on the Notice Paper; there is plenty we could be talking about. We have omnibus bills combining issues together, so we cannot debate them separately. The only reason for that is there is not enough time in the day because the government does not want to allow us to talk in debate because they will be shamed in so many areas, where they are falling apart as a government.
In summarising that point, when politicians are paid a minimum salary above $120 000 a year and cannot do seven-and-a-half hours work a day for 36 days a year, the government should hang its head in shame. It is not the first time it has happened. It happened in the last sittings as well and, if it continues like this the Northern Territory parliament will continue to be a joke.
We should be working hard for the people of the Northern Territory, not taking the soft approach. When we were finishing at one, two, or three o’clock in the morning, that is when we were working hard, that is when we were pushing the boundaries to make sure our bodies and our minds could work hard for the people of the Northern Territory. Everyone pushes themselves when they go to work and all we do here is sit and twiddle our thumbs a little; people are not allowed to talk on every subject, debates are always gagged, and it is just too easy.
We should be working harder for the people of the Northern Territory. It is a real disappointment coming into this place when people are not prepared to work hard for the people of the Northern Territory. It is a disgrace.
Dr BURNS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the tremendous contribution that people from various ethnic communities have made to the Northern Territory.
Last weekend, I had the privilege to work as a volunteer on both days of the 21st Annual Greek Glenti Festival at the Greek Orthodox community refreshment booth. According to figures I have seen in the NT News about 20 000 people turned up for the two day event. There was a fantastic atmosphere, great music, great food especially the barbecued octopus, some spectacular dancing, olive spitting, plate smashing and all manner of entertainment for young and old.
I congratulate the organisers of this biggest and best Glenti so far: the Greek Orthodox community of Northern Australia, President John Nicolakis, Glenti coordinator Lilliane Gomatos, vice president Nikitas Halkitis, treasurer Nicolaos Poniris and secretary Stavros Mostris. All did a fantastic job organising this year’s Glenti festival.
The organisers were ably supported by committee members, Michael Halkitis, Costos Pizanias, Adonios Tsougranis, Mike Reisis, John Mousellis, Arthur Karagiorgos, Costas Zahos, George Kalidinos, Demitrios Taktikos, Skevos Trikolis, Nikolas Saroukos, and Adonis Kantros who were able to help make the event run smoothly. I acknowledge the organisation’s trustees, Jim Limniatis, Tony Koukouvas and Skefos Tsoukalis. I also acknowledge the work of members of the Darwin City Council and the Kalymnos Sister City community committee including Tony Miaoudis, George Lambrinidis, Nicholas Poniris, and Costa Miaoudis who were instrumental in arranging for the attendance at the festival of the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos, Philippos Christodoulou.
Last weekend I also attended the Latino Northern Territory Association 2009 annual party at the Convention Centre on Saturday night. There were approximately 250 people from the Latin American and broader Darwin communities at this lively and very entertaining function. I congratulate the management committee of the association in putting together such a delightful and most successful evening. Particular mentions must go to Mr Pablo Elizondo, Ms Pilar Preciado, Mr Aaron Rodriguez, Ms Maxine Rawson-Rodriguez, Mr Nage Moummar, Ms Olga Rodriuez de Moummar and Ms Desiree Hathaway for the outstanding job they did. This fantastic evening featured some really terrific music from Melbourne-based Latin fusion band, La Mezcla, playing music from Carlos Santana, the Buena Vista Social Club, and Ritchie Valens amongst others. The band was ably supported by local member of the Latina community, Ms Cristina Zumel, a very talented professional singer and dancer. The party goers enjoyed themselves immensely fully immersing themselves in the Latin energy and rhythms of the evening. People kept dancing all night as long as the music played.
I acknowledge the many sponsors of the evening including Northern Territory government and businesses such as Frank’s Seafood, Crocodylus Park, Northern Territory Realty, All About Party Hire, and All About Blinds. Mr Glenn Macfarlane acted as MC for the party. Senator Trish Crossin also attended. We all had a very enjoyable evening and I am looking forward to the next year’s party and commend it to the House.
On a sadder note, I acknowledge the passing of someone who worked so hard and achieved so much in his life, but now has gone to his well-earned rest. George Famelos was very well-known to many people in my electorate and beyond as the man with the green fruit truck. George and his big green truck, with a choice of vegetable and fruit, were an institution with many people making a special effort to get where he set up shop from his truck at various markets around the northern suburbs of Darwin. George was a pure gentleman, a lovely man well-loved by the Darwin community, and a feature of Darwin market life.
George died far too young, just a couple of weeks shy of his 65th birthday. His passing was a great blow to his loving family, and many others in the Darwin community. My deepest condolences go to his wife, Sevasty and family, and all those who knew and loved George Famelos.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, despite the attitude of the members on my left, tonight I respond to the savaging that I received during Question Time today from the minister for Planning. I have to say that, of all of the savagings I have received in this House, this would have to be the most savage by far. Never before in the history of parliamentary savagings has such a savaging occurred. I am so deeply cut that I still cannot quite imagine how I have managed to crawl to my feet, disembowelled as I am.
Frankly, it was the most enfeebled attempt to attack me that I have experienced in this House. I am mystified why the minister for Planning even endeavoured to engage in this exercise. She was critical of me for saying that the process they have designed for architecture in the Darwin CBD will lead to Soviet-style architecture. The problem with that is that I still stand by those comments.
If you are going to create a town plan which will allow people to build to the boundary, then go up 25 m, come in 6 m, go up the rest of the way to 90 m, any developer is going to try to extract the full amount of floor space they can out of that particular block, whatever that block may be. Consequently, they will all go to the boundary - all the way to the boundary; they will all go up 25 m. When they reach 25 m, they will all look exactly like each other. That is what Soviet architecture looks like. If you go back to old Soviet cities and look at Soviet-style architecture, they are grey, dismal, places where the homogenous architecture is so stunningly dehumanising that it destroys those cities where that architecture is.
What you are planning by creating a planning scheme that will allow for no architecture interface - and this is the argument: planning and architecture are two different things. I actually reject that. The planning decisions you make, and the capacity for planning to allow for novel architecture will change the nature of architecture. It means you have to show a bit of courage in your planning processes.
The former minister, Tim Baldwin, introduced the 1999 Land Use Structure Plan over Darwin CBD, where he created the Gotham approach. That is not perfect, but what has happened is that people relied on that plan, particularly two buildings - the Pandanus and Evolution buildings in the Darwin CBD. I heard the Chief Minister today say: ‘We have to protect the investors who invest money into their homes; this is the purchase they make’. All of a sudden, the people who have purchased in those two buildings will be surrounded by buildings equally as tall, which will block out their view. They purchased on the anticipation that they would have a sea view, particularly on the top floors, because they would be looking over the lower buildings around them.
Those people who have purchased in those buildings are now confronted with the reality that what is going to happen around the edge of the Darwin CBD is that all of that vacant land which is available will go up to 90 m, will block out their view. Anyone who is inside that ring and who has bought, particularly for the view, will eventually be blocked out, and their investments will be diminished.
The other effect of this process is that the blocks all around the fringe of the city are going to be the first ones created, so you are going to create a donut and, in the middle of that donut, is going to be a decaying city. Why? Because all of those blocks on the inside of that donut will be diminished in value. If you expect that eyesore, which is the former Woolworths, Smith Street, to get knocked over and dealt with soon, it is not going to happen, not for decades, because that block will not be attractive to any investor, because any investor will be looking to the fringe of the city and they will be buying blocks on the fringe of the city.
Such a radical change to an established town plan is fraught with danger and risk for the future of the Darwin CBD. To change the 1999 Land Use Structure Plan over the Darwin CBD is, to my mind, risky for a whole bunch of reasons, and because of the truncated nature of adjournment debates, I cannot even go close to all of them. Suffice to say this: tread carefully, minister for Planning, because you have to be very careful what you plan for.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I will talk about an iconic Territory event, the Barunga Festival. This year’s theme, and very appropriately, was Smart Kids, Proud Culture. Over the years, I have been to many sporting and cultural festivals across the Territory, particularly in our regions, however, there is no doubt in my mind that the Barunga Festival is the benchmark.
The festival has now been going for around 25 years. It was first envisaged by the great, late Jawoyn leader, Bangardi Lee, after a group of dancers from Barunga had travelled to England and danced in front of the Queen. The festival was their way of rekindling that memory, and keeping that memory strong by having the festival during the Queen’s Birthday weekend. There were probably few, if any, festivals of this nature 25 years ago, probably with the exception of the Yuendumu sports weekend which started in the 1960s.
The Jawoyn Association, led by CEO, Wes Miller, and Deputy, Preston Lee, realised that the days of running such a resource-intensive festival on good intentions and limited sponsorship are numbered. The Jawoyn Association has established that the Barunga Festival has an identifiable brand name. A recent advertisement in Facebook received over 1000 hits per day. The test now, however, is to maintain the focus of promoting its proud Jawoyn culture, but also to look into the economic sustainability of such festivals. This process has already commenced, as evidenced by the huge increase in gate takings from $5000 last year to over $30 000 this year. There were a number of other parliamentarians at the Barunga Festival, with the Chief Minister given the honour of officially opening the festival on the Saturday. Other members including me, of course, as the local member, the member for Arnhem, the federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, Senator Trish Crossin, and I believe the member for Katherine also attended the festival over the weekend.
One of the pleasing aspects was the re-emergence of softball as a force. I might add that that could be put down to this government’s support of $66 000 towards the Shire Softball Competition. The numbers just keep on growing each year, and I am pleased to advise the member from Barkly that it was the young women from Borroloola who took out the softball final this year, yet again, because they won it last year. Also, the Borroloola girls, member for Barkly, are known for their big hitting display and they did not disappoint over the weekend. The town of Ngukurr in the member for Arnhem’s electorate had a very good weekend as well, with the Ngukurr Bulldogs, coached by Ivan Turner, defeating the Numbulwar Eagles, and the Ngukurr Women’s Basketball team took out the final of this year’s event.
The art prize was keenly contested as usual, with the winner being Natasha Thurman Lloyd from Livingstone, outside of Darwin. Ms Thurman Lloyd’s painting depicted the four turtles, which were representative of herself and her three daughters. This was the second time she had entered the contest and the prize was presented by the member for Wanguri and Chief Minister, Paul Henderson.
Other cultural events that enthralled the crowd were the spear making and throwing competition. As I was going around, it was great to see heaps of tourists there, camping out at tent city. It was a fantastic atmosphere. To see the tourists there sitting alongside countrymen learning how to make spears, and then getting up with a woomera and having a go was fantastic. Also, there was the didgeridoo blowout. The spear throwing was based on accuracy, which was a draw, with Mr Simon Ashley and Mr Ernest Daniels being the winners and being very hard to separate.
The didgeridoo blowout had two categories. The contemporary section was won by a gentleman from Sweden, Mr Alan Rvegg. The traditional section was won by a young man, Joe Marampi who is currently based at St John’s College.
It is a fantastic event and cannot be a success without the assistance of organisations. I acknowledge the Police, particularly from Maranboy, who did a fantastic job; from Sunrise Health, Irene Fisher, who heads that organisation; Kate Ganley, Wes Miller, Preston Lee, and Amanda Miller from the Jawoyn Association; from the Roper Gulf Shire, Jake Quinliven, Paul and Allen Mole; the Barunga local shire board; and a special mention of Jamie Ahfat, the young local man who was the master of ceremonies and performed like a seasoned veteran.
It was a great success. There were many other people involved but congratulations to everyone.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I speak on some issues that concern me in relation to events that are occurring interstate in the cities of Melbourne and Sydney and the alleged racial discrimination against Indian students that is occurring. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, but the perception by some of the public and some of those students is that they are being discriminated against and they are being picked on because of their race.
I want to assure people in the Indian community in the Northern Territory that we are, and reinforce that we are, a very harmonious and racially tolerant city.
I was fortunate that I grew up in a multicultural household where I gained an understanding and acceptance of the differences in people from different parts of the world. I was very fortunate that my mother used to host students from overseas, some whom I am still in touch with and see when I travel. As a young person, my first overseas trip was to South East Asia where I met up with these people and did some travelling them and had some great experiences.
I grew up in Perth and I had two trips to Darwin before I moved here. Prior to moving here, the thing that got me about Darwin was the fact that it was such a multicultural, rich and vibrant city, even 28 years ago when I came here. In fact, the first time was 30 years ago, when I was a mere lad, it was a great place to be and I thought it would be a great place to live, hence in 1981, I moved here and have raised my family here, all of whom have travelled and have decided to make Darwin their home.
When I came here as a police officer, I got around the community and met many members of the multicultural community, and many of their leaders through various issues that are raised through policing, and especially through community policing you get to deal with many people in the ethnic communities and you understand that they are just like the rest of us. They try to have a good life, and have a good time. They are people who contribute to the economy of the Northern Territory, they contribute to the workforce, and they contribute to the richness of our culture, both in their basic culture and their food.
We have great events here like India on Mindil, the Glenti that we have just had last weekend - numerous events. It is with that in mind, I reinforce to the Indian community that in the Northern Territory there will not be any problems because I believe the people of the Northern Territory are far more tolerant.
I say to them that we are open for business, it is a great place to be and any of those people from down south who might be looking for somewhere to study might like to move to the Territory.
I have enrolled at Charles Darwin University on a number of occasions. The last stint was a 10 years period, where I met many Indian students and also students from other cultures, and I believe I am a better person for it. I enjoyed sharing time in work groups and study groups with a whole range of people from all over the world. I have been fortunate enough to have travelled to India and enjoyed their hospitality. They are a wonderful people. If people in India, especially those looking for a place for their children to come and study, I want them to know that the Northern Territory is a fine place.
I would like to reassure the president of the Indian community, Mr Rajeev Sharma, the Territory is a great place, we are open for business and that we value the input of these people into our culture, into the continuing development of a rich, multicultural society that makes the Territory such a great place to live, a great place for tourists to come to, a great place for students to study and a great place for people to settle and bring up their families. Welcome to the Northern Territory and feel free to come here and enjoy the great lifestyle that we all enjoy.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the recent Merrepen Arts and Sports festival. It was the 22nd festival at the Nauiyu community on the Daly River, on the last weekend of May. It was a great event. The sports area of the festival goes a little unnoticed by the general public but it is very well attended. There were many teams competing. I acknowledge the people who contributed to the event. Rose Rowlings is the sport and rec officer with the Victoria Daly Shire and she does a fabulous job every year. She loses her voice over the weekend and she works tirelessly. All of her work is appreciated as well as the work of her staff. Congratulations to Rose.
Some other people need to be acknowledged in and around the sports: Scott Surridge used to be government business manager there. He was score keeper for the football and his son helped out for the grand final as the goal keeper. He did a great job. He stuck around all weekend and kept good scores for everybody. The member for Nelson umpired the matches on Friday and I believe part of Saturday as he had to go to other appointments and was unable to do the rest of those days. There was a lot going on, on the Friday and he was a bit puffed after that. Cat Weasel they call him, Adrian Wellington, also did a great job.
At the Arts festival, Aaron McTaggett did great job with another successful art festival. There was a lot of art sold. More art could have been sold but Merrepen Arts has done a good job. Patricia McTaggett, Aaron’s mum, launched the Ngangi dictionary which was a great event. Getting the local language down as a dictionary has been a long project coming but was much appreciated.
Here are some of the results from the weekend. With the junior football, Peppimenarti took out the championships, and runners up were St Francis Xavier. There were some great young kids. I umpired that match and it was a bit different to junior football in Darwin I can tell you that, it is full on tackling. The best and fairest went to Traye Rioli. He was a great player. He played for St Francis Xavier and the best team player went to Trent Raymond, another young guy from St Francis Xavier.
In women’s basketball, the champions went to St Johns College, runners up were Peppimenarti; the best and fairest went to Einica from Peppimenarti.
With the men’s basketball the champions were the Green River Saints from the Daly River Region with the runners up being St John’s College; the best and fairest went to Francis Cann from St John’s College. In the softball it was a draw between the Nauiyu Hawks and the Wanimyn Fireballs. It went on for some time trying to get a result but unfortunately it did not happen but it was great to see those two teams coming together. The Best and Fairest went to Sevannal from Wanimyn Fireballs.
In the senior football, the champions were the Tiwi Islands - a great side, and the runners-up was St John’s College. It was great grand final and we all appreciated it. For the Best and Fairest, there were equal points for Nicholas Warrigal from Peppimenarti and we have only a number for the equal winner, No 17 from Palumpa. There was a changing of shirts going on.
With the Daly River Dash, which is always sought after, the Under 5s went to Kyanne Boyd and Andrew Mariwoma, Under 10s went to Sandra Ayoub and Jaymn Parry, Under 15s went to Micho Nilco, Women’s Open went to Glenda Wilson, and the Men’s Open went to the Daly River flash of Stuart Brooks. Again, a great weekend at Daly River.
It is great to see all the communities from around the Top End coming together in a very peaceful, harmonious, and good spirited sports and cultural festival. Congratulations to all the people concerned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say something about the recent trip by the Minister for Senior Territorians to the rural area, something that put a smile on the face of the opposition when it was mentioned in Question Time the other day.
I believe that it is my job, as the local member, to go with ministers around the rural area and show them the facilities that exist there, and to highlight the lack of facilities in the rural area. I was happy that the Minister for Senior Territorians took up the invitation to look at the rural area in relation to matters concerning senior Territorians. It is quite a while that any minister with that portfolio has visited the rural area.
We jumped in the car together and went out to have a look at various places where there could be the possibility of retirement villages to be built in the rural area. At the present time, we do not have a retirement village at all in the rural area, and it is something that really is lacking. There is a possibility that the new multiple dwelling development in Howard Springs will take up some of that slack for older people who wish to retire from their rural blocks because they simply cannot look after them any more but want to stay in the rural area. That development will have potential for some people who would like to stay in the rural area and not have to move elsewhere.
Howard Springs, of course, is not the only area. The Humpty Doo area is continually growing. It is also an area that was established many years ago, so there is an increasing number of senior rural people who would like to stay in their own area, would not like to move to Palmerston or Darwin but, unfortunately, there are very few places they can stay. I took the minister to look at the Freds Pass District Centre, which is one area that has not been developed except for the two schools - the Litchfield Christian School and the Bees Creek Primary School. We also went to the Humpty Doo District Centre, where the government has not invested anything in residential land for, I would say, close on 20 years. There has been some private development there, but that has come to a standstill, simply because the government has not extended the roads, the water, and the sewerage further into that district centre.
There is great potential at Humpty Doo for the government to look at developing a retirement village or seniors village, or even an aged-care facility there, which would feed not only the Humpty Doo people, but people from the surrounding areas, even as far down as Batchelor and Adelaide River - people who do not want to stay too far away from the rural area, but also know that they are close to medical facilities if need be.
I took minister McCarthy to visit the people at the Humpty Doo Fibrecraft Guild which holds a meeting every Wednesday at the Humpty Doo Village Green. They made her most welcome. They did not know she was coming, as I thought we would make it an informal visit. She sat down amongst them and felt right at home while they were doing their embroidery or other forms of fibre craft they do. I am not an expert on those things. They always make me welcome, so the minister was most welcome. There was tea, coffee and biscuits available. The good thing about it was many people availed themselves of the opportunity to talk to the minister about the issues they believed were issues of concern in the rural area.
After that, we went to bingo at the Old Timers Association headquarters in Bees Creek Road, Bees Creek, where the minister spent an hour losing her money - actually most of it was my money that I lent her. But she lost most of the money in bingo and then, at 12 o’clock, we had a beautiful barbeque lunch that was served to us. Andrea Teakle, the President of the Old Timers, certainly made her welcome, and the minister had time to sit down with people and talk to them about some of the issues, especially for seniors, that they had concerns about in the rural area.
I think that is the best way to be. I do not really particularly want to take ministers around for some formal speeches and all this sort of stuff. You need to get in and talk to people on the ground floor, ask them about their issues, and then the proof of the pudding is whether you can follow up on those matters. The minister has taken note of many of the issues. The big thing the minister has to look at is planning for retirement village or aged care facilities, especially in the Humpty Doo area. There is a definite need for that. It is an area that has long missed these sort of services and I hope the minister can fulfil …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Mary Joyce. Mary passed away recently surrounded by family and friends following a short illness aged 91. Mary was an icon in Parap and a fine artist, an interested and active member of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage Society and a passionate resident. Mary was also selfless. As a young woman, she joined the Women’s Voluntary Service in the British Army where she was posted to Burma to undertake troop welfare work with Indian troops. When Mary was transferred to Japan, she met her husband Brian, a lovely bloke who was serving in the Australian Army. They married in 1947 in Yokohoma, Japan. They lived in Sydney, Mount Isa, Townsville and Adelaide, before settling in Darwin in 1978.
As I mentioned earlier, Mary was a fine artist, obtaining a Bachelor of Arts and Fine Arts degree from the Darwin Community College as it was then known. Her work has been exhibited widely, including at 24 Hour Art, Darwin Art Museum and Gallery, and her own exhibition at the Lindsay Street Gallery. Mary was heavily involved in the arts sector, both as a member of 24 Hour Art, the Wood Street Gallery, and as a regular attendee of art events throughout Darwin. She was an active member of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage Society, attending meetings earlier this year. She was always interested in issues that affected her local area.
Many of my colleagues in this House may not know Mary Joyce, but they will certainly know her husband, Brian. Brian Joyce is a stalwart of the Labor Party, a life member, a willing volunteer, and a meticulous keeper of records. Brian has recently delivered Labor Party correspondence to me that dates back more than 30 years. Brian was in my office volunteering his time every Saturday morning, except Anzac Day - that was Brian’s holy day. Brian will leave Darwin in five weeks for Townsville to be close to his family. It will be very sad to see him go. I take this opportunity to place on the record my personal thanks to Brian for the time and effort he has put in to help me, the former member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin, and the Labor Party over many years.
As a couple, the Joyces have made a huge contribution to Darwin and to the Fannie Bay area over the last 30 years. As my former electorate officer, Kate, said, ‘I can’t imagine Parap without them’. I extend my sincere condolences to Brian, Susan, John, Robert and their families on the loss of Mary, and wish Brian all the best for the next chapter of his life in Townsville.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on two on very sad matters, matters that have and will touch us all and, for some, in a very deep and personal way. Sadly, yesterday a teenager was killed in Katherine as a result of an accident when a quad bike he was riding rolled over near his property in the rural area. Toby Hammonds was just 13 years old. This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for his parents, his two older sisters, his school friends, and for the Katherine community.
I did not know Toby personally, but what I do know is that he was a good lad, who was well respected and well liked by his many friends in Year 8 at the Middle School at Katherine High. He was a young lad who enjoyed being outdoors, and loved the Katherine rural lifestyle. Toby lived with his parents, Jim and Kathy, and older sister, Alice, on their Florina Road property. He also had another sister, Phoebe, who was at a boarding school in Adelaide. Phoebe has now flown home to make the family whole while they go through this shocking and terrible time. One of the things that Toby did enjoy was to get out and ride through the bush on his quad. Sadly, it is the things we enjoy so much that can bring us sometimes tragedy and sometimes grief.
Yesterday, Toby took his quad bike for a ride from his home onto a bush track nearby, and he did not come home. One can only try to imagine the grief that Jim, Kathy, Alice, and Phoebe are feeling, but an incident like this brings home to us all just how fragile our existence is on this earth. Sadder still, is the fact that Toby, at such a young age, never got to live his life. I, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all in this House, send my sincerest condolences to Jim, Kathy, Alice, and Phoebe Hammonds on the terrible loss of their much cherished Toby. My thoughts are with you.
Madam Speaker, what makes this terrible loss all the more poignant, is how, just two weeks ago, another Territorian lost his life in an accident involving an off-road vehicle similar to a quad. I am referring to Tony Silvey, who was killed when his off-road vehicle rolled while he was pig shooting. Tony was the husband of Kylie, who works in the Leader of the Opposition’s office in Parliament House, and who was a good friend to all of us on this side of the House.
Tony was the sort of man we all knew well, and even if we did not know him personally, we all knew someone like Tony. He was a loving and caring family man who brought two lovely sons into this world, Rees and Luke. He loved his sons very much and I recall some of the words that were spoken of him at his funeral last week.
He was a man who loved the outdoors and lived life to its fullest, but as soon as his children came along he changed his lifestyle to suit the rigours and responsibilities of being a dad. He was a hard-working man, who was highly respected amongst his colleagues and workmates.
One only had to see grown men cry at his funeral to realise how Tony had touched the lives of so many. As soon as this tragedy broke, Tony’s family came to Darwin to support Kylie and the boys. Tony also left this world with so much of his life incomplete.
I send to Kylie, Rees, and Luke, his parents, Barry and Val, and his sisters, Kerry and Nikki, my sincerest condolences on the loss of Tony. I am sure my colleagues join me in sending those wishes.
These horrible examples of lives cut way too short reinforce with me the need for people who use off-road vehicles to take much care. To all who ride them, please exercise caution; remember they are powerful and potentially dangerous machines. To parents of children who ride them, please ensure your kids wear protective headgear and clothing and try to impress upon them the need to ride within their level of capability.
I leave you with this thought: parents should never outlive their children, it is not fair and not how it is supposed to be.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of staff from the Aboriginal Interpreter Service, Department of Local Government and Housing. Some of these interpreters will be involved with our Statehood Steering Committee workshops later in the year.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Public Accounts Committee - Resignation of Member for Arafura
Public Accounts Committee - Resignation of Member for Arafura
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a letter from the member for Arafura indicating that she has resigned from the Public Accounts Committee.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Public Accounts Committee – Appointment of Member for Johnston
Public Accounts Committee – Appointment of Member for Johnston
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Johnston, Dr Burns, be appointed to the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we now find ourselves in a remarkable situation where a minister of the Crown is required by this government of the Northern Territory, to participate in the Public Accounts Committee.
The purpose of the Public Accounts Committee …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is the member speaking to this motion or just making a public statement?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, and I hope to go there quickly. I was under the impression what people say in this House is a public statement. See? This is a microphone. They listen to it upstairs and type all day and produce a thing called Hansard, which the public can read. Are you so worried about what happens that you even deign to think that what is said in this place is a public statement that you have to try to lock that aspect of it down? Goodness gracious me.
Madam Speaker, we now have a committee with the sole function of looking at how the public account is spent by the government. It is the role of that committee to look at how the money this House passes laws for, is spent by this government.
We find ourselves in a situation where a minister of the Crown, a person with her Majesty’s permission, no less than the Leader of Government Business, will be sitting in that committee, if this motion is passed …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … policing, if you like, exactly what happens in that committee.
It will be interesting for the people who are listening to this debate and the people in the galleries, and even members of this House, to know that there are no shortages of committees in other parliaments where the government actually has the minority in the committee process.
This is an interesting situation. Because of its desperation to control this House, the government realises that it has a minority on the floor of the Chamber so, rather than reflect that in the committee process, it is going to come into this place and to try to jam majorities on all the committees. That is not reflective of the brave new world in which we reside.
The Public Accounts Committee, under the Labor Party, has done almost everything but look at the expenditure of the public account. Recently in the Public Accounts Committee, I had a surprising experience where we came to a general agreement on a particular thing and, then, the next time the Public Accounts Committee met it turned out that the Labor Caucus members had a little chat on the side and decided not to do that anymore. They walked into the Public Accounts Committee and announced that we were not doing that anymore, despite the fact that there was general agreement …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I remind the member for Port Darwin about the issue of privilege and that, potentially, what he is doing here is breaching privilege …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and I believe he should be warned in that regard.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Port Darwin has not broken any privilege. He did not actually discuss anything that happened.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We had the Labor Caucus, meeting outside of the Public Accounts Committee, having …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is true. It is true, because they admitted it. Were you in the Public Accounts Committee when that admission was made? No ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I remind the member for Port Darwin …
Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, I cannot hear.
Ms LAWRIE: There is a privilege around discussions within the committees of parliament. Surely the member for Port Darwin is breaching that at the moment by trying to quote from discussions that may or may not have been held within the committee.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Privilege relating to a committee is a very serious matter. However, it is my opinion that the member for Port Darwin is being very general in this matter and has not discussed anything in particular which happened in any committee. I allow his continued remarks, bearing that in mind, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If it gives comfort to the members opposite, I would not in any way breach any privileged information from that committee. Any detailed information we may have about the movement of particular finances, commercial contracts, and those sorts of things would not pass from my lips in relation to that committee.
I am talking about how the committee is administered. It is administered with the dead and arrogant hand of this government. Is it going to be the case now that we have backbenchers in that committee looking after the public account? No. A minister of the Crown will be sitting in that committee …
Mr Mills: The Leader of Government Business.
Mr ELFERINK: The Leader of Government Business, no less, will be sitting in that committee. What we will get out of that is the dead hand of this executive and arrogant government desperately trying to control people who want to look at what it is doing. That is what this comes down to. That is what this is about: a genuine committee of this parliament, with its terms of reference being to look at the public accounts - the Public Accounts Committee - is now going to have a Cabinet minister sitting in there policing it, trying to direct the Labor Caucus members as to the decisions they should make and what they should and should not look at.
Anyone with even the most minor understanding of how this place works, and the relationship between the parliament and the government, can know the absurdity of the Public Accounts Committee having a Cabinet minister sitting in it. It would have been the equivalent of the Pentagon getting someone from the Kremlin to sit in on meetings in the late 1980s. It really would have. I will tell you that my answer to that is most definitely nyet - nyet, nyet, nyet.
We cannot support this motion. If this government is not capable of producing the numbers it is required to produce, from its own backbench, because it sits in minority government, then it should sit in minority in the committee system as well.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, responding to the offering by the member for Port Darwin, leaving the Kremlin aside, it is obvious to everyone - and he said it at the end of his speech - that this is a situation where the government is a minority government. The Public Accounts Committee standing orders dictate that there are three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent on the committee. Obviously, if he can count, it is necessary for a minister to go on to the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee.
When I started in this parliament in 2001, I was very proud to be the Chair of the Estimates Committee. I will be proud to serve the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. I believe I bring much experience to that Estimates Committee, as a foundation member of that committee ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, not one of the members opposite has been a minister, so I will bring some interesting perspectives about the government, the functioning of the government, and the type of questions. I am a believer in the important and prime role of the PAC to investigate the public account, and I have always felt that. It is a very important committee.
However, I also assure this House that I will not be letting any conflict of interest stand in my way. If there is a matter that involves anything to do with any of the departments that I am in charge of, as a minister, I will be exercising a judgment in any potential conflict of interest ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: That further underlines why it is important. I will not preempt debate, but there is a motion coming on later about alternate members of committees, not only on the Estimates Committee, but also on the PAC.
When I was on the Public Accounts Committee, and its Chair, we were faced with a dilemma about a conflict of interest that arose with the former minister Dunham, who was the subject of a PAC inquiry into the way they fiddled the budget forward estimates to make it look as though they were spending more on police, education, and health in an election year …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: He was a bloke who would not stand aside. He was a witness before the Public Accounts Committee, he sat in deliberative sessions of the Public Accounts Committee, weighing his evidence, and the evidence of those who had spoken against him and put him in the slot, and it was completely inappropriate. I will not be revisiting that ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am wondering whether the minister is making a public statement, or addressing the issue.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, regarding the ridiculous issue that the member for Port Darwin has raised about members outside the committee discussing the issues in front of the committee, I would be very surprised if the opposition members do not do that, regarding the agenda items and the positions that they may adopt. If they did not, that shows a complete lack of communication in its ranks. I believe it is taking the rules of the committee to ridiculous extremes - unbelievable extremes - on the part of the government.
In summary, I am very proud to be nominated by my colleagues to sit on the PAC. I believe I bring much experience to the PAC, and I am very keen to work with all members of the PAC for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be now put.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to move that, minister, because you have already finished speaking.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
PETITION
Proposed Installation of Overhead Power Lines Infrastructure in Marlow Lagoon Suburb
Proposed Installation of Overhead Power Lines Infrastructure in Marlow Lagoon Suburb
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 221 petitioners relating to the proposed installation of overhead power lines infrastructure in the Marlow Lagoon suburb. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Dear Chief Minister
We the undersigned object to the proposed installation of new 66 000 volt overhead power lines infrastructure along the existing power easement dissecting the Marlow Lagoon suburb.
We request that all works cease until such time as the following have been addressed:
re-assessment of the current proposal to include consultation with landowners and Palmerston City Council,
We believe that not all Marlow Lagoon landowners, residents and other stakeholders have been appropriately consulted during this process.
We believe that no consideration or public information has been given to the potential health risks associated with implementing this new infrastructure so close to homes.
We further believe that if implemented there will be a dramatic devaluation of properties within the Marlow Lagoon suburb.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Greek Glenti
Greek Glenti
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory is home to a vibrant and diverse multicultural community. Successive generations of migrants and their children and grandchildren have made an enormous contribution to the social, economic, and cultural development of the Territory. Our lives have been enriched by traditions of culture, music, art, dance, cuisine, religion, costume, and language. The commitment of multicultural communities to family and their capacity for hard work are well known and respected.
Last weekend, overlooking our beautiful harbour, the Territory’s magnificent Greek heritage was on display at the 21st annual Glenti on the Esplanade. Glenti has grown to be the premier cultural event on Darwin’s festive calendar. Conservative estimates indicate that this year more than 40 000 people attended the Glenti festival. The aroma of fine Greek food drew crowds to grilled octopus, calamari, souvlaki, yiros and honey puffs. I am told that more than three tonnes of octopus and one tonne of lamb were consumed.
The splendid colour and design of traditional costumes were on display, and traditional dance music and song expressed the Greek community’s love of life and celebration; plates were smashed, and an olive spitting competition was held. In excess of $40 000 was raised for the Starlight Children’s Foundation Australia, testimony to the Greek spirit of generosity.
Outstanding events like the Glenti do not just happen; it depends on hard-working organising committees, generous volunteers, sponsors, and the support of the community. I am sure the Australian Greek community in the Territory, and the wider community, will join me in congratulating all those who contributed to the success of this year’s Glenti.
Congratulations to the organising committee: Lilliane Gomatos, coordinator and founder, who has led the committee since the first festival in 1988; John Nicolakis, President of the Greek Orthodox Community of North Australia; Nick Poniris, Treasurer; Peter Karpathakis, John Halikos, Poppy Petrakis, and Nomiki Skoufellis from the Kalymnian Brotherhood; Steve and Angelica Poulos from the Hellenic Macedonian Association NT; Peter Dellis and Stavros Mostris from the Greek School; Evan Fitirikos and Helen Gordon from the Cypriot Community of the NT; Nick Halkitis and Nick Mavros from the Olympic Football Club; Michael Mellas and Con Boubaris from the Hellenic Football Club, Lianne Georges, CDU Hellenes Group; and Tony Miaoudis the Sister City Liaison.
Comperes and raconteurs, Jim Hatzivalsamis, Evan Papandonakis, and George Koulakis kept the show rolling with a combination of good humour, laughter, and exquisite timing. Talented local groups and performers from Sydney, Adelaide, and Greece entertained the crowds at Glenti 2009; music and dance are in the souls of the Greeks. I am sure all honourable members will join me in congratulating the Mediterranean Dance Group; the Greek band, Meraki; OPA School of Hellenic Dance; Cypriot Dance Group; Sizmos Dance Group; Kalymnian Dance Group; and the Ellas Dance Group. The enchanting and captivating voice of Keti Koullia thrilled and seduced the Greek Glenti patrons.
Glenti is evolving as a tourist attraction for the Territory; more and more interstate and overseas visitors are coming to Darwin to experience our marvellous celebration of Greek culture. This year, the Kalymnian Brotherhood sponsored eight delegates from the Kalymnos City Council and several veteran soccer players, over 35s, to visit Darwin. The Kalymnian players will challenge a team of local veterans in matches - the first match is tonight. It was my great honour to host a welcoming reception for the Kalymnian delegation at Parliament House last Thursday, and I particularly acknowledge Mr Phillipos Christodoulou, the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos; Mr Dimitrios Nomikari, the President of the Veteran Football Association, and Sakilarios Zervos, President of the Governing Council in Kalymnos. Mr Christodoulou was kind enough to extend an invitation to me, from the Mayor of Kalymnos, Mr George Roussos, to visit Kalymnos with a delegation from Darwin.
Another essential ingredient for a large-scale community event is resources. This government has provided financial assistance to every Greek Glenti since we came to office in 2001, and it contributed again this year. There are many other sponsors who deserve recognition for their support of Glenti.
I ask all honourable members to join me in congratulating the Australian Greek community in Darwin on a fantastic Glenti 2009. It was an absolutely fantastic weekend, and I know many members spent time there, including my colleague and friend, the member for Casuarina. It really is an event on the social calendar of Darwin. You could not begin to think of the Dry Season in Darwin now without the Glenti. I met many people who came from Melbourne for the event. It is a fantastic event; may there be many more to come.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for his comments in relation to the multicultural makeup of Darwin, especially some of the events he has just discussed. I had the honour, as I have since 2001, of being a volunteer at the Glenti and working in the bars, assisting some of those Greek volunteers to service the nearly 35 000 people who are believed to have attended the Glenti. It is a fantastic event.
There were also other events I attended: the reception for the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos and on Monday night and another huge Greek function at the Kalymnian Club where he was the guest of honour. It is fabulous to see the rich culture that still exists in Darwin and contributes to the nature of our makeup and our Dry Season events.
There was also another fantastic event which occurred in my multicultural portfolio on the weekend. The 111th celebration of the independence of the Philippines by the Filipino Association, along with its supporters: expatriate Filipino people who have moved to and contribute to the makeup of Darwin. There were also many other cultures participating in a fantastic event, where we witnessed cultural dances, cultural songs, and general costumes etcetera, which made it a great night. I was really pleased that I and some of my colleagues were there to enjoy that culture that exists in Darwin, and gives us that rich fabric which not only makes our lives worth much more, but also brings so many tourists to Darwin.
Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority – 30th Anniversary
Ms ANDERSON (Indigenous Policy): Madam Speaker, today I report on the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the protection of sacred sites across the Territory under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. I acknowledge the members of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority who are present in the gallery.
This year marks 30 years of sacred site protection in the Northern Territory. It was in May 1979 that the first sacred sites act was passed by this Assembly. In the Northern Territory, we are privileged to be living in a community where the spiritual and cultural values of the Indigenous people of this land are still clearly evident, and where traditional ceremony and law is still practiced.
What is remarkable is that, through the sacred sites act and the independent and arms-length body that it established, we are able to reach a practical balance between Aboriginal cultural tradition and development. This is no accident. There is something very special about the authority and the work that it must do with a clear focus on the protection of sacred sites.
It must consult with custodians, respond to the applications of developers, be transparent and accountable to both Aboriginal custodians, developers, and users of land for its decisions. It must also be independent of other decisions regarding land use, and its decisions regarding sacred sites are independent of the government of the day.
Aboriginal members of the authority are all respected Aboriginal custodians. These people make up a significant representative group of traditional Aboriginal people who have knowledge and understanding of traditional and ceremonial practices across the Territory. I pay tribute to the current and former members of the authority who have shown true leadership in bringing together people and balancing culture with development. That is very important for non-Indigenous people and the multicultural society in which we now live in the Northern Territory. Some of those long-serving leaders have included the late Mr Rabuntja, who served on the first authority in 1979, Mr Harvey, Mr Hammer, Mrs Nellie Camfoo, Mr Bernard Abbott, Mr Pepi Simpson, Ms Clementine Puruntatemeri, and Ms Lena Pula have all served for extended periods of time. Mr Creed Lovegrove, Mr John Piening, and Mr Dick Kimber have also served long periods as non-Aboriginal members of the authority.
