2011-05-04
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Legal Studies students from Darwin High School who are participating in the Step Up Be Heard Program, a new program offered by the Legislative Assembly which replaces the former Youth Parliament. They are here today with Ms Jane Farr, their teacher. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I advise that next Wednesday, 11 May, the students will be conducting their own Youth Parliament in the Chamber. I encourage members to come along to meet them.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter from Hon Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland, in response to the copy of the resolution by the Northern Territory parliament relating to the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi which was sent to the Speaker of the Queensland parliament, Hon John Mickel MP.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also table a copy of a letter accompanying the gift to His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales and the then Ms Catherine Middleton to acknowledge their wedding from me, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
A member: Did they like our presents?
Madam SPEAKER: I have not yet received a response. Perhaps I will table the response.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 164)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill puts in place a package of measures announced as part of Budget 2011-12 by proposing amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act, Stamp Duty Act, Taxation Administration Act and Payroll Tax Act. One of the key measures in the bill is the proposed reduction of the payroll tax rate from 5.9% to 5.5% from 1 July 2011. This brings forward delivery of the government’s election commitment to reduce the payroll tax rate to 5.5% by 2012.
The bill also increases the current annual threshold of $1.25m to $1.5m from 1 July 2011. This means that from 2011-12 businesses paying wages of up to $1.5m will not pay any payroll tax in the Territory. Similar to the approach adopted in Queensland, the bill introduces a change to the annual threshold which now becomes a deduction from an employer’s taxable wages. For a business paying wages of more than $1.5m, the deduction will start at $1.5m and reduce by $1 for every $4 in wages that it pays above the $1.5m. As a result, the deduction will be extinguished for an employer who pays wages of $7.5m or more.
The introduction of the higher annual threshold and lower payroll tax rate operates to exclude more small and medium businesses from having to register for and pay payroll tax. This will particularly benefit locally based businesses. The reducing nature of the deduction improves the equity of the tax system and removes red tape for larger businesses as they will no longer need to supply the additional information about wages paid across Australia required to apportion a general annual threshold exemption.
These measures are expected to provide $6.7m in payroll tax savings to businesses in 2011-12. Most locally-based businesses will pay less payroll tax, with businesses that pay wages of up to $3m saving as much as $14 750 each per year. Although some larger businesses may pay more payroll tax as a result of the changes to the annual threshold, this will be partially or fully offset by the lower payroll tax rate.
In keeping with government’s commitment to payroll tax harmonisation, the bill also proposes amendments to the employee share scheme provisions. This is based on consistent legislation developed in consultation with other states. The amendments are necessary as a result of the Commonwealth updating and shifting its employee share scheme provisions from the 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act to the 1997 version.
Another key measure in the bill is it seeks to increase the conveyance stamp duty rate that applies to transactions of $3m or more from 4.95% to 5.45% from 1 July 2011. This rate change will provide a return to the Territory on very high-value property transactions that is more consistent with the average of the rate in other states and territories, while maintaining the Territory’s tax competitiveness. As the increased rate will only apply to high-value transactions of at least $3m, it will have no impact on small to medium business, or on homebuyers generally.
The additional revenue raised from this measure enables government to fund initiatives such as the new BuildBonus scheme which supports homebuyers by providing a one-off $10 000 grant to homebuyers of a new home valued up to $530 000. BuildBonus is aimed at assisting low- to middle-income earners enter the affordable housing market, and encouraging investment and construction activity in the affordable housing sector. The assistance is targeted at purchase of new housing, including units, where construction commences on or after 3 May 2011. The BuildBonus scheme builds on the affordable house and land packages developed in Alice Springs such as at Ridges Estate, and as part of ongoing land releases in Palmerston.
The $530 000 limit complements the increased Homestart NT price caps. BuildBonus also demonstrates the government’s continued commitment to a balanced housing market across all market segments, a priority for the Northern Territory as outlined in the Territory 2030 Strategic Plan. BuildBonus applies to contracts to build or purchase signed from 3 May 2011 until 31 December 2011, and to owner builders where construction of the home commences in that time period.
I now turn to a number of minor measures proposed by the bill to enhance the simplicity, efficiency, and equity of the Territory’s revenue legislation. It is proposed that most of these measures commence from 1 July 2011. The first of these measures allows the Commissioner of Territory Revenue to waive, in special circumstances, the requirement of the stamp duty home incentive schemes and the First Home Owner Grant that a person should occupy a home as their principal place of residence. Currently, the only circumstances where an applicant can be exempted from this requirement is where the applicant has died, or if there is more than one applicant, where at least one of the applicants will fulfil the six-month residence requirement. This exemption has now been extended to recognise that certain applicants may be unable to commence occupation of their home due to a significant change in circumstances outside their control. For example, a person’s home could be destroyed by a fire or natural disaster before they can commence occupation and the time it may take to rebuild the home may be unclear. It is proposed this measure commence from 3 May 2011.
The second minor measure seeks to clarify that the commissioner’s general discretion to remit interest on a tax default extends to reducing or not imposing interest on tax being paid under an instalment arrangement. This will primarily assist small businesses and ineligible stamp duty first homeowner concession recipients who are having difficulty managing their tax obligations. It will also align with instalment arrangements made in relation to recovering a First Home Owner Grant. The commissioner will continue to impose any instalment conditions that are necessary in the circumstances of each case.
For reasons of equity, the third minor measure proposes to extend the current ability to provide a stamp duty exemption or refund for a conveyance of matrimonial property on the breakdown of a marriage where certain conditions are met. The amendment means that an exemption or refund can now apply to the breakdown of a de facto relationship and the conveyance of property resulting from binding financial agreements.
The fourth minor measure clarifies that instruments are considered to be duly stamped where stamp duty is paid under a returns-based arrangement such as for insurance duty. This is important as an instrument that is not duly stamped cannot be entered in an official register and is inadmissible in a civil court.
Finally, the bill proposes to repeal various pieces of revenue legislation that are no longer required, generally because they relate to taxes that were abolished five or more years ago.
Madam Speaker, I believe this bill delivers on government’s commitments in a number of areas. I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move – That the Assembly -
(a) he altered the original Notice of Disposal and Application to Transfer documents, not once but twice, and …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister should be cognisant of the fact that this is not an Ombudsman’s report. If you are going to start talking about honesty, sunshine …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat!
Mr ELFERINK: … if you are going to start talking about honesty, sunshine, then be honest.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I will resume.
(b) it was ‘clearly open to inference that this was a deliberate attempt by Constable Westra van Holthe to avoid statutory penalty for his failure to register a motor vehicle transaction and pay transfer fees and stamp duty within 14 days of the sale’. (p12);
(c) the alteration itself was ‘unlawful’. (p12);
(e) his unauthorised access of MVR records at his home constituted a ‘conflict of interest and improper conduct’. (p14).
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no Ombudsman’s report. Start calling it what it is - a letter to Mr Rowley - and stop being dishonest.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, it is the document I tabled yesterday. It is clearly from the Ombudsman. It …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is it addressed to this parliament or addressed to an individual? If so, who?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: He is not being honest, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister has the call. You do not have the call.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, there are clear findings of the Ombudsman in relation to this matter which are detailed in this document. I will continue with my speech.
This is an important debate in the context of this, the 11th Assembly of this House. It is important because it goes to the question of integrity, not only the integrity of the member for Katherine but also the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. The issues raised go to the heart of a very important question for all Territorians to consider in 2012: whether the CLP is, indeed, fit to govern the Northern Territory.
At a very basic level, this matter relates to the questionable conduct of the member for Katherine in a used car transaction in 2003. In addition, it relates to the important question of whether he used his position as a police officer, not only for his own financial gain and to evade paying stamp duty and other fees, but also to try to cover his tracks when he was found out over this transaction. It also relates to the personal explanation given to this Assembly by the member for Katherine in the last sittings, and whether it was a full and truthful explanation.
These questions relate to the character of the member for Katherine, and whether he is fit to hold the shadow portfolio of Treasury and, indeed, whether he is fit to hold any ministerial portfolio should the CLP’s small target strategy enable it to secure office at the next Territory election. These matters of character and suitability will rightly be assessed by Territorians at the next election.
The question for Territorians is this: if the member for Katherine, and I quote again from the document from the Ombudsman: ‘… used his position as a police officer to his own personal advantage’ can he be trusted not to do so as a minister. Serious questions also need to be answered by the Opposition Leader, so expert in answering important questions. His silence as to whether he offered Leo Abbott a job to get him to set aside his candidature in Lingiari remains deafening to this day
With his shadow Treasurer in the frame for serious issues raised above, the Opposition Leader cannot hide in this debate like he did from the media for seven hours at the Hot Rock restaurant, not just hiding, but cowering, using the apt description by his own members. He needs to speak in this debate. He needs to remove the shadow Treasurer from his post. Anything less further highlights his inability to lead this deeply divided opposition and, even more importantly, his inability to lead the Territory.
Now, to the specific matters raised in the motion …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You will get your chance. First, the member for Katherine did indeed offer this parliament a personal explanation in the Alice Springs sittings. Whilst it is …
Mr Elferink: You never have.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Whilst it was very tightly-worded, based on the evidence we now have I do not believe it was a full explanation of this matter.
Mr Elferink: You have never given an explanation for your conduct.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I ask for some courtesy from the members opposite. They can speak …
Mr Mills: You will not get any courtesy from us.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Port Darwin! Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: Whilst it was very tightly-worded, based on the evidence we now have I do not believe it was a full explanation of this matter. Indeed, questions must now be raised as to whether it was entirely truthful and whether he, the member for Katherine, has deliberately misled this Assembly.
To ensure this debate is based on the facts, I have already tabled a copy of this 2004 Ombudsman’s report, and we can have …
A member: It is not a report!
Dr BURNS: It is a report to Mr Rowley.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is deliberately being deceptive. This is not a report, it is a letter. He knows he is being deceptive.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please resume your seat. Do not rise on a point of order like that again.
Dr BURNS: I have a copy of the Ombudsman Act and I am prepared to argue whether it was a report to Mr Rowley on this matter, and whether the member for Katherine was afforded an opportunity, as specified under the Ombudsman Act, to comment on the adverse findings found in this particular document. That is what he needs to answer, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do not read the current act, read the old act.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, that is not a point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I have already tabled this document which states that under the protocols established between police and the Ombudsman, this thorough investigation was supervised by the Joint Review Committee, the JRC, which comprised the commander of the Professional Responsibility Division of police and the Deputy Ombudsman.
Member for Katherine, this parliament needs to weigh your personal explanation given in the Alice Springs sittings against the findings of the Ombudsman to determine whether your personal explanation was full and truthful, whether you have deliberately misled this parliament, and whether you are fit to be shadow Treasurer.
The established facts and allegations against the member for Katherine are as follows:
First, on 21 February 2003, the member for Katherine, then a senior constable in the Northern Territory police, purchased a vehicle from Mr Michael Rowley, a Katherine businessman, for $14 000. Although you were issued with the transfer papers by Mr Rowley, you do not transfer it into your name in the specified time, as required by law and, similarly, you do not pay stamp duty.
On 4 March, you agreed to sell the car to Mr Michael Rockman, an Aboriginal man of Lajamanu, for $15 000, and then $17 000 on 5 March – a day later - when you learnt he could spend an extra $2000. Significantly, member for Katherine, you attempt to make the transfer of the vehicle directly from Mr Rowley to Mr Rockman and alter the transfer document by inserting Mr Rockman’s name instead of your name. You also alter the sale date from 21 February to 5 March, and you also alter the sale amount from $14 000 to $17 000. In essence, you intend to make a profit without paying stamp duty and leaving Mr Rockman to pay your liability. I will leave the lawfulness of your actions until later.
Mr Rowley gets wind of what is going on; he is upset because he alleges while you paid a $3000 deposit, you had not honoured the agreement to pay instalments. He says the car is not yours to sell and attempts to block the sale. You now attempt to insert yourself into the documentation regarding the sale. With the help of Brevet Sergeant Wenn of Lajamanu, you now create a new, separate document which shows you as the original purchaser from Mr Rowley on 4 March, not the actual date of 21 February, and yet another purchase price of $9000.