Madam Speaker, I ask all members of the Assembly to join in acknowledging the important work that the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority plays in supporting Aboriginal culture in the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report and I hope her throat gets better so she is feeling better. I acknowledge the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the role that the CLP played in setting it up. I believe that sacred sites have a very important place in the Northern Territory, and we really need to get to a position where all sacred sites are identified, preserved, supported, and promoted, both for the benefits of cultural understanding and enrichment, and historical basis but, also, to support further growth in the tourism industry and the promotion of the Northern Territory as a truly cultural jurisdiction in Australia.
There is a long way we need to go with the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, but there is great potential. It is a real opportunity to recognise the Aboriginal people as the original custodians of the Northern Territory.
I also believe that if we could identify all the sacred sites in the Northern Territory it would provide certainty for business and economic development as we move to future developments in the Northern Territory. By acknowledging where those sacred sites are, businesses can stay away from them and look at other areas in the Northern Territory. That is something that we should incorporate, as a parliament.
I also recognise that, in preserving sacred sites, we need to provide the security on some of those sacred sites. One example is Billygoat Hill in Alice Springs; a sacred site widely recognised. Something that we are seeing is increasing and continued levels of antisocial behaviour there, desecration of the sacred site. It is not what the traditional owners of that area, the native titleholders, want to see on that sacred site.
Dealing with the government, in trying to get protection over that area, to preserve that area, is impossible. My dealings with the previous minister, who was responsible for this area has not been fully forthcoming. The idea of removing people for fornicating, defecating, drinking, fighting, and having social unrest on that sacred site would be something that all Alice Springs residents would appreciate. I encourage the government to act on it ...
Madam SPEAKER: Madam for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge both members and also the staff from the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority, and the importance of the work that the staff do, along with the board members who take their role very seriously in the protection of sites that are so important to custodians. I join with the minister to acknowledge the important work of the sacred sites authority. I acknowledge the professionalism, capacity, and expertise that we have in the Northern Territory, with staff who work tirelessly to ensure that the information for those sites is collated so that the government and those sites are protected.
Minister, I agree with you; I believe the work of the sacred sites authority and the role of those board members is important.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank the members opposite. I reiterate this authority is an example of Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people sitting together in authority, looking at development and at how they can preserve and protect sacred sites on behalf of Indigenous people. It is about maintaining our law and culture, our identity, and how we move forward, as Territorians, to give Territorians the growth that we all deserve while, at the same time, protecting sacred sites because it is a very important part of Indigenous culture. That is what we sell in tourism; that is what we sell as the Territory to some places outside of the Northern Territory, and it is very important. I am so happy to see the authority, both non-Indigenous and Indigenous people, sitting in the gallery today. I take the last seconds to say, welcome to Mike Gillam.
SIHIP – Report on Progress
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the exciting milestones reached in the landmark Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, the five-year, $672m project, which is a joint initiative by the Australian and Northern Territory governments, was signed less than 14 months ago. We are committed to improving the standard of housing and infrastructure in Indigenous communities. With SIHIP, both governments are determined to change the way housing is delivered in remote communities. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past, with insufficient funds and fly-in/fly-out work crews, building houses that do not meet the community’s needs, with no job or training opportunities for local Indigenous people, and no assessment of real value for money from the construction program. Our new approach is consultative; working with the community to deliver much-needed infrastructure.
Eight months ago, the Alliance contractors that will deliver the works packages on the ground were appointed. Earth Connect, New Future Alliance and Territory Alliance are required to be on the ground talking to the community about their housing needs; to design, build, and upgrade homes to meet those needs, and to ensure that there are real jobs and training opportunities on the ground for local community people.
It is a mammoth task which includes securing tenure to the land and delivering works packages with communities. Within the last six months, crews are already hard at work in the first regions which will benefit from SIHIP. This year, we will deliver around 100 new houses and refurbish more than 700 existing homes. As members will be aware, early works have been under way in the Tiwi Islands, Groote Eylandt, and in Tennant Creek, since April this year.
Territory Alliance will deliver $58m in works to the Tiwi Islands communities of Nguiu, Pirlangimpi, and Milikapiti. Following extensive consultation with these communities, the works will deliver 29 new houses and upgrades to 95 homes in Nguiu, and upgrades to 30 homes in the communities of Pirlangimpi and Milikapiti. These works will reduce overcrowding by more than 60% in these communities.
In Tennant Creek, the New Futures Alliance has worked closely with the Julalikari Council on the $35.6m works plan. By the end of the works, SIHIP will have delivered significant upgrades to infrastructure such as roads, drains, and other services to the standard of other subdivisions across the town, and upgrades to each of the 78 homes in those community living areas.
SIHIP will deliver $37.4m in works to Umbakumba, Angurugu and Milyakburra with Earth Connect. With that project, we will construct 18 new houses in Angurugu and upgrade more than 30 homes; build six new houses and upgrade more than 30 homes in Umbakumba; and build two new houses and upgrade 15 homes in Milyakburra. Community engagement has ensured that work on Groote Eylandt includes improved disability access to homes in recognition of the high rate of Machado Joseph Disease in that community. Major works are commencing in Tennant Creek, Nguiu, Milyakburra, and Angurugu this month, with Umbakumba scheduled to commence in November.
A significant difference in the way that SIHIP is delivered is the requirement to provide job and training opportunities for Indigenous people. In each of the three packages, at least 20% of the workforce will be Indigenous. Real results are already being delivered. For example, 13 Indigenous Territorians have completed the introductory courses in mining operations in civil constructions in Tennant Creek, and another 15 are undertaking that training now. Seven local Indigenous people are employed on the Tiwi Islands and six on Groote Eylandt, as part of the early works under way in these communities.
Decent housing is essential to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and I look forward to continuing to update the House on the ongoing works being delivered in this major project for the remote Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his ministerial report. It sounded like a broken record, because I am sure I have heard that a couple of times before. I do not believe any of the other times there have been any houses built either. We are hearing the same report and there has not been a house built.
The minister’s report would have been good if he had explained to us why the New Future Alliance is based in Darwin when all the construction is being done in Central Australia. It would have been good if he went to the point that now there are 20 hubs under the A Working Future policy we do not support anyone else, and how those people in those other 53 prescribed communities under the intervention will not be getting new housing. It would have been good if he spoke about that.
We know that this is the minister who has not built a house. This is the minister who cannot build a bridge at Daly River, despite promising that in 2005. This is the minister who cannot build a road that he says he is going to build. We wonder why we keep listening to this broken record; it is the same story again. People across the Territory are wondering when they are going to pull their finger out and do something. It is all about housing.
The minister could also get to the point and explain to the people of the Northern Territory what sort of housing program we will be operating in urban centres. While you are only delivering SIHIP housing in some communities, there are going to be many people moving into the larger townships who will be requiring housing.
We know that, under his stewardship, the number of public houses across the Territory has decreased. With the incompetence of the Planning minister, releasing land for private sector housing in urban centres is not occurring. We see the complete housing stock, both public and private across the Northern Territory, going backwards compared with our population increase. While that is occurring, and we have an incompetent minister running the housing portfolio, we are not going to solve the housing problems.
We will continue to see homelessness, overcrowding, antisocial behaviour, continued rises in alcohol consumption and abuse, because this minister is in charge; his stewardship is failing the people of the Northern Territory. He cannot build a road, a bridge – it is time for the Chief Minister to get rid of him …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the ministerial statement, and as soon as he said we should not repeat the mistakes of the past, I immediately thought: ‘Uh oh, what were the mistakes of the past?’
For instance, he mentioned that Aboriginal people need to be employed in the construction of houses. In many cases, that is exactly what they have done. On Bathurst Island, Aboriginal people are employed in the construction of houses. At Nauiyu at Daly River, many people are employed in the construction of houses. I do not believe it is fair to say that there were mistakes in the past, as a general statement. I do not believe that is right.
The other thing which concerns me is housing for remote areas has been built for the last 30 years. If we do not know what design is suitable for housing in remote communities now, I will go ‘he’. I would like to see at the end of this debate the amount of money the Commonwealth gave the Territory to build these houses. How much was spent on new design? How much was spent on architects? How much was spent on consultancy? How much was spent on everything else - bar the construction of the house? If we do not know how to build Aboriginal houses by now, then I believe it is a disgrace. If we are reinventing the wheel so the Commonwealth can say it is doing this grand scheme, and Aboriginal people have fewer houses than they would have if the money had been spent properly, it is a crying shame.
It is great to say we are going to build this number of houses; the Chief Minister said we will have 100 houses at the end of the financial year. That is 100 times what? The cost of a house - $500 000? We have not knocked the price of houses down yet, even though we have had many debates about this.
That means $500m will produce 100 houses, or whatever it is. There is much money going sideways instead of what that money was really for. That money is to put houses on the ground. I want to know, in the end, how much money is being spent on other things, rather than putting money into those houses.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I am curious about who is the shadow Housing minister, with the deadly silence of the ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: … Deputy Leader of the Opposition, tweetie pie over there …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: I believe it is very important that members get a briefing because the Alliance contracting is very different, member for Nelson. You are worrying about those costs for consultants? I share your concerns, but they are coming in, percentage wise, around what they have been in the past. But we are now getting true value for money; we know exactly how much a house costs to build and we are putting quality products into these houses. In the past, you got a $500 000 house which may have cost $200 000 to build. We now know the true cost of everything that goes into that house; we are building quality houses, and we are getting quality training projects as well.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee – Appointment of Alternate Members
Public Accounts Committee – Appointment of Alternate Members
Mr Tollner: He will be able to alternate himself off.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the member for Fong Lim wastes no time. He is very disruptive in this parliament, but maybe he will show the courtesy of listening and, when he is speaking, I will show him a similar courtesy.
Madam Speaker, I move:
- That the Assembly adopt the following provisions to provide for alternate members of the Public Accounts Committee as a sessional order -
Appointment
(1A) Alternate members of the Public Accounts Committee may be appointed, either on motion in the Legislative Assembly or when the Assembly is not sitting:
(1B) The Speaker shall advise the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee in writing of any alternate members being nominated and cause the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee to inform other committee members of any alternate membership nominations as soon as possible.
Advice to the Assembly
(1C) The Speaker shall report the appointment of alternate members to the Assembly at the next sitting of the Assembly.
(1D) Any appointed alternate opposition member may participate in a meeting of the committee as if he or she were a full member provided that only two opposition committee members shall attend and vote at a deliberative meeting of the committee.
There are a number of members opposite who have not yet participated in an Estimates Committee but, as someone who has been through an estimates process, both as a member, Chair of the Estimates Committee, and also as a minister, I can say it is quite a long process. Most ministers get four-and-a-half hours, and the Treasurer, from recollection, gets seven-and-a-half hours …
Ms Lawrie: Seven.
Dr BURNS: Seven hours. They are quite long days and, from time to time, the committee must move into deliberative session.
Whether it is government members or opposition members, I believe that this particular motion affords an opportunity for people to have a rest. They are long days, there is much information, and they can be quite intense sessions. I thought it would be in the opposition’s interests for people to be able to alternate in these deliberative sessions. I believe that this motion is supporting the smooth and effective running of not only the Public Accounts Committee but also the Estimates Committee.
I was informed by the member for Port Darwin that the opposition have discussed this matter and it will not be supporting this motion. That is unfortunate, because I believe those members who have not participated in a Public Accounts or Estimates Committee process do not know what this motion is trying to do in supporting and giving members a rest, and giving other members experience at deliberative sessions of the Public Accounts Committee during the estimates process. This is vitally important.
I have had discussions with the Independent member of the PAC and Estimates Committee, and he told me that he supports this motion. He has also had discussions with the other Independent and informed me that, basically, the Independents will work out an arrangement of their substitution on the Estimates Committee. It is my understanding that the Independent member is quite comfortable with this particular motion.
To provide a little history on the Estimates Committee, although this motion also applies to the Public Accounts Committee, this is the government that introduced an estimates process into this parliament by having an Estimates Committee. Prior to the government doing that, the parliament would meet as a Committee of the Whole, and opposition members would have to submit questions in writing the night before the estimates …
A member: A week before.
Dr BURNS: I stand corrected …
Mr Mills: Rubbish! You could ask the questions off the floor. I used to do it.
Dr BURNS: We are talking about the process. It would be like sitting an examination …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … and having the questions beforehand. We do not do that. We are saying that it is a free flow of questions, particularly from the opposition, because it is really an opposition forum. I know some opposition members have been preparing for the estimates, and that is great. Estimates are a great opportunity for both the government and opposition members alike to get across the business of government and ask important questions, not only of the minister but of the public servants who are accompanying the minister. It is a very important process for our parliament.
This is the government that introduced an Estimates Committee process. We were the last jurisdiction in Australia to do so. I travelled to Tasmania as the Chair and saw how the Tasmanian system worked, and we brought a modified version to the Territory. At the opposition’s request, there have been a number of changes made to the operation of the Estimates Committee. We have accommodated the opposition, such as initially allowing – and this continues today – opposition members to sub through, either as local members or as shadow ministers, to inquire of the minister and the departmental people who are there. I believe it is a very important process and this government has taken steps in regard to that.
This motion, given the current circumstances of the House, allows for the smooth running of the Estimates Committee, particularly in relation to the deliberative aspects of the committee. From time to time during the process, there are deliberative discussions that are held by the committee members. Obviously, I have come on to the PAC, as a member of the PAC and Estimates Committee. However, we are also saying that there will be alternate members who are nominated for the government members of the Estimates Committee, and they will be appropriately nominated.
I mentioned conflicts of interest before. This is a government that is very careful about those particular issues, quite unlike the previous CLP government. They did not like me mentioning it in the motion before, but I will say it again ...
Mr Conlan: Oh, say it again.
Dr BURNS: I will say it again, because …
A member: You were not here.
Dr BURNS: You were not there …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: … and you would not know. You might understand now that you have been through a couple of budgets and Estimates Committees. Essentially what happened, prior to the 2001 election, the then Treasurer, Mr Mike Reed, got Treasury to wind back, for presentational purposes, the estimates of expenditure for the financial year 2000-01, so that the department had - I forget; it was maybe $320m …
Mr Conlan: Come on, get your story straight.
Dr BURNS: … for Health, or somewhere around there …
Mr Conlan: Tell your story.
Dr BURNS: … so he sliced off $8m from that estimate. That is what it said it was going to spend in that financial year. He sliced $8m off and then, in the election run-up and during election time said: ‘We are spending an extra $8m on our Health budget’. The same thing happened with Police and Education.
There was a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into that particular matter. Obviously, Mr Dunham, who was the previous Health minister, gave evidence to the PAC about what he knew and did not know, and what it all meant, etcetera. However, he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee and he insisted - he had been a witness who had been cross-examined and questioned by the committee - he also sat on the committee while other people, including the former CEO of the Health department, gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee about Mr Dunham’s role, and what he said during telephone conversations he had with Mr Dunham. Then, Mr Dunham insisted on sitting in on the Public Accounts Committee deliberative sessions - deliberating over his evidence, giving weight to his evidence over others, and criticising other members’ evidence ...
Ms Lawrie: Unbelievable.
Dr BURNS: It was completely unbelievable. He was challenged on that, and he had the gall to say: ‘I am just sitting here’ ...
Mr Conlan: Oh, unbelievable. This is unbelievable. Get in the 21st century.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: I thought it was a major conflict of interest, Madam Speaker, and I believe any reasonable person would believe that. Mr Dunham insisted on sitting on that Public Accounts Committee, deliberating on his own evidence and weighing up the evidence of others who had put him in the slot ...
Mr Elferink: You are completely right. I agree with you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It was unconscionable. However, I digress, Madam Speaker.
To go through the nuts and bolts of this particular motion, these alternate members can be appointed, either when the Legislative Assembly is sitting or not sitting, so it gives flexibility around that. In terms of the alternate members on the government side, they are nominated by the Chief Minister and, on the opposition side, they are nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
There are reporting requirements for the Speaker to report to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on the advice by the Opposition Leader or by the Chief Minister to the Speaker. This ensures that there is clarity about the alternate member. There is also a reporting requirement for the Speaker to advise the Assembly exactly who those alternate members have been, and the timing of that.
It also clarifies voting at deliberative meetings, and reinforces the standing orders, which have been around for a long time in the Public Accounts Committee - from the CLP days to now – which state that there are three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent. We were the ones who allowed an Independent to sit on the Public Accounts Committee in 2001.
The last parts, 1D and 1E, are in accord with the standing orders. I am not aware of any time during the 27 years of the CLP that it moved to change the standing orders to give the opposition chairmanship and control over Public Accounts Committee. Perhaps the member for Port Darwin could clarify that for the House.
The Public Accounts Committee is very important, along with the Estimates Committee. I believe its current structure and function serves this parliament and the people of the Northern Territory well. This government has reformed the functions of the Estimates Committee and, to a large extent, the Public Accounts Committee, particularly in the interaction of the public accounts with the Auditor-General.
I have heard of previous Auditors-General who were quite frustrated that there was a lack of uptake of references by the Public Accounts Committee under the CLP government. It was not put like that by the previous Auditor-General, who was quite heartened by the way in which this government, when it came to power in 2001, took up references that were made by the Auditor-General - which is the want of the Public Accounts Committee - and investigated them.
Also, when there was a change of government, there was a change in attitude of departments in their response to comments made by the Auditor-General. In other words, the Auditor-General, in those times, was used to being ignored by departments. Now, there is a requirement on departments, by this government, that they must respond to comments by the Auditor-General, and they must point out what they are doing to address issues raised by the Auditor General. There may be times when departments have a completely different view to the Auditor-General, but at least they have to come out, in print, and say what the departments’ view is and what the situation is.
This is a government that is reforming the processes, and has reformed processes around the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee. I am very interested to hear what the member for Port Darwin has to say, and also, presumably, the member for Fong Lim, about why they are opposing it. Why are they opposing the smooth running of the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee? It seems to me that they are being obstructive. Hopefully, they can count, and they understand the situation of this parliament, and why it is necessary to have alternate members, able to vote, particularly on the Estimates Committee ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You can have your say, or whoever on your side is going to have their say. I thought from the last motion that they would have seen the writing on the wall. Anyway, if they want to get up and oppose it, I believe it will show how obstructive they are to the smooth working of committees within our parliamentary structure. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is singularly the most spurious argument that I have heard this member run out - since yesterday, actually. I want to pick up on several of the issues he has raised.
It might be useful to look at how our parliamentary system works before we go into the detail of this particular motion. It is the tension between the Crown - which the ministry represents, because it has commissions of the Crown - and the parliament that represents the will of the sovereign people, which is represented in our system of government. That percolates down to the – this is very interesting. I was told that this minister would be very interested in what I have to say and I suspect that I will be shortly talking to the back of his chair ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is ridiculous. The Leader of the Government Business was having a conversation with the Deputy Chief Minister in regard to this motion, while he was …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. There is no point of order. Keep to the motion, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minister claims it is the intent of the opposition to be obstructive; that could not be further from the truth. It is the intent of the opposition to use this minority government to reflect the increasing strength of this parliament over Her Majesty’s representatives in this parliament. The motion we had before was a deliberate and direct attempt to reassert Her Majesty’s representatives – that is, the government - in the committee process, because it is diminished on the floor of this parliament.
Where we have a minority government in the House, logic would dictate that we introduce the minority capacity of committees. The minister is being quite mischievous when he says: ‘There is a requirement for three Labor members to be on the committee’. That is true, but the committee can meet with a quorum of three, which means that even if the government is not able to provide a Labor backbencher, two Labor members, two Country Liberal members and an Independent can still make up a functioning Public Accounts Committee without offending the principles of keeping the ministry out of the committee which actually investigates how they spend the public account.
That is what this particular debate is about. What we see now is a system being introduced which has nothing to do with estimates. Yes, the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee are related, but there is not one word in this motion which refers to the Estimates Committee. This is an attempt to usurp the growing authority of this parliament’s committee system by the Crown and by Her Majesty’s representatives; namely, the ministry.
I find it curious that the minister cites the example of Mr Dunham as some sort of fundamental repugnancy. Mr Dunham was a former minister of the Crown, who then, on the change of government, went back into the PAC, gave evidence, and listened to other people’s evidence about his conduct, on which the majority of that committee then made a report. I am not going to enter into that debate, suffice to say this: if it is repugnant for a former minister to sit in the Public Accounts Committee because of their connection with the Cabinet, then it must be utterly repugnant for a sitting minister - no less than the Leader of Government Business - to be the person sitting in that committee. Moreover, if you read the terms of this motion, it is now within the contemplation of this motion to find ourselves see members tag-teaming in and out of this committee, so three ministers are sitting on this committee.
That is a demonstration of the intended arrogance of this government, which is thunderous. I find it curious in the extreme that the minister finds our objection to this obstructive. If he had bothered to explore the issue further in the corridor when I told him – because I believe in giving notice of our intent in this House, something the government could learn from - I would have explained all this to him. It is spurious in the extreme and utterly inconsistent that the minister should come in and say a ministerial presence on the committee is repugnant and, then, put himself up as the person who should be present on the committee. It is irreconcilable with any form of logic. To go further and suggest a system by which we could find ourselves in the rather astonishing situation where we could, ultimately, end up with three ministers taking up government positions - there is nothing in the terms of this that I can see which prevents that from occurring. We suddenly find ourselves with a mini-parliament within a parliament, in which the Public Accounts Committee sees a majority government membership being run by ministers.
Madam Speaker, there is no conscionable way that I, as a passionate believer in the democratic system, and the Westminster system particularly, can embrace this particular approach. It is ill-considered. Actually, no, Madam Speaker, it is not ill-considered; it is deliberately considered, conceived and contrived to keep the arrogant hand of government across the institutions of this House.
The role of the Auditor-General was also discussed. For an experienced person such as the minister, who said, ‘I have experience with this committee; I know what I am doing, and I know what is going on’, to turn around and talk about the references of the Auditor-General, as the source of how this committee chooses to explore things, is to misunderstand the committee. The Auditor-General works for the committee; the committee does not work for the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General may suggest a particular path of investigation and, should that particular path of investigation be deemed worthwhile by the committee, then the committee may go down the path and investigate what the Auditor-General recommends to be investigated. It does not work the other way around.
The committee has the capacity to do any number of things to see how the public account operates. However, to do that, and do that effectively, the committee members have to rise out of their chairs and visit places. I provided the committee with an example - and I will repeat that example - of one of the things we could look at. How about going to the fire station in Iliffe Street and find out how many people, on which shifts, have the capacity to drive the Bronto, which is the firefighting vehicle used for fighting tall building fires? We have an increasing number of tall building fires. The information I have – and I do not know if it is entirely correct, but it would be nice to find out – is that only one shift provides a person licensed to drive the Bronto. For 16 out of 24 hours, the Bronto sits collecting dust.
That is the type of thing that Public Accounts Committee could be looking into, because it is not good expenditure of public monies to have a piece of equipment, with the value and the importance of the Bronto, sitting idle for 16 hours a day. Fires do not follow a timetable which accommodates the fire service. That is the type of issue I would like to see the Public Accounts Committee looking into. However, on the current structure, the Public Accounts Committee is interested in looking at anything but the public account.
We cannot support this motion simply because the motion will diminish, dilute, and further decay the capacity of this House to examine the functions of the government. The Public Accounts Committee has the function of seeing where money is being expended. Yet, the whole core of the government’s and the Leader of Government Business’s argument is how we rotate in and out of deliberative meetings through the estimates process. That is a technical and a side issue and, frankly, unconvincing. Nothing in this motion prevents or restricts these changes to the deliberative processes of the Estimates Committee. Everything in this motion nobbles the Public Accounts Committee with a ministry which, in its desperation, is trying its hardest to hold on to power and to stave off criticism. The criticism it wants to stave off is how the public monies are being expended.
If the government is so worried about it, all it has to do is lift its game and do it better. However, as we have become so used to from the members opposite, this is more about image and how it looks than how it works. I cannot fathom an environment where I have to sit, as a non-member of Cabinet, and fend off – and I know this will occur, as anyone with any experience will know this will occur – a minister, when that minister could be the person whose department the Public Accounts Committee is investigating. Moreover, if that minister suddenly realises that some other minister might be investigated, there might be a tag team. We get this notice saying that there will be another minister coming in: ‘We are going to tag another minister in because it happens to be their department’.
You are laying the groundwork for exactly what the Leader of Government Business found so objectionable, in the early days of their administration, when he mentioned Mr Dunham, and I agree with him. I agree that there was a certain inconsistency with that, and that is what I am talking about. For him to run that as an argument is to confirm the position we are taking on this side of the House.
Yes, it is inappropriate for a minister of the Crown to sit on the Public Accounts Committee. His argument was that it was inappropriate for an ex-minister of the Crown to sit on the Public Accounts Committee.
Madam Speaker, on that we are of one mind. I would then, of course, expect the Leader of Government Business to follow that logic and vote against this motion accordingly.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. The motion is a sensible measure to ensure that the parliamentary committee system for the Public Accounts Committee functions efficiently for the remainder of this term - that it functions efficiently. It is important to ensure meetings go ahead with quorums.
It is hard to understand where the opposition is coming from. I know the member for Port Darwin referred to the fact that the Auditor-General works for the Public Accounts Committee. That is not quite right. The Auditor-General works for this parliament; the Auditor-General is an officer of this parliament. I understood quite clearly what the Leader of Government Business was saying. It is in our Standing Order 21A to E that one of the duties of the Public Accounts Committee is to examine the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Legislative Assembly; that is one of the committee’s duties.
The Leader of Government Business said that, under the PAC we have under this government, we follow more of those referrals than the CLP did. That is what he said: we have followed up more on what the Auditor-General has done than previous PACs have. I believe that is a very important point made by the Leader of Government Business. That is one of the duties of the Public Accounts Committee. I welcome the Leader of Government Business coming on to that committee, with his experience and his understanding of how the process works. He has been a previous Chair, and the Public Accounts Committee, under his stewardship, took on some very important referrals, which he talked about. He talked about the fact that the member for Drysdale did not excuse himself from that committee when a quite clear conflict of interest came up.
The Leader of Government Business has made an undertaking that, when a similar situation arises - if a similar situation arises; I have much more faith in the member for Johnston than I do in the former member for Drysdale - then the Leader of Government Business will excuse himself from that PAC meeting. I believe that is a very sensible way of behaving. I have full faith in the member for Johnston.
I understood, clearly, that the opposition would support measures to ensure the Public Accounts Committee functions efficiently. I believe that is a very important thing for this Chamber to do; to have a Public Accounts Committee that functions efficiently. This motion complements the Parliamentary Pairs Agreement that we have in place right now – that exists in our standing orders. That is very important to note. This motion is complementary to the Parliamentary Pairs Agreement that is in place now between the government and opposition. That pair arrangement is working. This motion, an eminently sensible motion, will also work. I thought that was why were here: to work. When this government brings in a motion to ensure we can work efficiently, the opposition opposes it. The opposition is obstructing the efficient operation of this parliament.
I also believe we need to note and remember something very important. The government is not changing the makeup of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee now has three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent member. I am the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee as a government member. This motion does not change that. There will remain, at all times, three government members, two opposition members, and one Independent member.
It is quite clear, in the motion that we are talking about:
- (1D) Any appointed alternate opposition member may participate in a meeting of the committee as if he or she were a full member provided that only two opposition committee members shall attend …
- (1E) Any appointed alternate government member may participate in a meeting of the committee as if he or she were a full member provided that only three government members shall attend ….
There will remain, at all times, three government members, two opposition members and one Independent member. It does not matter who comes in and out of the committee by way of the alternate members proposed in this motion. The makeup and the balance of the committee between the government, the opposition, and the Independent remains the same. The balance of the committee will not be changed by enacting this motion.
The opposition, by the opposition to this motion, makes no sense. This arrangement will provide more certainty around the timing of PAC meetings. That is a good thing. This side of the House believes it is important that the Public Accounts Committee meets regularly and, when a meeting is made, we can guarantee a quorum for that meeting, and that the Public Accounts Committee functions efficiently. That is what this motion ensures: the efficient functioning of the Public Accounts Committee. That is why I support this motion, and it is very hard to see where the opposition is coming from.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, there are some quite obvious reasons why the opposition is opposing this motion. I will outline them, for the illumination of the member for Fannie Bay, who cannot seem to come to grips with what is so abhorrent about having a minister as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
The Public Accounts Committee is set up to keep an eye on how taxpayers’ dollars are spent. That is the fundamental reason for the Public Accounts Committee: to keep an eye how the government spends the public funds. I can understand, having listened to debates about health and the like, when the Leader of Government Business who, at that time was the Minister for Health, said that he had no connection whatsoever to the department. The department did its own thing, he did his own thing; the two never married up, and they did not discuss operational matters. The minister was devoid of any involvement in operational matters. I understand, if that is the view of the Leader of Government Business, that the minister’s role is to have no say in the functioning of departments under their watch, he may see that there is no conflict with a minister sitting on the Public Accounts Committee.
I find that whole idea abhorrent. The Public Accounts Committee is about accountability and, if you have a minister of the Cabinet sitting in the room, how can you expect any level of accountability? What the government is proposing today is a complete corruption of the system.
How are we going to work estimates meetings? Do we have the alternate member? Goodness knows who the alternate member will be - maybe the Treasurer …
Mr Elferink: Members, it is plural in the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Alternate members. Maybe there will be a whole swag of them, maybe the Treasurer. Maybe they will even trundle in the corpse, he has seemingly no influence on anything these days ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find what the member is saying objectionable. He is referring to the Chief Minister. I give a fair amount of latitude, but I believe over the last day or so, the member for Fong Lim has plumbed new depths. I ask him to show a little respect. There are politics and a little spite also.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘corpse’. The government may appoint the ineffectual Chief Minister; the bloke who is like a rabbit in the spotlight, who cannot make a decision on anything. Maybe they will roll him into the Public Accounts Committee. Maybe they will decide to roll in the Treasurer, the person who has shown that they are very good at mixing up their words, not being diligent in their job. Maybe they will run her in there. Goodness me, you do not know where this whole thing could spin out to; it could go anywhere.
The Leader of Government Business talked about being experienced as a minister. The whole idea of the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee is to question ministers. How can we ensure that the minister will not be asking himself questions during estimates meetings? Jumping and changing chairs - it is a ridiculous situation. It calls into question the whole idea of privilege and confidentiality of the Public Accounts Committee, when you can roll in minister after minister into those committee meetings. It does not make any sense.
How can a member - in this case the minister or ministers - develop any corporate knowledge of what has occurred in previous meetings when, in all likelihood, they will be moving one minister in to replace another minister to replace another minister. I understand what a tough job it is to be a minister - you seem to have to be in all places, at all times - and it is quite difficult to set aside the time to be at something as menial – as I am sure these guys across the room believe - as a Public Accounts Committee. It is similar to identifying which minister will be in town that we can trot along to the next meeting.
In my view - for what it is worth - the minister should have moved a motion to change the makeup of the committee to allow the parliament the ability to determine who is on the committee. I suggest: two from government, two from opposition, and another two that the parliament may consider.
I do not actually have a problem with the member for Arafura being a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I thought, seeing the way the government has been sucking up to the member for Arafura over the last few days, that it would not have a problem with that ...
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr Burns: You called her a rat. It is in the Parliamentary Record.
Mr TOLLNER: The Leader of Government Business made a derogatory comment about me. He knows that is not true, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: No, he did not make a comment about you at all.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I am more than happy to read the Parliamentary Record of what the member for Fong Lim said in this place yesterday; it was very clear.
Mr Elferink: It was a metaphor, as I recall.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue your speech.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, yesterday I referred to people leaving the Labor Party like rats from a sinking ship. That was in no way a personal referral to the member for Arafura …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I am not going to be caught up in this ‘he said, she said’ nonsense. I have no problem with the member for Arafura being on that committee. The member for Arafura has turned up to a few meetings of that committee this year. I might not agree with many of her political views, but I have no dramas at all with the way she carries herself in those committee meetings. I would not have thought the government would either. However, it has decided that this is a perfect opportunity to rig a committee to put out grassfires as they occur. This motion is nonsense and it should be resisted by every clear-thinking member of this place.
The Public Accounts Committee is about accountability, and making sure that ministers and their departments are accountable for the taxpayers’ money they are spending. It is an extremely important committee. The Estimates Committee is a function of that committee, and that is another important committee of this parliament. We should be very careful with the way these committees are made up. It is like having the mother of a convicted rapist sitting on the jury. That is not on and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is being highly offensive in making that analogy.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Fong Lim, stay to the point, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I thought that was the point. There is every reason to be concerned that this committee will be corrupted with the addition of a minister sitting on that committee. The whole function of that committee is corrupted. It is hard enough now being a member of that committee because the three government members on that committee see their job, not as digging to find information, but more to stop information surfacing. Every effort made to investigate and gain information is invariably stopped by the three government members on that committee.
The member for Port Darwin spoke this morning, in the earlier motion that the minister moved, about the way the committee has tried to go out and do site visits and do a little tyre kicking to see what is going on. Every time that these things are raised and discussed, we found out that the three government members have caucused amongst themselves, outside the meeting, and resolved to do something different ...
Ms Lawrie: You do not ever caucus? Is that because you two are going for numbers?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I am not going for anything. The committee is already having trouble functioning because of the way the government members are operating on that committee - it is having major trouble …
Ms Lawrie: You are pathetic!
Mr TOLLNER: I understand, member for Karama, that you have no idea about this because you are not in the meetings.
Ms Lawrie: Really?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes …
Ms Lawrie: I would have no idea how a PAC operates?
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, now you are saying you do ...
Ms Lawrie: I sat on the PAC as a backbencher, you clown.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. We are trying to listen to the member for Fong Lim, and all we have is government interjections all day long. They are completely irrelevant, and I cannot hear him.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair and stay on the point, please. It is not a conversation across the Chamber; it is a conversation through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I will direct my comments through you, but I did not believe I was straying from the point. The point is that this committee is already having trouble functioning. I believe that is common knowledge. I believe most people - most public servants - would understand that. They know that they are going in with concerns that they do not want to throw their minister into it, or whatever. But the fact is, it is not functioning well.
We have a situation now where the government is proposing that it is going to alternate government ministers - whenever and whoever it likes. This is a ridiculous situation. We will want to have a chat about health and, goodness me, who will we get turning up to our meetings? The member for Casuarina. If we want to have a chat about tourism numbers, goodness me, who will lob up? Who will be the alternate delegate for that meeting? None other than the Leader of Government Business, the Tourism Minister. If we want to ask about Treasury and what Treasury does, who do you think is going to lob …
Ms Carney: The next Chief Minister.
Mr TOLLNER: Correct, the next Chief Minister - the Chief Minister-in-waiting. Maybe we will want to ask a few things about the SIHIP program, and we will get Noddy, the big brave member for Daly turning up ...
Dr Burns: What happens if we want to ask questions about Discovery?
Mr TOLLNER: What if we do want to ask questions about Discovery? We may get the Minister for Racing, Gaming, and Licensing along ...
Mr Elferink: I would love to hear what he has to say about Mr Hale.
Mr Giles: Let us talk about Mr Hale at Discovery.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Yes. This goes back to what I always believed about the Labor Party, not just here in the Northern Territory but across the country: you never believe what they say; you always look at what they do. Always look at what they do. The purpose of this move is not about increasing accountability or ensuring that departments and ministers are going to be accountable; this is all about how the government can spin a line to the public. That is what this is about. The government knows it, we know it, and everyone in the public knows it. The fact is that you are cooking the books. You tried to …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! These are wild allegations about cooking the books from the member for Fong Lim - not substantiated. The CLP is the only party in this parliament with that track record.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Need I even bother speaking to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Member for Fong Lim, were you inferring improper administration in your comments?
Mr TOLLNER: No, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: In that case, I will allow it.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If there was an allegation of the books being cooked, then that allegation, you would hope, would be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. For instance, if there was an allegation that the books were being cooked in Tourism NT - I am not suggesting that there is an allegation to that effect, but if there was - we wonder who the government would roll out to be the alternate delegate to those PAC meetings, when it is investigating whether the books had been cooked at Tourism NT. I will bet London to a brick - as sure as God made little apples - that it would be none other than the Leader of Government Business …
Ms Lawrie: You would be wrong.
Dr Burns: … already a member of the PAC, you goose. He does not understand ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: He does not understand. That is the whole point about this: the Leader of Government Business fails to comprehend that we do not understand this; we do not understand it at all. All we understand is that this government is not about accountability. It is not about being open, up-front and honest with Territory people - it is not about that at all. This government is all about spinning a message, putting out propaganda, and putting out a PR exercise; that is what this government is about ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is what this government is about. It has no concern about accountability. How, for goodness sake, is the Leader of Government Business going to ask questions of himself as the Tourism Minister, when he is in the estimates hearings? Do we really perceive that he might be jumping out of this chair and running into this chair, and there will be no interjections in the time it takes him to get from that chair to that chair? Goodness me – this is a ludicrous situation. It has come about, quite clearly, because of a lack of leadership from the Chief Minister. It has come about because the Chief Minister, like a rabbit in the spotlight, cannot control his Caucus or his members, to the point where he has now become impotent ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: We have a Chief Minister who is like a dead man walking. He has no influence whatsoever. The strings are being pulled …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 77 - I move the member for Fong Lim be given an extension of 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Braitling; I was just warming up, getting to the crux of the matter. This is about a Chief Minister who has lost control of his party, a Chief Minister who clearly cannot control his own party …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! What is the relevance to the debate on the motion of the PAC alternate members?
Mr TOLLNER: Ultimately, what it is about …
Madam SPEAKER: Please, member for Fong Lim …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! You may continue, member for Fong Lim, but can you keep it to the point, please?
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. How can you debate a motion, when you cannot debate the circumstances that call for that motion to be put in the first place? The circumstances that call for the motion we are debating – there would not be a problem if you had a Chief Minister who could control his Caucus. That is what it is about. That is fundamentally what this whole motion is about. The fact that you have let it go, the whole ship is shaking …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: ... the whole ship is shaking; people are departing like rats from a sinking ship. You find yourselves in this situation where you have to come in and alter the makeup to the Public Accounts Committee. That is what this is about. Somehow or other, you say that this is a sensible amendment. Goodness me – a sensible amendment? Sensible in what regard? The only thing sensible about it is the fact that you are trying to cling on to power any way you can. That is what this is about.
This is not about the good governance of the Northern Territory: looking after Territorians, ensuring taxpayers’ dollars are spent correctly, looking after Aboriginal people on remote communities who are suffering all sorts of dreadful circumstances, or keeping criminals off the streets. This is not about any of that. This is about keeping your grubby hands on the levers of the Treasury. That is what this is about ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms Lawrie: You are so wrong and you are so offensive. You do not understand how good government works.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: You do not have a clue. No wonder you were kicked out of federal parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, it is obvious the truth hurts ...
Ms Lawrie: No, you are just offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I have just ripped the scab off a pussy, oozing sore; that is what this is about, and the government is offended by it ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Government members, order!
Mr TOLLNER: I can understand why the government members are upset, because the fact is that is what this is about ...
Dr Burns: I believe your side is upset with you.