Furthermore, as part of this insertion, you also alter the original transfer document a second time to show yourself rather than Mr Rockman as the purchaser from Mr Rowley. You also alter the sale price once again from $17 000 to $9000. You left the incorrect sale date as 4 March, remembering you had already altered that from 21 February.
Madam Speaker, to be clear: the member for Katherine altered these legal documents not once, but twice. He altered the name of the buyer on the original transfer document he received on 21 February from himself to Mr Rockman and back again. He altered the sale price from $14 000 to $17 000, and then to $9000. He altered the date from 21 February to 4 March.
Member for Katherine, it appears you did pay stamp duty this time. However, you paid stamp duty on $9000 rather than the $14 000 on the original transfer form. Member for Katherine, you then try to push your version of the transaction through the MVR office in Katherine around 17 March. You had the MVR remittance package from Lajamanu delivered to your house …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would seek he address his comments through the Chair and not directly to the member for Katherine.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could direct your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Dr BURNS: Okay, Madam Speaker. You have - and it is not you, Madam Speaker - the MVR remittance package from Lajamanu delivered to your house …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, member for Drysdale, order! Member for Greatorex! Order!
Dr BURNS: … before it is due to be delivered to the MVR office. This occurs at least two weeks before it is normally delivered. To your great discredit, you rope a young constable into delivering this package to your house. It is difficult to ascertain what actually occurred when you intercepted this package; however, one thing is clear: this package, when it is delivered to the MVR in Katherine, contains the altered and misleading documents relating to the sale of this vehicle.
What runs through this sorry affair is that most of the actions of the member for Katherine were done whilst he was in uniform, and the recurrent accusation that he used his position as a police officer for his own personal financial advantage is something the Ombudsman comments on at length in the document which has been tabled.
It is appropriate now to turn to the three key findings of the Ombudsman in relation to the allegations made against the member for Katherine. I will also compare these findings with the personal explanation given by the member for Katherine at the last sittings.
First, the allegation that Senior Constable Westra van Holthe altered the original Notice of Disposal and Application to Transfer to avoid payment of transfer fees, penalties for late lodgement and/or stamp duty. Member for Katherine, you admitted to the Ombudsman that you altered and re-altered the transfer documents, but you denied any deliberate plan to avoid paying stamp duty. I will read from pages 12 and 13 of the Ombudsman’s document. I quote:
I will read that again:
It is important for the Assembly to weigh these particular findings and facts against the member’s personal explanation. Indeed, member for Katherine, you mentioned in your personal explanation on 31 March 2011 of being: ‘embarrassed by the mistakes I made’ without any acknowledgement of wrongdoing. The inference of mistakes rather than intent also occurs within a number of other elements of your personal explanation, including the statement that you ‘mistakenly put the wrong vehicle purchase date on the registration papers’.
Member for Katherine, as the Ombudsman has obviously concluded, there was no mistake with the alteration of the sale date, there was no mistake in altering and re-altering the buyer’s name and the purchase amount, and there was no innocent interception of the MVR package simply ‘to complete a signature block’, as you said in your personal explanation. This interception was the culmination of the whole sad exercise of assembling doctored documents for you to complete the sale and, in the words of the Ombudsman:
That is on page 12.
Furthermore, for you to maintain your weak denials not only indicates your lack of remorse, but also makes you unsuitable to be shadow Treasurer, let alone Treasurer. Indeed, how can anyone who so obviously avoided paying stamp duty be fit for such a position? How can he have any credibility in a budget debate or in estimates? Leader of the Opposition, you need to remove this man from his position as shadow Treasurer.
In your personal explanation, whilst you mentioned disciplinary hearings you did not mention the Ombudsman’s report or even the Ombudsman’s investigation into this matter and the findings. I know from the Ombudsman’s report you would have had a chance to comment on those findings. It is in the Ombudsman Act. You mentioned the referral to DPP; you did not mention a referral by the PRC to the Northern Territory Treasury in relation to avoidance of stamp duty, and to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for further action. You also inferred that your so-called ‘mistakes’ were inadvertent and not calculated which, as we have seen, is quite the opposite from the findings and considered opinion of the Ombudsman. Therefore, through blatant omission and inference, I believe you have deliberately misled this parliament.
I turn to the second allegation, that of improper conduct as a police officer. You conducted most of your dealings in relation to this matter whilst in uniform. You certainly used your position as a police officer, with assistance from others, to generate other dodgy paperwork - a 13A receipt to support your alteration of the date of the sale from 21 February on the form generated by Mr Rowley to 4 March on the form you submitted to Katherine MVR. This other form, the 13A receipt, generated from Lajamanu Police Station, was dated 4 March, a date which the Ombudsman does not accept:
That is on pages 8 and 9.
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, you used your position as a police officer, with the assistance of others, to intercept the MVR package being sent from Lajamanu Police Station to the MVR in Katherine. Sadly, you co-opted a junior officer into this scheme. Indeed, the Ombudsman’s report clearly finds that you used your position as a police officer inappropriately, and to your own personal advantage:
That is directed at Mr Rowley.
Further, in relation to your unauthorised interception and access to the MVR remittance package from Lajamanu sent two weeks earlier than usual and delivered to your house in Katherine before being delivered to the MVR in Katherine, the JRC finds as follows:
That is on page 14.
Third is the allegation you attended the MVR office in Katherine to gather support from that office to prove the transaction has been improperly recorded so as to counteract the claims made by Mr Rowley.
In essence, the member for Katherine, on the same day he had properly accessed the documents in his own home, also attended the MVR office to push and bully his dodgy paperwork through the MVR process so he could benefit from the sale. As the Ombudsman noted, you also wanted to put a stop to Mr Rowley’s claim that you had attempted: ‘To avoid statutory penalty for failure to register a motor vehicle transaction and pay transfer fees and stamp duty within 14 days of the sale’. Ironically and arrogantly, by doing so, you further demonstrated to the JRC that once again you:
That is page 14.
No mention of any of this in his personal explanation just mention of mistakes, which he inferred to be seemingly inadvertent oversights. Once again, he has deliberately misled this House through blatant inference and omission.
I wish to commend police officers across the Northern Territory for their courage, dedication and, above all, their honesty and integrity. Sadly, member for Katherine, in you personal explanation you to argue that: ‘Most police officers at some time in their careers have complaints made about their actions; I am no different’. Given the findings in this Ombudsman’s document in relation to avoidance of stamp duty, the alteration of MVR documents and, most importantly, that you used your position as a police officer for your own personal advantage, your comments are a disgraceful slur against your fellow officers in that you infer such complaints against them are commonplace.
Of further concern was the allegation by Mr Rowley that, immediately following his letter, he believed there were attempts to intimidate him, his family and his staff. Furthermore, Mr Rowley alleged he was told by a third party that the member for Katherine had been overheard in conversation with others saying that Mr Rowley would pay for making the complaint against him and he would not be safe going to or from work.
Finally, through your personal explanation, you do not acknowledge there was wrongdoing on your part. Territorians will therefore rightfully ask: does he have the integrity and the temperament to fill the role of Treasurer, which requires the utmost probity in dealing with sensitive and confidential information - information and influence which could be easily turned to substantial financial gain for individuals or companies? Unfortunately, we have seen such corruption in Queensland on both sides of politics, and we do not want to see it in the Northern Territory. In a nutshell, member for Katherine, you could not be trusted as a police officer, you cannot be trusted in a personal explanation, and you cannot be trusted as a shadow Treasurer, let alone Treasurer.
This matter presents important challenges for the Leader of the Opposition. We call on him to explain to this House when he became aware of the matters involving the member for Katherine, including when he became aware of this document, which I have called an Ombudsman’s report, because it is a report to Mr Rowley. I would be interested to hear what the member for Katherine has to say about the process and whether he was allowed to comment on the allegations and findings of the Ombudsman that are made in this document. I suspect he was. I would be very surprised if he was not.
I understand that when Senior Constable Willem Westra van Holthe was announced as the CLP candidate in Katherine in 2008, Mr Rowley went to the electorate office of the then member for Katherine, Mrs Fay Miller, and informed that office of the matters involving Senior Constable WiIlem Westra van Holthe. There have also been a number of media reports relating to this matter from December 2010 to the present.
The Opposition Leader needs to inform this House whether he was made aware of these matters following Mr Rowley’s visit to the Katherine electorate office prior to the election in 2008. Did he discuss this matter with the member for Katherine at that time? Subsequent to the 2008 election, was he made aware of the matter and/or the existence, nature and content of this Ombudsman’s document, and the findings, by the member for Katherine or any other person, and when did he become aware? Prior to the personal explanation by the member for Katherine in the last sittings, was he given a copy of the findings of the Ombudsman, or was he briefed as to the findings of the report? Furthermore, did he have discussions regarding the findings of the report with the member for Katherine or any other person prior to the personal explanation by the member for Katherine in the last sittings?
In relation to the previous question, was he aware of these matters before he appointed the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer? That is a crucial question I hope the Opposition Leader will answer. If he was not aware of the Ombudsman’s report and the matters raised before the personal explanation, after publication of an article by Nigel Adlam in the Northern Territory News on 8 April 2011 regarding the Ombudsman’s report, did he then require the member for Katherine to submit a copy to him and discuss the matter, particularly in relation to the personal explanation? Now that he definitely does have a copy of the Ombudsman’s report, does he intend to remove the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer?
Also, is he sure there is no other opposition member who may have been involved in similar shenanigans around the transfer of vehicles, avoidance of stamp duty, and other statutory costs? Maybe he wants to ask his parliamentary wing the question and see what answer he receives. These are important questions that need to be answered by the Leader of the Opposition. We know he is very adept at avoiding questions. It is now around 200 days since he was asked whether he offered Leo Abbott a job in return for him standing down as the CLP candidate for Lingiari – still no answer, yes or no …
Mr Elferink: He has given his answer.
Dr BURNS: No, he has not.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: No, he has not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I have also put these questions on notice for the Leader of the Opposition. I have written him a letter and, as ministers, there is an expectation we reply within 30 days. I hope the Leader of the Opposition can reciprocate.
Regarding this motion and based on the facts, the Leader of the Opposition needs to inform the House as to whether he accepts the personal explanation by the member for Katherine as being adequate and truthful. He also needs to tell this House and the people of the Northern Territory whether he believes the member for Katherine is a fit and proper person to be shadow Treasurer, let alone Treasurer of the Northern Territory. The Opposition Leader needs to be consistent and decisive on this matter.
In relation to Leo Abbott, he argued that as soon as he became aware through media reports of a breach of a domestic violence order by Mr Abbott, he publicly withdrew his support for Mr Abbott as the CLP candidate for Lingiari saying: ‘I am standing my ground on principle’. He said he would never compromise that and could not devalue his currency.
Through this document, even the Leader of the Opposition should be able to see the lack of integrity of his shadow Treasurer. If he was honest, he would also know the personal explanation given by his shadow Treasurer was deliberately misleading, particularly in relation to the significant matters of wrongdoing raised in this report.
The Leader of the Opposition should also be greatly concerned that the member for Katherine inferred in his explanation he merely made mistakes in a tone which indicates they were almost inadvertent oversights. They were not. To be consistent, you need to apply the same standard to the member for Katherine as you did to Leo Abbott. You have the power to remove your shadow Treasurer; you need to show leadership and stand him down. We know it will be difficult. Your actions against Leo Abbott were easier.
As revealed by some nasty internal CLP e-mails, Leo Abbott was merely political cannon fodder for your main political goal of damaging Damian Hale through your despicable campaign in this House in August 2010 to win Solomon. CLP Treasurer, Graeme Lewis, advised in an e-mail: ‘Put petrol on the issue’ - of domestic violence – ‘and fix Hale right up’. Former Chief Minister Shane Stone was quoted as saying in an e-mail: ‘We pull his …’ – meaning Leo Abbott’s preselection – ‘… and, at the same time, challenge the ALP to do likewise with Hale’. Shane Stone added: ‘Terry Mills could call for the disendorsement’.
Leader of the Opposition, are you nothing but a pathetic puppet on a string, or are you going to show some real leadership and integrity this time? It would be harder for you to sack the member for Katherine. In contrast to Leo Abbott, the member for Katherine is an important number for you to hold onto your position as Opposition Leader. Will you put your self-interest and self-preservation before the integrity of your leadership? Territorians will be watching very closely to see whether you have the strength to do the right thing.
Many people, including a significant number of your own supporters in business, are saying the Opposition Leader and the CLP are not fit to govern. I hope I am incorrect in predicting the outcome; however, I feel your weakness will lead to a lack of action against the member for Katherine and this inaction will only further confirm the view that you are not fit to govern.
In closing, I reiterate this debate is a crucial one in the context of this Assembly. The member for Katherine has deliberately misled this House and needs to be condemned. Importantly, Territorians can clearly see the character of the person the CLP is putting forward as Treasurer, and the weakness of the Opposition Leader in not sacking him.
I say again, the Opposition Leader is not fit to lead and the CLP is not fit to govern.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Port Darwin, I remind you that at 11 am I will be calling the Leader of the Opposition to make his budget reply.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I find it incredulous that the person this government would choose to run this slanderous smear campaign would be the person on the thinnest ice of them all. I am not going to defend the actions of the member for Katherine. What occurred during that period has been described by the Ombudsman and the member for Katherine. What we have from the Ombudsman’s report, as the minister likes to call it - and pause here for a second, this demonstrates, by calling it a report, the dishonesty with which the government is bringing this matter forward …
Ms Lawrie: It is pretty thorough.
Mr Mills: It is not a report.
Mr ELFERINK: It is correspondence to a complainant - a Mr Rowley. However, because the government is so anxious to prosecute this matter it has determined it is fit to call it a report for the purpose of public consumption. We would like to rebadge things from the outset. Even in the motion there is an attempt to mislead people of the Northern Territory.
I also point out a comment the minister made in relation to this matter - the contents of this letter are the considered opinion of the Ombudsman at the time as a result of the Ombudsman’s role, and oversight role of the Joint Review Committee or JRC, which is essentially the ethics committee of the operation of police officers. There is no doubt what was described as the facts was wrong, and the member for Katherine has described them as mistakes. The member for Johnston would have us believe there is a spectre of villainy and corruption associated with it. That is not for this House to decide because that can only be known in the heart of the member for Katherine. What can be known are the facts and that is up to the electorate to decide, which is precisely what the minister said.
This then returns us to the issue of the minister’s own conduct. It is necessary to go here because of the parallels which exist between the conditions surrounding the member for Katherine and the conditions surrounding the minister himself. The minister running this case, the member for Johnston, was, very early in his ministerial career, investigated for potentially interfering in a police investigation.
Ms Lawrie: Found not to have.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. The Treasurer says: ‘Found not to have’. The allegations against the minister were police at one point had cause to attend his home address, and the essential allegation was he said words to the effect: ‘Do you know who I am?’, and also: ‘I will have your badge for this’ in an attempt …
Dr Burns: Wrong. Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, stand up and give a full explanation.
Members: He has.
Mr ELFERINK: He has not. That is the point; he has never made a personal explanation in relation to this matter. All we have from the minister is a denial: ‘I did nothing wrong’. That is exactly what we have from the member for Katherine. What does the minister rely upon to demonstrate the quality of his denial: ‘I was never prosecuted by the director of Prosecutions. The file went there, but I was never prosecuted’.
Well, guess what, Madam Speaker? Let us turn our attention to the letter from the Ombudsman to Mr Rowley, which says - and I do not have to read it - ‘these matters have been referred to the DPP’. Where was the prosecution? There was no prosecution! The fact is this matter was not only referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions but, moreover, was also referred to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, both of whom could have initiated a prosecution if there was sufficient evidence to, I presume, demonstrate the requisite mens rae this minister is alleging. Sadly for his case and argument, there is one major flaw: neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor the Registrar of Motor Vehicles chose to proceed with a prosecution.
Whilst the minister uses the word ‘unlawful’, no unlawful conduct has been described. In fact ...
Dr Burns: By the Ombudsman, that is the question.
Mr ELFERINK: The Ombudsman cannot pronounce guilt. That is what you are trying to put into the Ombudsman’s mouth.
Dr Burns: The Ombudsman said it.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, that is the problem this minister has. His defence in his matter of interfering in a police investigation as a minister of the Crown was: ‘I did nothing wrong. The DPP said I did nothing wrong because they did not prosecute me’. Has the DPP prosecuted the member for Katherine?
A member: No.
Mr ELFERINK: No. So, the full dressage surrounding these particular allegations comes down to a single question: is the member for Katherine innocent at a criminal level? Yes. Is the minister for everything innocent at a criminal level? Yes. He never did anything wrong. A court did not convict him ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I never suggested the member for Katherine had done anything criminal. I quoted from ...
Mr Elferink: You said unlawful! Sit down!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I said unlawful. I resent the implication by the member for Port Darwin that I have acted in a criminal way, and, under Standing Order 62, I ask him to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, addressing this particular issue, I just said you were innocent ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: I said the very opposite of what you are alleging. Do not start twisting people’s words.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, what is your point of order?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I ask the member for Drysdale to withdraw the word ‘shit’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I did not hear it, but I ask you to withdraw.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: By the minister’s own standards a senior constable, who in the greater scheme of the ranks of the police force is on the junior side, should, if he has a problem which is recognised - because the internal review processes of the police force found there were shortcomings - he has admitted to making a mistake and has been fined for making those mistakes. The level of the fine associated with this particular error was $750. If you go to court for a minor traffic offence, that is about what you get.
The police force places staff in an interesting situation because it has two levels of accountability where most citizens have one. The accountability of the average citizen - including ministers of the Crown, no less - is they are innocent until proven guilty, with all the protections of a normal court system. That is what the minister is relying on in his declaration of innocence in relation to his conduct. Police, however, do not enjoy that.
A parallel many people would understand is professional footballers who play Rugby League, soccer and Aussie rules have codes of conduct. From time to time, footballers breach those codes of conduct and, from time to time, are fined for non-criminal activity. That is what has occurred with the member for Katherine when he was a police officer - he was fined for his mistakes. No such secondary level of culpability was attached to this minister of the Crown when the allegations made by attending police against him were investigated.
Dr Burns: No, you made the allegations. The CLP did.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. I ask what was sent to the DPP? What was investigated? Was the DPP sent an empty envelope or were there statutory declarations taken by attending police in that envelope? Was that something in the envelope other evidence to support allegations against the minister? We do not know, because we do not have a personal explanation from this minister. What we have is an adjournment debate denying any wrongdoing because the DPP chose not to prosecute the matter. By that standard, the minister has declared his innocence. I can just as comfortably, and quite properly, declare the innocence of the member for Katherine from any criminal wrongdoing, yet this minister quite happily attaches the word ‘unlawful’ to his conduct. That is a direct allegation of criminal activity …
Dr Burns: By the Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK: There is no criminal history.
Dr Burns: By the Ombudsman, not me, I did not …
Mr ELFERINK: You have – I am going to pick up on this interjection. You are relying on the Ombudsman’s ‘considered opinions’ entirely to prosecute your case. Clearly, the DPP and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, in both instances, did not agree with the considered opinion of the Ombudsman because they chose not to prosecute the matter. This leaves Territorians with a simple question in relation to the conduct of the member for Katherine.
Clearly, he has erred. I do not know, and no other person other than the member for Katherine can know, what was going on in his mind and his heart at the time these things occurred. We know the facts and some surmised opinions by the Ombudsman. Let us be clear on that: the test as to whether people trust or do not trust the Ombudsman on this particular issue, or who they believe, is the electorate. It is right and proper that members of this House be scrutinised from time to time. I have never asserted we should not be scrutinised. However, there are boundaries which have an ability, from time to time, to be crossed. To allege unlawfulness, when no unlawfulness has been proven is, I believe, an unfortunate step to take. To allege criminal conduct when no criminal conduct has been established …
Dr Burns: Alleged criminal conduct.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you said unlawful.
Dr Burns: I said unlawful, and that is what the Ombudsman said.
Mr ELFERINK: That is an opinion. I could tell you some of the opinions I have heard about the conduct of the Leader of Government Business on the night police had cause to attend his house and, if they had been successfully prosecuted, would have been criminal, but they were not, so he stands guilty of nothing.
Going back to the internal processes in place for the investigation of these matters, the member for Katherine is fined $750 for his conduct. What happens next? A year later, as I understand it, he is promoted to sergeant. He has not lost any pay or conditions other than the fine he has to pay, and the matter is put to bed by the Northern Territory Police Force.
Clearly, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered the matter insufficient for criminal prosecution. Clearly, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles considered the matter insufficient for criminal prosecution. Clearly, the Northern Territory Police Force found the matter sufficient for internal disciplinary proceedings and closed the file and allowed him to get on with his career.
What is really behind this is not a genuine desire to discover and uncover the alleged activities of the member for Katherine. This is all about several things.
One - government knows it stinks. It is on the nose in the public domain which presents it with two choices. One, it can attempt to lift its game, elevate itself and become better at what it does. However, knowing that is beyond its capacity, it defers to the standard Labor hate machine, which is to run down everyone else in the process. That is what this is about. It is not about lifting itself up; it is about lowering itself. One thing the Labor Party does so much better than the conservative forces in the country is hate. It truly hates and carries grudges with a monumental level of antipathy in its heart.
That is what we have to contend with so we are stuck with a question. I have spoken to Dennis Bree from the fifth floor about this. Indeed, I have spoken to the minister himself and asked: ‘Where do we go with this; what do we do with this approach?’ I have counselled against this in the parliament before. What do we do? Do we start opening up every wound we can find of every member in this House - and there are plenty, and I have described behind the scenes some of the things we are aware of in relation to some members opposite, and we have restrained ourselves from going there.
It is my understanding a minister of the Crown, only several days ago, approached a member on this side of the House saying: ‘God, do we really want to go down this path?’, particularly in relation to some of the information I have given to Dennis Bree …
Mr Henderson: You did not have any problems going for Damian Hale, did you?
Mr ELFERINK: This is at the heart of what really drives us. This is not about Terry Mills or Willem Westra Van Holthe. This, in the words of the Chief Minister himself, is entirely about revenge. The hate machine, the loathe machine, the spite machine is brewing below the surface. You are a despicable bunch; an awful, despicable bunch. That is what this is about – payback: ‘We are going to pay them back; we are going to hurt them’.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is about the unlawful actions of the member for Katherine, and the cowardice of the Leader of the Opposition in failing to sack the shadow Treasurer who tried to avoid stamp duty.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Member for Port Darwin, you only have about a minute to go.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. I will seek to continue my remarks at a later date.
This is about their hate. Before we go to the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply know this: we will conduct ourselves with greater honour and integrity than you are capable of dreaming of. You will see that when I finish my debate after the lunch period. This is a hate machine which is using every vile tool at its disposal to go after members on this side of the House and tempting a fight, which will be a pox on both our houses. It will be a disgusting pox which will diminish politicians in the eyes of the electorate universally in the Northern Territory. That is something these haters of a professional standard are more than happy to take us to. It shows the level of indignity they are prepared to embrace for the sake of hate and political cheap shots.
Ms Scrymgour: I cannot believe you are defending him. Unbelievable!
Mr ELFERINK: I am not here defending the conduct of the member for Katherine; I am defending reality. The member for Katherine admitted he made mistakes. You people would make many more.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to complete my remarks after lunch break.
Madam SPEAKER: It will not be after lunch. It will be after the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the budget.
Leave granted.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I have given my leave for the Northern Territory News to take photographs during the budget reply.
If the Northern Territory News photographer could go down further into that area - not actually on the floor.
Mr Mills: Are you sure that is a camera, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: I am hoping it is not a gun because it is aimed at me at the moment!
Continued from 3 May 2011.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Budget 2011-12 is not a budget for our time; it is a budget of our time - 10 years under Labor; a decade of fiscal ill-discipline, self-indulgence and wasted opportunities. It is not a budget with vision to rebuild Territory finances and support the private sector drivers of the economy; it is about survival not success. This budget has at its centre a broken promise framed in a hope to secure the survival of the Territory Labor government; that is all. It is credit card budget leaving Territorians a debt to repay for years to come. Deficits are forecast right through the forward estimates, and debt is set to rise in 2014-15 to $3.9bn.