Ms Lawrie: Public servants listen to you attacking their professionalism.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: That is what this is about. This is about trolleying in whatever minister the government wants into the Public Accounts Committee. It is probably the most important committee of this parliament - that is not undermining other committees - a very important committee, and the government wants to be able to trolley in ministers at will to sit in, to ensure that the Public Accounts Committee inquiries are going nowhere. That is what this is about. It is about corrupting a system that is put in place to make sure that the government is accountable. That is what it is about.
The idea is that backbenchers, people who have some level of independence from the Executive government, sit on that committee to hold the government to account. But that is all out the window and the government is going to trolley in ministers to sit on that committee. That is why we are opposed to this. The government has asked the question: why are we opposed to such a sensible measure? That is why we are opposed: (1) it is not sensible; (2) it is everything but sensible; and (3) it undermines completely the whole idea of a Public Accounts Committee.
I do not understand why it even bothers having a Public Accounts Committee, if that is what it is trying to do. If it is trying to put up a faade of accountability, it is not doing a very good job. This is a shameful motion, and it goes to show how far some of the fascists on the other side go to hang on to power ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Ms Lawrie: No wonder you lost your seat in federal parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw the comment.
Mr TOLLNER: Which comment was that, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to withdraw the comment. You are well aware …
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw it, whatever it was.
Dr Burns: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Leader of Government Business.
Mr Elferink: No, he has withdrawn it.
Madam SPEAKER: He has withdrawn. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I understand a feigned sensitivity - it feigns sensitivity. Every opportunity it has to shut a person down …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This man is very offensive, and he is using offensive and unbecoming words. It is well-known in this Chamber, and in the public, that the member for Karama has Jewish roots …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … to accuse this government of being fascist. I know that, from what the member for Karama has told me, she finds that absolutely disgusting and offensive. The member for Fong Lim is plumbing new depths, but this is the lowest.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, the member has withdrawn the comments. Member for Fong Lim, I remind you …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! There are far too many interjections this morning. There are also a large number of very personal and unnecessarily offensive …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning.
Mr Conlan: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I tell you what, I will make it easier for you.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind you of Standing Order 62(1), that no offensive unbecoming words towards a member must be withdrawn; Standing Order 62(3), that offensive unbecoming words used towards a member can only be done by way of a substantive motion; Standing Order 63, the Speaker to intervene when there are offensive and disorderly words; and Standing Order 64, the Speaker to determine if a word is offensive.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I am in your hands, as always, as far as what is offensive and what is not. I, obviously, do not have a serious grip on what some people find offensive and what others do not, but I am to be guided by your wisdom.
There is nothing simple about this, or, as the member for Fannie Bay said, ‘sensible’. There is nothing sensible about this motion. This motion is all about reducing the accountability of ministers, departments, and further concealing how taxpayers’ dollars are being spent and accounted for.
I find the idea that you can trundle a minister in - any old minister - to any meeting, abhorrent. There are a whole range of analogies I could go into here. However, I will not; I have already been given an extra couple of minutes to conclude my remarks. I will leave it at that.
Madam Speaker, I am going to oppose this motion in the fullest sense.
___________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call you, member for Nelson, I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of participants in the Parliament House public tour program. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome. I am sure they are wondering what is happening.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very serious topic and, as the member for Fong Lim said, any clear-minded person would find it easy to oppose this particular discussion. I do not believe it is as simple as that. Things have changed in this House that many of us did not expect, and we are covering ground that many of us have not thought about, especially in relation to the effect these changes will have on the running of the parliament, which includes the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee.
I spoke to the Clerk about this motion. On the surface, I thought it was reasonable, but one thing I enjoy about parliament is the ability to hear both sides of the argument, and it is not much good making up my mind without hearing the arguments.
The government is still the government; there is no doubt about that. The standing orders for the Public Accounts Committee state that the government should have the majority of people on that committee, which also leads to having that majority on the Estimates Committee.
There has been talk that perhaps it could be solved using a quorum; that the quorum for the PAC would be four and the Estimates Committee would be four. From an Independent’s point of view that is likely to leave me out of the debate. I do not necessarily agree with that. However, I understand it is an option.
The standing orders do not say a minister cannot belong to the PAC. They do not say that the Speaker cannot belong to the PAC. I cannot see that written in them. It probably does not say many things. It was, obviously, drawn up when the government had a majority. Therefore, we have standing orders based on the premise that a minority party does not exist. We now have to come to terms with that. I am taking into account, especially, what the member for Port Darwin said about the issue of a conflict of interest.
We are not yet at the Estimates Committee, but we have a Standing Orders Committee. There are some issues that need to be clarified, regarding ministers working on the Estimates Committee and the PAC, to ensure there is no conflict of interest. There were some guidelines written which gave the PAC rules to enable a judgment about whether a minister could sit on the Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee.
We do not want to experience the same problem that the member for Johnston spoke about, when a previous member of parliament, the former member for Drysdale, appeared to have a conflict of interest by being on the Public Accounts Committee, as well as being the subject of some of the discussion that was occurring on that committee. We do not want that to recur.
I do not know whether it is possible for this debate to be delayed to cover some of those issues. The reality is that we have a Public Accounts Committee. The government, even though it is a minority government, has to have the majority - according to the Standing Orders Committee - on that body. Perhaps the government needs to - and this is not trying to be personal - talk to the Independent member for Arafura, to solve this issue.
The Chief Minister said that he has some agreements with the Independent member - this is not saying anything disparaging about voting on budget matters or voting against a no-confidence motion. It is possible for the government to come to an agreement with the member for Arafura. To some extent, that would solve the problem of having ministers on the Public Accounts Committee.
There are other issues. For instance, could you end up with three ministers at the Estimates Committee? I am not sure that would be a good look. You might get away with one minister - and I could live with that - but there is the possibility of having three ministers. Again, there is nothing in standing orders that says that cannot happen.
However, I wonder whether we should put a stop to this debate for the moment and say: ‘We have heard what all sides of parliament are saying. Can we come up with some solution before next week or by tomorrow that looks at the conflict of interest and at the possibility of an arrangement with the member for Arafura?’ This would allow more time after the sittings to look at this matter, in the light that it is something that we have never looked at before ...
Mr Elferink: We would support a motion to come back tomorrow.
Mr WOOD: I am happy to put forward a motion, Madam Speaker. I am not sure of the words I should use at this stage, but I would be happy to ...
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot put forward a motion while there is one before the House. You can make an amendment. If a motion is already before the House, you cannot put forward a new motion, but you can move an amendment to any motion.
Mr WOOD: I put an amendment to the motion, Madam Speaker, that the debate on this motion be postponed until tomorrow, or next week. I do not know whether parliament can …
Mr Elferink: It would have to be tomorrow.
Mr WOOD: It has to be tomorrow. I will change that: the debate on this motion is postponed until tomorrow to allow the Standing Orders Committee to discuss the matters that have been raised today to see whether a more satisfactory arrangement could be made that would …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I note that it is nearly the lunch break. The issues raised regarding the guidelines, conflict of interest, and the numbers of ministers on the PAC, are important questions from the member for Nelson. Similarly, the member for Port Darwin raised those workability issues. There is an opportunity after Question Time for the government to respond to those issues. If those responses do not go far enough or bring satisfaction, then there is always the opportunity at the end to deal with that issue.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, if you wish to, you can seek leave of the parliament to do what you have just said, or you can move that amendment. Is that what you have done? You have moved an amendment?
Mr WOOD: Yes. A point of clarification, Madam Speaker. At the end of this debate, I could move a motion which might allow more time to …
Madam SPEAKER: To move a motion, member for Nelson, you may seek leave to bring forward a motion on the House, or you can move an amendment now.
Mr ELFERINK: For the sake of order, Madam Speaker, I suggest that when we get to the end of the motion, the member’s amendment will read: ‘and that the parliament determine the matter on tomorrow’s date’, as an amendment to the motion.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, as a point of clarification, there is nothing preventing the member for Nelson concluding his remarks after the lunch break. That gives the government the opportunity to talk to the member for Nelson, as an Independent, about his concerns and how they can be resolved.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, you do not want to do it on the floor of the House?
Madam SPEAKER: We have reached a stage where there is a level of confusion. I am going to adjourn the Assembly for the luncheon break, and I suggest that these concerns are discussed between all parties …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I have just adjourned the Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK: I want to confirm that the member gets to complete his comments after lunch, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: After Question Time.
MOTION
Public Accounts Committee – Appointment of Alternate Members
Public Accounts Committee – Appointment of Alternate Members
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, before the luncheon adjournment there was discussion in relation to the motion, and I was looking at the possibility of moving an amendment to this motion. I have since had discussions with the government, and I have also referred those discussions to the opposition.
Instead of moving that amendment, Madam Speaker, I will talk about the guarantees that the government has given me. Whilst these guarantees are not exactly what I prefer, I believe they are better than we have at the present time. Regardless of what is happening at the moment, we are going through unchartered waters, but we still have to pass the budget and run the Estimates Committee. Once this process has been completed, we will need to work out how these committees - the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee, and all the other committees - will work. I believe there is much work for the Standing Orders Committee to do in relation to how these committees will work under a new regime.
The government has said - in closing this debate - it will guarantee the following:
1 No more than one minister will be an alternate member at a time;
I will speak on some of those matters. The first item is that no more than one minister will be an alternate member at a time. That might not quite overcome my concerns about having an Estimates Committee where you could have up to three ministers sitting at the table in front of the public. This reduces that chance to two.
I take the point that, generally speaking, the government members do not interfere in the running of the Estimates Committee. Occasionally, they might ask a question but, overall, if you go back year after year and look at the running of the Estimates Committee, it is pretty rare for the government to get involved. It normally allows the opposition and the Independents to have a free rein, except where you get some bone of contention that might crop up in relation to standing orders - the same discussions you would have regarding whether matters before this House can be allowed under standing orders. You can have those debates but, generally speaking, that is about as far as it goes.
The second item is that no minister will be an alternate member when direct matters of their portfolio responsibilities are before the PAC or Estimates Committee. That will be an interesting opportunity to find out how that will work in reality. The Leader of Government Business said that there may also be some consideration that a minister who has held a portfolio 12 months previously, may not be on the Estimates Committee, so that there is no chance of a perceived conflict. It may even make the present minister feel quite uncomfortable, if the past minister was sitting on the same table as a member of the Estimates Committee. That could arouse some debate, but at least there is recognition that possible conflict of interest could occur, and we have to be aware that it may happen.
The third item was that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly will draft guidelines on conflict of interest for the PAC to consider. I imagine that they need be drawn up pretty quickly for the PAC to endorse. It is an area that, unfortunately, has nothing written about it. We have conflict of interest guidelines which are more in relation to our personal dealings with the public, or a minister’s dealings with a company; the conflicts of interest where you may gain monetary advantage. However, we are not talking about that type of conflict of interest; we are talking about a conflict of interest that may come before the committee that will have to be considered by the PAC.
The last item is that the government will refer to the Standing Orders Committee in the August sittings the matter of committees and committee membership. That would allow more time for a full debate on the whole issue of how committees are to be run. It is something that the Standing Orders Committee would be taking advice on and looking for precedents.
I understand where the member for Port Darwin is coming from. He sees a more holistic approach - if I can call it that - about the principles of good governance. I would be the last one to knock anyone who was supporting the concept of good governance. I have to balance that with the reality that we are living in at the present time; that we have a minority government, a budget to be passed, and the Estimates Committee process to go through. I also balance that with the existing standing orders on committees, which talk about the government having the majority and the casting vote. If you take it on the surface, at least, there is nothing in our existing standing orders that says a minister cannot be part of a committee. In fact, on some of our smaller committees, which you would not say are as public as the PAC - and I am not downplaying the debate that we are having at the moment - ministers are members on other committees. For instance, the Speaker is on the Privileges and the House Committees, and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has a member who is a minister.
There is some precedence for ministers on committees, although I note those committees are more in-House committees, rather than a public committee such as the PAC, which is the one that people will see, in the flesh, through the Estimates Committee.
I am concerned that there will be the perception with ministers on one side of the table and ministers on the other side, regardless of whether they are quiet or silent - and I believe they will be. However, that perception is going to be hard to avoid.
Madam Speaker, I accept the assurances of the Leader of Government Business in relation to this. It is a difficult time. It has left me thinking about many things relating to how workable the parliament will be over the next few years with a minority government. It is something I did not expect to have to worry about a couple of weeks ago ...
Mr Elferink: A week is a long time in politics.
Mr WOOD: Yes, a week is a very long time in politics. I am coming to terms with new issues. However, as I have said before, parliament is not a toy. It is something I have to make sure that I look after, if you can put it in those terms, because it is a serious matter how we run the workings of democracy in the Northern Territory. Much as I understand the principles the member for Port Darwin has put in his debate today …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In case he needs it, I move that the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Much obliged. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not watching the clock; I was trying to think of what I was saying. This probably reflects on the difficulty of this debate. With the assurances that the government has given, though I do not believe they are perfect, they are at least a good start. I will support this motion, if for only one thing: for good governance, from the point of view that we have to get the budget through, and we have to get the estimates done. What happens after that? Let us see.
Hopefully, the Standing Orders Committee can develop some guidelines and processes that will help us through this stage, because it is important. I also have to put my two bob’s worth in as an Independent. I treasure my opportunity to be on the Estimates Committee. People think you are a glutton for punishment, and sometimes it is very difficult being on an Estimates Committee, but I find it one of the most important parts of being in parliament.
It is a very important part of parliament; it provides an opportunity that I would not have at any other time to question ministers and departmental heads, and it also allows the public to hear about the important things that are being done by government, good or bad. It gives an opportunity for the government to put their point of view out there as well.
It may not be perfect, but we have to pass the budget and it has to pass it through the Estimates Committee and, after that, let us see what happens.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I had proposed to speak on this prior to the member for Nelson before lunch but, as luck would have it, I am glad it panned out the way it did, because there are some further comments I would like to make, based on those made by the member for Nelson.
Backtracking somewhat, I reiterate the concerns of the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim, and those of the opposition as a whole; in particular, the perception that Territorians will have of the Public Accounts Committee. It is fair to say that the PAC is the most important parliamentary committee that we have, and for the government to be so shabbily tinkering with it almost beggars belief. I do not say for a moment that the matter does not involve some thought. I thought, however, that the government would have given it the thought and attention it deserves, rather than cobbling together what it says is the only answer.
There are some other ways to go. One way is to have two government members, two opposition members, and two Independent members. Another way is to reduce the number of ministers. The member for Barkly, with great respect to him, by any measure, is not the busiest minister in the Cabinet. Corrections and Justice were split several months ago, and I believe he has something else, Transport which, until recently, someone else had that as well. This demonstrates - they are two things off the top of my head - that the government has not given this matter the sort of attention it should.
It has also been shabby that the opposition has not been consulted in any way, shape or form, about what the government considers is a difficulty. We were not consulted, as I understand it, before notice was given yesterday of the motion. I withdraw that. We were consulted, but I understand that very little discussion was entered into.
It is also my understanding, that over the luncheon adjournment, while the member for Nelson discussed it with, I believe, the Deputy Chief Minister or the Leader of Government Business, the opposition was not involved in those discussions, although we did speak with the member for Nelson after he had his discussions with the government.
With respect to the member for Nelson, bully for him for securing what he sees as concessions. But a backroom deal might work in the Labor Party, but it should not really be the bread and butter of the parliament of the Northern Territory. The parliament should formally record the concessions and they should be a part of this motion. I believe that is good and common sense.
On that basis, I formally move an amendment that will capture the guarantees or concessions outlined by the member for Nelson and that these are incorporated into the motion:
- Adding at the end:
and
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to the amendment.
Ms Lawrie: What is the amendment? We need to see the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe we need to have that written.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand the Leader of Government Business has that in a written form in front of him.
Ms Lawrie: No. What is your amendment?
Mr ELFERINK: The amendment is that the concessions, as outlined by the member for Nelson, be incorporated into the motion. This is an awkward way to go about it, I concede that, but from the outset, the whole process …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, can you resume your seat while I take advice?
Member for Nelson, this amendment involves something which you have spoken about. For us to deal with this, we need to have a copy of whatever you were talking about.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I have a copy of an e-mail. With all due respect to the member for Araluen, it was not a backdoor deal.
Madam SPEAKER: I am asking if you have something, could you table it?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am happy to table that.
Madam SPEAKER: Will you table that document. Thank you.
Before we go on, we have to table these two documents. Is there anyone wanting to speak on the motion that was originally before the House, prior to speaking about any amendments? No.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I suggest a five-minute adjournment while this is all photocopied and passed around to members.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will allow you to speak on the amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: I will contain myself to the amendment, Madam Speaker.
Whilst we appreciate that this is awkward for the House, I apologise. I am certain the member for Araluen also feels awkward with the structure of this amendment which has been brought about by a situation where the government has tried to do what it always does and has suddenly stumbled over the fact that they are a minority government, and they now have to negotiate with other parties in this House.
Over the lunchtime period, I have spoken to the member for Nelson, and he described to me certain amendments or offers made by the government in relation to this motion. No such communication came from the government. It would have been interesting, if the government had bothered, because they know what my concerns are in relation to this matter, and they made …
Dr Burns: You had a week to get back to me, and you never did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Get used to it. This is how you treat people. This is how this government has been treating this House for the last few months. Now, the Leader of Government Business is bent all out of shape because it has happened to him. Well, guess what? I knew …
Dr Burns: I am saying that you undertook to get back to me, and you never did.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: I did this morning, in the corridor. I am not going to be taken in by this minor debate.
The government has a much easier solution available than what they are doing at the moment. The member for Araluen hit the nail on the head: lose a minister. That way the government will be able to meet the requirements and principles of responsible government, as well as meet its committee responsibilities in this House.
The shemozzle that we have seen unfolding today - this lack of understanding about the new environment in which we exist - demonstrates that this government is not capable of adapting to the challenges before them. I am not going to bang on about this for hours; I want to keep my comments short in relation to this amendment. If the government comes with a series of suggestions to the members opposite or the Independents and says, ‘This is what we can do’, then make it part of the terms of reference you are introducing in the original motion. Bring the amendments, as part of the terms of reference, into this House and amend it yourself. That is the fix. Then you will get the support of the member for Nelson and, I presume, the support of the member for Arafura. Then, you would have the required numbers to get this through. That is not what has happened. Conversely, you could have picked up the phone and asked us. That is another option. That did not happen, because we are still not used to this new environment.
I maintain my objection to having ministers inquiring into themselves on how they spend their money. That is a fundamental objection I carry. However, whilst I agree with the member for Nelson that these proposed concessions are far from perfect, they are a step in the right direction. I note that it was the member for Araluen who had sufficient foresight to offer this as a potential compromise. I am still far from pleased, but what the member for Araluen is doing is correct. It is bringing in these concessions, ‘Oh, we will promise to do this’; but you will not find it in the standing orders.
According to the Chief Minister - from his own lips - the standing orders are what matters. If the standing orders are what matters, then the standing orders and the terms of reference of the committees should reflect the will of the parliament, not some promise made on the tail end of a debate: ‘By the way, we are just going to do this anyway’.
Madam Speaker, I support these amendments, much as I am disinclined to, because they are a compromise after a fashion. However, I am still deeply uncomfortable about what the government is doing. The answer is quite simple: lose a minister or change the structure of the committee - either one, I do not care. Lose a minister - problem solved; it is that easy. Unfortunately, government’s arrogant and dead hands will continue to lie over this parliament, and it will be up to us to prise its fingers away - finger by finger - until such time as it realises that it is a minority government and, for the first time since self-government, this House is gaining an ascendancy over the Executive, which is fit and proper.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, I reject outright the comments by the member for Port Darwin. They are highly offensive ...
Mr Elferink: You are offended by everything. What is it this time?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Sometimes I believe that what the member for Port Darwin projects on the government’s intentions and actions are actually a reflection of what he would do. Quite frankly, look at the record of the government. We will stand on this record. We made a commitment to introduce a fairer and more robust Estimates Committee process. Previously, questions had to be written and given to ministers a week prior to a meeting of the Committee of the Whole. What a farce that was: to be the last place in Australia without a properly functioning Estimates Committee to properly scrutinise the budgets. This government introduced that.
The Estimates Committee has evolved and changed over time, such as the meeting times and other aspects of the Estimates Committee. This government has a proven track record of looking at the workability issues as they arise and dealing with them. Arising out of a minority government, we have workability issues regarding the government membership of the PAC and the Estimates Committee. We have been up-front about that in our discussions with the members opposite. The member for Port Darwin received one week’s notice of the government’s intentions to deal with the issue of alternate members. We all know - and we knew before we were a minority government - that with three backbenchers, the hours required to sit on the Estimates Committee process were going to be extremely difficult. Anyone who has been a member of the PAC and Estimates Committee knows that. I have been a member, I was a backbencher, and I sat on the PAC and the Estimates Committee and they are incredibly difficult hours for people to work. I know the opposition like to think that we are lazy, but I do not see them working those hours.
The government asked how to deal with the workability issues, and arrived at alternate members, providing for both the opposition as well as the government in all fairness, recognising within the makeup of the committee the issue of the Independent and that more work needs to be done on that issue in the future. Very reasonably, to change the PAC membership structures is an issue the Standing Orders Committee would need to attend to, because it involves the standing orders.
Reasonably, we should not rush willy-nilly down that path before we have seen how the PAC and estimates week unfolds. We need to see what occurs at estimates with the rotation of the alternate members; how that works for the functioning of the Estimates Committee and the PAC. We have to look at that, see how it works, and use the time appropriately for the August sittings reference for the Standing Orders Committee to look at the committee memberships, in the full knowledge and context of what happens during the estimates process next week.
During debate, issues were raised around potential conflict of interest, and the government has no desire whatsoever to behave as others have in the past, where you have a conflict of interest on matters for which you are responsible. For this reason, we have looked at a series of commitments to take us through the PAC and estimates process next week but, also, to make a reference to the Standing Orders Committee about committees and committee memberships and how they will operate, in the August sittings.
There is no desire by this government to have ministers sitting and presiding, in a deliberative sense, over matters for which they have direct portfolio responsibility – no desire - and we are happy to make a commitment on the Parliamentary Record about that.
We also recognise that one person’s view of conflict of interest may not match another person’s view. That is why we have given a commitment that the Clerk of the Assembly will draft the guidelines. The government is not drafting the guidelines; the Clerk of the Assembly, who has years of experience in parliamentary matters, is the one who has been given that task, recognising though, that the guidelines need to go to the PAC members to scrutinise and have a discussion about prior to estimates.
The commitment about referring to the Standing Orders Committee is significant in saying that the PAC and estimates will operate through next week; alternate members will come on and off. The government has given a commitment that ministers with direct portfolio responsibilities will not be presiding over matters that they are responsible for. We will need to use that alternate member situation, for example, when there is a deliberative discussion over the portfolio matters that the member for Johnston has responsibility for; he will not be sitting in on the deliberative matters on the PAC. While the Estimates Committee has a discussion as the PAC …
Mr Elferink: None of this was explained before.
Ms LAWRIE: Anyone who has been on the Estimates Committee, as a member of the PAC, understands how that works; how you go into a room separately and have a discussion to capture the elements and essence of the sessions that have gone before you. This amendment is a political stunt cooked up by the member for Port Darwin. I saw him pass a note over to the member for Araluen …
Mr Elferink: Yes, because we were expecting it to be incorporated into the motion.
Ms LAWRIE: … about doing an amendment. It is a political stunt, to run the line that he wants to push: that a minority government cannot work in the Territory ...
Mr Elferink: I am not saying that.
Ms LAWRIE: You are wrong about that. A minority government can work in the Territory ...
Mr Elferink: You need to start talking to people.
Ms LAWRIE: We have, and will continue to have, a good working relationship with both the Independents. This has been shown today: issues arise, the government recognises the issues, and we have taken the time and the effort to work through the issues, with very clear commitments that I am making now, as a member of the government, and the Leader of Government Business will be making when he wraps up the debate on this matter. We do not need an amendment, because our word in this House is good.
We do not come in and mislead the parliament, because you would take us to the Privileges Committee for that. We have ministers sitting on the Privileges Committee. We have ministers sitting on the Standing Orders Committee. We are not going to do the ‘well, just lose a minister’ stunt, over which the opposition is leading with its chin. Not one of them has been a minister. I assure the House that, with the example they used of the minister for Corrections and Transport, there is more work in those two portfolios than you can poke a stick at. They are critical portfolios for the Territory, which is why we gave those two portfolios to a minister. There is a massive body of work, particularly in the regional transport strategy that is occurring but, also, significantly regarding the bush camps and Corrections. Your stunt of, ‘Well, just lose a minister’, and your answer of ‘it is all good, let us move on’ is not going to wash.
We are genuine about our commitments. I am talking about the commitments. The Leader of Government Business will be talking about the commitments again, and he indicated that he would table the commitments made, in writing, in this Chamber. We would not mislead this House. We have no intention of corrupting an estimates process that this government genuinely introduced so that fair and thorough scrutiny of the budget occurs - we take that seriously. It needs to and should occur; good government is about thorough scrutiny of the budget.
Madam SPEAKER: Any further speakers? Is it on the amendment?
Dr BURNS: I was going to speak in conclusion, but if he wants to speak on the amendments, so be it.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): As a matter of fact I do, Leader of Government Business.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, just speak, thank you. There is no need for the extra comments.
Mr TOLLNER: I was just doing that, Madam Speaker. I am cognisant of the fact that the Leader of Government Business regularly interjects during my arguments, and it seemed that he was again trying to cut off my contribution.
Listening to the Treasurer was quite enlightening. The Treasurer again reaffirmed her aversion to work. I believe she used the line of: ‘Estimates Committee is very demanding; PAC is very demanding; it is not fair on three members of the government to have to sit there the whole time and actually work’. We have seen that attitude in the past. Prior to being the Treasurer, she was the Leader of Government Business, and moved and organised that the parliament sit for much reduced hours because people could not operate after working a long day. I believe that is a shameful position to take, particularly in a matter as important as this.
I have been handed a copy of the amendment, and I am heartened to see that the Leader of Government Business will not be asking himself questions on estimates or at any other time. I am still very much concerned, even with these amendments, about what the guidelines will be on conflict of interest, and what constitutes a conflict of interest. I note that the Clerk is to draft these guidelines, but it would be more suitable to discuss these changes when we know what the guidelines on conflict of interest are, and what constitutes a conflict of interest.
I thought that the matter of having a minister of the Cabinet sitting on the Public Accounts Committee was a clear conflict of interest in the first place. I do not know how you will be able to ameliorate that problem. I am keen to see what the Clerk will draft to ensure that the Cabinet ministers do not have a conflict of interest when they are grilling other Cabinet ministers, who they are in solidarity and unity with on a party and Cabinet basis.
The issue of the changes could have been made - I agree with the member for Araluen. It points to the fact that the Treasurer is not one for hard work. She was not up to the job of Transport minister or Corrections minister - both were previous portfolios that she held, which have been moved on to the member for Barkly in an effort to shirk some work.
I cannot understand, now that it has taken such a blow to its numbers, why the government would not look at reducing the ministries. Surely, it is not that complicated? From a parliamentary perspective it is not that complicated. The time that we discuss legislation in this place is minimal. Most of the time, we listen to ministers rabbit on about how wonderful they are and how wonderful the government is. Quite clearly, as I said in the debate on the previous motion, the sole goal of this government is to talk itself up; there is nothing else. It wants to cling to power at any cost, and this is another example.
The government did a backroom deal with the member for Nelson. The member for Nelson put the wood on them – pardon the pun – and he has gained some concessions out of them. I can see that some of them are concessions. The fact that the minister will not be questioning himself is a concession, but it is still a corrupt decision. It corrupts the whole idea of the Public Accounts Committee and, for that reason I cannot support the motion or these amendments. The amendments may do something but, ultimately, the PAC will be polluted with a conflict of interest. A Cabinet minister will be questioning other Cabinet ministers, people who he has sworn solidarity with, and I do not believe that is a good look. That would not operate in any other parliament around the country.
There is no doubt about it; minority governments have worked well in other jurisdictions. It is a shame that this minority government is setting off, almost immediately, on a very poor path, and will soon find that it is in a completely dysfunctional position. I believe it is already at that point. The government is leaderless; it is wracked by infighting and smears, and it airs its dirty laundry in the media - no one is off limits; the members will bag each other. It is very sad to see.
I cannot support the amendment or the motion. It is a corruption of the role of the PAC and it creates conflicts of interest. Privilege and confidentiality will be, pretty much, out the window, and the taxpayer will have no assurance about where and how their money is being spent and whether it is being properly spent.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am a little confused with the opposition, because this is its amendment and the member for Fong Lim is opposing it. I do not know whether it is my lucky day today, but it seems I have had to make decisions all this afternoon. In relation to this one, whilst I see the sense in this amendment, I must have faith in what people say. The Leader of Government Business has said he will guarantee that these amendments go through. He will say it in his summing up of the debate today, and I accept that. If it does not happen, I will vote against this motion.
It is a sensible amendment, but I am not going to vote on it. It sounds stupid if I vote against something which I believe is a sensible amendment. I recognise what the Leader of Government Business has said to me: that he will guarantee these four items on the amendments. Sometimes, you have to trust people in this world. It can come back to bite you sometimes, but the Leader of Government Business has said that, and I accept it. I will abstain from voting on this amendment and then we will come back to the vote on the motion.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this amendment.
I thank the member for Nelson for believing that I will be making this commitment. I will be reading what the commitments are and I will table them in this parliament. I agree with the member for Nelson; that there needs to be a modicum of trust. I believe that sometimes things can get over-complicated within this place.
In conclusion, I have listened to all sides of this debate. I have listened carefully to what the member for Port Darwin said. At one level, taking away the political prism through which the member for Port Darwin has spoken on this, and some of the political elements and hyperbole, he had some very valid points. I listened carefully to what the members for Port Darwin and Nelson said. That is why, as the Leader of Government Business, I endeavoured to try to find a solution to the issues that have arisen. As the member for Nelson said, we are in unchartered waters.
As the member for Port Darwin acknowledged, since he had his initial briefing by the Clerk things have changed; the world has turned a few times since then, the position has changed, and this is now a minority government. That was also acknowledged by the member for Nelson. He also acknowledged we need to make arrangements so we can progress through estimates, pass the budget, and ensure supply.
In that spirit, I gave a number of assurances to the members for Nelson and Arafura, as follows:
1. No more than one minister will be an alternate member at a time.
At one level, that is probably the simplest aspect of conflict of interest. In the conversations I have had with the Clerk, he acknowledged that it is all complex but, out of all the issues, this is probably the simplest: when a minister has a direct conflict of interest because of their current portfolio. I also acknowledge that there would be situations, for example, when the Health portfolio is before the Public Accounts Committee, when it would not be appropriate for me, as a minister, to be on the committee and that another minister should alternate with me, because I have had that major portfolio area for the past 12 months. The government will be endeavouring, through its rostering arrangements, to address those important issues.
3. The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly will draft guidelines on conflict of interest for the PAC to consider.
I have asked the Clerk to be as quick as possible with this task. I have discussed this matter with the Chair of the PAC and he has agreed that we should get that before the PAC as soon as possible - meaning before estimates next week - so that we can have an initial meeting and then another meeting to work through some of those issues. I am sure the members opposite are going to raise a number of issues in relation to what they perceive as a conflict of interest. However, we have to be practical in this and look for direct links.
4. The government will refer to Standing Orders Committee in the August Sittings the matter of committees and committee membership.
This is something that the government has acknowledged. That is why, in this sittings of the parliament, the only nomination that has come forward in conforming with standing orders was the PAC and Estimates Committee, because that is the only committee that is meeting during this sittings of parliament. We recognise and have acknowledged that we need, as a parliament and as a Standing Orders Committee, to have some discussions about the makeup of committees.
Speaking briefly about a couple of issues the member for Fong Lim raised, I put more store in what the member for Port Darwin said than the offering by the member for Fong Lim. We are in politics and he raises political issues: that is what he does and that is how he sees his role. However, he has had a misunderstanding of what happens in the Estimates Committee within the Northern Territory parliament.
Since I have been here, member for Fong Lim, the government has viewed estimates as a major forum for the opposition and Independent members. It is very rare for a government member to ask a question or participate in the question sessions within the estimates process. Members opposite who have been through this before will acknowledge that, in the main, government members do not participate. The Chair, obviously, participates in adjudicating, moving us through the various output areas, and addressing matters to do with points of order or other issues that may have been raised. Member for Fong Lim, it is not the case that the government members ask many questions - you could probably count them on the fingers on one hand - during any estimates process, which is probably - I do not know - about 11 sessions or thereabouts.
I pick up on what the member for Araluen said about the time when the opposition had four members, and soldiered through estimates. I am the first to acknowledge that this was physically - and in every way - a great challenge for the opposition, even though it had two members that it could sub on and off. I acknowledge the effort and courage that the member for Araluen, the member for Greatorex, the former member for Greatorex, and the former member for Katherine - who was ill at the time - showed in getting through very long sessions.
The member for Fong Lim can say we baulk at work or whatever. He probably needs to talk to some of his colleagues who went through that time, day and night, to find out what a physical challenge it is. I am also laying on the table today, that there may be times - I am not talking about alternate members – when one of the other members - whether it be the member for Nhulunbuy or the Chair - needs a half-an-hour break to do whatever. I believe it is appropriate that someone else comes in and subs while they do whatever. I am putting that up-front. They might need to get something to eat, have a pit stop - whatever you want to call it – and I believe that is appropriate. For any deliberative session that is called, those members will have to return, because this government has given an undertaking that, in deliberative sessions, there will only will be one minister as an alternate member.
I hope that we can come to some agreement. This not only affects the government members, the two members of the PAC - the members for Fong Lim and Port Darwin - are also affected by this. One would hope that the opposition – and I believe that the government’s motion will be passed - take advantage of that, to give its members, where appropriate within its strategy, a break within the estimates process.
The government has given a number of undertakings, which I have read out and which are being tabled. As the government has stood by its word with the member for Nelson and the hooning legislation, CDL, and a number of other things it has dealt with, in this case the government will stand by its word. The challenge for the Public Accounts Committee is to look at the issue of potential conflict of interest in a realistic way. The government is happy to work with that regarding what happens next week during estimates, and in the longer term, in what happens within the Public Accounts Committee. The Clerk has already shared with me some ideas, which seem quite reasonable. He did flag that it is a complex issue, and I hope that, with goodwill, we can work through those particular issues.
Madam Speaker, for the reasons I have outlined, the government will not be supporting the amendment, but it will be standing by its commitments that I have tabled and spoken about. Nonetheless, the government will be voting for its substantive motion about alternate members on the Public Accounts Committee and Estimates Committee. I commend this motion to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two matters before the Chair. The first is the motion as moved by the Leader of Government Business, and the second is the amendment as moved by the member for Araluen. I will put the amendment first.
The question is the amendment, as moved by the member for Araluen, be now agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as moved by the Leader of Government Business, be now agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 14 Noes 11
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly, at its rising on 11 June 2009, adjourn until 4.30 pm on Friday, 19 June 2009, or at such other time as notified by the Speaker, with one hours notice being given to the Government and the Opposition Whips and members, of such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to the sessional order.
Madam Speaker and members of the House, this is a strictly procedural motion and I hope it will go through easily.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the motion.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Routine of Business - Friday 19 June 2009
Routine of Business - Friday 19 June 2009
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business for Friday 19 June 2009 be as follows:
(1) Prayers
(2) Petitions
(3) Notices
(4) Government Business – Notices
- (5) Government Business – Orders of the Day
- (a) In Committee: Report of the Estimates Committee consideration of the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41) and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee consideration of the financial and management practices of the Power and Water Corporation as referenced in its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2009-10; and
(b) remaining stages of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40) to be taken as a whole, put forthwith and without debate.
Once again, it is a procedural motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Once again, it has the support of this side of the House.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Budget Papers 2009-10
Note Paper – Budget Papers 2009-10
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Order of the Assembly dated 30 April 2009, the following Budget Papers 2009-10, together with the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41) be referred to the Estimates Committee for inquiry and report:
Budget Paper No 1 – Budget Speech, 2009-2010;
Budget Paper No 2 – Fiscal and Economic Outlook, 2009-2010;
Budget Paper No 3 – The Budget, 2009-2010;
Budget Paper No 4 – The Infrastructure Program 2009-2010;
Once again, it is a procedural motion and I will make it a hat trick.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): No bowling that I could produce would prevent him from scoring a hat trick, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that was a yes.
Motion agreed to.
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND STATUTORY OFFICERS (REMUNERATION AND OTHER ENTITLEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 45)
(Serial 45)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to return to the Remuneration Tribunal powers to set capacity-type entitlements for members of the Assembly. In 2006-07, the Remuneration Tribunal received legal advice from the Solicitor-General and the Solicitor for the Northern Territory that the tribunal does not, as was previously thought, have the authority to determine ‘capacity’ or non-personal remuneration entitlements relating to the provision of facilities in order to enable the performance of the functions of a member. This includes matters such as provision for electorate offices, staff, office equipment, motor vehicles, communications, postage, childcare, and travel entitlements, other than travel allowance.
In response to the legal advice that the tribunal could not determine these types of entitlements, two sets of administrative arrangements were tabled in the Assembly in 2007 to reinstate those entitlements. These arrangements comprehensively identified those matters outside the tribunal’s power and provided the Speaker with the authority to vary these capacity entitlements in respect of individual members, where warranted.
I note that no additional arrangements or entitlements have been granted by the Speaker to date. In 2008, the Speaker wrote to me, as Chief Minister, to express the view that the administrative arrangements and the division of entitlements, setting responsibility between the tribunal and the Speaker, was not an optimum arrangement. The Speaker requested that consideration be given to amending the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act to return these powers to the tribunal.
The government agreed that there were benefits in having the tribunal, as an independent expert body, resume responsibility for these entitlements, and this bill seeks to achieve this outcome.
The intention is to provide the tribunal with the power to set all MLA entitlements except basic salary, which is set by reference to federal parliamentary salaries; staffing, other than electorate staff for ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, Independent members and the Office of the Speaker; and office space, furniture and equipment provided to ministers, the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Independent members, and the Speaker in their Parliament House offices and any other non-electorate office accommodation.
I note that non-electorate staffing and accommodation and related entitlements have been the decision of the Chief Minister in the past, generally, in a budgetary context. It is proposed that these matters continue to be dealt with in this way.
The amendment bill contains a provision which enables the matters that the tribunal does not have the power to determine to be listed in regulations. This will give greater transparency to these matters while, at the same time, enable ease of updating the list to reflect changes in technology, etcetera.
I turn now to the key features of the bill. The bill contains an expanded definition of ‘entitlement’ to include capacity-type entitlements. To complement this definition, the bill proposes new clause 4(1B), which makes it clear that the tribunal has the power to determine capacity-type entitlements. This covers matters such as establishing or maintaining offices associated with the function of a member including: staffing and equipment; the payment or reimbursement amounts to cover expenses incurred in relation to the offices; official travel including travel for accompanying persons; motor vehicles; and certain childcare expenses.
The bill also contains a transitional and savings provision to ensure the existing capacity entitlements, determined by the Chief Minister, and tabled in the Assembly in February and November 2007, to continue to have effect until a determination by the tribunal for any such entitlement takes effect.
A further matter has been included in the bill in relation to resettlement entitlements for MLAs. In the tribunal’s 2007-08 determinations, provision was made for a resettlement allowance for MLAs elected at or since the June 2005 Northern Territory general election who (1) are not able to access a pension or superannuation benefit for their Assembly service immediately after ceasing to be an MLA, and (2) lose their seat or are not renominated by their party to contest their seat, except by reason of misconduct.
This allowance is designed to address the inequity in superannuation entitlements between members elected before the June 2005 general election and those elected at or since that time. The allowance provides a financial buffer for those persons not entitled to an immediate superannuation benefit in respect of their Assembly service in contemplation that the person may not immediately obtain new employment.
There is some doubt as to whether the tribunal has the power to determine entitlements for persons who are, in effect, no longer Assembly members. This clause seeks to make it clear that the tribunal has this power, and to provide a framework for the entitlement. The tribunal will continue to set the amount of the benefit through its annual determination for MLAs. This amount is currently the equivalent of 12 weeks of the basic members’ salary. The conditions under which a member will be entitled to such a benefit will be set by regulation. The regulations will reflect the conditions currently in the RTD, but prescribing this in a regulation rather than in the act will permit flexibility to modify the eligibility for the entitlement should legitimate new circumstances arise.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL
(Serial 47)
(Serial 47)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The main purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to various Northern Territory laws, including updating superseded references and correcting typographical errors, grammatical errors, and omissions. None of the amendments in the bill amount to changes in government policies or programs.
I now outline some of the amendments within the bill. The bill amends a number of pieces of legislation to reflect changes in the system of local government following the enactment of the Local Government Act in 2008. References to the ‘community government councils’ are, therefore, omitted from the Anti-Discrimination Act, AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act, Darwin Port Corporation Act, Energy Pipelines Act, Evidence Act, Gaming Machine Act, Liquor Act, and the Education (College and School Councils) Regulations. Where required, these references are substituted with references to ‘Local Government Shire Councils’.
The Electrical Workers and Contractors Act, Building Act, and Electricity Networks (Third Party Access) Act are all amended to omit references to the ‘Power and Water Authority’ and substitute with references to the ‘Power and Water Corporation’. The amendments result from the enactment of the Power and Water Corporation Act. Similarly, the bill updates references in the Crown Lands Act and Litter Act to omit ‘Conservation Commission’ and substitute it with the ‘Parks and Wildlife Commission’.
Section 5(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is amended to take into account the changed regime of motor vehicle fees and charges as a result of the introduction of the Motor Vehicles Fees and Charges Regulations.
Further, the bill omits the phrase, ‘unless the contrary intention appears’, from the definition sections of a number of acts. This amendment reflects current drafting practice and ensures consistency across the statute book. This amendment will have no change to the interpretation of the act, as currently, under section 18 of the Interpretation Act, the courts will apply interpretation provisions except so far as the context or subject matter otherwise indicates or requires.
A number of changes are also made to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Sections 81(8) and 81(15) of the act are amended to omit references to the repealed Companies Act and the National Companies and Securities Commission, and are replaced with references to the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
There are other amendments made by the bill which are of a very minor nature, and are generally self-explanatory. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PLUMBERS AND DRAINERS LICENSING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 39)
(Serial 39)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act to confirm, by declaration, the application of that act since 1 January 2001, and to validate the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under the act since that time.
The Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act commenced in 1983 and relies on the Water Supply and Sewerage Act for its application. On 1 January 2001, the Water Supply and Sewerage Act was repealed and replaced by the Water Supply and Sewerage Services Act. Recent legal advice is that the jurisdiction of the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act is unclear due to the repeal of the Water Supply and Sewerage Act. The bill, when passed, will place the jurisdiction of the act beyond doubt and give certainty to the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Board, the plumbing industry, and the community.
The bill removes all references to the repealed Water Supply and Sewerage Act, and has a new application provision that does not refer to another act. The sewerage districts, water districts, sewered areas, and water supply areas declared under the repealed Water Supply and Sewerage Act, to which the existing application section refers, have evolved between 1983 and 2000. The declarations of the districts and areas during this period appear in numerous Gazette notices by technical descriptions using a combination of lot numbers, areas, points, bearings, and lengths. The bill has a provision that declares that these districts and areas continued to apply on 1 January 2001.
The bill defines these districts and areas as ‘relevant areas’. These relevant areas will apply during a prescribed period, which is from 1 January 2001 to the commencement of the proposed amendment act. Therefore, new declarations will be required concurrent with the commencement of the proposed amendment act.
The distinctions between water and sewerage districts and areas are not required for the purposes of the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act. Accordingly, the bill introduces a new term, ‘Plumbing Licence Area’. The new application provision applies the act to plumbing licence areas. The bill provides for the minister to declare plumbing licence areas by Gazette notice. The bill also provides that a plumbing licence area may be defined on a map or plan.
Current practice in similar cases - for example, building areas and planning scheme zones - is to use compiled plans prepared by the Surveyor-General which have legal status. This provides a product that is more readable and better understood by the user, and is more efficient as a record of the facts, particularly for recording amendments. The compiled plans for the proposed plumbing licence areas are based on the districts and areas as defined by the numerous technical descriptions in Gazettes before 31 December 2000. The end result will be clear plans that define the application of the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act.
Provisions in the act refer to inspectors and approvals that no longer exist due to the commencement of the private certification under the Building Act in 1993. At that time, the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Act was not amended to reflect these changes. Accordingly, these provisions have been updated in the bill to reflect current practice.
The bill provides for Authorised Officers and defines them by reference to the Building Act. Authorised Officers will carry out functions, such as audit and investigation, that remained the role of the Building Advisory Services Branch in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure after private certification commenced.
The opportunity has been taken to make other minor changes on advice from Parliamentary Counsel. These changes relate to current drafting practices and include changes in numbering style, changes from penalty to maximum penalty, change of the reference act in the definition of apprentice, and changes to section 43 to confine it to work carried out under the act.
However, there are several significant policy issues relating to plumbing regulation in the Territory that need to be addressed in the future. A full review is proposed in due course. Such a review will provide an opportunity to address policy and operational concerns with the act and to examine the plumbing licence areas in light of the building areas declared under the Building Act.
In the meantime, this bill preserves the status quo and provides the legal certainty the industry and the community requires. Industry and the Plumbers and Drainers Licensing Board have continued to operate on the assumption that there is jurisdiction and no persons have been prosecuted during the time of uncertainty.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
PAYROLL TAX BILL
(Serial 42)
(Serial 42)
Continued from 6 May 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, we will be doing nothing to stand in the way of the passage of this bill. Payroll tax is one of those taxes which everyone hates except the Treasurer. I understand the necessity of the payroll tax arrangements from a Treasury point of view, despite the fact that I am no great lover of payroll tax.
Payroll tax is an unusual tax because it is a tax on an employer for employing a person. In this jurisdiction, as in every other jurisdiction, the state government taxes people for employing other people. There are thresholds involved, and there are tax rates which are slightly different in each jurisdiction. Those thresholds cover the overall size of the payroll. I believe it is $1.25m at the moment - someone nod. A $1.25m threshold, is that right? If a company’s payroll is $1.25m or more, then it has to pay a payroll tax, which I believe is currently 6.7% or thereabouts, and the government or the state level government receives a little money from it. It is one of the major earners for many jurisdictions. In each jurisdiction, each state level instrument is different.
In the Northern Territory, many of the institutions which have a payroll larger than $1.25m are organisations which operate not only in this jurisdiction, but also other jurisdictions. A little history is that once upon a time, even income tax in Australia was levied by the states; it was not levied by the Commonwealth.
I believe it was during World War II when the states started handing over the very lucrative income tax - which is a tax levied on a person for drawing an income - over to the Commonwealth. It would be a politically courageous government which would stand up today and argue or insist that the powers to levy income tax be returned to the states. It is so institutionalised now at the Commonwealth level that such an arrangement would not only be politically courageous but also would be administratively very difficult to unpick, in the 60 years since World War II.
Therefore, states turned to this rather surprising tax, as time passed. To tax an employer for employing people always struck me as an unusual tax. Knowing employers as I do - and many of them do have payrolls of greater than the $1.25m threshold - it is not a tax which is popular amongst employers. I am sure the government acknowledges that.
However, without entering into a long debate about the philosophical constructs of payroll tax and whether it should exist, this act is, basically, designed to reflect the acts in a universal way across all jurisdictions. The effect of this legislative instrument is that, if a person who is doing payroll in Western Australia for people who work in the Northern Territory or for South Australia, they do not have to pick up a different legislation; they can read their own legislation. Whilst the rates and the thresholds might be slightly different, the rest of the instrument will operate in very much the same fashion.
In accordance with making it a little easier for companies to pay tax, this is a commonsense approach. It is supported by the opposition and, whilst I am not a great lover of payroll tax for the reasons outlined, we understand that this small gesture towards business goes some way to making business a little easier.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. The Payroll Tax Bill 2009 will enact new payroll tax legislation and repeal the existing Pay-Roll Tax Act. This bill will reduce costs to business and reduce red tape. It delivers on a national commitment to reduce payroll tax red tape and compliance costs.
The goal of the national harmonisation project is to see that the legislation and administration of payroll tax is as consistent as possible across all states and territories. All governments taking part in the project have agreed they retain autonomy to continue to set their own tax rates and thresholds. That is fundamental. This autonomy allows for a competitive tax environment for each state to set rates and thresholds at levels which allows it to raise appropriate revenue to fund the services it provides.
As the Treasurer explained in the second reading speech, the new act will be identical as far as possible to the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian acts, and is consistent with the payroll tax legislation existent in Queensland.
This bill will see some significant policy changes for the Territory. It moves the question of the payment of payroll tax provisions for the labour services of contractors from a common law test to a clear set of relevant contract provisions within this legislation. I understand, through the Treasurer, that the Territory Construction Association and the Housing Industry Association are both supportive of the introduction of the relevant contract provisions.
It will extend the current payroll tax exemption for wages paid by public benevolent and religious institutions so it is also available to all charities other than universities and commercial activities. This extends the current exemption for public benevolent institutions to employees exclusively engaged in work of a kind ordinarily performed in connection to religious, charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or even patriotic purposes. A worthwhile objective, I am sure we all agree.
It will also introduce a payroll tax exemption for wages paid to employees participating in voluntary work for bushfires and emergency relief, and an exemption for wages paid as maternity and adoption leave for a maximum 14 weeks. This benefits both employers and employees and enables employees to engage in voluntary work and emergency relief work, which I am sure many of our members have experienced in their electorates.
The legislation will not impose payroll tax on wages paid by employment agencies to temporary staff in certain circumstances where the wages would be exempt if paid directly by the client. This seems very sensible. For example, when the client is a public hospital or charity, the NT currently imposes payroll tax on such payments.
Harmonisation with payroll tax laws across Australia benefits the 83% of payroll tax registered businesses in the NT who also employ people interstate. It will deliver payroll tax savings for businesses of about $1.3m. Added to the $1.7m a year saving as a result of 2008 harmonisation measures, the first stage of the project, businesses should see total payroll tax savings of about $3m. I believe this will encourage further development of the Territory economy.
It is important to note that, with the combination of the NT’s tax rate and its very high tax-rate-free threshold of $1.25m, the second highest in Australia, the Territory has a very competitive payroll tax scheme. We are the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia for small business. In the current economic climate all measures benefiting business are welcome – the flow-on effects and employment are very important at this time.
The Treasurer is doing an excellent job managing the budget and the taxation base, but there is always more to do, which is why we are debating this bill. I support this bill. It will reduce the compliance burden on business and that protects Territory jobs across all sectors of our economy.
I believe more exemptions for maternity leave and adoption leave, with the continuation of the exemption for apprentices, will encourage increased workforce participation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure there is a formula which says that the length of the speech is inversely proportional to the complications and thickness of the bill before the House. The Payroll Tax Bill is one of those. The member for Fannie Bay just showed me how complicated and large this particular bill is. It is something for insomniacs because it takes a fair amount to go through. If you are into algebra, you can also find some relief in reading the Payroll Tax Bill, because there are some equations in it that would make my old maths teacher, from many years ago, turn over in his grave.
When you see formulas like this to help work out the payroll of an employer over the threshold - which is [TW-[TW over TW + IW x TA x C over FY]] x R - one wonders how complicated the world is, when all we are doing is taking tax from an employer. I can see why employers must find it very difficult to run their businesses when you have fairly detailed and complicated formulas to work out your tax.
I survived reading most of it; I did get lost in the different types of groups, but I stumbled my way through. There are some interesting areas in relation to non-profit organisations and various matters. I will ask some questions during estimates, but one area I thought was interesting related to clause 47 on page 28 under the heading ‘Agreement etc. to reduce or avoid liability to payroll tax’. Part of this clause stood out - bearing in mind what the member for Port Darwin is going to talk about in another bill – and I quote clause 47(3):
- The notice must set out the facts on which the Commissioner relies and the reasons for the determination.
This is interesting. The bill is discussing avoidance measures a company might put in place, and perhaps doing that through various transactions. The commissioner does not just have to say he is satisfied there could be something untoward, he has to say: ‘These are the facts and these are the reasons I have made my determination’.
I highlight that now, because we are dealing with this particular tax at the moment, but I believe it is relevant to an interesting debate, that I am sure is going to come up, regarding stamp duty tax. It seems to me that was a much fairer application of the law in relation to whether someone had deliberately tried to avoid paying payroll tax.
I do have some other questions, which are not anything serious. I thank the minister for the briefing. Every time I see those two gentlemen, I go in the other direction. Since reading the Payroll Tax Bill, I wake up at night with nightmares, but I will eventually get over it. It is a complicated bill. It is not the easiest thing in the world. I will have to stick to planning and things more sane …
Ms Purick: More sexy things.
Mr WOOD: Yes, sane things, where logic applies. This is in the area of spiritualism and mystics.
It is obviously needed for the Territory because, basically, it has - using one of these ‘in’ words – harmonised - we used to do that in the Darwin Chorale, I was not very good at it. However, that is what they are doing; they are harmonising. I can see those two gentlemen over there harmonising. They are harmonising this with the other states so that, generally speaking, issues relating to payroll tax which apply in the Territory will apply in other states. That is good, especially when you are dealing with companies that work throughout Australia, which do not want to have a whole pile of regimes that make life complicated for them.
Madam Speaker, I see the benefits in this bill and I will support it. I will raise the other issues I have in the committee stage.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their support for the Payroll Tax Bill, which puts in place initiatives that were announced in the Territory Budget for 2009-10.
As you heard from members, key to it is our commitment to the national project that reduces payroll tax, red tape, and compliance costs for businesses. It is a rare thing in payroll tax. We know business does not like it, but we also know it is a necessary taxation regime at the state and territory government level, but we do what we can to ensure that we are reducing red tape for business and reducing its compliance costs.
The bill before us includes the second stage of a process that began in 2008, in the harmonisation of our own payroll tax legislation with all the other states in eight key areas. The bill puts in place payroll tax legislation that is almost identical with legislation in New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania. South Australia has recently passed legislation that adopts full harmonisation from 1 July 2009, and it is also consistent with legislation in Queensland.
This is an especially important move in the Territory, because about 83% of payroll tax registered businesses in the Territory also employ interstate, meaning that most will enjoy the benefits of the consistent legislation. On top of the red tape reduction, this bill will result in payroll tax savings for businesses of about $1.3m. This adds to the $1.7m a year savings as a result of the 2008 harmonisation measures. Businesses will then see a total payroll tax saving of some $3m.
Reducing the compliance burden on business is part of the government’s goal of protecting Territory jobs across all sectors of our economy. In addition, we believe new exemptions for what was going to be maternity leave and adoption leave, along with the continuation of the exemption for apprentices, may also encourage increased workforce participation.
I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution to the bill. I give notice that I intend to move a committee stage amendment to the bill, based on an excellent suggestion by the member for Port Darwin, to introduce a paternity leave exemption on the same terms as the maternity leave exemption in this bill.
The bill also provides for provisions - which were road tested with the TCA and the HIA in terms of harmonisation before adopting them - looking at providing employers with a set of practical tests that approximate the common law employer/employee test. All states other than Western Australia have relevant contract provisions. These provisions have been in place since the 1980s in Victoria and New South Wales. The Territory Construction Association and the Housing Industry Association were consulted prior to taking these measures to my Cabinet colleagues. Both were supportive of the introduction of these relevant contract provisions.
Madam Speaker, I will be moving a committee stage amendment introducing paternity leave exemptions. I point out that there were other matters - and I thank the member for Nelson for obtaining a briefing – and initiatives which are also important; for example, the charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose in the payroll tax exemption. This initiative ensures that the terms are not defined and they take their ordinary meaning. It is an extension of the current exemption that exists for public benevolent institutions. For example, an organisation may be philanthropic because it donates to benevolent institutions that provide direct aid to those in need, rather than providing the aid directly itself. Examples of this might include the Myer Foundation or Philanthropy Australia. I have previously worked for an organisation in the disability area which relied solely on philanthropic donations.
Examples of patriotic organisations, which would now enjoy an exemption to payroll tax, might include the various veterans’ organisations or the RSL, with the exemption provided in respect of employees exclusively engaged in work of a kind ordinarily performed in connection with the religious, charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose of the organisation.
I know the member for Nelson had some questions in relation to clauses 47 and 59. I am assuming the member wants to deal with them in committee but I can talk about them now, if it helps ...
Mr Wood: It would have to be through the Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 47, dealing with payroll tax and the avoidance measures, replicates section 11(a) in the current Pay-Roll Tax Act. Section 11(a) has been part of the act since 1985. The exact clause is part of the harmonised payroll tax scheme and is in the harmonised acts of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, and a similar provision is in all other state and territory payroll tax legislation.
Payroll tax is triggered when there is an employer and employee relationship, where the business engages the worker directly and the worker receives wages. One scheme for avoiding payroll tax is for the worker and the business to agree to pay another person who is related or connected to the worker. Clause 47 allows the commission to disregard this arrangement and treat the payment as if it is wages and, thus, subject to payroll tax. A common example is where a business engages a company related to the worker, yet the worker provides the services for the business, instead of the business engaging the worker directly to provide the services.
The member for Nelson also had queries in relation to clause 59, Local government business entities. The exact provision is part of the harmonised payroll tax scheme and is in the harmonised acts of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania. The current payroll tax has an exemption for local government. The bill provides the same exemption, but adds additional rules for local government subsidiaries, to ensure a local government body cannot exploit the exemption.
Clauses 58 and 59 provide an exemption in the Payroll Tax Bill for local government entities including any wholly owned subsidiary. Clause 59 provides that the exemption for the subsidiary has two requirements, being: it can only relate to an activity on behalf of a local government authority, and there is a requirement that the payroll tax equivalent is paid to the holding local government body.
The first condition stops the local government body using the exemption to conduct non-local government commercial activities. This means a local government body cannot use a subsidiary to venture into other non-local government business areas without paying payroll tax. This ensures there is a level playing field between a local government subsidiary and the private sector.
The second condition ensures the local government subsidiary obtains the exemption when performing local government activities, although the cost of payroll tax is to be included in the costs of the subsidiary. This provides competitive neutrality with other businesses that may tender for local government work.
I know that the member for Nelson may have further questions, but I wanted to put on the record the advice I have received in relation to those two aspects.
We have heard that the Territory has a very high tax-free threshold of $1.25m, the second highest in Australia. Basically, we have calculated that for businesses with wages up to $5m, the Territory has the most competitive payroll tax scheme, as it has either the lowest or second lowest effective payroll tax rate.
The government has an election commitment to reduce the payroll tax rate from 5.9% to 5.5% during this term. This is still a commitment we have, and the $10m reduction in payroll tax is set out in the forward estimates. We already reduced the payroll tax rate from 6.2% to 5.9% in 2008. We also increased the tax-free threshold from $600 000 to the high limit area where it is now, at $1.25m. Essentially, payroll tax is paid by large businesses operating in the Territory; the small businesses are out of the payroll tax realm.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and we will go into committee for a committee stage amendment for payroll tax exemptions for paternity leave.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Payroll Tax Bill 2009 Serial 42, together with the Schedule of Amendments No 14, circulated by the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie.
Clauses 1 to 52, by leave, taken together.
Mr WOOD: I was going to talk about clause 48.
Madam CHAIR: Yes, you are welcome to do that.
Mr WOOD: Treasurer, my questions are not too in-depth. You mentioned before patriotic, yet there is no definition of patriotic. I did not know whether someone who sells many Aussie flags, koala bears and echidnas is a patriotic business. How do you define what is patriotic and what is not, and why is there not a definition in the act?
Ms LAWRIE: All the exemption definitions - for example, benevolent - are based on common meanings. The Commissioner for Taxation ultimately makes a decision on that, but ‘patriotic’ is taken as its common meaning. I used examples like veterans organisations and the RSL, which would fall within the recognition of that definition.
Mr WOOD: On another matter, where you have a charitable, non-profit organisation that operates second-hand clothing stores, like Red Cross, St Vincent de Paul, those sorts of places, do they come under any of this bracket? In theory, they are profit organisations if they are making money from the business.
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised that where they are exclusively engaged in benevolent work they fall within the exemption. Where they compete against other stores, they may not.
Mr WOOD: If there is a private, second-hand clothing store in Darwin, for instance, and there are religious or benevolent institutions also involved in second-hand clothing, would they then have to pay payroll tax?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised it is about whether they are exclusively engaged. I am loath to make calls that a Commissioner for Taxation might more properly make. I will give the example of the benevolent institutions such as the Red Cross and the second-hand clothes stores they operate. My understanding of their operation is they are largely run by volunteers. Staff who may be involved in the operation of second-hand store would, potentially, be involved in other aspects of the Red Cross operation and, therefore, a Commissioner of Taxation would look at that and it may, indeed, meet the test of benevolent in the full extent.
Mr WOOD: The decision about who pays what is the commissioner’s job, who makes a decision based on investigation of the particular enterprise. Is that right?
Ms LAWRIE: In the first instance, there would have to be a claim in that regard for a VAT exemption from the benevolent institution. The test would be applied by the Commissioner for Taxation.
Clauses 1 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move amendment 14.1. I propose the following amendments to the Payroll Tax Bill 2009 with changes in section 3 that provide a payroll tax exemption for wages paid or payable to an employee for maternity leave or adoption leave, and to Schedule 2 of the bill which contains a number of Northern Territory specific provisions. We believe the maternity and adoption leave exemptions in proposed section 53 will provide an incentive for Territory employers to provide paid maternity and adoption leave for their employees. This may encourage increased workforce participation, especially by women.
Following the introduction of the bill, the member for Port Darwin wrote to me suggesting that this exemption should be extended to paternity leave. We believe this is an excellent suggestion, and one that the government is very pleased to adopt. As a result, Schedule 2 of the bill is to be amended to introduce a payroll tax exemption for wages paid for paternity leave for a maximum period of 14 weeks of wages. A note is to be inserted into the proposed section 53 to signal that an exemption for paternity leave is contained in Schedule 2 of the bill. This note also advises that a paternity leave exemption is not included in the payroll tax legislation of all other jurisdictions. I thank the member for Port Darwin for his contribution, and I commend the amendments that have been circulated to honourable members of the parliament.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I acknowledge the Treasurer’s flexibility in relation to this matter. I have lost a bet, however. There you go, that happens. I cannot really claim to have thought of this. We are served by people who work diligently in our offices; this was pointed out to me as an issue by someone else - Francine, well done, and I am grateful to her for pointing it out. If I was to claim ownership of this exclusively, it would be remiss of me, and I shall not do so. However, it is a fair and sensible amendment within the scheme of the legislation. I am grateful for the acknowledgement from the government for where it has come from, and I also acknowledge the real source.
Madam Chair, I indicate to the government our full support for this particular amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 116, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 14.2.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 43)
PENALTY UNITS BILL
(Serial 44)
(Serial 43)
PENALTY UNITS BILL
(Serial 44)
Continued from 6 May 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in responding to this bill, it is an occasion that I have cause to express my ongoing irritation at a practice in this House which has been continued in relation to this bill.
The practice I refer to is that of ‘omnibusing’ bills to change different parts of legislation, when those items of legislation which are being proposed to be amended have very little bearing on each other. This is one of those examples. I am always a little cautious when I see these omnibus-type bills come in because they contain an inherent political trap.
I was still receiving advice when I gave notice yesterday of a motion which I will be moving shortly, or at the completion of the second reading debate. It is an ongoing thing - it has been a moving feast for me - gaining advice on this. I have received Treasury briefings in relation to the bill, as well as briefings from outside Treasury by people in the industry who have to work with these legislative amendments. That is why I gave notice yesterday that I may be moving a motion. I can now indicate that I shall be moving the motion. The motion seeks to separate one of the legislative instruments which is incorporated in this bill.
This bill effectively changes three items of legislation, in relation to penalties: the Taxation Administration Act, the Stamp Duty Act, and the First Home Owner Grant Act. One could be forgiven for thinking, on first blush, it would be appropriate to change those three elements of legislation in the same bill because they would relate to each other - buy a house, pay stamp duty, some taxation implications flow from it.
However, there is very little that is similar between what is sought to be passed by the First Home Owner Grant Act and what is sought to be changed in the Stamp Duty Act. I appreciate and understand that the First Home Owner Grant Act is to be amended to enable the Commonwealth’s First Home Owner Grants to operate in the Northern Territory. I definitely have no objection to those. I have some concerns that I have expressed that in the past, but I am not interested in challenging these particular amendments before the House in relation to the First Home Owner Grant Act.
My concern flows from amendments to the Stamp Duty Act. I am now stuck in the precarious situation - and this is the political problem I was referring to - of wanting to pass one part of this legislation, and wanting to challenge or question another part of the legislative instrument. But, because it is a single legislative instrument changing three bills, I am stuck with this horrible situation where I either have to vote for something I do not agree with, or vote against something I do agree with. That is the annoying problem that comes up when we omnibus bills.
Whilst I accept that, from time to time, this process is necessary; it is necessary in those environments where the change to one legislative instrument automatically and completely has an effect on another legislative instrument, and they have to be bound together because they are almost indistinguishable. You have situations when, for example, you change the law of de facto relationships, which would affect 40 or 50 different pieces of legislation, and you roll them all up into one and pass it as a single package.
However, in this instance, the Stamp Duty Act is trying to deal with a tax avoidance scheme which has nothing to do with First Home Owner Grants. I am now stuck with a situation where I am challenged by a problem I have with the Stamp Duty Act, whilst I want to pass the first homeowner amendments.
I will now draw the members’ attention to the concerns that I have in relation to the Stamp Duty Act. Never come between a tax man and the people they are trying to tax, because governments have to fund themselves. I have used the phrase before: governments are addicted to taxation income - and that is entirely true. Governments will seek to raise revenue by all manner of taxations, levies, and goodness knows what else, and I do not have a major problem with that, because governments need to function.
However, there is an element which seems to permeate taxation law more than any other form of legislative instrument: the arbitrary powers given to Taxation Commissioners. I draw your attention particularly to federal taxation law and, I suppose, Northern Territory taxation law. Part of the changes to the Stamp Duty Act were described by the Treasurer in her second reading speech, and I quote the Treasurer:
- The bill also addresses a stamp duty avoidance scheme that enables a person to obtain control over the landholding entity without obtaining any entitlement to the property of the entity on its winding-up. As such, a person can take control of a landholding entity and gain indirect ownership of the land while avoiding paying landholder stamp duty.
This avoidance scheme has already been used at least once in the Northern Territory and, if the legislation is not amended to close this loophole, it is possible that this practice could become more widespread, potentially costing the Territory significant lost revenue.
The proposed anti-avoidance amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions because there are no commercial reasons for framing a transaction in this manner other than to avoid stamp duty.
It takes a little reading but you get there eventually. I go to the explanatory notes, where the Treasurer was referring to the introduction of section 56CA, which is clause 25 of the bill. At this point it says, and I quote from the explanatory notes:
- This clause inserts a new section 56CA, which is the provision that addresses a stamp duty avoidance scheme.
The scheme to which the Treasurer was referring in the second reading speech:
- The existing landholder provisions rely on a person having an entitlement to the property of a land-holding corporation or trust on its winding up. The detected avoidance scheme is based on obtaining control of the corporation or trust without gaining an entitlement to the corporation’s or trust’s property (or by reducing that entitlement).
- (1) This section applies if the Commissioner is satisfied …
I will stop there because that is the expression I wish to refer to. Having read the Stamp Duty Act, and trying to get my head around it, the expression ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’ is a common expression in the legislative instrument. You will find it peppered all the way through - I guess it would be there about 40 or 50 times. For a determination of whether a commissioner will go after a particular type of sting, it is the commissioner’s decision to determine whether a scheme is an avoidance scheme.
What does the commissioner think about when they are making such a determination about an anti-avoidance scheme? I turn to section 4B(1) of the act, Tax avoidance schemes, on page 16. Without reading it all, a tax avoidance:
… scheme includes:
(a) an agreement, arrangement or undertaking:
It is a fairly broad definition. In short, whatever the commissioner reckons is probably a better definition to apply to the Taxation Commissioner.
I am not suggesting for a second that the Taxation Commissioner should be deprived of the capacity to look at a particular scheme and say: ‘Goodness gracious me, that one has hairs on it; it looks like an avoidance scheme’. However, by creating a legislative instrument in which we use the expression ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’, we are placing in the commissioner’s orbit a power to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Perhaps I should demonstrate an equivalent. For arguments sake, if a liquor inspector walked into a pub and thought: ‘Goodness gracious me, I am looking at a crime or an offence against the Liquor Act’. The Liquor Commissioner does not shut the thing down; it goes through the Liquor Commission which, essentially, sits as a court, and another body determines the guilt or innocence of the licensee. It is, ultimately, a court which determines the guilt or innocence of the breach of the legislation.
That does not occur when we are dealing with the Taxation Commissioner. All the Taxation Commissioner needs, in their orbit of influence, is to merely be satisfied. If the commissioner is satisfied it is an avoidance scheme, a person who has a scheme identified finds themselves going to court to demonstrate that they are not operating a tax avoidance scheme.
It would require some letters between the Taxation Department and various lawyers and financial representatives but, ultimately, the determination is made by the commissioner, not an independent arbiter. This is where I come into conflict with the act, because where you see the term ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’, throughout the Stamp Duty Act, more often than not - not always - in the Stamp Duty Act the expression ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’ takes on the flavour of a shield. Which means that where the ‘Commissioner is satisfied’ appears, there is some taxation law applied fully towards a particular taxpayer which would lead to an unjust outcome. The commissioner, if satisfied that would happen, could place a shield between the tax and the taxpayer. In that form, the commissioner’s satisfaction is an extension of what you would call a common law power of discretion which is enjoyed by all people who are administrators.
However, there are on occasions in the legislation, where ‘the Commissioner is satisfied’ takes the form of an offensive weapon - a sword if you like, rather than a shield. In that instance, the commissioner will determine that something is an avoidance scheme. That is what occurs in this particular instance. I note comments made by the member for Nelson, in the legislative instrument prior to this, that there were greater restraints in that legislative instrument than are expressed here.
What I was intending to do, after trying to separate the bills from each other, was to bring in an amendment which would read: ‘this section applies if the commissioner can demonstrate to a court’. This would have to occur twice in that section. I received some advice on this issue, and it would be difficult to go down that path in such an arbitrary fashion. I do not intend to do that. I intend to, during the committee stages of this bill, appeal to the Treasurer to go back and look at this. The reason I say this is simple, and it comes from the Treasurer’s own words, which I quoted earlier, and I quote again:
- The proposed anti-avoidance amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions because there are no commercial reasons for framing a transaction in this manner other than to avoid stamp duty.
This means it is easy to prove. According to the Treasurer, you can pick one of these avoidance schemes a mile away; they are easily identified; you can pick one and see what it is. Therefore, why do we default to this standard process of saying: ‘The commissioner just determines it, go and prove your innocence’? We have a system of law which presumes, as a general rule - with the exception of tax law and a couple of other laws - that you are innocent until proven guilty. A commissioner simply determines this is a tax avoidance scheme. If it is easy to prove, then why not prove it to a court? It would be a fairer way to go about this ...
Ms Lawrie: Give the lawyers more money.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on the interjection. One of the people in industry I have spoken to …
Ms Lawrie: One person in industry is opposed to this? One?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You do not even know what I am going to say, do you? One of the people I spoke to has a client who spent tens of thousands of dollars dealing with a determination over a two-year period; it was difficult for that person. It is well and good for the executive arm of government and its public service to say: ‘This is how we go about these things’. However, there is a real implication that when these determinations are made it costs the taxpayer thousands to fend one of these things off. It is quite conceivable that the Taxation Office may choose, at some point along the road, to discontinue an audit, for argument’s sake, but not before the taxpayer has parted with $10 000 or $20 000 seeking legal advice on that particular audit. There is a legal cost which is automatically incurred by the taxpayer because of a determination by the Taxation Commissioner.
However, there is not necessarily a legal cost if the Tax Commissioner says: ‘Hang on, if there is an element of doubt about this particular avoidance scheme, maybe I should not proceed, because I have to prove it to the court’. In those instances, it is more likely that a taxpayer would not incur thousands of dollars of legal costs than the current system and what is being proposed. Because it is such an easy thing to identify - the Treasurer said you can spot these transactions a mile away:
There are no commercial reasons for framing a transaction in this manner other than to avoid stamp duty.
This is easy. You can spot one of these blokes. If that is the case, reverse the onus. It will not be hard to prosecute. Police officers and other government departments run prosecutions all the time. We should be sending a signal to the business community which addresses a growing concern that there is a certain arbitrary nature to the way these revenues are collected.
Other advice I have received deals more generally with taxation and revenue-raising measures, and they have concerns about the increasing difficulty in advising clients of legislative instruments which are nebulous in their intent. If you need a descriptor of what is nebulous, go back to the definition of tax avoidance schemes: whatever, wherever, whether unilateral, bilateral, multilateral, whether enforceable or not. That is fairly nebulous, and in a tax environment, particularly those people who give tax advice, we have to be careful that the pursuit of revenue does not subordinate the proper processes of a clear and certain approach to taxation collection. Whilst revenue is important - I acknowledge that - I have reservations about that section.
During the committee stages, I will ask that we defer this and send it back to a drafter to try to find language which reflects the comments I have made. I ask honourable members to turn their minds to this issue because I believe in the principle that we have a duty to the community we serve to pass good law which protects its interests as much as the government’s interests.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for allowing me to have a briefing on stamp duty, which is a fairly complicated business. I wonder why. As I said at the briefing, all you are doing is trying to receive some tax from the sale of a block of land. That little equation seems to head off in countless directions, which means that you have to have some complicated legislation to trace who is liable for what and who is not liable for what. It is a pity that we cannot simplify some of these complicated processes.
Of course, there are people who try to avoid paying tax - not only payroll tax, but other forms of tax. I compare what the member for Port Darwin was talking about, and what clause 47 in the Payroll Tax Bill says. I read clause 47 in the payroll tax section so that I have an understanding of it – and what appears to me is a different approach to determining if someone is avoiding their responsibility. Clause 47 states:
(1) If any person enters into any agreement, transaction or arrangement, whether in writing or otherwise, under which an individual performs, for or on behalf of another person, services in respect of which any payment is made to some other person related or connected to the individual performing the services and the effect of the agreement, transaction or arrangement is to reduce or avoid the liability of any person to the assessment, imposition or payment of payroll tax, the Commissioner may:
(2) If the Commissioner makes a determination under subsection (1), the Commissioner must serve a notice to that effect on the person taken to be an employer for this Act.
(3) The notice must spell out the facts on which the commissioner relies and the reasons for the determination and, for this section, has effect in relation to agreements, transactions and arrangements made before, on or after the commencement of this section.
Then I look at the section the member for Port Darwin raised in relation to an avoidance scheme. Section 56CA of the act states:
(1) This section applies if the Commissioner is satisfied:
(a) any of the following entitlements of a person is reduced (including reduced to nil) as a direct or indirect result of the arrangement:
(i) an entitlement in the distribution of the property of a corporation as a shareholder on the winding up of the corporation as described in section 56C(6);
(2) Unless the Commissioner is satisfied the arrangement is not a tax avoidance scheme or part of a tax avoidance scheme:
I am asking these questions to get an answer; these are not easy bills to go through. I see that there appears to be two different approaches to the avoidance of tax.
I do not want to go into more detail about the bill. That is my main concern. I also had a briefing with the member for Port Darwin about this matter. Once again, I thank the minister for the briefing; it is not the easiest stuff for people to go through. I believe that is the case when people keep trying to think up strange ways of avoiding tax. It would be nice if we could eventually simplify some of these things, but I suppose I might be utopian in my approach to this when, in reality, that cannot happen.
I am interested in your answers to the query about the commissioner’s satisfaction regarding tax avoidance.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will address the matters raised in the contribution by the members for Port Darwin and Nelson in my wrap up now, recognising that the member for Port Darwin has flagged a motion and I have flagged that the government will not support this motion. We will go to that debate at the end of the second reading.
I thank the members for their contribution to debate and for receiving a briefing from Treasury officials. As everyone recognises, this legislation is complex and, I believe, availing themselves of those briefings helps other matters - that will not necessarily be the subject of the committee stage debate and discussion - be understood in the context in which they are being provided and brought forward.
We have a series of amendments to our revenue legislation, and some I recognise by the comments from members opposite, will be contested, particularly the anti-avoidance measures on stamp duty. But others, I see from the contributions, have been seen as reasonable and accepted. Leon Loganathan, the warrior of tax lawyers, actually thanked me, recognising that we have picked up some of the provisions from industry suggestions in some of the stamp duty changes we were making in this revenue legislation, particularly regarding whether someone was entering a contract, etcetera.
Not everything my taxation specialists in Treasury do is evil. I recognise, as the member for Port Darwin said, along the lines of ‘do not stand in the way of a taxation revenue person and the revenue’. I have found, on the whole, genuine willingness and interest from Treasury officials in discussions at the end of a calendar year on some of the options for a fairer tax regime that I want them to consider in the construction of a budget. I believe the revenue legislation before us recognises this; where they see areas emerging that are of significant concern to revenue officials, particularly areas of avoidance - and as long as there is a taxation lawyer, there will be avoidance schemes.
From time to time, every Treasurer in this House, looking at budget measures, will be closing the latest loophole a taxation lawyer has found - a gross avoidance scheme - to ensure the jurisdiction’s revenue is protected. I make no apology for the measures before the House at the moment. Closing a loophole around a gross avoidance measure which, on my advice, has only been used once in the Territory, I believe is an indication of just how gross this avoidance measure has been. Appropriate action has been taken by Treasury officials on my request to bring forward changes to appropriately deal with this avoidance measure.
We have received feedback from industry; the industry was consulted. We have held discussions and their revenue circulars have gone out. There was general acceptance that this was a gross avoidance measure and they have no problem. There is one person, in a taxation/legal practitioner sense, who is highly offended by it. I do not question that because they are making a great deal of money. This individual worked very hard in a smart way to create this avoidance measure and would have made a lot of money continuing the avoidance measure. I see that someone out there is not happy with this.
However, as Treasurer, I will defend the Territory’s revenue base and listen to what I have found to be very reasonable, practical, and sensible officials of Treasury, in revenue, who recognise where gross avoidance circumstances are occurring.
There are a range of revenue measures in the legislation and also the new Penalty Units Act, which puts in place a number of initiatives that I announced in the budget. The revenue legislation provides a range of reforms that increase taxation equity but also reduce red tape. A key proposal is to improve the equity and simplicity of the landholder stamp duty provisions. The Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill will ensure that stamp duty is payable for the acquisition of valuable landholdings of large listed companies and trusts, when such an entity becomes the subject of a takeover or merger.