The Treasurer is more than happy for the community to presume the budget will be in surplus in 2015; however, there is nothing in the budget documentation which in any way supports that position. Let me be clear: the budget papers do not contain a plan to return the budget to surplus. Perhaps wishful thinking on behalf of the Labor government but there is no plan contained within those documents. What they show is a long line of future deficits.
We are on a downward debt spiral and, though promised, there is no plan for future surpluses. The Treasurer, as she is wont to do, blames declining Commonwealth revenue, but it is very fair, if that is the excuse, to ask the question: what has happened to the hundreds of millions of dollars in GST windfall since 2001? What happened to that? This was announced outside the budget and beyond expectation. Year after year I warned, first, Treasurer Stirling, and then Treasurer Lawrie to put some aside to save for a rainy day. Now the difficult times are here and you cry an excuse and the cupboard is bare when you had the opportunity to put something aside. What do you do? You reach for the credit card. Happy to spend other peoples money, to heck with the consequences.
For those who understand how to manage money and take responsibility, there is no getting around this: debt has to be repaid and Labor has an appalling record when it comes to the repayment of debt. To make matters worse, this government pays $70m in interest to service its debt every year. That is $200 000 every day just in interest repayments. By 2014-15, that will have doubled to $161.2m, which is about $400 per day. Imagine what you could do with that extra money rather than sending it to the bank.
Like last year, along with declining revenues, deepening deficits and enlarging debt, there is no let up, there is no change to the spin. The former Labor Finance minister Lindsay Tanner - and I enjoyed that read - describes well the condition that has infected this Labor administration and this budget when he said:
True words. For the past three weeks we have been subjected to stories about record spends in health, more money for infrastructure, more on this and more on that, with the sense the Treasurer is hoping someone will applaud. It sounds great. It is good spin but I believe Territorians are fare dinkum and can see right through this. They see the real record of this government. Spending money is one thing, but what do you get for it? You go to the shop, you buy something, you expect something; you spend the money, you expect something.
What do Territorians receive as a result of the service delivery of this appalling Labor government - so self-indulgent? They get longer waiting times in hospital emergency departments, worsening literacy and numeracy results amongst our children, and violent crime is out of control. Rents and mortgage repayments are pushing families to the brink – real pressure at the home. After 10 years of Labor it did not need to be like this.
The huge boost to Territory income through the GST gave the Labor government more money than any previous Territory government - more than it could have even dreamt of. That is a fact. That revenue was entrusted to us and was a ticket to greater economic security for the Territory. As always with Labor governments, it is too easy to spend and too hard to save - too hard to say no: ‘Someone may not like it, so let us just spend and to heck with tomorrow’. It was squandered recklessly in the good days and today we face a very real economic challenge. We are awake to that because it is going to have to be responded to; it will not go away. It will not be masked by spin.
The challenges are all the more heightened because Labor could not manage responsibly in the times of plenty - it spent when it had it. What hope do we have under this administration in the more difficult and challenging times? If you look at past form, we do not have the form that will allow us to handle the challenges of the future.
The truth is small business owners are doing it tough, as are families. Shopkeepers, hairdressers and tourist operators are hurting. Pubs in the city are struggling and shops in the mall are empty. Local firms are going to the wall. That is a personal tragedy for those under that excruciating pressure. Spin will not cover that. In fact, Labor policies and core economic management have driven up the cost of living to such an extent that more than 100 people leave the Territory than arrive each month. The government’s financial mismanagement has given one thing to Territorians and, for many, sadly, it is a reason to leave. It is the Treasurer’s ‘kick it out’ - a forced economic evacuation of our best and brightest. They have flown interstate because they can no longer afford to live here. They make that decision. However, there are those who cannot make that decision and stay here. Those who are economically active make a decision to go, but why do they go?
This is a government of missed opportunity. The latest Access Economics report clearly states - if you were to read it plainly, Treasurer - that the Territory is heading in the wrong direction. Our major projects are scaling down at a time when the other resource states are ramping up ready for the next great boom. We cannot even say we are bogged. We are worse than that - we are going backwards, Treasurer, relative to the other jurisdictions at a time of great opportunity.
I turn to the economic circumstances facing the Territory. I can see these and I speak to others who describe it quite plainly. While the wheels were wobbling in some economies earlier, the global financial crisis hit at the end of 2008 while the Territory was in a pretty good position. It was still working through a pipeline of projects: high-rise apartments were on the go; mining, oil and gas projects were completing expansions; and there was a range of Commonwealth projects such as SIHIP and the intervention. However, once these projects worked their way through the system the squeeze began.
While the Territory was protected for some 12 months after the GFC, the opposite was true elsewhere. Conditions improved across the rest of Australia while ours began to slide. Workers began to seek better conditions elsewhere. Private sector investment dropped dramatically and, as a consequence, the Territory now faces the same economic conditions that were in force at the beginning of the last decade: slowing or negative GSP - a nett negative growth cycle. We are now exposed, and we have not made adequate preparations.
Nett interstate migration - skilled workers moving back to home base - is reducing our demand for accommodation. High volumes of unsold properties - ask around, you will learn - and the high cost of living and doing business generally means housing is not being considered for current investments. Territory businesses are struggling to find skilled workers as a result of government’s failed housing policies, making it a costly disincentive for workers who love the Territory to stay. The rebuilding in Queensland following Cyclone Yasi and the floods will add further pressure to those skilled labour demands as they have the incentive to go to other places.
Mining capital investment has peaked in the short term. Oil and gas investment onshore and offshore is yet to kick in, and there are only a handful of major projects in the start up list. The 2011 plan for the Labor government is about waiting for INPEX. This government has laid a bet and placed all its eggs in one basket - the INPEX basket.
The Territory enters 2011-12 with significant adjustments in population, and they are significant if you do an assessment of the way the population is shifting as a result of negative economic pressures. The Territory is home to about 230 000 people, 120 000 of whom are in employment. Our nett growth from natural means is about 2500 per year; however, 100 people per month are leaving the Territory for interstate. The participation rate - the number of people actually in the workforce - is high compared to the national average, while the rate of unemployment in urban centres is very low. In fact, the Territory is proclaimed as having the highest unemployment statistics in Australia at about 2.3%. However, these figures do not tell the full story.
There are jobs on offer in the Territory - make no mistake. If you want a job and have the skills, you have a job, and there are many eligible workers. If you do not have a job, the cost of living is unaffordable and the pressure too great - the highest grocery, rent and electricity prices in Australia. The unemployment rate is low and the participation rate is high because of the economic factors. If you do not have a job, you pack up and leave.
What is even more alarming is the Chief Minister is out of touch or in denial about this important economic fact and the social consequences that flow from it. Responding to a question during the Alice Springs sittings about the Territory’s negative interstate migration, Chief Minister Henderson went into spin mode and claimed it was the first quarter of negative migration after eight quarters of growth - wrong. It highlights how out of touch this Chief Minister is. This government is oblivious to the hardships faced by Territorians struggling with extraordinary cost of living pressures and the very real concerns of small business struggling to hold skilled workers. They are being enticed to go elsewhere and it is very expensive to live here. The Chief Minister should have known in every quarter for the 12 months to September 2010, more people left the Territory for interstate than migrated here from other jurisdictions. In the September quarter, negative interstate migration was 288; 168 in the June quarter; 375 in the March quarter; and 332 in the December quarter 2009. You only have to look around to see the ‘for rent’ signs which tell you a story if you have eyes to see through the spin. For the Chief Minister to downplay the important statistics highlights his shaky grip on reality and complete disregard for important facts.
This is not just a one-off demographic oddity. It is a trend that shows people are looking elsewhere to set up a home and raise a family. There was a time when people looked to the Territory to set up a home and raise a family. Now they are looking outside, and that has some severe social and economic consequences.
With this picture firmly in mind, I turn now to the Territory budget and the desperate state of the Territory’s finances. Despite record GST revenues, our projected total debt and liabilities exceed $4.7bn. Last year, the Treasurer forecast a $268m deficit at the end of the financial year; yesterday, we found out the figure was actually $295m. The Treasurer promised the deficit would drop to $172m next year, but has now admitted it is set to soar to $387m. In 2014-15, the end of the forward estimates period, the budget is still forecast to be $195m in the red. Disturbingly, the Treasurer has broken her promise to reveal when the budget will be back in surplus. Including Power and Water, the Territory’s debt will double from $2bn to $3.8bn between now and the end of the forward estimates instead of trending downwards.
Nett debt to revenue is swiftly increasing to 47%, from 15% just two years ago. Labor says its budget is responsible and responsive; it is not. It is a budget you get when government is reaching for the election starting line. Let us see if we can get there. We in the opposition recognise the Commonwealth and Territory budgets are under pressure and we recognise it is largely contributed to the hands of its makers - the Labor Party. Canberra has already signalled a tough budget next week, and with increasing reliance on Commonwealth revenue, we know we will not be spared. The budget papers indicate revenue from the Commonwealth now makes up 82% of our budget. Of that, over 50% comes in GST receipts; receipts that have generously provided the Labor government with a fat serve of income. However, instead of putting away some of the GST fat for the past 10 years, there is no buffer; there is nothing in the bank to even out the funding so we do not have to rely on higher deficits and more debt.
When the GST collection and distribution was first introduced in 2001 - I was in the parliament then - a minimum amount was guarantee to the states and the Territory benefited from this arrangement, particularly through the post-GFC in 2009-10. It is estimated the GST excess over expected revenue since its introduction would have been sufficient, if it had been saved, to eliminate the Territory’s debt of $1bn. What a much better position we would be in today with an extra $100m to spend on roads, schools, police and hospitals. That is $100m each and every year just by saving the GST. Looking to forward years, GST in the budget papers is growing by more than 5% per year. That growth in GST income must be managed wisely and well, and not squandered away.
I have to cut to the chase. The Territory can only spend the money it actually earns. Next year the Territory, on an own-source revenue and GST pool, will earn $3.521bn but spend $3.896bn. Realistically, Labor is running a disastrous 10.6% budget deficit. The Territory government has a debt to own source revenue ratio of 169%. Why is that so? Because the GST and local taxes are the only sources of money the Territory can spend on what it wants. It is the only money the Territory has to pay that debt. Every other dollar is tied to an outcome on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Treasurer has created a total nett debt in this budget that will cost Territorians about $31 500 per person - that is man, woman, and child; everyone, including superannuation liabilities.
Labor says it needs to go into debt to keep the economy going. However, no amount of government spending will fill the gap caused by a slackening in private investment. Only a government that creates the environment to attract private investment can address that imbalance and create a stable economy. Labor’s property bubble, caused by slow land release and a decade of inaction, has seen a collapse of private investment. It got the policy mix wrong, and now the budget bottom line has to pay.
The government has announced a 3% cut in public sector expenditure and a further 2% cut in services. That means a tough time for public servants, who already cop the blame for ministerial incompetence and lack of decision-making, and an even tougher time for families forced to endure a slackening of core services. By bulking up executive levels, frontline public servants bear the burden. A visit to the MVR on any day will show you where public sector jobs should be. A visit to the hospital, calling for a police officer, getting your kids a good quality education which achieves the minimum national standard, or getting a building permit would all be improved by frontline service staff.
The government announced in this budget a $1.5bn infrastructure spend. We on this side of the House welcome, support and encourage investment in infrastructure. The Territory needs investment in productive capital to grow and prosper. However, Labor’s headline figure is yet another cruel joke. The Treasurer has made much of the infrastructure spending but has failed to mention the extent of the money the government has failed to spend. This year’s budget contains $649m of revoted works from the 2010-11 Budget. Next year, there is $479m in promises that will not be delivered.
It is worth remembering a proportion of the money not spent last financial year was rolled over from the previous budget and the budget before, and so on and on it goes. Commitments like the Mereenie Loop - remember that one? - the Alice Springs emergency department, the Fog Bay Road, the East Arm port development, the CBD bypass of Katherine - projects revoted time and time and time again. This government rolls out promises for infrastructure, but what it says it will spend is not what it delivers.
There are a number of other specific areas of budget expenditure I would now like to address.
The government’s latest land release announcement for Zuccoli confirms Labor’s ongoing incompetence. Failing to deliver on the expectations it raises about land release is a trademark of this government. I find it astonishing that we are so land rich but have a land shortage. How can that be? The government recently promised to release 450 lots at Zuccoli over the next five years. As recently as 2009, the government promised to release 210 lots in 2010, and an additional 240 this year. That represents a substantial reduction in the government’s land release promises of just two years ago. Land release drives residential construction. Construction presently contributes about $300m per quarter to the economy, but is down about $200m to $300m from the heights of the recent boom.
New house construction, even withstanding the recent release of extra land in Johnston and Bellamack, will be severely affected in the short term. Even with the BuildBonus grant, new home construction prices are significantly higher than available used stock. While the Treasurer has announced a $10 000 grant for Territorians wanting to build a home, it hardly seems enough to address a serious shortfall in houses required. The ABS says about 30 homes per month are currently being financed for construction. The government’s own budget papers from 2009-10 forecast Darwin and Palmerston need about 2200 homes and units over 18 months to meet expected demand but only 1100 new dwellings were build last year – half the required amount.
Join the dots. Is it any wonder 1200 more people left the Territory for interstate than arrived in the 12 months to September? You could see the awful logic there. Make no space in the market, increase demand, increase the cost of living, and people have to make a decision to leave. That has serious consequences.
Law and order: there is no better illustration of the government’s failures to address law and order than the problems besetting Alice Springs. What an absolute failure of duty and care - a failure by this government to provide even the most basic of services. The statistics speak for themselves: in the past five years assaults increased by 97%; house break-ins by 64% - these are homes that have been broken into; people live in these homes – 64%. Commercial break-ins - people trying to contribute to the local economy - increased by 185%; motor vehicle thefts by 97%; and property damage by 71%. Darwin and the rest of the Territory follow similar patterns, and after 10 years of Labor it is not getting any better. It is getting worse.
To believe the Treasurer, throwing money at these problems somehow magically makes them disappear, but not for citizens. These statistics are people’s stories. The violence, the theft, the vandalism and drunken antisocial behaviour is damaging our lifestyle; it is hurting tourism and is killing off business. What does Labor do? Well, nothing ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr MILLS: It is not surprising Labor’s police budget contained no additional police officers for Alice Springs ...
Ms Lawrie: Alcohol reform! Support it!
Mr MILLS: There was some welcome money for an additional Police Beat in Karama - the Treasurer’s electorate - but no commitment to Alice Springs. We hear those temporary police sent to Alice Springs prior to the Alice Springs sittings have all but been removed – out of sight, out of mind. There is a pressing need for additional police to deal with law and order issues in Alice Springs, however, the government’s budget commitment fails to deliver a single new police officer to the town. The Country Liberals would locate an additional 20 officers in Alice Springs; Labor will provide none. We will honour our commitment to return the police communications unit to Alice Springs.
I cannot raise my concerns about this government’s failure to directly address the social problems facing Alice Springs without mentioning the call for further direct action in Indigenous policy. With the Northern Territory Emergency Response coming to an end next year, the only people calling for more funding and support, and thinking about this serious issue to address the unfinished business of the intervention are Tony Abbott and the Country Liberal Party …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Any further action in Indigenous communities should be done in …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry, this is most unusual, but the interjections are constant and ongoing. We heard the Treasurer in silence yesterday, and that courtesy should be extended ...
Ms Lawrie: No, you did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: There were interjections coming from the opposition yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, please resume your seat. Honourable members, it is a courtesy to listen to the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: … member for Arafura, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Any further action in Indigenous communities should be done in conjunction with traditional owners and community members. To end the intervention …
Ms Scrymgour: You have changed your tune.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To end the intervention next year while there are still significant issues to be addressed - issues that manifest themselves very acutely in places like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine - is grossly irresponsible.
Child protection: for years the government knew of serious failings within child protection but ignored them. A backlog of more than 1000 reports not investigated beggar’s belief. NT Families and Children’s failure to listen to a series of warnings from health professionals concerning children at risk was the catalyst for the establishment of the Bath inquiry.
I am pleased the government has taken some action on child protection and welcome increased investment in protecting Territory children. This funding is long overdue, but it will take more than just dollars to fix the Territory’s broken child protection system. The investment must be sustained and government must provide a very real commitment to cultural and practical change in the delivery of child protection services. The recently released six-monthly progress report does not give me much hope. It was delivered in a glossy brochure, complete with a smiling minister and self-congratulations. I am sure Territorians will forgive me; I will not join in those celebrations until I see a better system.
Health: last week’s release of figures by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows the Territory has the worst emergency response times in the country. Just 63% of emergency, 47% of urgent and 44% of semi-urgent presentations to Territory hospitals were seen within the required time frames. While this represents a minor increase on last year, they are considerably below the national average. We will be looking to see that the increase in health funding announced in this budget makes considerable inroads in this area. We want to see actual change.
Education: sadly, our students continue to lag behind the rest of the country with city, rural and remote schools way behind the national standard in literacy and numeracy. Despite the best efforts of principals, teachers, school councils, and good kids, government policies are not addressing the systemic shortcomings in our system. In the bush, attendance continues to be at unacceptably low levels. Despite its rhetoric about the importance of improving attendances, the government failed to introduce legislation designed to link truancy and family responsibility orders until the February sittings. The new laws should have been in place by the start of the school year if you were serious. The My School website shows urban schools with attendances similar to those in other jurisdictions that have poorer academic outcomes. Schools can only do this with adequate resources and we will be tracking the government’s education expenditure to monitor real improvements and student outcomes.
Boat registration: our wonderful Territory lifestyle is also under threat from Labor. Fishing enthusiasts are confused and worried about the government’s handling of the fishing permits fiasco and the Chief Minister’s failure to negotiate fishing access for anglers affected by the High Court’s Blue Mud Bay decision, a decision that will affect every Territorian. All we have seen is a multimillion dollar draft proposal aimed at appeasing traditional owners but ignoring the freedoms enjoyed by fishing lovers who will still have to register their boats under Labor’s proposal. Fishos know this financial hit is coming, yet the government, in typical fashion, failed to make note of this new outlay of upward of $10m in the budget - no mention. The Territory government has shut Territory anglers out of the negotiations, which is another betrayal by Labor.
Tourism is a billion dollar a year industry in the Territory; however, the sector is doing it tough. The high Aussie dollar, the floods in Victoria and Queensland and Cyclone Yasi, the high cost of living and adverse publicity from our high crime rate is hurting the industry further. Now, at a time the sector needs support, the government has cut the tourism budget by 3.9%. We can only hope Oprah Winfrey plans to make a return trip to the Territory providing much-needed publicity, because this government is bereft of ideas on how to stimulate this vital industry.
Alcohol: the government has promised $5.2m to expand existing treatment options and establish new services to treat people with significant alcohol problems. This funding includes $3.5m to expand treatment and rehabilitation services provided by non-government organisations. However, within the budget handed down yesterday, there is only a $2.564m increase in funding for Alcohol and Other Drug services. Where is the remaining $2.6m the government has promised?
Carbon tax: one area the government failed to address in its economic overlay is one of the greatest threats to the future development of the Territory. When the Territory moves into 2012, it may well have to deal with yet another Labor government tax, a tax on carbon we steadfastly oppose. If economists and commentators are correct in their assumptions, under federal Labor the Territory faces a potential carbon tax bill of over $300m per year. That is a tax on every tank of petrol - 6 a litre; on every household budget for power - $1000 a year; a tax on food, groceries, a tax on goods and services. It is a tax with no clear and defined global goal. In a country which produces just 1% of global CO2 emissions - we in the Territory produce just 1% of that - it is not a tax that will deliver more jobs or promote Territory investment. It is a tax on coal, on oil, on gas, and on our pastoral industry. It is a tax on the Territory lifestyle.
We can do much better. There is no talent at all, though Labor would think so, in just throwing buckets of money around the place hoping for applause and bouquets of flowers. The trick is you have to get real results from every dollar you spend. More than $1bn on health, yet waiting times are still unacceptable. There is $930m on education but, on average, our kids still do not reach minimum education standards in literacy and numeracy. There is more money for police, but law and order is still out of control.
These are the issues; that is where the focus should be, not the money but the result. Despite all its spending, there is a serious blockage within government preventing those dollars producing real results on the ground. We demand results. I am committed to providing the leadership necessary in government to get a better return on the government dollar - bang for buck - better oversight of expenditure - and ministers actually driving departments to deliver better services is the place to start. More disciplined and effective management of Territory finances in order to deliver core services and improved infrastructure is also required.
Since Labor came to office, government expenses have grown an average of 7.2% per year. The government has been steamrolling funding but services are just getting worse. Today, I will announce a Country Liberals government will conduct a complete financial audit of the Territory government’s financial position. That audit will be undertaken by experts and include a focus on a number of issues, including the long-term sustainability of the NT budget position and our wasteful expenditure built up over 10 years of consecutive Labor governments. It will be the start of a new era in transparency in government expenditure and responsibility to get the most out of the government dollar.
The Country Liberals will save $400m by striking out the new prison from the budget. The government yesterday committed $27m to building the new prison, three years after the plan was first announced by the former Justice minister, the member for Johnston. The history of delays and bungling that have plagued this project are well-documented and are a reflection on this government’s appalling capacity to deliver on its projects. However, the delays could provide a much needed lifeline, and it is not too late to stop the development of that prison and put the money into a program that will give a real result, and make savings at the same time.
The Chief Minister yesterday, rather than defend the indefensible - a weak budget - was trying to reach out and attack the Territory opposition. He asked me to find $295m worth of savings. The prison is the largest single public project in Territory history and its impact is already being felt in the forward estimates. It is not too late for the government to swallow its pride and backtrack on that. It should upgrade Berrimah prison and adopt our proposal to develop a prison farm in Katherine and other centres with rehabilitation and education facilities.
The Country Liberals will sell off NT Fleet ...
Mr Henderson: It will not save you any money, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: ... a government asset we believe should be managed by the private sector. NT Fleet has nett assets totalling $90m and produces a surplus of $10m a year. It manages 3500 vehicles across the fleet. While departments should be responsible for choosing vehicles to meet their specific requirements, I see no reason why government should be in the business of providing fleet management services. In all likelihood, the 33 staff employed by NT Fleet will be absorbed into the public service in areas where their skills can be best utilised, such as administration, procurement, and management. Instead of the government providing a car provision service to itself, for which government pays, we will lease those cars through the private sector. We believe at least another $10m a year could be saved by reducing government self-promotion.
Labor has an appalling track record when it comes to delivering on its promises or providing essential government services; however, credit where it is due. When it comes to self-promotion, the Henderson government is in a league all of its own. First, the government mastered the art of the glossy brochure, but the Public Information Act nipped that in the bud. Now, it has taken to the small screen and the airways to continue the process of shameless self-indulgence. You only need to tune into commercial television any night of the week, or talk-back radio, to see or hear examples of the Henderson government spruiking about itself. It is one thing to use the media to issue a safety message or a health warning; it is another thing altogether to see the government using advertising to create a favourable impression before or after a run of bad press.
This week, for example, the government ran an advertisement detailing its pothole repair program. Over the past few weeks my colleagues, the members for Drysdale and Braitling, have generated considerable media interest with their accounts of the appalling state of the Stuart Highway. What does the government do to address the pothole problem? It produces a television campaign. Under the Country Liberals, the money used for an ad would be used to fill a pothole. As Joel of Woodroffe says on the NT News website: ‘That is their job I thought? No need to waste taxpayers’ money telling the public about it’.
On a related topic, I also count the number of political and media advisors employed by government. It is deeply concerning that government needs an army of spin doctors to sell its programs. It will also save $1m a year by closing the three wasteful and indulgent offices of the Chief Minister. The offices in Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs are simply shopfronts for government spin. The Country Liberals support core frontline public servants like police, teachers and nurses, not government spin doctors. Local members should provide a conduit between the parliament and the executive. It is offensive the Labor government has tried to usurp the important community role played by MLAs. Even if they are not Labor members, they have a legitimate role chosen by their communities.
We will also take a significantly different approach to dealing with problem drinkers to ensure government expenditure targets problem drinkers and is not wasted on the vast majority of responsible Territorians.