Thank you, Western Australia; it was the first jurisdiction to go down this path; I have had a look. I did not do it last year. I did consider it, but I wanted to be more prudent and see what would occur in Western Australia and what attitude the Commonwealth Treasury would take to this measure from Western Australia. We have had the time to test it and we are confident in moving forward, because this is a matter of equity. Someone buying a house pays stamp duty, so why should a major listed company, purchasing significant landholdings in the Territory, not have to pay?
The stamp duty rules on landholding trusts will also be aligned with the rules that apply to companies. Along with provisions to address a known tax avoidance scheme, which I will go into further details about, these amendments, we believe, will make landholder stamp duty schemes simpler and fairer.
Two measures which demonstrate we have actually listened to business, and are taking a very fair approach in the measures before the House, are included in a response to a request by Territory lawyers and conveyancers through the Territory Taxation Administration Liaison Committee.
The first will allow the purchaser to be substituted with a related person in certain circumstances without double duty consequences. The second removes the requirement to lodge cancelled agreements unless a sub-sale of the property has occurred. This is a fair and reasonable approach to stamp duty. These measures ensure that taxpayers are treated fairly; they reduce the red tape for taxpayers and the compliance costs for the government.
Even in a tough budget, the government has to ensure tax is targeted appropriately. To this end, the bill also includes a number of stamp duty exemptions for individuals, business, and non-profit organisations such as: exemptions for trailers and caravans from motor vehicle registration stamp duty to ensure Territory trailer and caravan dealers maintain competitiveness with other jurisdictions which provide similar stamp duty exemptions; extensions of the exemptions for public benevolent institutions so that these exemptions are also available to benevolent, charitable, philanthropic or patriotic organisations; exempting first home saver accounts from life insurance duty; and exemptions for leases in retirement villages from stamp duty, that would otherwise be imposed on the up-front premiums, to reduce costs to pensioners and seniors. These measures are forgoing revenue, but we saw an opportunity to be fair and reasonable in our approach in these measures.
Turning to the Penalty Units Bill, the legislation allows for monetary penalties for offences to be expressed in penalty units, and provides a mechanism for quickly and efficiently providing an across-the-border adjustment of financial penalties. It makes sense. This ensures that there is a simple way of maintaining the real value of penalties, because penalties cease to have a significant deterrent or punishment effect if, at the very least, inflation is not taken into account.
The new act provides for the revenue unit value to initially be increased from $110 to $130, which recognises the increase in the CPI since 2002 when the revenue unit was set at the value of $110. We are playing a little catch-up. We will provide for that revenue unit to be increased in line with the CPI index for Darwin, and these changes will allow the deterrent value of penalties to be maintained. We have it in this bill because we do not shy away from the fact that this is a revenue raiser for the government.
Regarding the anti-avoidance provisions - that we will ultimately agree to disagree on, as I will pursue them with vigour because I back my Treasury officials in protecting our revenue against gross avoidance measures – these are required to counter a scheme that is being used in the Territory - once that we are aware of – that if not addressed could, potentially, significantly erode our stamp duty collections. Opposing the provisions means agreeing with people entering into artificially structured transactions to avoid duty which, I believe, would be grossly irresponsible. This would result in revenue loss to the Territory that could be used to fund schools, police stations, police, and hospitals.
The only stakeholders who would oppose these provisions are those who devise and sell artificial avoidance schemes. These people charge fees to businesses to attempt to find and exploit possible taxation loopholes. The avoidance scheme that these provisions prevent is aimed at either reducing a person’s entitlement on the winding-up of a company in order to avoid duty, as this is the landholder trigger, or enabling a person to obtain control of a corporation without making a taxable acquisition of shares.
Well, come on! Come in spinner - gross avoidance measures …
Mr Elferink: You have not listened to what I said.
Ms LAWRIE: Gross avoidance measures. These amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions - because you stopped at ‘satisfy’ and you did not read below it when you went to clause 25.
These amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions because there are no commercial reasons for framing a transaction in the manner covered by these amendments other than to avoid stamp duty. For example, what ordinary transaction would see a person divest themselves of their ordinary rights as a shareholder, to be entitled to the property of the company when it winds up, unless the aim is to transfer the shares without triggering the landholders stamp duty liability? It is a gross avoidance measure. The legislation contains a clear example of this type of transaction within proposed new section 56CA. What ordinary transaction occurs where one person cedes control of a corporation to another person without selling the shares, unless the aim is to avoid tax?
Northern Territory Treasury has advised me that they are not aware of any ordinary business transaction that would be threatened by these provisions ...
Mr Elferink: My point precisely.
Ms LAWRIE: The commissioner has issued a guideline on all of the proposed landholder amendments, including the anti-avoidance provisions, which makes it clear that the provisions apply only in circumstances set up to defeat the payment of stamp duty under landholder provisions. It contains an excellent example of the artificial nature of the possible abuse these provisions prevent. Instead of an ordinary share sale transaction, a person pays for a power of attorney to allow them to control the voting power of the shares and, therefore, control the decisions of the company. The anti-avoidance provisions are modelled on similar provisions in the Victorian stamp duty legislation, which have been in place for five years without acting as a barrier to ordinary business.
South Australia also has anti-avoidance provisions in place to counter this scheme, which were introduced in 2000 as part of significant changes to its landholder scheme.
The member for Port Darwin raised the issue of the commissioner having to be satisfied. This clause is only being aimed at gross anti-avoidance. As I have said, the commissioner has put out a guideline. Any decision of the Commissioner for Taxation can be objected to ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, that costs.
Ms LAWRIE: Any objection prompts an internal review, in the first instance but, ultimately, it can be appealed to the court or a tribunal. The member for Port Darwin is concerned about the costs. I am reliably informed that the tribunal is cheap; it costs $10 ...
Mr Elferink: What, a lawyer costs $10?
Ms LAWRIE: The Territory Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal costs $10 …
Mr Elferink: Yes, but do your clients get represented?
Ms LAWRIE: … and you do not need legal representation.
If you have an issue with a decision made by the Commissioner for Taxation, you can go to the Territory Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal, pay your $10 - you do not need legal representation. It can be as cheap as $10 to challenge a decision made by the Commissioner for Taxation. That is a pretty fair test in testing the reasons for the commissioner’s determination.
I pick up on the member for Nelson’s concerns about the determination by the commissioner, picking up the provisions within the Pay-roll Tax Act in specifying the reasons for their decision. The commissioner always gives reasons for using anti-avoidance provisions. If there is an objection, the Taxation Administration Act requires the commissioner to give the reasons. The commissioner always gives the reasons; that is the way the commissioner operates. Importantly, if there is an objection to the decision or determination, they are actually required, under the Taxation Administration Act, to give their reasons.
Are there checks and balances in place to make sure we do not have some rampaging Commissioner for Taxation making all sorts of strange decisions - maybe if they were a Liquor Commission inspector rampaging around making decisions -- according to the analogy that the member for Port Darwin was talking about? Are there checks and balances in the legislation …
Mr Elferink: No, you have missed the point.
Ms LAWRIE: I am sure the Commissioner for Taxation is thorough in setting out reasons for a determination. Are there checks and balances in place to enable objections - at a $10 cost – to test that objection? Yes, there are. That is why I am confident the measures before us to address a gross avoidance loophole are fair and reasonable. They operate in two other jurisdictions without any difficulty or problems, and without any kickback from industry …
Mr Elferink: They do not exist in all jurisdictions though, do they?
Ms LAWRIE: We have not had any kickback from industry on these and, other than one person, all others we spoke to said: ‘We get it; it is fair. We do not have a problem with it because we would not structure ourselves in that way unless we were trying to do a gross avoidance’. I am sure the member for Port Darwin will beat the drum on this issue, but I will be resolute in ensuring that we will protect the Territory’s revenue from gross avoidance schemes.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the bill be now read a second time …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I am working on the advice of the Clerk, so I hope I am doing this right. At this point I seek leave to move the motion I gave notice of yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe it is after the passing of the second reading.
Mr Elferink: I am sorry, I was advised that it was – okay, that is fine, as long as I - I am happy to play the game, through whatever hoops.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe it is after the passing of the second reading, but I will obtain some advice on that.
Mr Elferink: I was advised I would have to do it prior to the question being put but, after this, I will be guided by your wisdom, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I hope we are right. I will just look at …
Ms Lawrie: I asked the Clerk for confirmation on this previously; it is after the second reading.
Mr Elferink: I do not mind how we do this, as long as we go through the hoops.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move the motion which I gave notice of yesterday. I will read the whole motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Members: No.
Mr Elferink: You do not even want to talk about it?
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr Elferink: Dear, oh dear. Okay.
Madam SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly that we go into committee.
Mr Elferink: Yes, Madam Speaker.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 43) and the Penalty Units Bill 2009 (Serial 44) under the Treasurer, Ms Lawrie.
Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill (Serial 43):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, there are several issues to deal with. The first is the refusal to pull this bill apart. I want to hear from the Treasurer why it is necessary to roll the first homeowners amendments into the same legislative instrument as a tax avoidance amendment to the Stamp Duty Act, when the two issues are utterly and completely unrelated.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to answer the question by the shadow. It is appropriate for amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act to be contained in the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill, as the bill amends legislation administered by the Treasurer to implement policies announced by the government as part of the 2009-10 Budget.
There is no reason for the provisions of the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill to be divided into a separate bill. The amendments proposed, in relation to the First Home Owner Grant Act relate to capping eligibility to the grant and an ancillary of administrative power to allow the commissioner to obtain valuations of property for the purposes of determining whether homes and land fall within the value cap.
The aim of these measures is to improve the targeting of homeowner assistance. The government has previously aligned the eligibility criteria for the grant and the stamp duty concession and they are administered in tandem. It does not make sense to debate these amendments separately, nor does it make sense for amendments to be made to the First Home Owner Grant that are not mirrored in the stamp duty concessions. From a wider policy perspective, separating specific components of budget-related bills would set an undesirable precedent.
This bill reflects a set of initiatives that are important components of the Territory budget and should be taken as a whole.
The opposition has the ability, as it will exercise, to consider them carefully and form an opinion on whether it can support them. It is not for you to exercise any provisions that you are not happy with, excise the ones you do not like, and seek to debate the rest. Any amendments that you wish to recommend can be moved in the committee stage for the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill without separating them into two bills. We can deal with your issues in the committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK: This is issue: we have two legislative instruments, changing two different pieces of legislation, and they can be dealt with discretely. Why not roll the Financial Management Act from yesterday into this? And why not roll the payroll tax into this? It is all under the umbrella you just described. Why not amend those five bills?
We did it because this is a vehicle by which something you know is not universally supported by industry. You use the First Home Owners Grant as a cover to dodge that particular bullet. The political issue we have been confronted with is, by loading this with the First Home Owners Grant, if we vote against it, there will only be one question put: whether the bills should pass. There is only one bill to pass. Then, out goes the press release: ‘CLP try to take the First Home Owners Grant away’. This is the type of political stunt pulled repeatedly in this place. I come in and say: ‘Can we pull these two bills apart?’ That is the purpose of the motion I put forward, as the Treasurer knows. I am trying to separate it out, as I explained at the beginning of my second reading speech. I did not mind and I had no problem with that particular law being changed. However, she has not described how these two bills interconnect at a detailed level.
She says it is all part of the revenue process of government. True. However, the bills, from what I can see, do not relate on an intimate level. These laws can be changed independently of each other. This should be the threshold question any Treasurer or minister asks when they bring a bill into the House: can these bills be dealt with discretely? I specifically used the example of changes to the definition of de facto, which affects a raft of legislation. I can understand why it comes in under that structure.
However, to use one legislative change to mask the effect of another is improper use of the legislative process. The concern I have is, all of a sudden, I have this one stark choice. Every member of this parliament shares the same choice: do we run the risk of being branded as going against the First Home Owners Grant Bill, because we have the audacity to argue that an element of another part of the bill is less than perfect?
We have this problem. I am frustrated that we are having this argument again in this House. It is unnecessary; it is bad legislative conduct and it is demonstrative of a government trying to protect itself with an increasing level of arrogance, which has led to the problems we have seen in this House today. If the government continues down this path it will resonate into the community. I will be saying in the community that the government put tax powers through on the back of the First Home Owners Grant legislation, because that is what you are doing.
By the way, to suggest I am in some way trying to support a gross tax avoidance scheme - I am not, not for one second. I am suggesting that if it is so easy to prove, take it to an independent arbitrator, such as a court. You say it only costs $10 to appeal to the tribunal. The hell it does! It costs $10 to lodge the matter, but no one goes to the tribunal until they have sought legal advice. This could be so easy, if we allowed this to be separated out, taken back to be talked about in another environment, and try to find some level playing field because, at the moment, we have this outrageous situation where I will be asked one question: whether I support the First Home Owners Grant, or the enabling legislation for the federal expenditure on the First Home Owners Grant, and thereby, whether I support a new taxation power. It is one question.
That is an outrageous situation to put this House in. Should the Country Liberals form government at some point in the future - and I make no presumptions – and should I be fortunate enough to become a minister, I will make it clear to people that where legislation can be dealt with separately, it will be dealt with separately. I will not hide behind first homeowners to try to shove through new taxation powers.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I have explained this to the member for Port Darwin, and I will explain it again. Stamp Duty and First Home Owners Grant are administered in tandem; they are linked. Also, they are all part of the revenue measures that the government has made in policy decisions in Budget 2009-10. They are linked. That is why they are cognate bills, joined together before the House, when they are linked measures. It is standard practice.
He is running this line that, somehow, we are masking our range of revenue measures, which I announced in my budget speech …
Mr Elferink: No, you are masking a power.
Ms LAWRIE: … and we are masking them behind the First Home Owner Grant, which is before the House today. What kind of masking is it, when you go out on the front foot and talk about it in your budget speech and in your budget presentations? Then Treasury puts out its revenue circular and talks about it in detail as well. The revenue circular is distributed far and wide and I will table that. Then it is debated, discussed, and specifically pointed out in the second reading debate before this Chamber. Further, we are debating it in the committee stage.
Therefore, to say that, somehow, we are trying to mask the range of revenue measures - in particular, the issue of the avoidance scheme behind the First Home Owners Grant - is patently absurd. If I had not talked about it in the budget speech or to the industry, if Treasury had not put it out in a revenue circular, if we had not been discussing and debating it in the second reading debate and, if we were not in the committee stage right now discussing it, I guess you could say we were trying to mask it. However, we did all those things. We have been up-front - absolutely clear - about what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we are doing it.
Further, regarding the remedy which the member for Port Darwin suggested to meet his concerns about taking the matter to an independent arbitrator of a court, I said that any determination on the gross avoidance measure by the Commissioner for Taxation can be appealed. It triggers an internal review system in the first place. But, ultimately, an appeal can go to either the court or the Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal. It costs $10 to lodge a matter with the tribunal – it is not a large fee.
The member for Port Darwin says that no one would go there without legal representation. That is not true. Treasury has advised that a case has gone there without legal advice. Okay? This is the absurdity of the argument the member for Port Darwin is running. The gross avoidance scheme anti-avoidance measures contained in this bill somehow provide for too much determination powers in order to satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation it is not a gross avoidance scheme. You are not happy with that. You are still not happy with the internal review, which is triggered once someone objects; that an objection can go to the court or the tribunal and the tribunal cost is $10. Your remedy is - off to court you go, where it will cost people more.
Member for Port Darwin, we have not been hiding or masking this; we have articulated, a couple of times now, why we have brought these measures in tandem before the House, and why we are debating them in tandem before the House, in both the second reading and committee stage.
Mr ELFERINK: She and I can continue batting this back and forward all night. She knows - and you can tell by the very careful language - about the issues I raised, particularly in relation to this stunt of marrying up these two utterly independent pieces of legislation. They are utterly independent, they do not relate to each other, except by saying: ‘It is all part of our revenue’. The Financial Management Act and the Pay-roll Tax Act are too, but we have dealt with them separately. This is just a vehicle to get a power through, which she knows, despite her own assertions to the contrary, the industry is not happy with ...
Ms Lawrie: One person.
Mr ELFERINK: That might be the case ...
Ms Lawrie: One person.
Mr ELFERINK: Even if it were the case, that was not mentioned in your second reading speech that people objected, or even that one person objected ...
Ms Lawrie: I talked about it in the …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, we could continue this debate, but the debate has been had. It is a stunt which this House has become used to seeing from the government; a government which is haemorrhaging members. I wonder if they sit around upstairs and think to themselves: ‘Why does this happen? Why are people turning against us? Why are people frustrated with us …
Ms Lawrie: Go back to the data.
Mr ELFERINK: ‘Why do people perceive us to be arrogant? Why is it that our numbers went from 19 to 13 to 12 in the space of seven or eight months? Why is all this happening?’ Yet, they continue to pursue these courses of action. Good luck to them, because all they are going to do is clear the way for a change of government. If they do not understand that, it is their folly and, frankly, our gain.
Madam Chair, these sorts of stunts, and the way they operate in this House, has cost them dearly. The way they operate in the community has cost them dearly, and it will continue to cost them dearly. As it continues to cost them dearly, that is fine from a political point of view, but the point is we have a serious job to do; we pass the laws of this jurisdiction, which people have to live and work with. I understand people are not always going to be happy with the laws we pass, but to try to avoid going to a debate, or a vote on these sorts of issues, by marrying up parts of legislation in this fashion, is too cute by half.
Mr TOLLNER: Treasurer, are you aware of other jurisdictions in Australia which have found that Taxation Commissioners have become a law unto themselves, and where the government has found great difficulty in reining in some of the decisions that Taxation Commissioners have made?
Ms LAWRIE: A classic display of what is fundamentally wrong with the member for Fong Lim. I had to assure public servants, after the last time I appeared in this Chamber in committee stage debate and the member for Fong Lim was asking questions of me, that he did not mean to insult them, their professionalism, or how they go about their work.
They are all very highly intelligent people and, when they heard what the member for Fong Lim had to say, they really felt that he was attacking their professionalism. In that ridiculous question from the member for Fong Lim, he is attacking the professionalism of the Commissioner for Taxation, and the many staff who work in the revenue section of Treasury. It is absurd. No one enjoys paying tax. I am yet to find anyone who enjoys paying tax. It is very rare to find someone who thinks paying tax is a good thing. Even those who understand that tax pays for the roads, the schools, the police, and the fabric of our society still do not enjoy paying it. People are employed to administer the taxation regime for each state and territory and the Commonwealth.
I have come across a few taxation revenue employees since I have been Treasurer, and I hold them all in the highest regard. They are highly professional, capable, honest, and trustworthy people. They do a tough job. At a bar or a pub they probably do not confess readily what their job is. But, my God, they do a good job. Every one of us in this Chamber, and outside this Chamber, benefit from the job they do.
They protect the revenue base of their jurisdiction, here or elsewhere, so we can build the schools, pay the teachers, ancillary staff, teachers’ aides, and the caretaker who cleans the yard. You are absurd, member for Fong Lim, and I am calling you out on your absurdity.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much for that piece of enlightening advice, Treasurer. I was not attempting to smear public servants. I was asking you what I thought was quite a simple question. Are you aware of any circumstances, anywhere in this country, in any jurisdiction, where Taxation Commissioners have become a law unto themselves?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to respond. No. Not elsewhere and not here.
Mr TOLLNER: Treasurer, I call your attention to a circumstance I was involved in. I do not have the exact particulars with me, but it was a well-known case around Australia where the federal Taxation Commissioner started making private rulings in relation to company share ownership schemes. These rulings were taking place on an extraordinarily regular basis. They were happening all around Australia and affected thousands of people who were taking shares in companies that they worked for. It was encouraged by many people on your side of politics, and it is something that I support. I believe there is great merit in employees being able to own a share of their own company. A number of accountants around the country used these private rulings as precedents and sold similar schemes to companies which did not have private taxation rulings. It all came to a head - and I may be wrong on the figures – when the Taxation Commissioner determined that all these schemes were in breach and he wanted to collect something like $3bn revenue from these companies. It would have sent many companies to the wall.
Consequently, parliament and a range of parliamentary committees discussed the matter and legislation was drafted to create a new office called the Inspector General of Taxation. The Inspector General’s role was to oversee determinations made by the federal Taxation Commissioner. This position was created, a person was appointed, and the first task the Inspector General of Taxation was given was to check on the determination the Taxation Commissioner had made in relation to these company share ownership schemes. The Inspector General of Taxation came back and reported that the Taxation Commissioner had erred.
What do you think would be the likely outcome of such a report by a person in a statutory position? Do you think that the Taxation Commissioner would accept that and say: ‘I erred; I made a mistake’? No, that was not the case at all. The Taxation Commissioner basically said: ‘Up yours. I do not recognise who you are. You have it wrong. I stand by my determination’. The matter carried on. It was very detrimental for a whole range of people.
Treasurer, I do not believe public servants go out to try to hamper business or individuals; I believe they act with the best motivation. I find it outrageous that you would suggest I am bagging public servants by asking you a question which I already knew the answer to; that Taxation Commissioners have, in effect, become a law unto themselves. You may not recognise that. I understand, at the time, that you were in the Territory parliament and it would not have been an issue that greatly occupied your time. I understand that you were not aware of this.
However, I was in the federal parliament at the time and I was contacted by constituents who were victims of the Taxation Commissioner’s rulings. I was contacted by people, not just from my electorate, but from around the Northern Territory and across Northern Australia. I have dozens of pieces of correspondence on my files from people from far-flung places who were impacted by that determination.
Treasurer, all I want is some assurance that you have taken into account the risks of these things. By your own acknowledgement, you were not aware of any of this stuff. I asked you, and you said, ‘No’ and sat down. They became a law unto themselves; that is what happened with the federal Taxation Commissioner. I would hate to see a situation like that occurring in the Northern Territory. You have given me no reassurance whatsoever that what you are introducing is not a step in that direction.
Ms LAWRIE: The description of ‘law unto themselves’. If you want to go to that particular ruling and the debacle which occurred as a consequence – okay. It was well-documented and debated in the media.
The description ‘law unto themselves’ - which is your bizarre, basic way of talking about this - is what I disagree with. Our Commissioner for Taxation does not give rulings. You were talking about an example in the federal sphere where it was a subject of rulings that were being provided. We have a different taxation administration in the Territory. Maybe you do not understand that and did not participate in the debate and discussion about taxation administration, but it is different. They do not give rulings. The example you spoke about, at length, are rulings by a different taxation administration system.
Do I believe there are checks and balances in the system and in taxation administration? Yes, I do. It has gone, I guess, to the core of the discussion the member for Port Darwin and I have had - legitimate debate and discussion. When the Commissioner of Taxation makes a decision, they have to provide reasons - in this instance he has to provide reasons for his decisions, which can be objected to. Okay? A person says: ‘I disagree with that. I have the reasons and I disagree’. An objection automatically triggers an internal review in Treasury of that decision – the first trigger, if you like; the first check and balance.
If the decision holds after the internal review, the person can then make a further objection. They have two courses to take. They can either go through the court, or they can go to the taxation tribunal which I referred to in debate and discussion. It costs $10 to lodge with the Taxation and Royalty Appeals Tribunal. You do not need legal representation. At every step along the way, there are checks and balances to scrutinise the decision by the Commissioner of Taxation.
Mr TOLLNER: Treasurer, I have no faith in your competence to hold that position. You have proven this time and time again. You are not across your brief, you are lazy in the extreme, and you are deceptive. By trotting in and marrying this legislation up with first home ownership legislation, is deceptive in the extreme ...
Ms Lawrie: Are you still going for leadership over there?
Mr TOLLNER: It is deceptive in the extreme. Treasurer, there is no way I will support this aspect of your legislation, irrespective of the fact that you have it tied with something very important like the First Home Owners Grant, because you are not a person capable of doing the hard work. You are not a person capable of doing the hard work …
Dr Burns: Look at the portfolios she holds.
Mr TOLLNER: I asked her a very simple question. What did I get in response to a simple question: is the Treasurer aware of any instances in Australia where taxation commissioners have, in effect, become a law unto themselves …
Mr Conlan: I believe the Treasurer’s face.
Mr TOLLNER: I quoted one example. The Treasurer said: ‘I know all about that’. Why did you not say that? The Treasurer knows nothing about her brief; she is not across her brief in any way. The Treasurer is an embarrassment to the Territory, and I feel ashamed that I live in a jurisdiction where we have such an incompetent Treasurer. I asked a question and she abused me about public servants, for goodness sakes. I do not know how that can possibly be related to the question. It is typical of this Treasurer; when she finds herself in a corner with a question she cannot answer, the only thing she can resort to is abuse. It is shameful, and it is shameful for everyone in this place who has to deal with you, Treasurer. You are an embarrassment.
Bill, as printed, agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Penalty Units Bill (Serial 44):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as printed, agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; reports adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
APPROPRIATION (2009-2010) BILL
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from 9 June 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I always give a budget reply, but this year is the first time in my seven years that I was not here for the budget, and I have been playing a fair amount of catch up. There are some areas I will not be spending very much time on, and I suspect this budget reply will be shorter than ones I have traditionally given.
One of the areas I will not be spending much time on today is the area of child protection. I am keen to drill down into as many parts of the budget and comments made by the ministers and others in the area of children and families and child protection, in particular. I have reason to believe that there is a fair amount of smoke and mirrors going on with costing and some confusion with the Territory budget and the Commonwealth budget. I put the minister on notice, in a fairly agreeable way, that at estimates I will be pursuing some of the questions regarding costs.
In addition, I will be asking some general questions, based on many of the things that have been happening in the public domain in the last few months. Even though I have not been at work all the time, I have been watching media reports and I know that, sadly, Coronial inquests in the Northern Territory attract a great deal of publicity. It is a tragedy when any Coronial inquest occurs, particularly when it involves children, and there have been two inquests. One is finished and the other will be finished, I believe, in October. There were some public comments and evidence given that I believe is relevant and, time permitting at estimates, I hope to get to some of those matters.
In relation to the Attorney-General’s area, I was a little surprised at what I considered to be a relatively modest series of increases to a range of areas, in particular under the heading of ‘Court Support and Independent Offices’ on page 95 of the Budget Paper. In Budget 2008-09 there was an allocation of about $46m, compared with Budget 2009-10, where the budget allocation is about $48m, which is not a significant increase in the overall scheme of things and, I believe, has been met with a level of disappointment.
In relation to some of the public comments made - in particular, I refer to media releases - I see that there is a reference to the Territory government allocating - by a jointly issued media release dated 5 May by the minister for Justice, the Minister for Correctional Services, and the Chief Minister - $400 000 to upgrade and install new videoconferencing facilities with witness box recording capability to protect vulnerable witnesses. I look forward to hearing some specifics on that; in particular, where is it going to occur. Is it Darwin, Alice Springs, or Tennant Creek? Is it a bush court? If not a bush court, why not? The bush courts need some upgrading. I also ask whether the upgrading, if it is in Alice Springs, will adequately address those matters raised by Justice Eames in April last year, particularly the abandonment of a sexual assault case because of the scathing criticisms His Honour made in relation to equipment at the Alice Springs Court House. I will pursue further details on some of the ministers’ and the government’s announcements.
It is very easy to put these things in a media release and hope that Territorians will buy it hook, line and sinker. Our job is to scrutinise and examine, not what the government has done with its money, but what the government has done with the public money of all Territorians.
I am not surprised that there has been very little said, publicly at least, by the government in this budget or beyond it, regarding the Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill, which was introduced in February 2008, and debated in May, I believe. There was much said by the government about how wonderful that particular act would be and how it would have so many benefits to crime reduction in the Northern Territory. I note there was - unless I am missing something - nothing in any of the media statements or any of the ministers’ comments, publicly, in this place or beyond it, with respect to how well the Youth Justice Act has been going.
The reason this is relevant is so much of the puffery of this government, from the budget and other areas, is about addressing crime and how well the government is doing. I am putting the Attorney-General and others on notice that I will be asking questions about how well the much-lauded - by the government at least - Youth Justice Act - in particular with the family responsibility agreements - have been going, and we will want some details.
It is not good enough for the government to come in, say that various legislation or policy initiatives are going to achieve XYZ, when we had grave concerns whether they would. As part of the estimates process, we need to ask some of those questions.
In relation to Corrections, I noted a fairly modest increase in the Corrections budget. It was in the second week of the February sittings that the new minister for Corrections was like a broken record talking about a new era in Corrections. I wondered how the new era in Corrections was going to translate in the budget. On the figures I have, there has been a very modest increase in the budget for Correctional Services comparing Budget 2008-09 and Budget 2009-10. There is $82.5m in 2008-09, and up to the budget allocation of $86.7m in 2009-10. One wonders how flash this new era - new era, new era - in Corrections will be, with such a relatively modest amount of money injected into it.
I put the new minister, who I am sure is just beside himself with excitement about his first estimates, on notice that we will be asking some good questions in estimates. I hope, minister, you have not been pulled to one side by some of your colleagues, who I feel certain say: ‘Look, the trick with estimates is never to answer a question. If you do not know the answer a good fallback position is look at the CEO or, as you have so many public servants to choose from, look at one of them and say: “I think it would be best if Mr Smith answers this question”’.
You have a fair amount of flexibility, and anything goes, but I would be very grateful if you would have a fair dinkum crack at answering some of our questions. I do look forward to it.
Time permitting, I also hope to ask you about the recommendations from the Women in Prison report by the Ombudsman. No guarantees, because we always tend to run out of time. In any event, I look forward to asking some questions in that area.
There are a couple of things from a local point of view concerning Alice Springs. I do not believe Alice Springs did very well at all from this budget. I am concerned, for instance, about - and I have misplaced some paperwork, here we go - very little - nothing, I believe - in the budget to address ongoing problems associated with land development shortages in Alice Springs. That is disappointing. I understand that the Alice Springs Town Council has estimated the town needs about 100 new housing blocks per year to maintain the rate base in Alice Springs. I am advised that in the past five years the government has only turned off 80 blocks. I thought, even in tough financial times, a little more attention could have been given to Alice Springs and to this area in particular.
I am also concerned, after the media release from the Minister for Central Australia on 5 May, saying on the first page and I quote:
- Core services are also boosted to improve health, education and police … protect Territory jobs …
I have not seen anything yet. I admit that I have not finished the process, but I have not seen anything about money allocated, let alone a commitment to fixing the police communications system in Alice Springs.
The Leader of Government Business will remember the police communications system in Alice Springs very well because, in April 2007 when the parliament sat in Alice Springs, that was one of the top three issues. He said: ‘If people ring 131444, they pick up the phone’. There have been problems ever since. In fact, there was an article on 24 April in the Centralian Advocate headed: ‘Cops Cope With 2000 Calls’ – 2000 calls. The first paragraph of this news article is as follows:
- Police are dealing with more than 2000 calls a week from people in Alice Springs reporting emergencies or criminal activity.
For a town the size of Alice Springs, 2000 phone calls a week is an extraordinarily high number. They are just the ones who get through; the ones who do not hang up because they have been waiting. It is not the fault of any person at the police station, whether they are a police officer or a civilian helping out or working in the communications section. There is a fundamental problem with the police communication system in Alice Springs. A couple of years ago I asked the Chief Minister, who was then Police minister, some questions about it. The Police Commissioner came in and said: ‘Yes, there are problems, but then there was another problem’.
It does not matter what we do to raise this issue, you people have not fixed it. I urge you, again and again, to fix this issue. I do not believe this system can be described as adequate; we all know it is not. Why on earth money has not been devoted to fixing it, I do not know. We do know - I believe it was last year, possibly earlier; no, last year - a person in South Australia, I believe, was commissioned to undertake an independent audit of the communication system. This report has never been produced or tabled in this parliament. I do not believe I have heard anyone from the government talking about the report. We all know it is around so, maybe, it would be an opportunity for the government to get the report, look at what the government’s doing or not doing, as the case may be for Alice Springs, and say: ‘We really need to fix this police system’. Alice Springs misses out again.
Therefore, when the Minister for Central Australia said in his media release: ‘core services are being boosted to police’ - the communications system of the Alice Springs Police Station is a core service. I do not believe the Minister for Central Australia was as truthful as he could have been when he said in his media release: ‘core services are being boosted to police’ because, if core services were being boosted, you would have the money to fix the communications system.
What else has Alice Springs missed out on? The Ombudsman’s Office has been in Alice Springs since it started, probably in the mid- to late-1970s. It was one of the last bastions in Alice Springs. It was one of the things people in Darwin have that we had in Alice Springs as well. But, no, what has the government decided to do? Close the office. If there was a proper degree of attention and commitment to Alice Springs, this government would not have let it happen. Shame on you all for letting it happen. For about 30 years, the Ombudsman’s Office has been functioning in Alice Springs and, yet, you are going to watch it close. It has closed and you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves.
The relevant minister - I believe it is the Chief Minister; and I note he has not replied to a letter I wrote some months ago to him on this – will say: ‘Not as many people as we think desirable are attending the service’. That is part of the reason why the government does so badly in Alice Springs. It does not boil down to raw numbers all of the time; there is a principle. Do you think the people of Alice Springs should have an Ombudsman’s Office they can walk into, if they want to? You people think not. We, on this side of the Chamber, believe the people of Alice Springs deserve to have the Ombudsman’s Office in Alice Springs. If we were sitting on the other side of the House, we would have kept the Ombudsman’s Office open.
But wait, Madam Speaker, there is more! What else has the government not done with respect to Alice Springs? It has not tried hard enough with respect to another core service, a public utility - the Motor Vehicle Registry. I am pleased to say, this received some publicity very recently. As a local member, I have been approached about this and I know my colleagues have been contacted also. This might not seem very important to those of you in the Top End. However, let me tell you, it is important to my constituents; therefore, it is important to me. It is also important to me as a person who lives and works in Alice Springs. The hours of the MVR have been cut back. Not only has it physically moved and made it much more difficult to physically access, but its hours have reduced - from 11.30 am to 4 pm. This is the Motor Vehicle Registry - a public utility.
It has been noted, with interest, that the Power and Water Corporation has opened a pretty flash new office in Alice Plaza, but it is in stark contrast to the plight of the Motor Vehicle Registry in the Greatorex Building. Why do those two public utilities have different hours of work? The reasons stated, not by a government minister – and the Minister for Central Australia should have put his hand up to this and made a comment, but he did not, or the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure should have put her hand up and made a comment, but she did not – it was fobbed off, it would seem, to a public servant, who said that part of the reduction of hours was because 75% of customers came in between 11.30 am and 4 pm. What is the message that this government sends to the people of Alice Springs? Make sure you have enough numbers, make sure you pay your bills and attend public utilities during particular hours, because it suits us better and it will cost us less.
I do not believe this is satisfactory, and it goes to the beads-and-trinkets approach of this government. I will not have the opportunity, as it hardly ever occurs in estimates, to ask specific electorate questions. It would be great if we had a whole day on electorate questions for all of us. I have been to estimates many times now and I know it will not happen. That is why I have decided to spend more time now talking about some electorate issues.
I also believe it is important that these issues are raised because Alice Springs did not do well in this budget. It is a shame we are just being done over, little by little - whether it is a few hours of cost cutting at the MVR, everyone ignoring the problems at the police communications centre in Alice Springs, or the Ombudsman’s office closing, it is little by little - and it is a malicious, pernicious way of approaching the people of Alice Springs, the town where I live.
There is an artist in Alice Springs named Nicky Shonkala, who designed a T-shirt that is available in Alice Springs. If things were a little different, I would put it on, but I cannot put a T-shirt on as deftly as I might ordinarily. This T-shirt has the postcode 0870 on it, and it is a terrific thing. Nicky sells it to tourists and locals alike in Alice Springs, and we proudly wear these T-shirts; this is who we are. Many people would not know the postcode of Alice Springs and, when people look, you can embark on a good story about Alice Springs.
If I could, I would wear this T-shirt every day I come to parliament, but I cannot. I am just going to hold it up so those on the opposite side of the Chamber have some prodding about Alice Springs. I am not saying that you always know where it is, but this is the post code, and we do not wear our heart on our sleeve, but we certainly wear our postcode on our chests.
We ask that, although this government has not been very good for the people of Alice Springs, members of government pull their fingers out and at least get the next one right.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the 2009-10 Budget as delivered by the Treasurer during the last sittings. Undoubtedly, it was a tough budget to deliver in such tough and unprecedented economic times which have hit globally, and with no jurisdiction in Australia unscathed. However, despite the global economic downturn, I have strong faith in the Treasurer and the government to manage the Northern Territory’s fiscal matters for a strong and positive future for Territorians.
As a Territorian for more than 20 years, I survived years of arrogant and indulgent CLP governments and have witnessed, since 2001 when Labor came to government, a turnaround in the Territory’s economic position, which saw the Labor government pull the Territory out of a black hole, with more than $100m in debt, and turn that around and deliver six surplus budgets. This was, at the same time as delivering record expenditure, improving the lives of Territorians through improvements to key areas such as health, education, and law and order, which has seen jobs and infrastructure in those areas increased and, with it, service delivery for the benefit of all Territorians.
Budget 2009-10 will deliver for Territorians, including my electorate of Nhulunbuy, by protecting jobs, building vital infrastructure and boosting investment in core services. This budget delivers a record $1.3bn infrastructure investment to protect Northern Territory jobs that will deliver a number of projects for the North East Arnhem Region. Record infrastructure funding protects and creates jobs, including jobs in my regional area.
In a bid to support the creation of jobs and training, and real opportunities and employment outcomes, Nhulunbuy Regional Job Training Hub is on track to start up in July. $250 000 has been allocated for this purpose, as per a commitment undertaken by the government in the lead-up to the last election.
Tennant Creek will also see the establishment of a job hub, as the member for Barkly spoke about yesterday. This affirms the government’s commitment to providing strong support for regional economic development.
The Nhulunbuy job hub will act as a one-stop shop to provide an analysis of the job market in the East Arnhem region, a better understanding of what jobs are available, and facilitate the matching of training requirements and skills of jobs seekers to those available jobs. The concept and subsequent model has been established with wide input from stakeholders, and will serve all in the job market, but Indigenous people in particular.
The operation of the hub will be timely, coinciding as it does with the tender process for various contracts for a range of projects, not the least of which is the Strategic Indigenous Housing Improvement Program, which has, as part of its contractual arrangements, a commitment to train and employ locals, ensuring outcomes for Indigenous people. This will include a skills assessment of local unemployed Indigenous people, the opportunity for pre-vocational training, employment of local Indigenous people, and developing career pathways for them.
The SIHIP program will deliver around $672m for much-needed housing across the Territory, including $33m for my constituents in Galiwinku, $16m at Yirrkala, and $1.6m at Gunyangara. New houses and housing refurbishments will endeavour to address the overcrowding and fairly appalling state of housing in remote communities - and not before time. To address the disadvantage amongst Indigenous people and to close the gap, housing has to be, will be, and is being, addressed.
Recognising that, universally, education is a cornerstone in all people’s lives, it is, rightly, at the heart of the Closing the Gap policy on addressing Indigenous disadvantage in the Territory. My constituents and I, including those in remote locations, welcome the injection of funds which support building kids’ and communities’ futures.
At the community of Yilpara on the shores of Blue Mud Bay, $1.5m has been committed for the building of new school infrastructure, which will see this community of more than 200 people graduate from having a homeland learning centre to small school status, with full-time teachers living in the community. Those full-time teachers are already living there. This project has been supported with the construction of two new teacher houses to accommodate staff, as well as a new ablution block for students which was completed last year. It is a source of much pride for the community, not the least of which is traditional owner and senior man, Mr Djambawa Marawili. It is also a source of much pride for Yambirrpa School Council and the teachers and staff of Yirrkala Homeland School, who are completely dedicated to delivering a future to people in homelands communities.