There is also millions of dollars in revenue out there this government is too frightened to collect. We will not be afraid to collect the fines and ensure public housing tenants pay their rents. Yesterday, the Chief Minister called on the Country Liberals to provide details of our savings and outlined, typically, a doomsday scenario of program cuts and job losses. You were wrong, Chief Minister. Scrap your prison, sell off a non-core government asset, rein in your self-promotion and save in excess of $500m in one fell swoop, and not a single public service job has been lost. I will provide further details of our plans for the Territory over the coming months in the lead up to the next Territory election, and Territorians will have a very clear picture of the responsible management of Territory finances by a Country Liberals government before the next election.
The Country Liberals want to create an environment which avoids the impact of the boom-bust cycle on Territory businesses. That is why we will establish a new body, Infrastructure NT, charged with advising government on responsible and productive projects linking government and the private sector. It will create a project pipeline to ensure best practice and best economic outcomes for the Territory. It is about jobs, population growth, and creating an environment to better deliver economic benefits for all Territorians.
Training is another area in which we can do better. A capacity to respond efficiently and appropriately to the opportunities that come with future growth is required. That response needs to be seen all the way through our education system, from technical studies in primary and middle schools, through to school-based apprenticeships and the programs offered at our university. If we do not better coordinate, and I believe we can, we will be left behind.
To achieve this, I am working through models to recognise the need for industry and business to have greater responsibility and input into training and to connect the two. My start point is a structure which has education responsible for school education, and higher education and industry and business for apprenticeships and training. It is about doing what we do best: proper coordination and proper leadership. Education should be responsible for book learning, industry for skills learning, and match the two. It is an area of policy development the Country Liberals will open up a debate, and I look forward to further discussion in this area.
Last September, I released a planning discussion paper titled Planning for Greater Darwin: A dynamic harbour city, which looks at requirements for population centres, industrial expansion, environmental enhancement and the future infrastructure needs of Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield and other Top End growth centres. The document was intended to get the community talking and thinking about planning, and I believe it has achieved that outcome. The document has posed some big questions instead of answering them such as: where would one million people live; where will heavy industry go; where and when will the next dam be built; should Weddell develop on the water or back from the mangroves; and how does Darwin interact with the development of Cox Peninsula? It is unusual to release a detailed planning proposal from opposition but it filled a void created by the government’s failure to release its own plan for Darwin.
Planning for Greater Darwin continues the tradition of the Country Liberals planning for the Territory’s strategic direction. It is easy to forget how much of the Territory’s physical …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I will just let it go through.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you.
Mr MILLS: … and lifestyle infrastructures were put in place under Country Liberal governments.
The Country Liberals launched the air links with Royal Brunei, Garuda and Malaysian Airlines; connected the Alice Springs Power Station to Palm Valley gas; planned for and developed Palmerston and put Weddell on the drawing board; built the Alice Springs to Darwin gas pipeline; supported the plans to develop Cullen Bay; built most of our schools and the university; facilitated significant resource development like McArthur River; built East Arm Port; and secured the Alice Springs to Darwin railway which the Labor opposition dismissed as a faded dream.
Now it is the Country Liberals in opposition building on our past achievements with a renewed vision for the Territory’s Top End.
It foreshadows satellite cities linked by an integrated transport system, and the construction of new road and rail linkages, including a spur line from the main rail line from Berrimah into the CBD, and light rail services. It also outlines heavy industrial development at Glyde Point, a proposal government still has not, in a decade, responded or committed to. It looks at water, energy, health, educational and recreational needs as the Territory’s regional population grows, and identifies a second airport for general and commercial aviation. It casts a critical eye over our non-built environment with a focus on mitigating the impacts of natural hazards such as crocodiles, mosquitoes, tropical weather systems, and climate change, and offers up options for the Weddell development, either on the edge of the Elizabeth River, or retention of a mangrove buffer between the city and the water.
Planning for Greater Darwin not only describes what needs to be done, it also outlines how it will be done. It underscores the importance of our policy to establish a Northern Territory Planning Commission which will focus on long-term strategic planning while preserving the role of the Development Consent Authority to assess the merits of planning proposals. It is also supported by a robust EPA. It shows we are serious about the Territory’s future and we mean business.
The Country Liberals have a plan which represents good government and sound policies. Labor is desperate to hang onto power by whatever means. The Henderson government has done nothing to show any lasting legacy. You just have to look around town; there are no initiatives, no lasting monuments which create a legacy or point to a coherent narrative. There is no record of a job well done. Yesterday’s budget confirms this government’s incompetence. Let me make it absolutely clear: this government is big on debt and short on service delivery. We demand better; Territorians certainly deserve better.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we will be moving back to Government Business. The member for Port Darwin has the call. I believe he has about 11 minutes, which will take us through to lunchtime.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am quite grateful this matter was intervened through the budget reply because it highlights one particular issue: what government has brought into this House today is vitriol and an extension of its contempt and hate. What the Leader of the Opposition brought into this House today was a considered reply to a budget which talked about the future of Territorians. No more direct or stark contrast is required to demonstrate the difference between what we aspire to be and what this government is.
We heard an interjection from the Chief Minister that this is just about payback for Damian Hale. If that is true, it sets this House and the members of parliament on a course of mutually-assured destruction, for all the reasons I described before. I have counselled against this type of thing in the past, and I am concerned we are choosing to go down this path again. The government has a choice. If it believes the questions asked about Damian Hale were a smear campaign, then it had what is, essentially, a moral choice: ‘Do we do the same thing as the people we accuse of being engaged in a smear campaign, or do we step back and worry about what this is really about – the good governance of the Northern Territory?’
And, sadly, blinded by anger, justified or otherwise, the government chose a path where it was better to climb into the gutter where, in its opinion, the CLP was. Okay, that is the choice it has made. How does that make the Territory a better place? From that world view all you can see is it will offer the people of the Territory a choice - we are bad, but they are worse.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Hon Steve Hatton. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: The decision by government to pursue this, and made clear by the interjection by the Chief Minister that this is all about revenge for Damian Hale, means we are presented with the same moral choice. As I was saying before the Opposition Leader’s reply, we know stuff about them, and I would not be surprised if they know stuff about us. The moral choice I have is do I engage with the next salvo back in that direction? The answer is, unlike the government, I will not go to the people of the Northern Territory at the next election with the attitude of ‘they are worse than us’. What I, and the Country Liberals, will take to the people of the Northern Territory at the next election is we are about governing for the people of the Northern Territory, and we, as a consequence, are better than them. Let us fight this on the policies.
The problem is, in the Chief Minister’s haste - and he has this occasional habit of letting his language fly before he thinks about the consequences, which is a hallmark of anger - he has also returned to the debate the matter surrounding the former member for Solomon. I am sure he would not want that rehashed; however, the Chief Minister introduced that matter because he did not think about what he was saying.
As far as members on this side of the House are concerned, the Leader of Government Business has it right in one respect: it is up to the people to decide. The Leader of Government Business did not fulsomely and openly explain his conduct when he was investigated by police; that explanation still has not come forward. All details surrounding the circumstances of the member for Katherine are now in the public domain. I challenge the Leader of Government Business, if he believes people have the right to know, instruct the police force to release all documents surrounding the allegations that he interfered with a police investigation, including statutory declarations and other evidence obtained by attending police. If he is prepared to do that, he has met his own benchmark. If he is not prepared to do that he stands condemned as a hypocrite and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … that is the double standard he applies. It is easy to run in these debates: ‘Oh, I have them now. I have my focus on the other guys’, but where is the focus on our own conduct? Where is the moment when we reflect on what we do? I can tell you, I would like to be perfect. But, guess what? I cannot walk across a swimming pool; none of us can. It is about time we turned our attention to what really matters to Territorians, which is the good governance of their jurisdiction.
The conduct alleged to be criminal or unlawful by the Leader of Government Business has not been demonstrated to be so. It is a considered opinion of an Ombudsman who referred that matter, which was not pursued by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The same defence the minister uses applies to the member for Katherine, and rather than being blinded by what the government does so well - run smear campaigns and spite campaigns - I urge that we get back to the core business of government, which is providing for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
To do otherwise in these circumstances would only serve to diminish us all in the eyes of our electorate and, when we go to the polls the next time, we will stand condemned as having failed them because we are too busy worrying about what happens in this room, and the points we score, than what happens in other places in the Northern Territory. The member for Katherine has made his mistakes and has paid the penalty considered appropriate at the time, and that is how the matter should be dealt with. The minister is doing nothing more than trying to stir the pot. I am deeply concerned that he would introduce into the debate, down the very tail end of it, allegations that Mr Rowley in some way was threatened. That is a deceitful way to approach this matter …
Dr Burns: That is in the Ombudsman’s report.
Mr ELFERINK: That is nothing more than a considered opinion.
Dr Burns: I said it was an allegation.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is the point. You just repeat allegations no matter how unfounded they may be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is an allegation from a person who pursued those allegations through the lawful process. It is nothing more than that.
What we hear from this government is a focus on repeating people’s allegations. That is all it will take to be condemned under this government; a mere allegation has to be made. Stalinist Russia used to operate on that system where you were sent to the Gulag. All you had to be was denounced. No court, no trial, off to the Gulag you go, and that is the standard this government has put on this matter: ‘We will repeat the allegations until we are blue in the face and try to make them as true as possible’. You cannot allege criminality where no criminality is established. I do not allege criminality in relation to the minister’s conduct; however, there was an investigation. Something happened behind the scenes. I ask the minister, in relation to his conduct when he was a minister and the allegation of interfering with a police investigation, if he genuinely believes he did nothing wrong surely he can allow that investigative material to be released so he can be judged accordingly by the lesser standard he is applying to the member for Katherine.
This government has run out of ideas, run out of options, and is now running a deficit budget. It is no surprise this debate is occurring on the very day the budget reply is happening. I do not doubt the ocean of ministerial media advisors on the fifth floor are currently on the lines ringing every journalist in town trying their damnedest to sell this story, to do anything to obscure the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply.
That is what this is about. It is a tissue-thin attempt to deflect attention from the shortcomings of this government. That is why I do not support this motion. It is not a genuine heartfelt motion. It establishes nothing about the member for Katherine beyond what the Ombudsman has alleged. The fact there was no prosecution of the member for Katherine by two separate government authorities to which this matter had been referred makes it clear that whilst the Ombudsman can have an opinion, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and the DPP had a different opinion. We can extrapolate all we like from the conduct of the member for Katherine and infer by his conduct particular motives. Clearly, the minister and the Ombudsman had come to certain conclusions not reflected by the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles or the DPP - simple as that. This is where we are at. Do we govern for the people of the Northern Territory or do we govern to score political points and diminish us all?
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Exposure Draft – Housing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I rise today to table an exposure draft of a bill to amend the Housing Act. The purpose of this draft bill is to enable the establishment of public housing safety officers who will be equipped with more powers to deal with antisocial behaviour in public housing. Establishing public housing safety officers is part of a broader strategy to support Territory Housing in delivering safe, secure and healthy public housing in our community. It will also set a new framework for effective management of the antisocial behaviour in public housing properties by tenants and visitors.
There are two aspects to antisocial behaviour occurring in Territory Housing properties: first, antisocial behaviour involving tenants and their visitors; and second, antisocial behaviour from itinerants using common areas in public housing complexes and vacant properties.
Antisocial behaviour in and around public housing and causing damage to public housing is totally unacceptable. Whether that be violence, excessive noise, people being a nuisance or damaging property, tenants and surrounding neighbours should not have to tolerate it. I am tabling this exposure draft of the Housing Amendment Bill to establish public housing safety officers. Modelled around the successful establishment of transit safety officers on the public bus network, public housing safety officers will have targeted powers to deal with issues specific to Territory Housing properties.
The major provisions of the draft bill include: appointment and procedures for public housing safety officers; a clear definition of antisocial behaviour; circumstances by which a public housing safety officer can access a public housing premises and offences against the act; the process by which Territory Housing can require a tenant to enter an acceptable behaviour agreement; and penalties for non-compliance within an ABA.