In fact, I will be visiting Yilpara this Friday as part of the celebrations associated with last year’s historic High Court decision recognising Yolngu ownership of the inter-tidal zone. I last visited in February, when architectural plans and drawings for the new school buildings were on display and the subject of maths and measuring activities for children in class was debated.
It is worth noting that my region, as well as the neighbouring electorate of Arnhem, represented by my colleague, the minister for family and community services, will see the benefits of $13.8m in primary schools for the 21st century under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Amongst the beneficiaries of this funding in my electorate are the homeland communities of Borrowuy, Gan Gan, Dhalinybuy and Garrthalala. Each of these communities will share in $2m, which will see the construction of a new school building in each of those four homelands.
To the north of my electorate on Elcho Island, Shepherdson College and the community of Galiwinku welcome the $3m which will see a multipurpose hall constructed on their campus. Yirrkala CEC will also see a new preschool facility, in addition to $1.2m for the construction of three new classrooms. Nhulunbuy Primary School will see approximately $1.5m for the conversion of a covered area to a multipurpose hall. These are just the figures for infrastructure.
The Northern Territory government is investing a record $808m in education and training as part of Budget 2009-10, an increase of 70% since 2001. In the East Arnhem region alone, $37.24m is dedicated to early childhood, primary and secondary education in 11 remote schools in the region. Putting on my hat as a parent of school-aged children, I appreciate and applaud the value this government places on education.
This government recognises, as do I, that homeland communities are important places. They are places where people are strong and healthy and where culture thrives. The Northern Territory government will continue to support homeland people to remain on country, on the land that supports and sustains them culturally, physically, and spiritually. It is worth mentioning that last year, at the community of Garrthalala in my electorate, seven young people graduated with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education, the very first homeland students in the Northern Territory to achieve this.
Earlier this year, I attended a similar graduation at Yirrkala Community Education Centre where another two students graduated with their Northern Territory Certificate of Education. What a far cry this is from the days of the CLP government when there were no Year 12 Indigenous graduates in remote Territory schools. The CLP was so committed to Indigenous education that, in 1980, it closed the only boarding school in the Gove region for Indigenous students, Dhupuma College - no consultation or notice, it waited for students and teachers to leave at the end of term and then closed the doors never to reopen. I find it ironic to hear members of the opposition now talk about how we need to have boarding schools.
This government is delivering a record budget, in excess of $1bn, in the health sector for the health and wellbeing of all Territory families. That is a record figure for health. Health funding has increased 117% under Labor; a further $15.46m has been budgeted for non-acute health and community services in the region.
At last we will see $1.16m to create four respite beds at Gove Hospital to provide care for those who are aged or disabled. This will reduce the situation of individuals and carers, in need of respite, having to travel to Darwin and away from family and country. It is still not enough, but it is a start and I will continue to engage with my colleagues at Territory and federal levels to address the deficit in funding facilities for aged and disabled Territorians in my electorate. I welcome the appointment of my federal colleague, Hon Warren Snowdon MP, to the new role of the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery. This new portfolio highlights the Rudd government’s commitment to closing the gap on Indigenous health and is an important step forward for Indigenous Territorians.
As for dental health, I welcome the elevation of the importance of dental and oral health services with an additional 4000 dental appointments as part of the blitz across the Northern Territory, including remote services. I will be even happier when I see water fluoridation across the Territory as a key preventive measure. This, and additional funding of $750 000 ongoing, will improve access to dental health services.
With the recent completion of an $800 000 upgrade to the Yirrkala Health Clinic, the community now has a well-equipped dental room. I acknowledge the efforts of dentists like Dr Neil Lancely and Dr Denise Salvestro who practised in Nhulunbuy for a number of years, but in the last few years have dedicated themselves to providing dental services to very remote communities. It is a significant undertaking in resources and the dedicated people who deliver these services. Last week, when I was at Laynhapuy Aviation waiting to board a charter to visit the communities of Mapurru and Galiwinku, I was chatting with some of the members of the health clinic from Laynhapuy Homelands who were preparing to board a charter to Yilpara to conduct a dental clinic. They travelled with considerable luggage, including kits of instruments, cartons of toothbrushes and toothpaste, and even the dentist chair was loaded on. I do not believe people in urban areas appreciate what goes into delivering such services in bush communities and the costs associated with them.
Law and order is a subject close to people’s hearts and, indeed, it is this government’s commitment to make our streets safer, which is why Budget 2009-10 delivers a record $279m for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. I am sure the members from the Palmerston area welcome news of the new Police Beat in the same way that my constituents of Galiwinku welcomed their new police station and a permanent police presence.
I was really pleased to attend the opening of the new police station in March. I visited again last week and took the opportunity to meet and talk with the OIC and a couple of his officers, as well as members of the community about how the new service is going. Overwhelmingly, and not surprisingly, the response was extremely positive. Residents feel safer, the streets are quiet at night and, importantly, the new police officers and their families are embedded in the community and are enjoying the fishing.
Under the banner of safer communities, I also welcome ongoing funding to the East Arnhem region including $500m for Groote Eylandt and Nhulunbuy Community Corrections to monitor and supervise adult clients, including successful reintegration into the community. It is through programs such as these that we can work to support offenders and mitigate against having them back in the cycle of re-entering prisons. Having taken the opportunity to request a tour of Berrimah prison and the Don Dale Centre recently, I have a clear idea as to why this government has committed to building a new prison. Current facilities are old and crowded. The original building design is based upon a prison in Canberra, I understand, and is entirely inappropriate for the tropics. It is not only an unacceptable place for prisoners, but is unacceptable for those employed by Corrections who work there.
Under the banner of community development, as mentioned by the minister for Communications yesterday in his speech, the government’s commitment to, and partnership with Telstra, the NLC, and Rio Tinto Alcan has seen the laying of 800 km of fibre optic cable from Jabiru to Nhulunbuy, a project which is almost completed. A final $2.8m from the Northern Territory government will see this project completed in the next financial year. We have enjoyed ease of access to high speed Internet access since December, and the benefits have quickly unfolded for nine remote bush communities in delivering better health and education services and opening up new economic opportunities.
I appreciate this has not been an easy budget for the Treasurer to oversee and deliver. However, since 2001, this government has demonstrated sound economic management, delivered six surpluses and, in spite of the global economic downturn, it will continue to grow and develop the Territory to make it the best place to work, live, and raise a family. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I will speak on this bill, albeit briefly. I will save much of it for estimates. Like the member for Araluen, I was not here for the delivery of the budget, so I have been wading through it ever since.
I find it interesting that the government boasts about delivering six surpluses. It is worth pointing out that those surpluses were delivered under the sound economic management of the federal Coalition; the most successful government in the history of Australia, under the stewardship of John Howard and Peter Costello, who delivered record surpluses. This is why we have seen the states and the territories prosper so well over the last few years.
It is also worth pointing out we are now embarking on some of the biggest debt this country has ever seen - in fact, the largest amount of debt this country has every seen - in excess of $200bn. It will take lifetimes to pay off. It is no coincidence the Territory government and, indeed, many state governments, will be delivering deficit budgets.
Regarding the Territory government’s boast about the amount of money that it is spending on health, I will touch on a couple of my portfolio areas. I will save the bulk of this for estimates when we can go into more of the nitty-gritty. However, I will touch on health and Central Australia. I will do what the member for Araluen did and bring in some of the electorate matters.
The government boasts about the $1bn it is spending on Health. It is no mean feat; it is an enormous amount of money to spend on Health. For 2008-09, the combined state and territory health budgets was in excess of $90bn - something along the lines of $92bn to $94bn. Obviously, the larger states of New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland have a sizeable chunk of this, but the Territory is getting there, with over $1bn being spent this year.
It is also worth noting that less than 4% is spent on preventative health, which is a tragedy. The bulk of it goes into the acute sector - in other words the hospitals, doctors, and nurses – yet, not much is focused on the preventative health side - less than 4%. If you extrapolate that into the Territory Health budget, it is not much in preventative health. Of course, $1bn – we have to be spending much money because there are so many problems that have plagued Northern Territory Health. We have some of the longest waiting lists in the country. The ED waiting times at the Katherine Hospital, for example, are 43% for Category 2, which is fairly urgent where people should be seen within 10 minutes, but only 43% of people are being seen on time. It is a huge backlog that we are seeing in our Territory hospitals.
Presentations each year are over 100 000 - I do not have the figure in front of me - but it is somewhere between 110 000 to 130 000, in that ball park, and 54% of those are Indigenous Territorians.
It comes back to preventative health business. The amount of money we are spending on preventative health, to stop people getting sick in the first place - particularly Territorians living out in the remote communities, homelands, wherever it might be - is not enough. I am talking about simple stuff such as having kids clean their teeth and wash their hands. There is a big onus on the parents to be doing this sort of thing and making sure that these kids do this. However, it is much more than that. The 4% of the budget spent on preventative health measures - that is, illness prevention - particularly when you see the huge number of Indigenous Territorians who are coming through our hospitals, is clearly not good enough.
As I highlighted, we have some of the longest waiting lists in the country. The critical shortage of nurses is a problem right across Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory. This was identified in a Coronial last year about the nurse staffing crisis consuming the Royal Darwin Hospital. There are issues with GPs at the Palmerston Super Clinic. When one gets sick, there is no GP on duty, despite these GPs who are flown in from Fremantle and other parts of Australia being paid $190 per hour, accumulating, in some cases, over $10 000 for a few days work. It is a huge amount of money being spent in these jurisdictions, and not much focus being spent in the regional and rural parts of the Northern Territory.
I believe there is a great imbalance. When you are seeing 50% of the number of presentations by Indigenous Territorians coming through the hospital system, you can see it is a bit skewwhiff. I have noticed in the budget the failure to provide adequate funding for our regional hospitals. When the new Health Minister started, he proclaimed that quality health care should not be dependent on where you live. That is a terrific thing to say, and I believe he is dead right but, unfortunately, he is not backing it up. He is not putting the money where his mouth is.
In this budget, we see $700 000 allocated to the Katherine Hospital; $400 000 to the Tennant Creek Hospital; and, $200 000 for Gove, all the while saying it does not matter where you live, everyone is entitled to equitable health care. It might be equitable health care, but it is not equal health care, particularly when you see the imbalance in our regions.
The regions are being treated as second class compared to Darwin. No one is begrudging the money and the attention which needs to be focused into Darwin - it is the capital city of the Northern Territory, there is no doubt about it. However, you cannot say that people should have quality health care and it should not be dependent on where you live, when you are offering figures such as this. I know the member for Nhulunbuy will be interest to hear of the $200 000 for Gove Hospital, considering it is her constituency. $400 000 for Tennant Creek is not good enough is it, member for Barkly, considering you tabled a petition yesterday about maternity services? I am sure you are very distressed, quietly, to hear the amount of money being put into a hospital such as Tennant Creek, a great town of Central Australia. $700 000 for Katherine is not much money to provide proper health care services for one of the great towns of the Northern Territory. We only have five towns or cities in the Northern Territory, and Katherine is the third largest of those regional cities, and it receives a very small piece of the pie.
Regarding the lack of specialist services and maternity services in regional hospitals, a petition was presented by the member for Barkly about the lack of maternity or obstetric services at Tennant Creek Hospital. I know that you cannot just pluck an obstetrician out of thin air. It would be great if you could do that; they are hard to find and they are very expensive. But money will buy you what you want. We have seen this happen in Gove, to the tune of almost a $700 000 per year job, when you go on the rates being paid to keep an obstetrician at Gove Hospital. Yet, we have the situation, where those in the Barkly at Tennant Creek Hospital have been sent to Alice Springs at 36 weeks. For many of those people, it is foreign country and not conducive to optimal health care or optimal birthing. We are not seeing much of that in the budget either.
The lack of hospital boards, I know, has caused a problem. The member for Johnston is aware of the debate that has taken place in this House about the lack of hospital boards and the lack of hospital board reports. I noticed a couple were tabled in the last sittings; Katherine and Tennant Creek Hospital Board reports have finally been tabled, which is pleasing to see.
Regarding the oncology unit, it is eight years down the track and we have laid a slab of concrete. This was a promise by the government in 2000, while in opposition, by the then Opposition Leader, Clare Martin, who promised to build the Northern Territory an oncology unit. Yet, we still see no oncology unit. Some nine years after that initial promise, we see a slab of concrete. If it was not for the help of the federal Coalition under the stewardship of Howard and Costello, we would not be this far down the track with the oncology unit.
I want to touch on security at regional hospitals. This is not in the budget at all. The member for Johnston will be aware of this argument. It was a very heated and emotional debate we had late last year, following the assault on a five-month-old baby girl at Royal Darwin Hospital.
Yesterday, in the Centralian Advocate, the Health CEO, David Ashbridge, was quoted as saying:
- Comprehensive security measures were in place and that security arrangements were nationally accredited -- and they would be upgraded by 2012.
It is well and good to suggest it is an accredited hospital and, therefore, the security measures in place are adequate. Royal Darwin Hospital is also an accredited hospital which met all the national standards, yet it was found to be inadequate in its security. In fact, there was only one camera in place in the children’s ward, in the kitchen. This is alarming.
I believe if the government was serious about the protection of children, particularly vulnerable children, in our hospitals - let us look at the Alice Springs Hospital. I have some recent experience with it. It is very easy to walk into the maternity section at Alice Springs Hospital. It is also very easy to walk into the special care nursery, which is the most alarming part, because the special care nursery is where those children are left alone for long periods of time. Most of the babies are still with their mothers but, if there is an issue and they are put into the special care nursery, they remain there - sometimes for days, hours, whatever it might be - and they are often left alone.
It is very easy to walk into the maternity ward and it is very easy to walk around the Alice Springs Hospital. It is alarming there is no allocation of money to urgently implement proper security measures, as recommended by the Coroner for RDH following the disturbing incident highlighted by the Coroner last year. In our other hospitals - not just Alice Springs but also Tennant Creek, Gove, and Katherine - every child deserves to be protected. It is the foremost core function of the government to protect children. To have Health CEO, David Ashbridge, saying security measures will be upgraded by 2012 is very disturbing. It is appalling. The hospitals, the Health CEO - and Health Minister, the man who is ultimately responsible, is leaving himself wide open for perhaps another attack. God hope it does not happen.
The disease control budget has been cut, I notice, by $3m. I find it extraordinary, in the current climate, to reduce the spending on disease control, when the NT has the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the country. It is worth remembering that it was the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, who brought the Northern Territory great shame by sweeping child abuse under the table by failing to act on the Little Children Are Sacred report. The reason why Mal Brough and John Howard acted on the Intervention - like it or loathe it - was because Clare Martin failed the children of the Northern Territory and failed to act on that report. In this current climate, where child protection is so sensitive - it has never been more sensitive than it has been in the last couple of years - we are seeing $3m cut from the disease control budget.
A couple of days ago we had another Coronial inquest into the death of Kunmanara Forbes, a 15-year-old girl from Mutitjulu, who took her own life. I will read you the conclusion from the Coroner:
- The death of this young girl was tragic. There is some irony in the fact that her physical and mental health continued to deteriorate despite the spotlight which was being shone upon her community (and her) by NT government agencies, the Australian government, and the media. The sad lead up to her self-inflicted death is a reminder of the commonly difficult life circumstances for Aboriginal young people in Central Australia, and the continued responsibility of both the Aboriginal and wider community to maintain its efforts to improve these circumstances.
One of the recommendations from the Coroner to the death of this young girl was:
- I recommend that the Director General for the Department of Health introduce an Adolescent Health Service within the NT Department of Health.
The Northern Territory government, the Health department and the Health Minister have indicated they will not be taking up that recommendation; they will not be implementing an adolescent health service within the department of Health in the Northern Territory. This is a recommendation by the Coroner, who would be the expert in this field, after the death of another child in the Northern Territory; someone who was 15. Yet, the Northern Territory government has said - and if the ABC is accurate, through the Health department - it is not feasible to implement such an adolescent health service.
There is plenty of money in this Health budget - $1bn. The protection of children is paramount if we are going to be any sort of society, particularly in this climate where child protection and child abuse are at the forefront of everyone’s mind in the Northern Territory; as a result of this government’s failure to act on the Little Children Are Sacred report, a failure still fresh in the minds of most Australians.
Yet, here we have a 15-year-old girl who has taken her own life. The Coroner has said an adolescent health service would be the way to go, and the department has now said, no, this is not feasible. That is shameful. Mental health services in the Northern Territory are very poorly resourced. Adolescent mental health services are almost non-existent, so much that we see children with mental health problems often turning to chemical drugs - even what some might consider lighter drugs such as marijuana; but it is hydroponic marijuana, which is chemically grown. These kids are smoking this stuff and it is causing all sorts of mental health problems for them. If they have a bad reaction to this, where do they turn? There are not many options for these children, as a result of the very poor and, in some cases, non-existent mental health services in the Northern Territory.
We have a classic case here. It has been spelled out over 22 pages by the Coroner, highlighting the circumstances surrounding the death of this young 15-year-old Mutitjulu girl, who slipped through the net. The Coroner has recommended an adolescent health service within the Northern Territory. However, the Health department has said that is not feasible. I hope the minister is aware of this, and he will look at it seriously. He has shown he is able to turn things around and make decisions, some say backflipped, but others might say thank goodness he did. We saw it with the reporting of swine flu, to make these new cases public. Let us hope he takes the recommendations made by the Coroner seriously.
Another failures is the government is unable to provide satisfactory accommodation for expectant mothers who had to be flown from Gove to give birth to their children. You would be very aware of this as well. The Health department said: ‘Okay, we have some accommodation for these mothers who are flying in at 36 weeks pregnant in the Wet Season and are being offered accommodation for $50, $60 a night’. I do not know about people who live in Darwin, but when you travel to Darwin, as I do - someone who lives in Central Australia - you are at the mercy of hotel accommodation.
There is nothing available that is appropriate for a heavily pregnant woman for $60 a night. There are a couple of places around town you could probably get for $60 a night, but you would not want to be putting someone who is 36 weeks pregnant or more into one of those accommodation places, particularly if they have family. They might have other children or their husband with them. That was an absolute blight. I do not know how many women were given this type of accommodation because, with the outcry and the public meetings you helped convene in Gove, Madam Deputy Speaker, it forced the government’s hand to find an obstetrician and reinstate obstetric services in Gove very quickly.
The lack of supported accommodation, generally, is a problem across the Northern Territory for those who have to travel to our major hospitals. The member for Barkly would be well aware of that, as I mentioned before, with regards to maternity services. However, the same applies to renal services and a whole range of health care services in the regions. Those who travel to the major hospitals, mostly Alice Springs and Darwin, have a lack of supported accommodation.
The blatant refusal by this government to allow PATS for Centralians with cancer to travel to Adelaide has been an absolute point of difference between us and the Labor Party. This is from the back of a business card for the Department of Health and Families. Anyone who is in the Department of Health and Families who has a business card, has their name and title and everything on the front, and on the back it says, ‘We value respect and cooperation, responsibility to society, pride in our work, and we are here for our clients’. This sounds contradictory to the refusal by this government to allow cancer patients in Central Australia to travel to Adelaide - if it completes the oncology unit; I give the benefit of the doubt to this government.
I met with the former Minister for Health and he said: ‘That is like saying people in Tennant Creek might want to travel to Mount Isa or wherever’. There is no case for people in Tennant Creek to want to travel to Mount Isa, but there is case after case in Central Australia. It is clear: people in Central Australia want to be able to maintain the choice and, obviously, the surrounds and your environment is conducive to appropriate health care and recovery.
That has been left out of the budget for 2009-10. The minister did say those with private health insurance can travel where they want. Of course, they can - no kidding. They can travel where they want if they have private health insurance; you can do that anyway. This is not about those with private health insurance, this is about those who cannot afford it and require the help from the government to get through this difficult time.
We have seen delay after delay with the Emergency Department at the Alice Springs Hospital, which included a botched tendering process. It cost the Territory taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars to go back to that tender. The federal government came to the rescue. It is very interesting that the federal government allocated $13m-plus in its recent budget for the construction of the Alice Springs Emergency Department. The Territory government, while it is not in this year’s budget papers, was allocated, in 2007, $6m for the construction of a new Emergency Department at Alice Springs Hospital.
I do not know if it is a total of $19m to construct the new Emergency Department at Alice Springs Hospital. Does it mean the original plans stay? Do we go back to the drawing board again? The original plans were for a $6m Emergency Department at the Alice Springs Hospital. The federal government has given us $13m-plus, so are we going to keep the same plans, build the same one for $13m, or does it mean that it was a completely botched process in the beginning and we are going to get, basically, a half-baked, inappropriate Emergency Department for the original allocation from this government of $6m?
Regarding the insensitive surroundings; there is nothing for breast screening in the Northern Territory. I wrote to the Minister for Health on 3 April regarding the breast screening clinic for women in Central Australia. I suggested to the minister that the rooms - I will read from the letter I wrote:
- The rooms are very small and often women will have family members as support with them, as this is a very emotional time. Again, it makes for a very uncomfortable experience as some women are being told that they are clear and can leave, while others are being told they need to stay to go to the next level of testing.
As you can appreciate, this is a very emotional ordeal and, I believe, although the staff of the service attempt to provide an efficient and caring service, they are hamstrung by the surrounds that they work within.
Essentially, it is one big open room, where you are all hauled in, and you are at the point where you are asking: ‘Am I positive or am I negative, I do not know? The person next to me can go, but the other person over there is in tears, and who knows what the next level is going to show up?’
I highlighted this to the minister. He wrote back and said the facility at Eurilpa House was purpose designed and meets accreditation requirements for breast screening and assessment service. That is what he said. Too bad, tough luck, it meets all the requirements. It is like a leaf out of the Health CEO’s book when he said the security cameras and measures at the Alice Springs Hospital meet all the requirements. They may meet the requirements, but it is not good enough, it is very clear that it is not good enough. It is disappointing not to see anything in the budget. I thought I may have written to the minister in time to see something in the budget.
In the first parliamentary sittings in his new job, minister Vatskalis, the member for Casuarina, was confused about the numbers of people attending the hospital Emergency Department; he could not get the number right. It took him about three or four days to understand that. He was unable to state why hospital annual reports had not been tabled. He denied the Territory needs more nurses, and offered excuses, not solutions, for the disarray of the Health department. It is no wonder we need to spend so much money on Health, because there is such failure throughout the Northern Territory Health department, unfortunately. Despite the great work that goes on and the – can I have some more time?
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member have an extension for a period of 10 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, honourable members, and I will not take up the whole 10 minutes.
Despite the great work that goes on, and the enormous pressures our health care workers are under, I do not believe they are receiving the total support or commitment from the Northern Territory government, particularly in the regional areas such as Tennant Creek, Gove, Katherine, Alice Springs, and the more remote parts of the Northern Territory.
I will touch on Alice Springs and the land shortage. I do not know if anyone knows how many house and land packages are available in Alice Springs. The answer is zero. There are no house and land packages available in Alice Springs as we speak. This is absolutely staggering. If you are trying to grow and build a town, attract professionals or other people to the town to the bring their skills or whatever it might be to a town, and they are looking to build a life and invest in the town, they might want a house and land package. However, there are none available in Alice Springs at the moment. There is a land shortage, despite the amount of space we have in the Northern Territory, and there is a housing crisis in Alice Springs.
The Mereenie Loop did not get a mention; it has been left off again. The government committed to this quite a few years ago and said it would finish it, but it has changed its mind. It is the inner loop the government is going to complete, and not the outer loop. This is a major tourism infrastructure program for Central Australia and the Northern Territory. Without being too parochial, there is no mention of the Mereenie Loop which is about the Territory and tourism in the Northern Territory.
This is despite a $300 000 tender which has just closed for a new GPS and mobile phone ready travelogue. You can drive along the Red Centre Way, which includes the Mereenie Loop, and tourism features will come up on your mobile phone along the way. Perhaps, instead of having a sign on the side of the road, it will be mobile ready available - on your mobile phone - and also available on GPS. This tender has just closed, but you cannot receive - $300 000, Minister for Central Australia, you might be interested to know, is what the contract is; it runs for 44 weeks - mobile coverage. Even if you could, you cannot drive along the Mereenie Loop Road, because it is not complete, unless you have a four-wheel drive. This is not money well spent. It is not money focused in the right areas; particularly when you cannot get mobile phone coverage that far out of Alice Springs. They say 99% of the country is covered, but it should be 99% of the population, not 99% of the country.
I agree with the member for Araluen about the Ombudsman’s Office. Despite the new revamped Chief Minister’s Office in Central Australia, and all the money being put into that, and another one being opened in Palmerston, we see the Ombudsman’s Office in Alice Springs close. It is an absolute shame and tragedy for the second biggest town in the Northern Territory. I cannot believe there is no avenue for complaints against the government in the second largest town in the Northern Territory. I believe it is permanent, but I do not know. I have heard the government say they are looking at perhaps opening it up again. I will believe it when I see it.
While I know container deposit legislation is on the government’s radar for 2011, it does not really do much to address the litter issues facing Territory towns right now. The Alice Springs Town Council has introduced a liquor litter charge. It is going to whack drive-through bottle shops with $60 000 per year, which equates to a wage or a couple of wages if you work in a bottle shop, and $7500 if you are outside the CBD.
I do not know how they came up with that figure, but the Country Liberals opposed what the council was doing. Our solution was for the government to fund the municipal councils, particularly the Alice Springs Town Council, in the form of grants so they can run the CDL program. It was done with great success in 2006 when it gave a grant of $10 000 to the Alice Springs Town Council to run a cash for cans program; it was a huge success. It was so successful that the council ended up throwing some of its own money in because people kept turning up with bags of cans.
If you could roll this out on a much bigger scale, the issue could be addressed immediately and the impost on businesses would not be needed. It is a tragedy that these businesses will be forced to pay around $60 000 to the council so it can roll out its own cash for cans program, without any support from the Northern Territory government.
The council has asked the Northern Territory government to grant it about $200 000, I believe. It probably needs more, but $200 000 would go a long way to addressing the litter problem in Central Australia. It would create a workforce and you would immediately see some of those cans and bottles off the streets. By the way, the council initiative is only targeting cans and bottles. The multinationals like KFC and Subway - there is plenty of their stuff on the streets of Alice Springs - are getting off scot-free, while the local businesses, the ones that live in town, employ local people and invest in the town, are the ones being slugged. It does not add up in my book. It is a shame not to see anything in Budget 2009-10 for this.
We will support the passage of this bill, but I am sure we can predict the response from the government. It is very quick to blame the CLP for all the issues and problems the Northern Territory faces. The reason why it keeps blaming the past, and it is stuck in the past, is because it has no concept of the present and no vision for the future. It is very easy to blame the past, and go back 20 years or 19 years ago. I heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk about something that happened 19 years ago. The Labor Party members have no concept of the present and no vision for the future. The past is the past; let us move on.
Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of an orderly transition, the Country Liberals will support the passage of this bill.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the comments from the member for Greatorex towards the end, regarding the cash for container scheme. We have a statement before the House at the moment. I believe the member for Brennan is the only member from the opposition who has spoken about it. Six or seven of members from our side have spoken about it, and we welcome the member for Greatorex speaking about that statement and expressing some support from the CLP for the cash for container scheme; that would be very welcome.
I support the budget. It is a budget being delivered in very tough times. The Treasurer has described it as one of the toughest, or the toughest budget, since self-government. While the Territory economy is still growing, we are not immune to effects of the global financial crisis. That is clear and is something we have debated quite often in this House in recent months. We need to remember, in the context in this debate, that our budget has taken a hit - a big hit - because of the exposure of our budget to Commonwealth receipts.
The rest of Australia has been hit much harder then we have. We have to recognise the flow-on effect and the impact it has had on our budget and the difficult job the Treasurer has had in framing this budget. This is why you have to respect the efforts of the Treasurer in delivering a budget which targets keeping people in jobs, keeping our economy strong, and keeping the Territory growing.
At the core of this budget is the decision to invest $1.3bn in infrastructure - $1.3bn for housing, roads, schools, and the community; $1.3bn to create over 2500 construction and related jobs. This is a fantastic effort, and an unprecedented spend on infrastructure. The Treasurer, Chief Minister, and the government have to be congratulated for doing this. I believe the efforts of Cabinet were very good in making the decision to have this as the first infrastructure budget which has surpassed $1bn - at $1.3bn. It is targeted at protecting Territory jobs and building infrastructure that the Territory needs to support our strong economy and growing population. This responsible investment, at the core of our budget, will support 2500 jobs across the construction sector and our economy. The $1.3bn investment in infrastructure is a 47% increase on the last budget.
The construction industry is a strong driver of the economy. The Territory government is committed to maintaining a strong construction sector, shouldering the sector during a time when we see a drop in private investment, as the credit market is squeezed by the global economic downturn impacting on our nation. This infrastructure spending will help to ensure we keep our skilled construction workers in the Territory while, at the same time, investing and rebuilding our schools, improving our roads, and providing more housing. This budget also includes a record $118.9m to rebuild Territory schools.
This program includes the roll-out of the Henderson government’s commitment of a $300 000 upgrade of every primary and large group school across the Territory over this term. We are also working in partnership with the federal government which, like the Territory government, is responsibly investing in public infrastructure to stimulate economic growth.
My electorate has a significant number of people who have lived in the Territory for a long time, and who have made a significant contribution to the development of the Territory. I believe it is important for the Territory to look after our senior Territorians. This is why the Territory has the most generous concessions in Australia for women over the age of 60, and men over 65. Our commitment to senior Territorians has seen Labor continuously working to improve the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. Budget 2009-10 continues to support pensioners across the Territory by insulating them from the increases in power and water tariffs through the freezing of tariff rates for the holders of Pensioner and Carer Concession cards; free driver’s licence renewals; and, increasing the motor vehicle registration subsidy from $104 to $150 per year.
The scheme also provides pensioner concessions for local council property rates; garbage charges; interstate and overseas travel; and prescription glasses. Seniors will also welcome, I am sure, the major boost to public dental services that will see an additional 4000 dental treatments. Budget 2009-10 provides $1.5m to reduce dental waiting lists and improved remote area services. Ongoing extra funding of $750 000 from 2010-11 will continue the boosted service. The additional funding will provide more dentists.
I believe all senior Territorians can make an ongoing contribution to the Territory through an ongoing role in the workforce, community involvement, or being a grandmother or grandfather. They make an ongoing contribution, and that is why it is good to see these new measures. Free driving licence renewals; increased motor vehicle registration subsidy; and frozen power prices in this budget, on top of our ongoing concessions, make this the most generous scheme in Australia.
Budget 2009-10 also includes record funding for housing, with a 92% boost from last year. The Henderson government is planning for the future. Our Housing the Territory policy delivers affordable housing, more land release, and better public housing. Budget 2009-10 supports this plan with $390m for housing, including $78.5m to refurbish 730 existing public houses, and $23.4m for new and upgraded public housing. This is an important investment. Budget 2009-10 also supports the development of a new affordable housing rental company to help meet the need for quality affordable rental properties for low-income earners in the Territory.
This is an important initiative which I believe will lead to a significant change in how we house Territorians, manage our waiting lists, build our housing, and manage our housing. We have much work to do, and it is great to see that we will start the changes in Parap. Our plan to redevelop public housing in Parap will include one of the Territory’s first projects by the affordable housing rental company through the development of the Parap Gateway.
As members are aware, or should be aware, the Territory is facing a number of challenges in housing at the moment, including the cost of rent, the availability of land, and the amount and style of public housing. We acknowledge that our booming economy and the highest population and employment growth in the country has put pressure on the housing market.
Recently, the Chief Minister and the Minister for Housing announced Housing the Territory, which includes plans to get more affordable housing on to the market, new public housing places, more land released, and additional transitional and short-term housing.
As part of the Chief Minister’s announcement, he confirmed our election plan and priorities for the redevelopment of public housing on Parap Road - the Parap Gateway. The redevelopment of the Wirrina complex will be our first priority. The Wirrina complex is the high-density, high-rise flats on the corner of Gregory Street and Parap Road, opposite the Cheesecake Shop. Demolition of Wirrina is expected to be under way by December, although there is a chance it could happen earlier. Territory Housing is working with tenants to find them new homes. No one will be left without a home. This will happen over the next few months as Territory Housing matches tenants up with vacancies across Darwin and Palmerston.
There are more than 60 units at Wirrina, and over 4000 public housing properties in the Darwin area - over 5000 if you include Palmerston - so this is definitely manageable over the next four to six months. This is a difficult time, I predict, to find people new homes, because you have to wait for vacancies. But, as I understand it, the effort to find tenants new homes is happening faster than expected. This is good news. The minister and the department are doing an excellent job in working with the tenants, which means there is a chance that we could demolish Wirrina earlier than expected.
Wirrina will be the first redevelopment partnership between government, the private sector, and the new affordable housing rental company, and will be a mixed tenure development - a mixture of public and private housing. We will start formal consultations with the community this Dry Season with plans for the development. The Minister for Housing and I have now met several times with the Wirrina residents, and we will keep working with them, although their numbers are quickly diminishing. We have also met with the Parap Residents Association.
The Pitscheneder complex, as part of the Parap Gateway, will be the next priority. Pitscheneder is the last set of public housing units on Parap Road, on the left as you approach the Stuart Highway. This development may include the Territory Housing homes adjacent to the Pitscheneder complex. The site will be redeveloped for accommodation for seniors. There are large numbers of seniors in Darwin living on their own, or as a couple in three- or four-bedroom homes. If we can provide them accommodation in the seniors’ complex, we can house a family in a home. This will help us meet the demand for public housing and free up more public houses available for rent.
As we move closer to the redevelopment of Pitscheneder, Territory Housing tenancy managers will commence the consultation process we are currently working through with the Wirrina residents. There will also be a formal consultation with everyone in the general community about what we build on that site. The next priority will be the public housing complexes between Pitscheneder and Wirrina, as part of the Parap Gateway.
The Chief Minister and the Housing Minister are committed to the redevelopment of other older public housing complexes in the future, which include the Kurringal complex in my electorate and, I am sure, complexes in other electorates. In 2005, we redeveloped part of the Kurringal complex when we knocked down five of the eight housing blocks to build the Kurringal Seniors Village. This was a good start in improving the general area, but we definitely have more to do for neighbours and tenants.
Our public housing reforms are about providing a better living environment for everyone: tenants, neighbours, and nearby businesses. Our plans, including a Police Beat in Parap, will help take the pressure off hot spots along Parap Road. It is great to see the funding for this plan to redevelop public housing in Parap in Budget 2009-10. We are delivering on an important election commitment for the electorate of Fannie Bay.
I also want to talk about roads funding in this budget. Budget 2009-10 boosts the roads budget to record levels of $322m, including $77m for repairs and maintenance. The Territory’s road network is pivotal to the economy by providing functional transport, ensuring goods go to market, and providing access to remote areas. Roads are also important to go to work in the mornings, I find, or even more importantly, going home from work. I believe most people enjoy the drive home more.
One project people in my electorate are looking forward to is the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication; it is a key major project in the roads budget. The duplication of Tiger Brennan Drive for $6m is an excellent project. This project will remove traffic bottlenecks and improve road safety. On the way home, people hate the zipper merges from town to Woolner Road - the two lanes into one - and they will love this project to duplicate Tiger Brennan Drive from Dinah Beach Road and Woolner Road. It also provides a signalised intersection at Gonzales Street to provide safety improvements for motorists accessing Dinah Beach boat ramp and Tipperary Waters.
I spoke earlier about the NT and federal government working together on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan to stimulate the Australian economy. The Territory has been successful in attracting significant new roads funding in this package, including $1m for a roundabout on Woolner Road to improve traffic flow on the current intersections of Brewery Place, Bishop Street, and Iliffe Street. Federal funding of $250 000 from black spot funding will also contribute to this project, with Darwin City Council making up the remainder.
Woolner Road is a council road, but this project is a good example of all tiers of government working together, with the Territory government’s Department of Planning and Infrastructure supporting this funding application. This section of road is a busy juncture, with recent residential developments in the area also contributing to increased traffic. The Territory government, to complement this project, will improve cycle path crossings and other road and safety measures at the Stuart Highway and Woolner Road intersections. This is an important black spot to fix for people going to work, but also for people going to the Stuart Park Primary School and the Stuart Park Childcare Centre.
I agree with the Treasurer; this is an unprecedented budget for unprecedented times. It is a budget which concentrates on core government business, keeping people in jobs, keeping our economy strong, and keeping the Territory at the forefront of growth. Madam Deputy Speaker, for these reasons, I am very happy to support this budget.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, the budget is a very important issue which many of us will talk about, some at length and some in depth. I will reserve some of this for the estimates.
My electorate is in Drysdale in Palmerston, so I will definitely talk on some of those issues. However, I am sure I will also go into some of my portfolios like sports.
One can say it is good to see there is further money for our headworks programs in the Palmerston East suburbs and those areas around Bellamack. However, as has been highlighted today, we are only looking at about 90 properties out of Bellamack this year, which is a downturn, like the economy, on the various promises of the government; a downturn that this great Territory cannot really afford to have.
Unfortunately, Darwin and the Northern Territory as a whole, needs to keep up the number of housing land releases. With only 90 expected from this particular project, on some figures the government put out through some different brochures, we could be anything up to 1500 lots of land short for 2009 - a huge number of land lots behind the number projected which is required to keep up with the growth rates. It is good to throw the money around but, if you do not have the outcomes, you have nowhere to go.
It is good to see the progress of the Palmerston GP Super Clinic. Unfortunately, the term ‘super clinic’ has been overused by this government. It has proclaimed many times that the after hours clinic is a super clinic, when we all know that is not quite so, but it is a great way to promote it in a glossy brochure. I hope the additional $8m furthers the clinic so it provides the services we need in the Palmerston region, like dental care.
We look forward to the headworks of the Rosebery primary schools and the middle schools, because we are very much behind the times in building more schools in the Palmerston area, with a great need for larger schooling to cover the growth ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, a reminder about cell phones and laptops with sound, thank you. You have the call member for Drysdale.
Mr BOHLIN: There is the continuation of the Bellamack headworks. It puzzles me how it took this government so long to sign up contracts there. We have seen them continually put out their glossy brochures for Palmerston, sprout how they are doing a great job, and put out more information but deliver nothing. It is time they started building the development. I noticed last week they started. I drove past where they are doing the development and it is looking good, but it is a shame it has taken nearly two years. It is a shame we will see only 90 blocks out of the land this year. There are developers struggling under the rule of the government due to its inaction. It talks about what it is going to do, and it promises, but it fails to deliver.
If you talk about the fun side of life, the Palmerston water park was an election promise by the Labor government. It is good to see in this budget they intend to put the money on the table and deliver it. But have you secured the land, have you discussed this in great length and detail with the council it will affect? Have you decided who will pay for the upkeep of this rather large facility, because it will be a great burden on Palmerston residents and their rates? It is a great thing to have but it still has to be paid for year after year. Look at Leanyer, where the government picks up the bill.
Will it be that Palmerston residents receive their water park, have the shiny brochures put out - thrown into our letterboxes - and then we will receive the bill? Pay it out of your rates as an increase? What other detriment will the water park have on our existing pools and aquatics? Could this facility be combined into the existing pool and the land nearby, to create one large facility, so you will have the pool which is used reasonably well, and it will have a greater attraction to many more people? It will be a better and more used facility, perhaps a more economically viable facility. But, if you put the water park next door, with your glossy brochure, who will want to go to the pool, where you have to pay? All of a sudden, we have an asset which is so underutilised it is not economically viable anymore. It will hurt Palmerston residents.
One would hope you consider that. I know that some sit on the front bench near this lovely little gap, and they smile and smirk, but their planning has been poor in the way they go about doing their business. Sometimes, I wish they listened occasionally and used some advice. Of course, it will be up to the government, for the length of time they are there, as to whether they take that action and work in conjunction with landowners, the council, and the people to make a wise decision that will properly benefit Palmerston residents into the future.
We see that, after a newspaper article in the Territory Regional Weekly the member for Braitling and I featured in a couple of months ago, there was an announcement for the Palmerston boat ramp. You put it out in your election campaign then went quiet. The member for Braitling and I, on 9 April - I think it was - were in the newspaper and that same morning - so the ink had dried on the newspaper and is sent around the Territory – there was a media release from this government saying: ‘Yes, the Palmerston boat ramp is coming. Great! But, gee whiz! We have not built a boat ramp before. We do not know how to build it or what to put there. If you have any ideas, please send them in’. There is a need to consult, there is no doubt ...
A member: There is also a master plan.
Mr BOHLIN: There are some master plans, and there are many boat ramps around. However, it is blatantly obvious that if you have missed the mark and you are responding ad hoc to newspapers, your planning will be lacking. The people who saw that and took any notice of the media release knew you had been caught, proverbially, with your pants down, and it was a pure reaction. I am sure there are plenty of boat ramps and plenty of fisher people who can tell you what is needed.
There is already a plan put forward by the council in the area, the Palmerston City Council, which is a good starting point. Why not speak to the council, and discuss it with them? It is a good idea, a good starting point. Put that out as a starting point and ask for comments, and maybe you would reach somewhere quicker, because we know you are not really good on delivering.
I notice there is $1.9m for continuing works at the Stuart Highway and Deviney Road intersection. I am not really sure the last time there were any works done there, so I am confused why we have used the words ‘continuing works’. Is that just a play to see if you can pretend you are doing some highway works? I do not remember the last time you did any works there or, if you did, it has to be more than three years ago. However, it is good to see some upgrades. Any work on our roads is good at the moment, because they are lacking in maintenance, and they have been for approximately two years whilst you have busily spent the GST revenue on other major projects which caught your eye so you could put out a glossy brochure ...
A member: Frivolous spending.
Mr BOHLIN: Frivolous. I note under the Palmerston Regional Highlights, there is $1m for a six-bed residential care unit for young people at risk. It sounds good, and I probably support the idea. We have one in Casuarina called Casey House. However, if it is like Casey House, I do not want it, because it is not properly controlled in the way a residence is expected to be. It draws in trouble at times. There are needs, but we need to know the plans. I look forward to consulting with the government on its intent for the six-bed residential care unit for people at risk, because there are kids out there who need help. There are kids out there - whether it be Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, or Tennant Creek – who need extra care. In that aspect, I commend you for putting forward the idea, but it needs proper consultation because, if it is done wrong, it only brings trouble. You need to be able to at least care for them. There is a good point, but there is definitely a downside and we need to know more.
The Palmerston Health Precinct, which is tagged on to the Palmerston GP, has $2m for support services. These are ongoing funds you discussed before, and definitely the Palmerston residents have shown they deserve this level of service. In fact, they deserve a hospital. They deserve a proper accident and emergency, and they deserve to have their rural neighbours supported by a hospital as well. I hope you can open up your eyes and your ears and start moving forward towards that, because that is where we should be heading. To develop and grow this Territory proud, we need to have the proper services.
This brings me to the sad part. To this point in the budget, I see you have only allocated $0.96m - so you are trying to brag – or $960 000 for additional ambulance services in Palmerston. In your media release of 5 January - I believe it was, off the top of my head - with the Chief Minister and one other member of parliament on that side, you said we were going to have a 24-hour additional ambulance service in Palmerston after the end of June. The information to hand suggests that to operate the additional service 24-hours per day we need $1.4m. This is not a figure I have plucked out of the air; it is a pretty accurate figure. The figures in your media release in January suggested a figure of $2.25m, off the top of my head, and all we have in this budget is $0.96m.
I believe it is time the Chief Minister apologises to all the residents of Palmerston and says: ‘Whoops, sorry, I have run out of money in the till and I cannot supply the services to Palmerston I promised’. The Chief Minister did promise an additional 24-hour ambulance to the Palmerston and rural area. Looking at this budget, and everything surrounding it, he is going to fail and refuse to supply it to the Palmerston and rural residents. If that is the case, be mature enough to stand up and say: ‘Due to certain x, y and z reasons, we are not going to do this any more’. Do not just sit there quietly and pretend it is not happening, because people are noticing. In fact, it was on the radio the other day.
There are some interesting things, if we look nationally, around environmental issues. The Labor government in the big smoke in Canberra talks about its emission trading scheme and the like, yet, here in the Territory, we have put so much care into our environment that we have only allocated $0.4m for wildlife protection across the Top End - $400 000 is the entire amount for wildlife protection across the Top End; $360 000 for pest research and control, including ‘buffaloos’ - as written in the budget paper - pigs, cats, wild dogs ...
A member interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: It is written as ‘buffaloos’ in here. We have ‘buffaloos’, pigs, cats, wild dogs, cane toads, horses and donkeys in the Top End. There is only $360 000 to protect our environment against those pests. There is $330 000 for wildfire suppression strategies in the Top End. We know there are certain issues, but it is about the environment and, as it goes up in smoke - like some of this budget should - it needs to be looked at in a more detailed way.
There is only $100 000 for advice to landholders on weed management. I know it may be piggy-backed off other things, but $100 000 for the entire Northern Territory to give advice to landholders - and we know the distance some of these officers will need to travel to speak to these people and to look at the problems they have. Is this really being serious about our environment and weed management? Or have they cut more off the budget, skimmed a little off and said: ‘I hope no one sees that? It is good. We can print another glossy brochure’.
My favourite is that we dropped the ‘m’ part out of this, so we no longer pretend we are talking in the millions - $50 000 for the management of threatened species. I hope like heck I am not a threatened Labor Party species, because with $50 000 you do not have much saving in you. I have written some notes on this paper, which I really cannot repeat, but if they are serious about the environment these are some pretty poor figures, and they should be embarrassed.
Yet, we have $610 000 for a Herbarium plant collection and information services, which is good; it is part of our museums. I like that. However, look at the fact we are only going to put $100 000 for advice to landholders on weed management. We heard in this parliament only one or two months ago about the weed problems we have, yet we have only put in $100 000 to try to do something about it, which is pretty ridiculous.
I go back to the $10m for the Bellamack seniors village. Every time the Planning minister speaks she fails to be concise with her words, or say what she means, that the seniors village maybe xyz under her 15% for affordable housing. The seniors village will have to be part of the 15% for affordable housing, but no one on that side will come out and state what they believe is affordable housing for the residents of Darwin, Palmerston or anywhere, for that matter.
If the government cannot work out those basic figures by now, how can we trust you to manage all of this, if you cannot state what you believe will be affordable housing prices or affordable land prices? They are simple figures. You signed a deal with the company the other day so you have to know what the figures are, and what their expectations are. You must have done a deal to say exactly what that affordable housing will cost.
Tell the public; they want to know. The people in the Territory need to know where their next land is going to be, how affordable it is, or whether they are going to have to pack up and leave the Territory. You have made a mess of it - made an absolute mess of it. You have stated that there is 15% affordable housing, so you must be able to say what it is. You must have a figure in your head, on the paper, in the books, or in the contract. Let it be public knowledge. Let people ask: can I afford that? Do I now need to seek financial management so I can achieve my goal of owning a home in the Northern Territory? People need to plan for this. To think the government does not have the figures to announce in public suggests it has not planned anything but its next glossy brochure.
It is very good at the glossy brochures, postcards and the like. But I have danced around the Bellamack seniors village because I have become quite caught up in the 15% of affordable housing. It irks me that there is not enough land in the Northern Territory for a family to reach the Australian great goal of land and home ownership. It irks me that late last year, we saw people living in their cars out the back of Parliament House because the government has failed to manage this great Territory properly.
There is $10m for the Bellamack seniors village. I want to know: what is your time frame for this delivery; what is the plan; how many beds? What is it going to look like? If you have put pen to paper and said: ‘This is the dollar value, it fits within our 15% affordability’, you must have an idea what it is going to look like, to be able to come up with a figure, and what will it supply to our seniors. We have many seniors and many lovely families connected to them and they want to know. They want to know what is on offer. What is the government going to put on the table for them? You have written it in this book. We have at least been spared the glossy page for it and the glossy brochure in our letterbox at this stage. Anyway, now I have said that, we will probably receive one of them. We need to know what sort of time plan. When are we going to deliver it? Which part of this year, next year, the year after, are we going to deliver this stuff? Or is it going to be a rollover plan, an oncology unit that never appears?
While I am on that, I will touch on the home ownership scheme, which was talked about today: $12.6m for a home ownership scheme for low- to middle-income earners to purchase a home. After listening today, I ask: how much income does a person need to fit within that level of middle- to low-income earner? How much money does someone actually need to be earning to realistically afford a home? Interject properly and speak up ...
Mr Knight: Have a look at Homestart.
Mr BOHLIN: Right. If we look at Homestart we know there are many problems with it, but you cannot admit to it ...
Mr Knight: What?
Mr BOHLIN: There is. I asked for a briefing many months ago, and I gave him a scenario and it never came back to me ...
Mr Knight: We have just released Homestart.
Mr BOHLIN: My mistake. What was your old program called?
Mr Knight: HomeNorth.
Mr BOHLIN: Where is the land for these people to buy? What will they have to earn to be able to afford it?
Mr Knight: It is $85 000 for a couple and $65 000 for a single.
Mr BOHLIN: That is a lot of money. For a single - $65 000. What about all the people in the Territory who are only earning $35 000 or $45 000? Are they never going to be able to afford a home? You need to be realistic. The problem is you continue to strangle land release so people cannot afford to buy. You know it is the case. You only have to speak to any one of the fancy home builders and they will tell you that they have problems with it. They will tell you they need more land and you are not releasing it in enough time.
I will leave the rest to estimates, because it is about sports and it takes me all over the Territory.
Palmerston is a great city in its own. It has a great council with plans and leadership. It has some great MLAs. Everyone I know believes in the Palmerston region. They believe in continuing to grow that area for the benefit of everyone. They want to know what is happening in their world. They want to know when we are going to have good land released and how much the affordable land pricing is. The government has had plenty of time to create those figures. It is time it started putting those figures out instead of the glossy brochures.
There are some interesting things for the Palmerston area. I am extremely concerned Palmerston will miss out on its 24-hour additional ambulance service. We need it; the entire Darwin greater region needs the additional 24-hour service. We need to be able to look after all the people who are sick and injured at any time.
We need to know what is going on with our water park. I am sure there are many residents who will enjoy that water park and will have a great time - like the wave pool - but we need to know if you are consulting with the council and the landowner to get a balance so we do not overburden the local residents with extra rates to cover the cost of this expensive project. We need to know it is not going to make the current pool redundant, so it becomes unviable. We need to know the planning is sustainable and smart for the Palmerston people, because Palmerston is beautiful and vibrant and it will continue to prosper, but it needs proper management and not some of the stuff we are seeing.
I have three minutes, so I will take the time to mention that the Palmerston rural residents in Marlow Lagoon are concerned about the intent to put through the overhead power lines. It is not in the budget to go underground or to divert, but those residents would like to meet with the minister responsible to have a proper, calculated discussion as a group, not as individuals. It will be in a venue which belongs to the people, which is our electorate offices. There we can have a proper discussion. I will sit back and listen and let those who are, potentially, responsible for destroying these residents’ land values talk to them and explain what the processes are, where we are going to go, and see proper planning and sensibility occur. I look forward to that happening soon ...
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be given an extra 10 minutes to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you very much, but I am not going to use it. Let us see that proper planning goes on …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, please pause. Those members who are having private conversations, lower your voices, please. Member for Port Darwin, I am asking those in conversation to lower their voices. I cannot hear the member for Drysdale. You have the call, member for Drysdale.
Mr BOHLIN: You are wasting my time.
Let us see if the government plans properly for the Palmerston area. Feel free and come and talk to us, because we are the elected members out there. We are not some placed and planted government employee - which we have seen in recent times – who is being paid ridiculous money to represent this team.
The offer stands: if there is an issue in Palmerston, this government has an open door to my office, which is the electorate office of the people of Drysdale. They have an open door where they can come and discuss it with me and those concerned residents of Palmerston at all times. Then we can plan properly because, at the moment, the lack of consultation, land release, the additional 24-hour ambulance service, a hospital, and planning is ridiculous. It is crazy to even believe they have their fingers on the pulse. I look forward to seeing this budget move. I look forward to seeing the results of the weeks that pass afterwards and to a very bright and prosperous 12 months.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I heard members opposite describe this budget as a great budget for difficult times. It is so interesting, because I look at the current debt levels of every man, woman, and child in the Territory. In the last eight years, when we have experienced some of the best financial times in this country, the debt levels have risen for Territorians. However, on the federal scene, they actually went down to zero. What a great job the previous federal government did in relation to managing the budget federally, to the point where, when they left government in November 2007, there was a $23bn bank sitting around. We would be far better if we had that money still sitting there. However, given the current economic times that the world is experiencing, we would be worse off had that surplus not been there and the debt not been paid off.
The Northern Territory government, since 2001, has had an unexpected windfall of around $1.2bn. It is interesting, when I hear the government saying how great it has been, and the money it has spent on this, that, and everything else. Of course, we all know that spending money does not necessarily get outcomes; money is an input as opposed to an output. However, I hear them say: ‘We have spent this and we have spent that, and record spending, and we spend far more than the previous CLP did when it was in government’. I suppose, with an extra $1.2bn in your back pocket, you can do many things and spend much money. You can increase the public service by almost 3000, you can keep employing people and keep racking up the debt. The last time I checked a number of years ago, we were up to about $16 000 per head, for each man, woman and child in the Territory. I note it is currently in excess of $20 000.
There is not much being spent on some of the little things - at least I cannot find it in the budget. I would like to talk about a number of things that are not happening as a result of this budget; some of the things that perhaps could happen if the government looked at being equitable across the board in all electorates.
The first issue I address is that of law and order in my electorate, and the youth in the northern suburbs. I will include the other electorates in the northern suburbs, because some of the members opposite who are from the northern suburbs have the same sort of problem with some of the youth issues. It is a major concern. The youth out there, basically, make up 18% of our population and they are 100% of our future. We are obliged to look after them, to give them direction, and help them get through some of those difficult years. This means we will need to have some youth programs. In fact, we will need quite a few youth programs to look after them and give them alternative things to do. Boredom is a great problem for young people. If they do not have anything to do, they simply sit around in parks, do graffiti, and smash things, simply for a little excitement.
Young people, since time immemorial, have always been looking for a buzz, and it seems that is the very nature of youth and hormone fluctuations: they go out and they do silly things and get themselves into trouble sometimes. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they do not. Some do a little, some do a lot. There are those out there who are looking for something alternative to do. As a community, it behoves us to actually supply some of those things, which might include drop-in centres.
If one goes back in history - and I speak about the Top End and in the areas around my electorate - many years ago, we used to have a facility called the Red Cross Fire Escape. It was a great facility in the northern suburbs, run by some wonderful people who gave their time and their hearts but, unfortunately, were not prepared to have their cars scraped down the side with 20 pieces. The people who kept getting thrown out of these youth drop-in centres because of bad behaviour were not actually getting thrown out for very long; they were allowed back in. Therefore, the good kids who were being bullied all left, so we had half a dozen kids in a government-sponsored pool hall, basically.
They are not the things the government needs to look at. The government needs to fund good things like hubs, neighbourhood activity centres, where there are numerous things for young people to do: all sorts of activities from rock climbing, abseiling, football, cadet units - there are a whole range of things the government could do if it used imagination and put a little funding into the early intervention programs that everyone in the world is looking at.
The key words are ‘early intervention’. I ask the government to look at its budget and where there might be a little room to look at some of those early intervention programs. You do not have to go very far; you can Google some of them. It is that simple, type in Google and you come up with some great ideas.
Neighbourhood activity centres are a way to involve all people in the community, from the older generation to the younger generation. Those in the middle are out working hard. Many mums and dads are working, or the partners are working, to make the house payments - I will deal with that later. House payments are consuming a fair amount of family incomes. We need to give the community these sorts of things. If we do not, the downstream problems which occur are enormous. The health and legal issues, the general cost to the community in policing, and the cost of graffiti, crime, damage and, generally, the rehabilitation costs of either incarcerating these young people or very high cost programs to get them back on the straight and narrow when they have fallen off the straight road and got themselves into drugs or, sometimes, worse situations.
That brings me to the subject of Police Beats and police around our suburbs. I note the Chief Minister, even tonight, was going on about how great Police Beats are. If you take the Police Beat at Casuarina Square for instance, where most of the young people in my electorate seem to congregate these days, there is a police station not 50 m from the property line where the Police Beat is on the other side of the road. From my former life as a police officer I still have many friends, and I am told by many of these people that the police officers consider this a complete waste of money. They can actually walk across from the police station to get there. The Police Beat, obviously, takes staff to run it; people have to be there. They see it as a waste of police resources that could be better applied in other areas. However, I understand the government is trying to get some political points out of doing this sort of stuff and, perhaps, some good spin.
I would like to see more Police Beats; in fact, some more support for Community Patrols and a closer liaison between Community Patrols and the police in the northern suburbs. The Community Patrols do a fabulous job of going around and operating as free eyes and ears on behalf of the community to pass that information through to the police, so the police can be far more effective.
There is an old saying: if you know where the needle is in the haystack, you do not spend much time looking for it; you can go straight to the problem. This is what Community Patrols do. However, there seems to be reluctance to support Community Patrols. I ask the government to consider perhaps taking or shifting some of the dollars from various places and encourage those who have charge of the budgets, the CEOs, to look at some of those things in the community which can be of great benefit.
They open a Police Beat at Casuarina Square, yet they do not support the continuation of the TIO office there. Just down the road from Police Beat, we have the TIO office which is about to close, which will force many of the people in my electorate who go to Casuarina and do multiple jobs and tasks in one day, to go to town and do those things in the city.
This also raises a problem for the disabled people who live in my electorate. Given that I am assisting the shadow minister for disabilities, it comes under my portfolio. I have these people approaching me in my electorate office saying: ‘How are we going to do this, especially in the Wet Season? If you go into town, it is pouring with rain, it is stinking hot and, if you are in a wheelchair, for instance, you have to negotiate crossing the roads to get from the bus terminus through to the TIO Office’. There is rain, there are people, there are kerbs, there are all sorts of problems they have. You open the police office, yet you do not support the continuation of TIO, or even an agency out there.
These are some of the things the government could look at - alternatives. I know that the TIO is a statutory body and they are supposed to be able to look after themselves, but we are talking about services to disabled people by the government and looking at ways that we can be creative. If they cannot afford to keep their full office open, at least have an agency. Perhaps they could get a bit of a corner in the Police Beat office, and we could set up a little TIO office there for people to get some basic services.
I also raise policing in the northern suburbs in relation to the Police Traffic Branch. There are rumours abounding that, due to budgetary constraints, the resources of the police force are being put all over the place. In fact, no one knows about it; even Vince Kelly from the Police Association is asking for an independent audit as to where the police officers are. I cannot say where the dollars are going, but my understanding is that they have increased the size of the Missing Persons Bureau, so it can go out …
Dr Burns: You can ask the commissioner next week in estimates.
Mr STYLES: They have increased the size of the Missing Persons Bureau. That is great because they are looking for an extra 300 police officers they cannot find.
I hope the government might listen to the opposition regarding some of the issues raised and actually deal with them. I have a large number of people come into my office complaining about the driving standards. They ask where the police traffic section is. Where is the money being spent on law and order and maintaining safety on the roads and in homes and other places? This morning, I was driving along McMillans Road and I got to Lee Point Road and there was a red light. I was in a line of traffic and the lights turned green for us. No one could move because four cars came sailing through the intersection while we were sitting there with a green light.
The minimum time changing from red to green is about two seconds. These people were well outside the intersection when their lights were red, and they were just sailing through and we had to wait. Not only does that hold traffic up, but it is extremely dangerous. I hope one day that the children of some of these people in this House are not coming through an intersection to get T-boned, and we have to go and cut the bodies out of the car. I do not know whether members opposite have ever done that - never had to cart kids out of cars in pieces. I can tell you, it is not a very pleasant sight or job.
The government needs to spend a bit of money and maintain the traffic section. It needs to increase the numbers of police vehicles out there, so that we have a deterrent, because there is not much deterrent out there at this point in time. People are speeding. You are doing the speed limit on Bagot Road and people are flying past you. We have speed cameras there, but there is only a couple of them, and they are not always there. People look in the paper which says the speed camera is not going to be on Bagot Road today, so they roar down Bagot Road and pass everyone. We need to spend some money on law and order issues. If you do not have law and order, what do you have in the community? Not very much at all.
That brings me to the next issue. We have young people out there who want things to do; they want to have a bit of fun. They are not bad kids. In fact, 99% of kids are not bad; they will get through. I can say that from experience with nearly 20 years working in the community. I have seen most kids get through. They all bump the fences along the way, they have a few issues and a few problems, but they all get through. However, there are a number of young people who, through choice, decide that they want to go against everything. It is very difficult to convince some of them they need to change their ways. I note that on our side, we talk camps - boot camps or whatever term the government wants to call them - but they are correctional camps.
I note recently there were 20 places funded through Balanu and Brahminy, yet there were only six places taken up. I had to ask a few of my good friends in the police department: ‘What is going on, folks?’ They say there are plenty of kids out there who need it and they are at a loss to know why the government has not taken it up - or the Police department has not. It would be good if the minister for Police could ask the Commissioner for Police why there are kids running around out there who need that help, and why they are not in these places. That is a good question that we might ask them.
The next issue I get to in my electorate are the elderly people who wander in the door. Again, this is about spending money on law and order and fixing some of the basic issues. The elderly people will not go to an ATM. They see all these young people hanging around, and they have lost the confidence to move about this community and feel safe. They will go into the bank. I had one old lady who came in about a month ago and said she will not use the ATM anymore; she goes down to the bank. She used to put her money into her handbag and clutch it to her shoulder and, then, walk out in fear that someone was going to take the bag. She now hides money in the place that my mother used to hide her money - where Mum always thought it was pretty safe, and it probably is a lot safer than in the handbag.
We have elderly people who will not go out walking at night. They are saying they will not go out and walk at 5.30 pm because people knock them over, they may steal from them or take their mobile phones. These are the issues that I do not believe are being addressed sufficiently.
On 18 April, I got word from a number of my constituents who were in the Casuarina Cinema car park on the top floor. They went to the movies, came out, and eight of them had their windows smashed in, in one night. We do not seem to hear about some of these things in the paper, and they certainly do not seem to appear in the Neighbourhood Watch meetings.
Regarding violence in schools - and I talk from experience here - the ability of school-based police officers to get into classrooms to build a rapport with young people - and this all has to do with early intervention and investing time and money in early intervention so that you can manoeuvre these young people off in the right direction. At the end of June 2005, the government decided that they would not have a drug education program in schools; we will go for a new program. Well, I have to tell you that the new program - that was not finished and still has not been fully written - just was not available. So, what happens? Police officers are dragged out of school. When you actually have look at where juvenile crime has gone, it is actually going up and the problems are increasing. Why? Well, perhaps its because the government has taken them away. They have stopped spending the money where it needs to be spent; that is, in early intervention.
While I am talking about school-based policing, let us talk about school-based nurses. School-based nurses are also in crisis. They cannot get staff, the people out there have been spread so thin, and people are not being replaced, and this impacts. The lack of spending in these areas impacts on people’s feelings and on their ability to go to work and do the job effectively. We all talk about effectiveness and efficiencies in delivering services that saves the government money. It saves the community money because people get more done.
However, when you do not look after people in the community - you do not pay them enough, you do not replace them, you shift them, or you give them way too many duties - then people get saddened and depressed and they just think: ‘Why would I want to go to work?’ So, sick leave goes up. If you look at the sick leave in a number of Health areas and the Police department, and they are atrocious.
Violence in schools - here we go. School-based police officers were dragged off to do all sorts of responsive or reactive policing, as opposed to proactive policing. I do not think that the government wants to spend any money on proactive policing, as they do not understand what the benefits are of some of the proactive early intervention program around. I ask them to please come and talk to me and I can give you some background information on some of those things. Violence in schools is one of the issues you teach young people in Transition. You teach them how to stand up for themselves, not to put up with things, to report things early, and you build up rapport with them.
However, as a community, we are losing the ability because the government will not spend it in what they say is a great budget for difficult times.
Regarding laneways in my community, I know that the Neighbourhood Watch people, the Darwin City Council are the people have made application to government for funding so they can actually close some of these laneways off. I am a great believer in closing some of these off. I do not agree with selling them, but government could invest some money out of this great budget in assisting some of these problem laneways by putting fences up so that when we actually do get on top of some of these law and order problems that we have in the community, we can reopen them so the good people of the community and my electorate can actually re-use these laneways. Of course, we have to get on top of some of the antisocial and crime problems.
That brings me to driver’s licences. Older people now get free driver’s licences, but the youth have to pay for them. What we find is people come in and say, how come I go in there one day and these are the rules of getting a driver’s licence, you are actually examined, and people say, oh, you did not pass your licence because you did this. The next time you go in, you have to wait, sometimes up to six weeks because of lack of funding from the government and the Motor Vehicle Registry does not seem to have enough driver’s licence examiners, so you just have to wait. So they go along, they pay their fees again, they do what they were told last time and they fail. And they say: ‘Hang on, the last time the other examiner said I have to do this’. ‘Oh well, you cannot do that, I am saying you do this’.
There is confusion reigning out there between young people. I had, not just one, but a number of young people come in and say, this is terrible, we have to wait, wait, wait, and wait. It is a big thing to young people to get their driver’s licence. So what happens is, some of them end up going out there, they want to drive the car, they know they can drive, they have sort of almost passed, they believe they are okay, so they go out there, they get caught driving without a licence or have an accident, they are then hit for the rest of their lives under the MACA scheme, they have pay all the fees and medical bills for some poor sod who they had an accident with. It is just a terrible situation, and again, it is because government does not seem to want to fund some extra positions out there to provide a basic service to our community. I am not talking about luxuries; I am just talking about basic services for driver’s licences.
So another issue comes in, and this again comes down to funding, it comes down to staffing, and it comes down to basic provisional services. A guy lost his job recently as a result of the recession, or the current financial problems that we are having here, loses his job, and he wants to become a taxi driver. There are taxi drivers out there, there are taxis parked, I know there are 25 taxis, three of which are on the road at night time, and 22 of which lay idle because we cannot get drivers. So this man comes into my office, and says, this is terrible, this is disgusting, I have to wait three months for a criminal history check so I can get a licence so I can get a job. That is appalling. Three months to get a criminal history check done, and it is going to cost him a fair bit of money, just so he can go and get a job. So what is he doing now? He is sitting on the dole, just waiting around for a criminal history check. It is appalling.
There are many people who come in and say there is just an extraordinary delay in getting criminal history checks done. They find that absurd when we are trying to get people into work. We are trying to provide jobs, create jobs, and get people to come here for the fantastic lifestyle. Crime rates are on the increase. You cannot get a house, and if you can it is going to cost you a fortune. You cannot rent a place because you cannot afford it. But then you cannot get criminal history check done to get a job, so what do people do - they are leaving.
If you go to Malak Caravan Park or KOA Caravan Park and you talk to the people who are residents there - I get to talk to new people from time to time - they leave because it gets too expensive. It is a failure of government to spend money in providing dedicated services.
I look at some of the other problems around my electorate where there are people who are sleeping around shopping centres in my electorate. One of the particular problems is at Wagaman shops where people seem to like to camp around the shops. One poor shopkeeper has to come out every morning with his hose and disinfectant and clean up where people have been defecating at his back door in the little alcove which seems to be the local toilet.
These are issues that the government is saying it is addressing but this has been going on for an extraordinary amount of time. Getting people back to country, and into all sorts of supported accommodation - that is hard because we used to have in excess of 6000 Territory Housing properties and I believe we now have just over 5000. There has obviously been many sold off. I do not know whether that was to prop up previous budgets or something.
Those are just some of the law and order issues that this budget perhaps will address. I hope so but I am not confident that they will.
I would like to move on the education. There are some issues out there and I do not know if this is new to the government, but if they do know about it, it is a shame because they do not seem to be doing much about it. If they do not know about it, well I am the messenger. I am giving you some good news.
Dr Burns: Like the postman.
Mr STYLES: Yes, that is it; I can be the postman too if you like. Middle schools are an issue that I hope the government has tried to address, but I do not think they have. It is counsellors in schools. There is evidence around the world to suggest that people are moving away from middle schools because of some of the social issues that are coming out of the particular way that they are set up. The pedagogy that occurs in middle schools, great, I do not have a problem with that. However, it is the actual location.
When you shift these middle schools, you build big buildings at great expense to the taxpayer and you move all these young people in and we find that the people who are the role models of this school, for instance on the male side, are boys 14 years old, which is the worst year of a boys’ life. The average of the greatest number of hormonal fluctuations in a males’ life is when he is 14 years of age, and these are the role models in the school. We wonder why we have problems with Year 7 and 8 students, looking up to these fine young people who are going right off the planet and there is no one else there that they can look up to as a role model.
Mr Elferink: Yes, I am in that awkward period between eight and 80 as well.
Mr STYLES: You have been in it for most of your life. We need counsellors; we need funding for counsellors. This is just in my area and I am sure that most of these other electorates and all the members of this House probably have schools in their area where they desperately need these services to get these young people through.
If we do not guide them now, then where are we going to be? We will have many issues with kids running wild, and we will have many juvenile problems and juvenile crime. We will have juvenile courts full of young people who have no role models and are creating havoc out there, getting themselves into trouble and then going to court and saying, I do not know what I did. Then when they look for a place to go for some rehabilitation there are only six places being used and we have this money going to these facilities like Balunu and Brahminy and only six people are using these facilities. It is a disgrace that the government does not have its eye on the ball when it comes to some of these issues.
These are basic issues that I am sure that members are finding in their electorate offices. If they are not, then perhaps they need to get out and find out just what is going on in relation to their great budget for difficult times.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the member for Sanderson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you to my colleague, the member for Fong Lim.
I ask the government to consider school-based nurses, school-based policing and early intervention. If they have not considered putting extra money into it and extra staffing into it, then if you want to fix the problems before they start, you have to get in early, and invest the time, the money and the community spirit into these young people so they do not go off the ropes and end up costing us a squillion dollars down the road.
I come to some of the health issues that I am having in my electorate in relation to the government’s failure to spend money in the appropriate areas. The first issue is getting to the hospital. If you do not have a car, and if you are injured – and we all know there are probably not enough ambulances - but if you get an ambulance, and you go to hospital, that is great. If you have a car, that is great too; you can either drive yourself if you are able, or you get someone to drive you. However, when you get to the hospital, you must park about 2 km away. You cannot park anywhere outside the car parks, because that area has big signs saying it is subject to traffic infringement notices and if you park in the wrong spot you will get a traffic infringement notice Parking at the hospital is a major issue. I am hoping the minister might look at the budget and alleviate that particular problem so we do not have the issue of people who are sick having to walk for anything up to a kilometre because they cannot park in hospital grounds.
The other issue for seniors in my electorate is catching buses. It is in interesting process. We are not that far from the hospital, but for some it is too far to walk. If you are sick, you are probably not going to walk to hospital anyway. I feel for my colleagues in Palmerston, because it can take you anything up to two to three hours to get to the hospital. It is about providing the right funding through this great budget in difficult times for the basic infrastructure of transport and bus services to get these people to the hospital.
This brings me to disabled access. A person came into my office and said: ‘Why is the government not spending money ensuring there is access for wheelchairs at the new waterfront area?’ I found out about this yesterday. You go to one of the new hotels and from the wave pool to the hotel you cannot get a wheelchair in there. There is no access!
A member: That is illegal.
Mr STYLES: Yes, it is. It is a bit like parking buses in Knuckey Street outside the Mantra. I went there one night, when the bus arrived, we could not move. We had to sit there, waiting and waiting.
On school dental clinics: there is a great school dental clinic at Wagaman Primary School; they cannot find the keys. That is how long it has been since it was used. I went there for a school council meeting and the issue was raised and I said: ‘Can I have a look at it?’ and they said: ‘We have to find the keys.’ They said it used as a storeroom! There are people in my electorate who are going to need the government to invest in basic services in schools so our young people are getting seen to and looked after.
I know there is this program that says: ‘We are here one week and there the next week, and over here another week, and we are sharing these people around.’ These poor dental technicians are being moved all over the place to the extent that some of them are getting stressed. I would like to see the government, in this great budget for difficult times, make use of some of these dental clinics to get the service running.
As for the beautification program at the airport entrance, they are trying to save money on cutting grass. Obviously the lawnmowers cost too much to run. The grass is encroaching closer and closer to the intersection. Soon you will probably not even see ‘Welcome to Darwin’ as it will be overgrown with grass. Perhaps they can find a few dollars for the beautification program they so proudly talk about and get the grass cut.
The government gave the Darwin City Council a grant and about $250 000-odd dollars was spent at the Wulagi shops. The people in the shops cannot believe what they have. They have barriers that prevent people from walking straight into their shops; they have to walk around. I ask them to spend a few dollars trying to get some decent planning and consultation. Consultation would be great. The people in my electorate are eagerly waiting the spending of those dollars on the beautification program that has been promised.
I will talk about the golf club. I have had plenty of golfers approach me. I live near the golf course and they drop by and say: ‘We need a clubhouse; the roof is leaking, it is just about falling in. This is supposed to be Darwin’s premier golf course’. We have a convention centre that is now, hopefully, bringing lots of people who play golf to Darwin, yet, they come out and walk into a shed, and that is supposed to be Darwin’s premier golf course. It would be great if the government invested some money through Sport and Recreation, or facilitated the golf club to get some freehold land so they can borrow some money so they can do these things.
In this great budget for difficult times, I would like to see the government spend a few dollars, or facilitate private industry and clubs to build something, and give them the capacity to do it themselves. It is not going to take much. There is tourism potential there, and it can bring in many tourists in the winter months to play golf tournaments.
It is good that the government is going to spend $1bn on power because I have to tell you that the lights are still going out in my electorate. In Wulagi, just a couple of days ago, it was out for quite some time.
I would love the government to spend a few dollars on the Marrara sporting area car park and provide some car parking. Whenever there is an event there, it is atrocious. It is another area that needs to have some money spent on it.
We also need some basic stuff like play equipment in the parks. Previously, members of government have promised play equipment here, there, and all over the place, but we want to see it. It would be great if we could get some dollars to spend on basic services for young people who live in my electorate.
We need pedestrian crossings, especially on Yanyula Drive. We have young people trying to get across what would be a fairly major road, and they have a bit of trouble getting to school. We need crossings on McMillans Road to get people out of Carnoustie Circuit at Northlakes across a six-lane highway. These issues do not seem to be addressed. We have graffiti all over the place. We need some walkways. We need something done. We need some lighting in walkways.
Housing: 10 years ago, the land aspect of housing used to be 21%; now the land value is in excess of 40%. Territory Housing stock is going down, and young families in my electorate are living with mum and dad because the government seems to think that they have this great budget for difficult times, yet, we are in trouble because we have young people and young families who want to buy a home, who want to stay in the Territory, want to live and work here, but they have been hampered by this great budget for difficult times.
Madam Speaker, I commend these ideas to the government and hope that someone might read this and put some of these things in place.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Cash for Containers Scheme
Note Statement – Cash for Containers Scheme
Continued from 9 June 2009.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support CDL, but it is qualified support in the sense that I would like to see further detail on the program before it is rolled out: to find out exactly how it is going to work, the cost impacts, any potential negative impacts for the business community, if any, and the positive impacts for the community of the Northern Territory more broadly. I would also be interested to see how the program is expected to work in areas outside the urban centres of the Northern Territory. I am keen to understand why the expected time frame for delivery is going to take as long as it will take.
People in my electorate of Braitling are concerned about the roll-out of CDL and, as I understand it, across Alice Springs more broadly. There is the new liquor litter levy soon to be introduced in Alice Springs to try to clean up alcohol waste litter and the container deposit legislation could take over from that. I would like to see CDL move in a lot quicker.
CDL has been in South Australia for many years. This government has been in power for eight years now. I recognise a new minister has come in and has sought to bring CDL to the table. I do acknowledge that after eight years they could have done something much sooner than what they have done. The liquor litter levy in Alice Springs will bring about a negative impact on the economy in Alice Springs. We have not heard whether it is a legal charge or not in terms of the court system. CDL is a model that can move forward to stop that liquor litter levy in any way.
I would also like to see how the impact of CDL may be able to restrict, or stop altogether, any recycled materials from Darwin being utilised as land fill in the Northern Territory. Most people who recycle their recyclables would be upset to know that recycled material is getting buried in the ground and is not getting reused in the Darwin area.
I do not have a lot to add, except to say that I am very happy that the minister has brought this on. I am happy to see that the minister and Independent member for Nelson are working together with a committee. I am disappointed that the member for Fannie Bay is on there; I think the member for Brennan should have been on the committee. We support this with in-principle support, based on those concerns I outlined about the actual detail on the potential economic costs of the model, for business and for government, and how we understand, through government modelling, that it will clean up the Northern Territory, but also work to establish or initiate business in the area that would relate to CDL in the Northern Territory.
I urge the minister to bring CDL on as quickly as possible. I also ask her to consider a proposal that I put forward in an adjournment debate at the last sittings, and what the member for Greatorex mentioned earlier today in his budget reply speech, and that is the potential opportunity to provide financial support to the Alice Springs Town Council to implement a temporary CDL model, to clean up the liquor rubbish around Alice Springs rather than the council, by lack of this government’s efforts, being forced into the position to tax landlords of premises with alcohol takeaway outlets. That proposal, while passed by council, I understand there may be some litigation that may be proceeded by landlords of those premises in Alice Springs, who are unhappy with having to pay a $60 000 levy to council, which will be used to run a model of cleaning up litter within certain parts of Alice Springs. I do not believe that is a fair impost on an investor who owns a building, especially when that charge for the investor may not be passed on to the alcohol retailer who is a tenant of premises in the Alice Springs district. That is why I have in principle support for CDL. I would like to see it moved along faster so that this charge is not brought about.
We all acknowledge that there are alcohol problems across the Territory and Alice Springs, but where the landlord can pass on the additional cost of that liquor litter levy, of up to $60 000, to a retailer, all that will do is drive up the price of alcohol, which for people who sensibly consume alcohol is an unfair impost and an inflationary measure, or to create savings, it will place an economic restraint on those retailers, potentially forcing people out of jobs to save money to be able to pay for that bill.
I do not want to shed criticism on Alice Springs Town Council. I respect its positive approach to doing something about this, but I criticise the Labor government for taking eight years to come up with a model that is reflective of legislation in another jurisdiction in Australia. I recognise that the member for Nelson has been trying to pursue this matter for some time. There are members in this parliament who grew up with either a model of CDL or a model of recycling and it is the norm for those people to do that. It is very funny to be in a place where recycling is not the norm, whether that is through CDL, kerbside recycling, or otherwise. At my place, when I put the rubbish in the bin, I still separate my recyclables, chuck them in the big green or yellow bin, and send them to the tip.