Powers to be conferred on the public housing safety officers include: powers to direct individuals to stop antisocial behaviour conduct or direct them to leave the public housing premises; powers to instruct individuals to leave public housing properties for up to 12 months; powers to arrest and detain; powers to search and seize dangerous articles and liquor; powers to issue notices where required; and ability for a PHSO - public housing safety officer - to act as a professional witness in eviction processes. Public housing safety officers will be trained using similar packages currently provided to transit safety officers and Northern Territory police officers.
Training will also include: conflict resolution; risk analysis; empty hand restraint; and how to identify mental health issues. They will work hand-in-hand with tenancy managers to identify and target hot-spots and create more support for police. These public housing safety officers will also work closely with tenants to achieve safer and more harmonious public housing dwellings and complexes.
To go hand-in-hand with the new public housing safety officers outlined in this legislation, the department will also introduce a new three-strikes policy. The policy will implement a new structured process for the department, as landlord, to deal with problem tenancies. Territory Housing will have a new set of procedures to be followed to rectify antisocial behaviour. This will enhance the department’s capacity, as landlord, to make application to terminate tenancies. The department will be able to present more structured cases of reasons why to evict when they take cases before the Commissioner for Tenancies.
For tenants, it will also provide them with a clear structured understanding of what is acceptable and what is not and, most importantly, the ramifications for disregarding our expectations of behaviour.
Enough is enough, and that includes public housing. We need to take strong action to manage the small number of tenants and visitors to public housing residences who do not comply with the rules and expectations of living in public housing. The amendment supports the Territory government’s Safe Territory and Housing the Territory initiatives, and will create more harmonious neighbourhoods.
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services will be making this exposure draft available to stakeholders for comment, and I will also be asking them to put it on the Internet. I encourage interested people and interested organisations to contact the department for more information and to make comment.
Madam Speaker, I commend the proposed bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this motion is opposed in the strongest terms. It is treated with the contempt it deserves. It is a shameful, low standard that has been drawn and presented for this parliament to respond to. It sets a dangerous precedent. What is this precedent? The precedent we now have is the use of a member’s mistake of many years prior to entry into this parliament for political capital. The precedent is one which ignores a personal and genuine explanation. It overlooks that it occurred some eight years ago. It has no regard for the fact no charge was laid, the member suffered embarrassment at the time, was punished and penalised, and in the admission of the member concerned in his personal explanation, it was a one-off event; and the record supports that.
It is acknowledged to be an embarrassing time for the member, but it was dealt with comprehensively long before the member entered parliament. To demonstrate the strength of that statement, the member continued to serve in the police service and was promoted thereafter.
That is the precedent which has been established for this parliament. Why is it dangerous, Madam Speaker? It sets a dangerous and very low standard which makes fair game of activities of members of this Chamber which may, and most likely would have, occurred long in the past, which has no bearing upon their performance in this Chamber. There are members in this Chamber - having been a member in this Chamber for 11 years – about whom I have knowledge of certain things that remain with me. Does this now dangerous precedent put me in the position where these matters can now be brought forward so we could gain political capital from them? I will resist that because this parliament should have its standards and traditions preserved, and because I believe it does nothing to provide any kind of strength or confidence to our community in the leadership we are meant to exhibit here.
Much can be made of it. Attempts can be made; however, these attempts are clearly motivated by a contemptuously low standard established by this Labor government to bring this forward at this time simply to embarrass a member. This member made his explanation. This member has worked for his electorate and has been supported, and continues to be supported, by the people of Katherine. I stand by their representative.
I have been provided with a letter carefully crafted by the Leader of Government Business. I am more than happy to answer those questions, right here and now.
The first question I was asked, the purpose of which I can only guess is plain for anyone to see: a distraction from a government that needs to be held to account to its primary task of delivering services to the Territory community and providing some leadership. The first question was: were you made aware of these matters prior to the Territory election in 2008? No, I was not.
Second question: did you discuss this matter with the member for Katherine at the time? The answer is obvious: of course not.
Subsequent to the 2008 election were you made aware of the matter? Of course I had been made aware subsequent to. When? After the last sittings in Alice Springs is when I became aware.
In relation to the previous question: were you aware of these matters prior to appointing the member for Katherine as the shadow Treasurer? Well, self-evident, no. It does not change the fact, the nature of the incident and its relevance today.
Prior to the personal explanation, was I given a copy of the Ombudsman’s report? It was not a report. It was a letter between the complainant and the Ombudsman - no, of course, not. If I was not aware of it, was I made aware of it afterwards? Yes, of course, I was, because I saw it published in the Northern Territory News by Nigel Adlam. Of course I had an interest in this matter. That is when I became aware of it.
Now that I am in receipt of this letter, will I remove the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer? No, I will not, for the reasons I have described. These matters have been dealt with and belong in the past.
The Territory government is setting a dangerous precedent because there are members in this Chamber where the same game could be played, but I will tell you that I am instructing my colleagues not to go down that path, tempted as we are, with the kind of grubby business we have been witness to in this Chamber.
We have charges made by the Leader of Government Business who puts himself in a very vulnerable position by pushing out on this front. It exposes all of us - every single one of us is exposed by this stunt. It brings into play what was really at the heart of this: that desire to wreak revenge on the Country Liberals for asking questions during Question Time regarding the candidate for the seat of Solomon.
If you read the questions, they could have been asked in this Chamber and could have been asked outside. There was no drama there. Who raised the issue of the families? It was the Chief Minister. Families were not mentioned. What was asked was that which was in the public domain, and what was sought was clarification - an explanation - but what we were provided with was the bringing into play of family. That was not the action of members of the Country Liberals, and that which was asked here could have been asked outside. Yes, it was difficult. Yes, it was unpleasant, but that member was a member of parliament and these matters were in the public domain. These were questions that needed to be asked and clarified, and it was in that exchange that matters which have so offended the members of the Labor Party, that have resulted in their attempt at revenge - apparently their motivation for this low act - justifies, apparently, what we have today, on the day the opposition holds the government to account for its appalling budget. That is the justification.
Another question that sits at the end of this gutless little letter sent to me which is clearly describing, in manifest form, a motivation, a political intent, is the question of Leo Abbott - did I offer him a job? No, I did not. I will say for the record the matter was plainly that there were problems with pre-selection which left very much exposed the candidate and the party, and I had no other course of action. Those matters should finish and we get on with business. I will be standing by the member for Katherine.
I condemn this government and any member who has supported and seen justified going down this path for the very reason it raises the possibility of doors being opened, of cupboards being opened, of investigations being made, whispering campaigns; crafting of little stories which are put onto the table for us all to look at.
This is not the forum for these matters to be discussed. The question for government is when did it become aware of this? If it was so concerned when did it seek to have this matter dealt with? Why choose this day of all days? I think you have made a mistake. I know you have made a mistake. If we are talking about tactics, you have made a tactical mistake because on this day people will know exactly what your motivation is. You are not genuine, you are not interested, and you are not really concerned. These matters have been responded to and the response from the opposition is to treat this motion with the contempt it deserves.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion. I find the wording of the motion interesting, the way the motion is being put, and the clinical way in which the minister came into this House and put forward his arguments. When you look at the motion it is not about the member for Katherine. This motion has absolutely nothing to do with the member for Katherine; it is simply designed to be a diversion from the main game. This motion is a stunt; nothing more, nothing less.
We have just witnessed a horror budget and, as time moves on, I am certain it will be seen as such. When the government spin has ended and people have a chance to analyse this budget, look at it for what it really is in the cold light of day, after some scrutiny they will see it is a budget of re-promised promises, of debt, deceit and deficit. It is a budget that lets everyone in the Northern Territory down.
The government knows it only too well. This government will do the mandatory day or two of singing, dancing, carrying on and saying what a wonderful budget it is; however, it knows deep down this is a budget of spin and deceit. The best way Labor governments know to deal with those issues is to spin a little bit more, provide a stunt and distract from the main game. That is what this motion is about.
It was interesting this morning listening to the Leader of the Opposition talk about the potholes in the highway. A few people jump up and make a few squeals. I remember during the Alice Springs sittings talking about the several hundred potholes between Hayes Creek and Pine Creek, and the fact the government was a disgrace because it was not spending its roads money properly. What do we see after that? Not a mad scramble, although I went to Mataranka on the weekend and was quite happy to see work under way on the potholes. However, I am also not surprised to see a range of pothole ads on the television. It is the way of the government - glossy brochures, big spending advertising campaigns, anything it can do to distract from the main game. This motion we are debating today is nothing more than that.
As has been said by a number of speakers in this House, we are all human. We have all done some things in our past we are not particularly proud of, or that we would not like revealed in the cold light of day as people who occupy a public office. I am probably more human than most people in this House. I had my fair share of larrikin behaviour, naughtiness and going off the rails when I was young - probably more than most people here. I look around the Chamber and see such fine, upstanding, decent people and I often scratch my head wondering how I managed to gain a seat amongst such illustrious company.
Mr Wood: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: The fact is, member for Nelson, my first election campaign in 2001 was marred by the revelation - which I provided – that I had a cannabis possession conviction when I was a teenager in Queensland. At that time I was facing a charge of drink-driving. The minister asked, in his opening remarks, if there were any other people on this side of the House who had similar problems with registration and the like. I have to, in all honesty, put my hand up and say: ‘Yes, I am one of those people’. Twice now I have been done for having an unregistered trailer when I first arrived here - both simply mistakes. I did not pay the registration on time; I was pulled up by the police and charged for having unregistered trailers. It is not something I am proud of.
At the time I did not contemplate a public life and it did not bother me too much. It was something where you turn up to court, plead guilty, pay your couple hundred dollar fine and take off. That is the reality. On two occasions I failed to register trailers and, in the Northern Territory, a trailer is considered a motor vehicle. Having these types of offences is not something you want to promote amongst your constituents. .
As a kid I remember being nabbed by the local shopkeeper for stealing a bottle of tomato sauce. We used to get hot chips at lunchtime - 20 for a big bag of chips - and rather than me walking into the supermarket and paying 50 for a bottle of tomato sauce, I decided to stick it down the front of my pants, which probably gave me away. In any case it is not something I am proud of.
Talking about primary school, I was one of those exceptions in the class. I got the cuts nearly every year from about Grade 1 to Grade 7. In Grade 1, I got the cane for putting plasticine in the hair of the bloke sitting in front of me. Plasticine is an awful thing to get out. The point I am making is we have all done things we are not proud of at some time or other.
I am probably more human than most people in this room. I look back on my life and sometimes wish I had done things differently. It has been a dream of mine my entire life to have a career in politics. In fairness, most of your life it is something you think of as a dream out of your grasp. If I really though it was possible I may have taken a different path in life.
One of the things that makes parliament great is we have a past. In the dining room last night I was discussing with colleagues from both sides of this Chamber some of the heinous crimes committed by politicians in Australia. In a previous debate I outlined a long list of Labor politicians who have been gaoled for some incredibly nasty crimes. We are human; we make mistakes. It does not exempt us from the repercussions of making those mistakes. In public life you have to expect to cop a bit more than most citizens of this country. In that regard, it is a bit hard to say: ‘Come on, it was years ago; you should not be raising these things’.
The reality with the member for Katherine is this happened quite some time ago. Clearly, it is something he is not proud of. When he was giving his personal explanation in Alice Springs he was not thumping his chest and carrying on about how clever he had been. He was genuinely remorseful.
That should have been the end of the matter, and probably would have been the end of the matter except we now have witnessed a horror budget. We know government is ducking and weaving and doing everything it possibly can - running ads and making announcements for the last two weeks. Goodness me! There was a time when governments would hoard all that information until they delivered the budget speech. These days, with this government, there is a progressive roll-out of budget announcements long before the budget is delivered. Come budget day, as was the case this time, there is practically nothing left to announce. It is the Treasurer getting up on her feet and there is no great fanfare. By budget day all the goodies are well known by the community. All that is left to come out is the pain.
In this case the pain runs very deep indeed. We are very deep in debt, the deficit is growing, the books do not balance, and we know we are in a horror position in the Northern Territory. We look at the Treasurer who compares herself to other states and places in Australia. Well, surprise, surprise! They have all had to endure Labor governments as well. We know what Labor governments are about. Most people on the street know what Labor government is about - big spending, big debt, big deficits and high taxing. That is a Labor government. That is the hallmark of Labor governments across the country. Those people in this House who know a little about polling will tell you the strength of the Labor vote is in areas such as health, education, and the environment.