This CDL statement is very welcome; it is a long overdue statement, by both the CLP as well as the Labor government. I do not believe that society generally would feel that recycling is too great an impingement on everyday lifestyles. CDL will have some negative connotations for different people across the Territory, and I recognise there will have to be a change process. The benefit for the government and for the minister is that on this side of the House we will support the process. I do not believe there will be much political pain from this side of the House, minister. The sooner we can move forward with CDL, the real potential of creating green economic industries in the Northern Territory, to make this a viable model and one that is not reliant upon government handouts, will be positive. The in-principle support is around ensuring we see the detail and we make sure that the Territory taxpayers are not going to have a financial burden for now and forever …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, it now being nine o’clock, would you like to have an extension of 10 minutes.
Mr GILES: I can finish my comments at a later date.
Madam SPEAKER: You can do that or you can have 10 minutes now.
Mr GILES: I will finish my comments at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter before the Chair is now adjourned until the next sitting day, pursuant to Standing Order 41A.
I propose the Assembly do now adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 41A (b).
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks this evening on Commander Anne-Marie Murphy who was awarded an APM in the Queens Honours.
Anne-Marie was promoted to the rank of Superintendent in 2002. Since this time she has performed mostly in the role of the Commissioner’s Staff Officer from 2002 to 2008. In 2006, she played a significant role in the planning and coordination of the Northern Territory Police contingent that travelled to participate in the dedication of the National Police Memorial in Canberra on Police Remembrance Day. As a result of her involvement, her efforts were recognised through a Deputy Commissioner’s Letter of Recognition.
In 2007, Anne-Marie was the inaugural recipient of the Patricia Brennan Award in recognition of her significant contribution to women in the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. On 18 September 2008, she was recognised by Commissioner White with a certificate of appreciation for her dedicated and exemplary work as the Commissioner’s Staff Officer since 12 December 2002. In late, 2008, Anne-Marie was transferred to the position of Divisional Superintendent of the East Arnhem Operational Service Division, operating from Katherine.
On 2 March 2009, Anne-Marie was promoted to the rank of Commander, Strategic Planning Command. This promotion was due to her demonstrated managerial and leadership strengths, her understanding of multicultural issues and the depth of experience gained whilst working with the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services.
I send my personal congratulation to Anne-Marie Murphy. She has served the Northern Territory Police and the Territory generally in an exemplary manner.
Captain Grant Arthur Chambers has been awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for meritorious achievements as the Acting Brigade Major of Headquarters 1st Brigade, Royal Australian Navy. Captain Chambers’ indefatigable efforts as Acting Brigade Major of Headquarters 1st Brigade have been instrumental in the successful preparation and deployment of the first rotation of the first division rotation model. He has ensured the smooth, effective coordination and planning for the deployment of over 1200 soldiers on operations to three different operational theatres. He has made an indispensable contribution to the Australian Defence Force’s operational commitments. Congratulations to Captain Grant Arthur Chambers CSM.
Warrant Officer Class 2, Michael William Shaw has been awarded the Conspicuous Service Medal for meritorious achievements in logistics support at JLU North Royal Australian Navy. Warrant Officer Shaw has consistently produced outstanding results over three years at Joint Logistics Unit, North, directly benefiting logistic support to operations and regional commitments. His outstanding service has been achieved across a range of responsibilities. Additional to his core role is the regional inspector of food stuffs. He consistently displayed the highest standards of leadership, commitment, tenacity and professionalism; in particular, his performance during Operation Outreach, the Aboriginal Assistance Mission was exceptional.
I congratulate the recipients of the 2009 Queens Birthday Honours List and, on behalf of my colleagues and all members of this House, thank each of them for their contributions to the Northern Territory.
I would also like to make some comments this evening on behalf of, I think, all of us and our Indian community here in Darwin. We are a very proud multicultural community in Darwin and having spoken with leaders of the Indian community yesterday and today, I know there is an enormous amount of stress within that community in regard to what is happening in Sydney and Melbourne.
The community was happy for me to talk this evening. This is a very proud multicultural city and we never want to see, nor do I believe we will see, similar issues being played out here. I have also spoken with the Vice-Chancellor of the university this evening to see if there has been an increase in enrolments at the university from the Indian community. India is a very important source market for overseas migrants to Charles Darwin University. I relay to the broader community that our university is welcoming of students from whichever country they come from around the world. People are welcomed with open arms in the Territory. It is another reminder to all of us as we see these types of events unfold, and I agree with what the Prime Minister said tonight: they are isolated, and wherever you go in the world issues like this arise. I am sure police and other law enforcement officers in Sydney and Melbourne will deal with the culprits, whatever their motivation is.
We do not see those issues here in the Territory. I do not believe that we ever will. Our sympathies go out to the Indian community of Darwin at this time.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, it is not very often that I agree with the Chief Minister’s comments, but what has been happening down south in the Indian community is extremely concerning and alarming. I have a friend who resides in India, a gentleman I met in the late 1960s through my family. It is what you could call a classic example of a pen pal. On a day after the riots in the southern states, he sent me an e-mail saying he was most concerned about what was happening. He did not understand it and asked why the Australian community was doing this. I sent an e-mail back to him saying no, it was not right, and it is not like Australia, and I did not understand what was happening.
I have read in the papers that some of the Indian students in the community are looking to come to the Northern Territory. If this is the case, then that is a good thing because they would find a much better place to live and study up here.
Tonight, I bring concerns to the House in regard to Power and Water and the delivery of power services to the rural area, in particular, Humpty Doo. We hear of the issues with Power and Water and their power services to the northern suburbs, but the residents of Humpty Doo have been suffering and struggling with intermittent and poor power services for many years, and it is not getting any better.
I will relay a case study of how bad it can be. This is a family who lives in Thomas Road in Humpty Doo. They moved there in November 2008 and, since that time, they have experienced in excess of 60 outages ranging from fluctuations - which is power off and immediately back on - to general outages which last from minutes and, sometimes, hours. On 19 May this year, this household experienced seven outages between the hours of 5.30 am and 7.30 am, which also affected 360 homes in the area.
Following these outages on this particular day, the family sent an e-mail to the Chief Minister’s Office regarding the issue. That, in turn, was referred to the Minister for Essential Services, minister Knight, for comment. To this date, which is now mid-June, they have not received any further correspondence from the Minister for Essential Service’s office in regard to the problems in Humpty Doo. That is four weeks later; there is not even an acknowledgement of their concerns from the minister’s office.
On that same day, given their frustration with the problems with the power, they were compelled to contact MIX 104.9’s talkback show to discuss the issue further. At the time, they advised a particular person at the station that they had experienced over 50 outages in a period of six months. Following on from their conversation, a Power and Water Corporation representative advised the family that, from the period 31 December 2008 to 19 May 2009 their area had only experienced 36 outages. They dispute that because they have, thankfully, kept a very good record of the outages. By their calculations, the period identified by the Power and Water representative was not for a six-month period, and he seemed rather lax about the number of outages experienced. In other words, he was not really that concerned.
This particular household has kept the documentation and, following the initial seven outages they experienced in that early morning on 19 May, the outages that they have experienced since that time are: 19 May 2009, 6.55 pm - fluctuation, power off and immediate return; 23 May 2009, 5 am to 6.30 am – outage; 25 May 2009,11 am - fluctuation, 28 May 2009, 7.55 pm, fluctuation; 2 June 2009, 4.58 pm, fluctuation; 3 June, 10.35 pm to 1.35 am, outage; 6 June 2009, 12.55 am, fluctuation; 6 June 2009, 2.50 am to 3.07 am, outage; and 6 June 2009, 5.59 am, fluctuation.
What this means is, apart from perhaps the inconvenience of the power going off, it upsets a whole range of electrical appliances in the house, and to be so regular, in the last six months, this family have paid for the replacement of a split airconditioning system, and they have had to have their water pump repaired. As some of the members in this House would be aware, many people in the rural area have pressure pumps; they do not have their water tanks on stands. They need a pressure pump to get water into the house, and this is the water pump that they are talking about. Water pumps do not like being turned on and off from a power source.
As these outages occur almost daily …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, this year we are celebrating the 21st year of the Greek Glenti Festival. I am sure the Darwin community enjoyed another marvellous weekend of Greek festivities, food, culture, and music. The Glenti is now the largest multicultural event on the Northern Territory cultural calendar. More than 30 000 people attend it each year. It has become the event to welcome the Dry Season in Darwin. Mr Tony Miaoudis organised the very first Glenti in 1988 at the Greek School and a crowd of 10 000 people was attracted. Of course, the Glenti outgrew the Greek school grounds after its first year, and it has been hosted ever since at the Esplanade, with many Territorians attending all weekend to join the festivities, share the Greek culture, and especially to get a taste of tantalising Greek delicacies for sale, including some of the Greek wine and Greek beer.
The Glenti has raised over $100 000 for children’s charities over the last few years, a magnificent effort. I congratulate and sincerely thank the dedicated coordinator, Ms Lilliane Gomatos; Mr John Nikolakis, President of the Greek community; Mr Tony Miaoudis; the Glenti MCs, Jim Hatzi, as everybody knows him in Darwin, Evan Papadonikis and George Koulakis.
This year, we enjoyed the company of the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos, Mr Philippos Christodoulou; a Greek singer, Ms Keti Koulis, and we had a reporter from TV Channel 12 reporting on the Glenti. The Over-35 soccer team is also here to participate in games this week.
It is a hard job to prepare the Glenti, to coordinate this year for two-and-a-half days, because it started on Friday afternoon. There was a lot of assistance from other associations, the Greek Orthodox School, the Olympic and Hellenic Soccer Clubs, the Hellenic Macedonia Association, the Kalymnian Brotherhood, the Cypriot Community, the Hellenic students from CDU and, for the first time, representatives from the Darwin/Kalymnos sister city, with their food stall providing Greek delicacies and, most importantly, the many generous sponsors and supporters.
This morning, I walked down the mall and a number of Greek people involved with the Glenti asked me to pass on their sincere thanks to the Chief Minister and the government for the support of the Greek Glenti. Without the support of the government, and the personal support of the Chief Minister and other members of parliament, they would not have been able to present what they present every year to the community of Darwin.
I would like to talk briefly about the upgrades in my schools in Nakara and Alawa. The Nakara Stage 2 upgrade has now commenced, and the builder, Sunbuilt Pty Ltd, has already erected a fence and started demolition for the upgrade. The building company Build with Pride Trust has already started the demolition and work at the Alawa Primary School. Both are $2m upgrades and expect to finish most of the work during the mid-year break.
I recently attended a function at Alawa Primary School to celebrate their successful Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program. Alawa has become a demonstration school for the Northern Territory, and the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program has the potential to change our children’s habits for a lifetime. The program takes full advantage of the Alawa Primary School’s farm, and will allow the children from Year 3 to follow the steps of growing, harvesting, preparing and sharing. Alawa is now in the process of receiving quotes to build a four bay kitchen on the school site, where students can cook food they have harvested from their farm when it grows.
With the guidance of the kitchen specialist, the class will cook different foods once a week in their cooking lessons, such as Vietnamese vegetarian rice paper rolls, hot and sour fish soup with broccoli, and peach and pistachio tarts. This experience will broaden the children’s experience with different foods and will also give them the opportunity to make and taste foods from different cultures. The Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program will also create an authentic learning environment for children to apply that will develop their literacy and numeracy skills, starting with measuring, sorting, costing, reading recipes, recording, writing menus, and researching.
The Alawa Farm was also on show, with the school very proud to show off the new calves, Edna and Eddie, generously loaned to them by owner and pastoralist, Phil Howie of Maneroo Station in the Douglas Daly Region. The calves have stayed in the school grounds for eight weeks and have become a focus of learning for the students. Unfortunately, Edna and Eddie have to return home to Maneroo Station next week, and I happily agreed to pay for the bus hire so that Year 5 and 6 students, together with Principal, Sharon Reeves, and parents could accompany the calves home. We will be gathering at school next Thursday morning at 8 am to farewell Edna and Eddie and the busload of Alawa students.
This was the result of successful partnership between Alawa Primary School and the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, which is collaborating to teach Alawa students about the Northern Territory pastoral industry and about bringing the bush to the city.
I thank Barry Lemcke, from the Department of Primary Industries, who was the overseer of the calves’ welfare and is a regular visitor to the farm, and the one who helped the children to look after the calves.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the organisers of the Finke Desert Race for putting on a spectacular event again this year. I had a great weekend camping with friends and family, and participating in some of the events and some of the functions of the big event. We congratulate the member for Drysdale for participating in the race. I am thankful that no one was badly hurt in the race. It is a great event for Central Australia, the Northern Territory, and for Australia, more broadly. The opportunity to expand Finke to be a worldwide event is enormous. I would love to see it on a Wii game or a Playstation game, or one of those other games in the future. It has great potential.
I also thank the people from Batchelor College for the invitation to the graduation ceremony last week. I do not have all the names of the people who were successful in graduating, but it was another solid occasion of witnessing people who are attending educational institutions and performing well.
I want to touch on one issue that happened yesterday in parliament. Many people ask me in the street how am I going in parliament and I say I am going all right, it is pretty good, and that we should sit more than 36 days a year and do much more business. In some ways, this parliament is the laughing stock of the country in the number of days we sit, the limited amount of business we get through, and the limited number of people allowed to speak on certain subjects and certain bills.
Yesterday was another occurrence, where, as professionals, who earn more than a minimum of $120 000 each, we did not work more than seven-and-a-half hours in the day during our sitting time. Most Territorians who have a full-time job work more than seven and half hours a day. I know that we work outside of those hours, we do extra work and we get up at 5 am to start our days, and all that. But when we are sitting in parliament people generally see that parliament is a joke at certain times. We have had our adjournment debates cut back to five minutes. The government knocked off parliament before 7.30 pm last night. People think that 7.30 pm is late, but keep in mind that for those listeners out there and people who read Hansard, we work from 10 am to 12 pm, have a two hour break, because after two hours of work you need to have a big lunch, and then, listeners and readers, we work from 2.00 pm to 7.30 pm or before 7.30 pm - that was less than seven and half hours that we worked yesterday.
That is a disgrace. People in the Northern Territory expect more from their politicians in the amount of work that they do. There are plenty of bills on the Notice Paper; there is plenty we could be talking about. We have omnibus bills combining issues together, so we cannot debate them separately. The only reason for that is there is not enough time in the day because the government does not want to allow us to talk in debate because they will be shamed in so many areas, where they are falling apart as a government.
In summarising that point, when politicians are paid a minimum salary above $120 000 a year and cannot do seven-and-a-half hours work a day for 36 days a year, the government should hang its head in shame. It is not the first time it has happened. It happened in the last sittings as well and, if it continues like this the Northern Territory parliament will continue to be a joke.
We should be working hard for the people of the Northern Territory, not taking the soft approach. When we were finishing at one, two, or three o’clock in the morning, that is when we were working hard, that is when we were pushing the boundaries to make sure our bodies and our minds could work hard for the people of the Northern Territory. Everyone pushes themselves when they go to work and all we do here is sit and twiddle our thumbs a little; people are not allowed to talk on every subject, debates are always gagged, and it is just too easy.
We should be working harder for the people of the Northern Territory. It is a real disappointment coming into this place when people are not prepared to work hard for the people of the Northern Territory. It is a disgrace.
Dr BURNS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the tremendous contribution that people from various ethnic communities have made to the Northern Territory.
Last weekend, I had the privilege to work as a volunteer on both days of the 21st Annual Greek Glenti Festival at the Greek Orthodox community refreshment booth. According to figures I have seen in the NT News about 20 000 people turned up for the two day event. There was a fantastic atmosphere, great music, great food especially the barbecued octopus, some spectacular dancing, olive spitting, plate smashing and all manner of entertainment for young and old.
I congratulate the organisers of this biggest and best Glenti so far: the Greek Orthodox community of Northern Australia, President John Nicolakis, Glenti coordinator Lilliane Gomatos, vice president Nikitas Halkitis, treasurer Nicolaos Poniris and secretary Stavros Mostris. All did a fantastic job organising this year’s Glenti festival.
The organisers were ably supported by committee members, Michael Halkitis, Costos Pizanias, Adonios Tsougranis, Mike Reisis, John Mousellis, Arthur Karagiorgos, Costas Zahos, George Kalidinos, Demitrios Taktikos, Skevos Trikolis, Nikolas Saroukos, and Adonis Kantros who were able to help make the event run smoothly. I acknowledge the organisation’s trustees, Jim Limniatis, Tony Koukouvas and Skefos Tsoukalis. I also acknowledge the work of members of the Darwin City Council and the Kalymnos Sister City community committee including Tony Miaoudis, George Lambrinidis, Nicholas Poniris, and Costa Miaoudis who were instrumental in arranging for the attendance at the festival of the Deputy Mayor of Kalymnos, Philippos Christodoulou.
Last weekend I also attended the Latino Northern Territory Association 2009 annual party at the Convention Centre on Saturday night. There were approximately 250 people from the Latin American and broader Darwin communities at this lively and very entertaining function. I congratulate the management committee of the association in putting together such a delightful and most successful evening. Particular mentions must go to Mr Pablo Elizondo, Ms Pilar Preciado, Mr Aaron Rodriguez, Ms Maxine Rawson-Rodriguez, Mr Nage Moummar, Ms Olga Rodriuez de Moummar and Ms Desiree Hathaway for the outstanding job they did. This fantastic evening featured some really terrific music from Melbourne-based Latin fusion band, La Mezcla, playing music from Carlos Santana, the Buena Vista Social Club, and Ritchie Valens amongst others. The band was ably supported by local member of the Latina community, Ms Cristina Zumel, a very talented professional singer and dancer. The party goers enjoyed themselves immensely fully immersing themselves in the Latin energy and rhythms of the evening. People kept dancing all night as long as the music played.
I acknowledge the many sponsors of the evening including Northern Territory government and businesses such as Frank’s Seafood, Crocodylus Park, Northern Territory Realty, All About Party Hire, and All About Blinds. Mr Glenn Macfarlane acted as MC for the party. Senator Trish Crossin also attended. We all had a very enjoyable evening and I am looking forward to the next year’s party and commend it to the House.
On a sadder note, I acknowledge the passing of someone who worked so hard and achieved so much in his life, but now has gone to his well-earned rest. George Famelos was very well-known to many people in my electorate and beyond as the man with the green fruit truck. George and his big green truck, with a choice of vegetable and fruit, were an institution with many people making a special effort to get where he set up shop from his truck at various markets around the northern suburbs of Darwin. George was a pure gentleman, a lovely man well-loved by the Darwin community, and a feature of Darwin market life.
George died far too young, just a couple of weeks shy of his 65th birthday. His passing was a great blow to his loving family, and many others in the Darwin community. My deepest condolences go to his wife, Sevasty and family, and all those who knew and loved George Famelos.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, despite the attitude of the members on my left, tonight I respond to the savaging that I received during Question Time today from the minister for Planning. I have to say that, of all of the savagings I have received in this House, this would have to be the most savage by far. Never before in the history of parliamentary savagings has such a savaging occurred. I am so deeply cut that I still cannot quite imagine how I have managed to crawl to my feet, disembowelled as I am.
Frankly, it was the most enfeebled attempt to attack me that I have experienced in this House. I am mystified why the minister for Planning even endeavoured to engage in this exercise. She was critical of me for saying that the process they have designed for architecture in the Darwin CBD will lead to Soviet-style architecture. The problem with that is that I still stand by those comments.
If you are going to create a town plan which will allow people to build to the boundary, then go up 25 m, come in 6 m, go up the rest of the way to 90 m, any developer is going to try to extract the full amount of floor space they can out of that particular block, whatever that block may be. Consequently, they will all go to the boundary - all the way to the boundary; they will all go up 25 m. When they reach 25 m, they will all look exactly like each other. That is what Soviet architecture looks like. If you go back to old Soviet cities and look at Soviet-style architecture, they are grey, dismal, places where the homogenous architecture is so stunningly dehumanising that it destroys those cities where that architecture is.
What you are planning by creating a planning scheme that will allow for no architecture interface - and this is the argument: planning and architecture are two different things. I actually reject that. The planning decisions you make, and the capacity for planning to allow for novel architecture will change the nature of architecture. It means you have to show a bit of courage in your planning processes.
The former minister, Tim Baldwin, introduced the 1999 Land Use Structure Plan over Darwin CBD, where he created the Gotham approach. That is not perfect, but what has happened is that people relied on that plan, particularly two buildings - the Pandanus and Evolution buildings in the Darwin CBD. I heard the Chief Minister today say: ‘We have to protect the investors who invest money into their homes; this is the purchase they make’. All of a sudden, the people who have purchased in those two buildings will be surrounded by buildings equally as tall, which will block out their view. They purchased on the anticipation that they would have a sea view, particularly on the top floors, because they would be looking over the lower buildings around them.
Those people who have purchased in those buildings are now confronted with the reality that what is going to happen around the edge of the Darwin CBD is that all of that vacant land which is available will go up to 90 m, will block out their view. Anyone who is inside that ring and who has bought, particularly for the view, will eventually be blocked out, and their investments will be diminished.
The other effect of this process is that the blocks all around the fringe of the city are going to be the first ones created, so you are going to create a donut and, in the middle of that donut, is going to be a decaying city. Why? Because all of those blocks on the inside of that donut will be diminished in value. If you expect that eyesore, which is the former Woolworths, Smith Street, to get knocked over and dealt with soon, it is not going to happen, not for decades, because that block will not be attractive to any investor, because any investor will be looking to the fringe of the city and they will be buying blocks on the fringe of the city.
Such a radical change to an established town plan is fraught with danger and risk for the future of the Darwin CBD. To change the 1999 Land Use Structure Plan over the Darwin CBD is, to my mind, risky for a whole bunch of reasons, and because of the truncated nature of adjournment debates, I cannot even go close to all of them. Suffice to say this: tread carefully, minister for Planning, because you have to be very careful what you plan for.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I will talk about an iconic Territory event, the Barunga Festival. This year’s theme, and very appropriately, was Smart Kids, Proud Culture. Over the years, I have been to many sporting and cultural festivals across the Territory, particularly in our regions, however, there is no doubt in my mind that the Barunga Festival is the benchmark.
The festival has now been going for around 25 years. It was first envisaged by the great, late Jawoyn leader, Bangardi Lee, after a group of dancers from Barunga had travelled to England and danced in front of the Queen. The festival was their way of rekindling that memory, and keeping that memory strong by having the festival during the Queen’s Birthday weekend. There were probably few, if any, festivals of this nature 25 years ago, probably with the exception of the Yuendumu sports weekend which started in the 1960s.
The Jawoyn Association, led by CEO, Wes Miller, and Deputy, Preston Lee, realised that the days of running such a resource-intensive festival on good intentions and limited sponsorship are numbered. The Jawoyn Association has established that the Barunga Festival has an identifiable brand name. A recent advertisement in Facebook received over 1000 hits per day. The test now, however, is to maintain the focus of promoting its proud Jawoyn culture, but also to look into the economic sustainability of such festivals. This process has already commenced, as evidenced by the huge increase in gate takings from $5000 last year to over $30 000 this year. There were a number of other parliamentarians at the Barunga Festival, with the Chief Minister given the honour of officially opening the festival on the Saturday. Other members including me, of course, as the local member, the member for Arnhem, the federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, Senator Trish Crossin, and I believe the member for Katherine also attended the festival over the weekend.
One of the pleasing aspects was the re-emergence of softball as a force. I might add that that could be put down to this government’s support of $66 000 towards the Shire Softball Competition. The numbers just keep on growing each year, and I am pleased to advise the member from Barkly that it was the young women from Borroloola who took out the softball final this year, yet again, because they won it last year. Also, the Borroloola girls, member for Barkly, are known for their big hitting display and they did not disappoint over the weekend. The town of Ngukurr in the member for Arnhem’s electorate had a very good weekend as well, with the Ngukurr Bulldogs, coached by Ivan Turner, defeating the Numbulwar Eagles, and the Ngukurr Women’s Basketball team took out the final of this year’s event.
The art prize was keenly contested as usual, with the winner being Natasha Thurman Lloyd from Livingstone, outside of Darwin. Ms Thurman Lloyd’s painting depicted the four turtles, which were representative of herself and her three daughters. This was the second time she had entered the contest and the prize was presented by the member for Wanguri and Chief Minister, Paul Henderson.
Other cultural events that enthralled the crowd were the spear making and throwing competition. As I was going around, it was great to see heaps of tourists there, camping out at tent city. It was a fantastic atmosphere. To see the tourists there sitting alongside countrymen learning how to make spears, and then getting up with a woomera and having a go was fantastic. Also, there was the didgeridoo blowout. The spear throwing was based on accuracy, which was a draw, with Mr Simon Ashley and Mr Ernest Daniels being the winners and being very hard to separate.
The didgeridoo blowout had two categories. The contemporary section was won by a gentleman from Sweden, Mr Alan Rvegg. The traditional section was won by a young man, Joe Marampi who is currently based at St John’s College.
It is a fantastic event and cannot be a success without the assistance of organisations. I acknowledge the Police, particularly from Maranboy, who did a fantastic job; from Sunrise Health, Irene Fisher, who heads that organisation; Kate Ganley, Wes Miller, Preston Lee, and Amanda Miller from the Jawoyn Association; from the Roper Gulf Shire, Jake Quinliven, Paul and Allen Mole; the Barunga local shire board; and a special mention of Jamie Ahfat, the young local man who was the master of ceremonies and performed like a seasoned veteran.
It was a great success. There were many other people involved but congratulations to everyone.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I speak on some issues that concern me in relation to events that are occurring interstate in the cities of Melbourne and Sydney and the alleged racial discrimination against Indian students that is occurring. I am not suggesting that is actually the case, but the perception by some of the public and some of those students is that they are being discriminated against and they are being picked on because of their race.
I want to assure people in the Indian community in the Northern Territory that we are, and reinforce that we are, a very harmonious and racially tolerant city.
I was fortunate that I grew up in a multicultural household where I gained an understanding and acceptance of the differences in people from different parts of the world. I was very fortunate that my mother used to host students from overseas, some whom I am still in touch with and see when I travel. As a young person, my first overseas trip was to South East Asia where I met up with these people and did some travelling them and had some great experiences.
I grew up in Perth and I had two trips to Darwin before I moved here. Prior to moving here, the thing that got me about Darwin was the fact that it was such a multicultural, rich and vibrant city, even 28 years ago when I came here. In fact, the first time was 30 years ago, when I was a mere lad, it was a great place to be and I thought it would be a great place to live, hence in 1981, I moved here and have raised my family here, all of whom have travelled and have decided to make Darwin their home.
When I came here as a police officer, I got around the community and met many members of the multicultural community, and many of their leaders through various issues that are raised through policing, and especially through community policing you get to deal with many people in the ethnic communities and you understand that they are just like the rest of us. They try to have a good life, and have a good time. They are people who contribute to the economy of the Northern Territory, they contribute to the workforce, and they contribute to the richness of our culture, both in their basic culture and their food.
We have great events here like India on Mindil, the Glenti that we have just had last weekend - numerous events. It is with that in mind, I reinforce to the Indian community that in the Northern Territory there will not be any problems because I believe the people of the Northern Territory are far more tolerant.
I say to them that we are open for business, it is a great place to be and any of those people from down south who might be looking for somewhere to study might like to move to the Territory.
I have enrolled at Charles Darwin University on a number of occasions. The last stint was a 10 years period, where I met many Indian students and also students from other cultures, and I believe I am a better person for it. I enjoyed sharing time in work groups and study groups with a whole range of people from all over the world. I have been fortunate enough to have travelled to India and enjoyed their hospitality. They are a wonderful people. If people in India, especially those looking for a place for their children to come and study, I want them to know that the Northern Territory is a fine place.
I would like to reassure the president of the Indian community, Mr Rajeev Sharma, the Territory is a great place, we are open for business and that we value the input of these people into our culture, into the continuing development of a rich, multicultural society that makes the Territory such a great place to live, a great place for tourists to come to, a great place for students to study and a great place for people to settle and bring up their families. Welcome to the Northern Territory and feel free to come here and enjoy the great lifestyle that we all enjoy.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the recent Merrepen Arts and Sports festival. It was the 22nd festival at the Nauiyu community on the Daly River, on the last weekend of May. It was a great event. The sports area of the festival goes a little unnoticed by the general public but it is very well attended. There were many teams competing. I acknowledge the people who contributed to the event. Rose Rowlings is the sport and rec officer with the Victoria Daly Shire and she does a fabulous job every year. She loses her voice over the weekend and she works tirelessly. All of her work is appreciated as well as the work of her staff. Congratulations to Rose.
Some other people need to be acknowledged in and around the sports: Scott Surridge used to be government business manager there. He was score keeper for the football and his son helped out for the grand final as the goal keeper. He did a great job. He stuck around all weekend and kept good scores for everybody. The member for Nelson umpired the matches on Friday and I believe part of Saturday as he had to go to other appointments and was unable to do the rest of those days. There was a lot going on, on the Friday and he was a bit puffed after that. Cat Weasel they call him, Adrian Wellington, also did a great job.
At the Arts festival, Aaron McTaggett did great job with another successful art festival. There was a lot of art sold. More art could have been sold but Merrepen Arts has done a good job. Patricia McTaggett, Aaron’s mum, launched the Ngangi dictionary which was a great event. Getting the local language down as a dictionary has been a long project coming but was much appreciated.
Here are some of the results from the weekend. With the junior football, Peppimenarti took out the championships, and runners up were St Francis Xavier. There were some great young kids. I umpired that match and it was a bit different to junior football in Darwin I can tell you that, it is full on tackling. The best and fairest went to Traye Rioli. He was a great player. He played for St Francis Xavier and the best team player went to Trent Raymond, another young guy from St Francis Xavier.
In women’s basketball, the champions went to St Johns College, runners up were Peppimenarti; the best and fairest went to Einica from Peppimenarti.
With the men’s basketball the champions were the Green River Saints from the Daly River Region with the runners up being St John’s College; the best and fairest went to Francis Cann from St John’s College. In the softball it was a draw between the Nauiyu Hawks and the Wanimyn Fireballs. It went on for some time trying to get a result but unfortunately it did not happen but it was great to see those two teams coming together. The Best and Fairest went to Sevannal from Wanimyn Fireballs.
In the senior football, the champions were the Tiwi Islands - a great side, and the runners-up was St John’s College. It was great grand final and we all appreciated it. For the Best and Fairest, there were equal points for Nicholas Warrigal from Peppimenarti and we have only a number for the equal winner, No 17 from Palumpa. There was a changing of shirts going on.
With the Daly River Dash, which is always sought after, the Under 5s went to Kyanne Boyd and Andrew Mariwoma, Under 10s went to Sandra Ayoub and Jaymn Parry, Under 15s went to Micho Nilco, Women’s Open went to Glenda Wilson, and the Men’s Open went to the Daly River flash of Stuart Brooks. Again, a great weekend at Daly River.
It is great to see all the communities from around the Top End coming together in a very peaceful, harmonious, and good spirited sports and cultural festival. Congratulations to all the people concerned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say something about the recent trip by the Minister for Senior Territorians to the rural area, something that put a smile on the face of the opposition when it was mentioned in Question Time the other day.
I believe that it is my job, as the local member, to go with ministers around the rural area and show them the facilities that exist there, and to highlight the lack of facilities in the rural area. I was happy that the Minister for Senior Territorians took up the invitation to look at the rural area in relation to matters concerning senior Territorians. It is quite a while that any minister with that portfolio has visited the rural area.
We jumped in the car together and went out to have a look at various places where there could be the possibility of retirement villages to be built in the rural area. At the present time, we do not have a retirement village at all in the rural area, and it is something that really is lacking. There is a possibility that the new multiple dwelling development in Howard Springs will take up some of that slack for older people who wish to retire from their rural blocks because they simply cannot look after them any more but want to stay in the rural area. That development will have potential for some people who would like to stay in the rural area and not have to move elsewhere.
Howard Springs, of course, is not the only area. The Humpty Doo area is continually growing. It is also an area that was established many years ago, so there is an increasing number of senior rural people who would like to stay in their own area, would not like to move to Palmerston or Darwin but, unfortunately, there are very few places they can stay. I took the minister to look at the Freds Pass District Centre, which is one area that has not been developed except for the two schools - the Litchfield Christian School and the Bees Creek Primary School. We also went to the Humpty Doo District Centre, where the government has not invested anything in residential land for, I would say, close on 20 years. There has been some private development there, but that has come to a standstill, simply because the government has not extended the roads, the water, and the sewerage further into that district centre.
There is great potential at Humpty Doo for the government to look at developing a retirement village or seniors village, or even an aged-care facility there, which would feed not only the Humpty Doo people, but people from the surrounding areas, even as far down as Batchelor and Adelaide River - people who do not want to stay too far away from the rural area, but also know that they are close to medical facilities if need be.
I took minister McCarthy to visit the people at the Humpty Doo Fibrecraft Guild which holds a meeting every Wednesday at the Humpty Doo Village Green. They made her most welcome. They did not know she was coming, as I thought we would make it an informal visit. She sat down amongst them and felt right at home while they were doing their embroidery or other forms of fibre craft they do. I am not an expert on those things. They always make me welcome, so the minister was most welcome. There was tea, coffee and biscuits available. The good thing about it was many people availed themselves of the opportunity to talk to the minister about the issues they believed were issues of concern in the rural area.
After that, we went to bingo at the Old Timers Association headquarters in Bees Creek Road, Bees Creek, where the minister spent an hour losing her money - actually most of it was my money that I lent her. But she lost most of the money in bingo and then, at 12 o’clock, we had a beautiful barbeque lunch that was served to us. Andrea Teakle, the President of the Old Timers, certainly made her welcome, and the minister had time to sit down with people and talk to them about some of the issues, especially for seniors, that they had concerns about in the rural area.
I think that is the best way to be. I do not really particularly want to take ministers around for some formal speeches and all this sort of stuff. You need to get in and talk to people on the ground floor, ask them about their issues, and then the proof of the pudding is whether you can follow up on those matters. The minister has taken note of many of the issues. The big thing the minister has to look at is planning for retirement village or aged care facilities, especially in the Humpty Doo area. There is a definite need for that. It is an area that has long missed these sort of services and I hope the minister can fulfil …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to Mary Joyce. Mary passed away recently surrounded by family and friends following a short illness aged 91. Mary was an icon in Parap and a fine artist, an interested and active member of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage Society and a passionate resident. Mary was also selfless. As a young woman, she joined the Women’s Voluntary Service in the British Army where she was posted to Burma to undertake troop welfare work with Indian troops. When Mary was transferred to Japan, she met her husband Brian, a lovely bloke who was serving in the Australian Army. They married in 1947 in Yokohoma, Japan. They lived in Sydney, Mount Isa, Townsville and Adelaide, before settling in Darwin in 1978.
As I mentioned earlier, Mary was a fine artist, obtaining a Bachelor of Arts and Fine Arts degree from the Darwin Community College as it was then known. Her work has been exhibited widely, including at 24 Hour Art, Darwin Art Museum and Gallery, and her own exhibition at the Lindsay Street Gallery. Mary was heavily involved in the arts sector, both as a member of 24 Hour Art, the Wood Street Gallery, and as a regular attendee of art events throughout Darwin. She was an active member of the Fannie Bay History and Heritage Society, attending meetings earlier this year. She was always interested in issues that affected her local area.
Many of my colleagues in this House may not know Mary Joyce, but they will certainly know her husband, Brian. Brian Joyce is a stalwart of the Labor Party, a life member, a willing volunteer, and a meticulous keeper of records. Brian has recently delivered Labor Party correspondence to me that dates back more than 30 years. Brian was in my office volunteering his time every Saturday morning, except Anzac Day - that was Brian’s holy day. Brian will leave Darwin in five weeks for Townsville to be close to his family. It will be very sad to see him go. I take this opportunity to place on the record my personal thanks to Brian for the time and effort he has put in to help me, the former member for Fannie Bay, Clare Martin, and the Labor Party over many years.
As a couple, the Joyces have made a huge contribution to Darwin and to the Fannie Bay area over the last 30 years. As my former electorate officer, Kate, said, ‘I can’t imagine Parap without them’. I extend my sincere condolences to Brian, Susan, John, Robert and their families on the loss of Mary, and wish Brian all the best for the next chapter of his life in Townsville.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on two on very sad matters, matters that have and will touch us all and, for some, in a very deep and personal way. Sadly, yesterday a teenager was killed in Katherine as a result of an accident when a quad bike he was riding rolled over near his property in the rural area. Toby Hammonds was just 13 years old. This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for his parents, his two older sisters, his school friends, and for the Katherine community.
I did not know Toby personally, but what I do know is that he was a good lad, who was well respected and well liked by his many friends in Year 8 at the Middle School at Katherine High. He was a young lad who enjoyed being outdoors, and loved the Katherine rural lifestyle. Toby lived with his parents, Jim and Kathy, and older sister, Alice, on their Florina Road property. He also had another sister, Phoebe, who was at a boarding school in Adelaide. Phoebe has now flown home to make the family whole while they go through this shocking and terrible time. One of the things that Toby did enjoy was to get out and ride through the bush on his quad. Sadly, it is the things we enjoy so much that can bring us sometimes tragedy and sometimes grief.
Yesterday, Toby took his quad bike for a ride from his home onto a bush track nearby, and he did not come home. One can only try to imagine the grief that Jim, Kathy, Alice, and Phoebe are feeling, but an incident like this brings home to us all just how fragile our existence is on this earth. Sadder still, is the fact that Toby, at such a young age, never got to live his life. I, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all in this House, send my sincerest condolences to Jim, Kathy, Alice, and Phoebe Hammonds on the terrible loss of their much cherished Toby. My thoughts are with you.
Madam Speaker, what makes this terrible loss all the more poignant, is how, just two weeks ago, another Territorian lost his life in an accident involving an off-road vehicle similar to a quad. I am referring to Tony Silvey, who was killed when his off-road vehicle rolled while he was pig shooting. Tony was the husband of Kylie, who works in the Leader of the Opposition’s office in Parliament House, and who was a good friend to all of us on this side of the House.
Tony was the sort of man we all knew well, and even if we did not know him personally, we all knew someone like Tony. He was a loving and caring family man who brought two lovely sons into this world, Rees and Luke. He loved his sons very much and I recall some of the words that were spoken of him at his funeral last week.
He was a man who loved the outdoors and lived life to its fullest, but as soon as his children came along he changed his lifestyle to suit the rigours and responsibilities of being a dad. He was a hard-working man, who was highly respected amongst his colleagues and workmates.
One only had to see grown men cry at his funeral to realise how Tony had touched the lives of so many. As soon as this tragedy broke, Tony’s family came to Darwin to support Kylie and the boys. Tony also left this world with so much of his life incomplete.
I send to Kylie, Rees, and Luke, his parents, Barry and Val, and his sisters, Kerry and Nikki, my sincerest condolences on the loss of Tony. I am sure my colleagues join me in sending those wishes.
These horrible examples of lives cut way too short reinforce with me the need for people who use off-road vehicles to take much care. To all who ride them, please exercise caution; remember they are powerful and potentially dangerous machines. To parents of children who ride them, please ensure your kids wear protective headgear and clothing and try to impress upon them the need to ride within their level of capability.
I leave you with this thought: parents should never outlive their children, it is not fair and not how it is supposed to be.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016