The strength of the Coalition side has always been in economic management, balancing the books, ensuring the country is adequately defended, and ensuring law and order is taken care of in a meaningful way. They are the strengths and are what people recognise. Talk to people on the street and they say: ‘Oh well, you go through a period of time with the Libs, or times with the Country Liberals, and they will always balance the books; they will always make sure. But, eventually, you need to spend a bit so you vote in a Labor government’. The pendulum swings. That is the reality.
What has become an even greater reality is Labor governments around the country and their penchant to spin a message and promote things that are not really there. In this case, the government is running a very negative message about the member for Katherine it hopes will, somehow, embrace the Leader of the Opposition, fuel speculation about leadership challenges and, ultimately, distract completely from the horror budget that has just been handed down.
Madam Speaker, I did not want to speak for too long in this debate but I had to put in my two cents worth. This motion has absolutely nothing to do with the member for Katherine and everything to do with running a political stunt, running a line and distracting from the negativities of the budget. That is a sad thing and is why I will not be supporting this motion. I call on all decent-thinking people in this House to not support it either. It is not about who has skeletons in what closet, although much has been said about that during this debate. This is all about distracting from the horror budget that has just been handed down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a speech I classify as one of the more difficult speeches. Some of the discussion before lunch made me feel quite upset at the standard debate sometimes falls to in this House. It is a difficult speech as this motion put forward by the government says - and people know my position because of the numbers in this House. This motion basically asks me to condemn someone. I can either support this motion, which would mean I support condemning the member for Katherine; or I could abstain, as I do occasionally in this House, and that, because of the numbers, would mean the member for Katherine would be condemned.
I would like to put forward an argument I have thought very seriously about since this was first brought up in Alice Springs.
When I realised, even after the member for Katherine had put forward his personal explanation, the government intended to go ahead with the original motion and decided to change it over the weekend to what we have before us today, which did not change much in my point of view, the only thing that convinced me - I started to doubt there was any moral high ground here and this was more about party politics. The member gave a statement in Alice Springs, and whether you totally agree or not, that was the statement he made. Then it seemed to move to another level.
I have read the Ombudsman’s response and the member’s statement from the Alice Springs sitting and it is not a good read, there is no doubt about it. However, the matter was dealt with by the police internally, and the member for Katherine was found guilty on a number of charges and disciplined. The matter was sent to the DPP; no charges were laid. The matter was referred to Motor Vehicle Registry; no charges were laid. The member says he was not given a copy of the Ombudsman’s response to Mr Rowley. If that is true, how can what the member said in Alice Springs be compared to what the Ombudsman said?
Regardless, the member for Katherine did something wrong. Whether it was a foolish mistake or a deliberate mistake, the people of Katherine can make that judgment. Whether the issue should be forgotten after eight years, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. Whether he should be forgiven, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. Whether he has been punished enough, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. Whether he should be their representative, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. That judgment will be made at the next election by the people of Katherine, not this parliament. Of course, that will have the proviso that before the next election his party will decide whether he is the candidate at the next election, and it will make that judgment, not this parliament.
I, too, have concerns about the way the member for Katherine - and he would not be the first or the last - sold a vehicle above the average price to Aboriginal people or organisations. In fact, the Ombudsman says Mr Rowley said to the member for Katherine, by selling the vehicle at Lajamanu at the time of royalties, he could get out of the deal as long as he split the profits - they were both in it. However, because the member for Katherine did not mention it, which is not a crime, it is not misleading.
What is being attempted today? The member for Katherine did something wrong, but is there a moral hypocrisy floating over this debate? Is this debate being driven by other reasons designed to pick up some political points? Is, as the motion reads, this really a matter of the member for Katherine misleading the parliament, or is it a case of the government exacting revenge?
The argument is his personal explanation is different from the Ombudsman’s version; therefore he deliberately misled the parliament. While the member for Katherine’s explanation may have been more repentant, contrite, or worded more strongly, is one thing. Whether it was deliberately misleading is more a matter of opinion rather than fact. We could spend valuable time debating that; however, has the point not already been made?
The member for Katherine was found guilty eight years ago by the JRC, and most people in his electorate would have heard about this and will make up their own mind. However, is the government misleading the parliament? Is this more about getting back by the government for previous tactics of the opposition? In previous debate that is exactly what this is all about - it is about Damian Hale. That is one of the worst periods I have seen in this parliament. I was quite shocked at the attacks on Damian Hale, who I find a pretty good bloke, a pretty decent fellow. I have no sympathy for the CLP when it finds the government attacking it, but I will get back to that later. If I was the CLP, I would say we probably deserve what we are getting today. It is the tough side of party politics; all war and we take no prisoners. No wonder fewer people want to take on life in public office.
Whilst I cannot stop the party politics that often fills this House with grubbiness and vindictiveness, this parliament did not elect the member for Katherine - the people did. Leave it to the people and move on - we have other work to do. For some, all is fair in love and war, or an eye for an eye, but I have better things to do. We are elected to parliament by the people not this parliament. I do not support what the member has done and it should not be construed that way, but let us not forget this was eight years ago. When do you forgive or allow someone to change their life around?
As the member for Fong Lim said, we all have skeletons in the closet. I am no better than anyone else here; I do not even pretend to be better than anyone else. The people will make their judgment on all of us at the next election. The opposition, at times, has not been exactly kind to me either, and I find my present role very difficult. Not all the time – sometimes. However, I try not to hold grudges because in the end that makes me a poorer person.
I will not condemn this man but will mention several quotes I took from a book recently. This one is for the opposition and comes from the 14th century: ‘Curses, like chickens, come home to roost’. That is probably what is happening today. I say to the government, using a quote from Mahatma Ghandi: ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.
Madam Speaker, those are two good reasons why I will not support this motion. The third reason is I am sick of it. For similar reasons, I will not support the motion on the paper today against the Minister for Health. I have better things to do.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to put on the public record that I do not support this motion. I speak from experience and put back on the Country Liberal Party - if you look at the election campaign when I stood for the Labor Party, it must have been the dirtiest campaign ever conducted. I am like the member for Nelson; I do not like to hold grudges against people. We should all move on in life. We all have a big task ahead of us. We have roads to fix, we have to house people. People are living in poverty and living hungry.
The member for Katherine gave his explanation to the parliament in Alice Springs. As the member for Nelson has said, he will be judged by his electorate of Katherine. Those people will hold him responsible for his actions of eight years ago.
I speak from experience of the dirtiest campaign run against me by the CLP; however, I do not like to carry this heavy, dirty baggage on my back, continuously crouching, carrying this negativity around when there are so many good things we can contribute in this House to move the Territory forward.
We have seen, during Question Time, the budget the government put forward for the Territory people with much infrastructure, roads money, education and good things for Aboriginal people living in poverty. There are other areas where the government could have done better. Today we had the Cattlemen’s Association talking about the roads. The Treasurer, quite rightly, has also said we had extraordinary rain this year, and not just in the Top End, in Central Australia as well.
The member for Katherine will be judged by his constituents. He has gone through the process of being investigated by police internally, and these matters went to DPP. That is something he will have to talk to his constituents in Katherine about, and is something they will do come the election next year.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. First, I would like to say there is no even up or hatred on my part, either towards the member for Katherine or in relation to Damian Hale. When the member for Port Darwin raised the issue of where this is all going a few weeks ago with me, I told him I thought this was a legitimate line of political inquiry, and I still believe that. That is why today I presented what I thought were cogent reasons, based on the Ombudsman’s report - and I will come to the issue of the Ombudsman’s report in a minute - and a very reasoned argument. I thought my language during the debate was pretty moderate, and I tried to restrict myself to the language used within the Ombudsman’s report.
I have been a recipient of many censure debates in this parliament, and know what it is like to be on the receiving end in spades. Some of the language used in some of those censure debates was vengeful and personal. In this game you have to take it on the chin. People on the other side are aspiring ministers and you have to take it on the chin, you cannot bear grudges. What I said today, and the case I put forward today, is not out of any grudge or vengeance for Damian Hale. I still believe it was a legitimate form of political inquiry and argument.
Why do I believe that? Because Mr Rowley is an aggrieved person. This matter has been before the courts in a commercial sense and there has been some form of settlement. Obviously Mr Rowley felt aggrieved; he felt his case had not been raised sufficiently, and felt sufficiently aggrieved to go to the former member for Katherine’s office and make the statements he said he had made there.
The questions I have raised today have been quite legitimate. I said in my speech, and it was acknowledged by the member for Port Darwin and a number of members speaking, that ultimately the decision will be made by the electors of Katherine. I did not say that exactly - that was the inference. The decision about this whole matter to some degree, amongst a range of other things, will be - and the leadership of the other side - made by electors. They will make their decision based on a whole range of things; this could be one factor in the matter.
What I have brought forward today is not borne out of any grudge or any even up for Damian Hale, although, like the member for Nelson, I was very uncomfortable about what happened with Damian Hale during the federal election campaign. It was probably one of the worst sessions I have been through in this parliament, and I was not even at the pointy end of it. Lord knows, I have been on quite a number of occasions in this parliament.
I will come to the issues you raised in relation to the 2003 incident involving my son and police soon, because I was on the receiving end of that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate the minister’s choice to introduce his family members into it, I have very carefully during this debate sought not to introduce any family members into this. If you check the Hansard I have not referred to any family members. I would like the minister to understand I have tried to restrain myself to only the minister’s conduct and otherwise have spoken in very general terms deliberately.
Dr BURNS: I accept that, member for Port Darwin. However, as everyone knows, it was a police matter involving my son. I will turn to it within my speech.
To turn to the argument the member for Port Darwin used, that what I have called an Ombudsman’s report is not a report at all, I direct the member for Port Darwin to section 100 of the Ombudsman Act - Subdivision 3. This is a section about police complaints and says:
100. Report containing adverse comment.
1. This section applies if, on the investigation, the Ombudsman proposes to make adverse comment in the report about the Commissioner, the Police Force, the Police Civil Employment Unit, a police officer or another person.
If we turn now to this document, the first page of the opening letter says:
This is a report of the Ombudsman, let us get that straight; let us not try to duck and weave that. I say that the member for Katherine, according to the legislation, would have been given every opportunity to comment. He is saying he was not given any opportunity to comment on the adverse findings of the Ombudsman’s report. That seems contrary to the legislation and should be followed up if he was not afforded natural justice for these very serious allegations. He had the chance to jump to his feet and talk about this today; however, he has not availed himself of that. He is sitting there indicating no. That question, I imagine, would need to be answered by the member for Katherine. It would be unusual if the Ombudsman and the JRC did not give him an opportunity to comment on these adverse findings.
We can see from the report he was interviewed on all the issues, including the allegations raised by Mr Rowley. That is very important. I am not going to repeat what I said earlier. Obviously, I wrote that speech myself and was very careful about it. I tried to keep my speech related to the Ombudsman’s report. Yes, I did make some criticisms of the member for Katherine and the Opposition Leader. However, in what I said, I tried to be fair to the member for Katherine. I certainly did not truncate any quotes from the Ombudsman’s report when there was ambivalence or a doubt in the findings. I tried to be quite evenhanded in what I had to say. People will make their own judgments about that.
I brought this forward as a line of political inquiry, mainly because - yes, this was in the past; however, I felt, as the member for Nelson felt, the personal explanation given by the member for Katherine in Alice Springs was not really adequate or full. I outlined that in spades in my speech. I am not going to go over that again.
I will talk a little about the member for Port Darwin drawing parallels to the matter involving me and my son in 2003. As minister, I answered questions in this parliament in 2003. The member for Port Darwin was wrong. He said the matter occurred when I was a minister. The police actually came to my house before I became a minister - from memory it was in 2002. The incident occurred in August 2002. The publicity, the headlines, did not occur until around June 2003.
My son had had a minor traffic accident. The police had been chasing him to get a statement and were becoming quite frustrated about it. A policeman rang my house about 8 pm or 8.30 pm wanting to speak to my son. My son took the phone and I could see he was a little distressed. I took the phone from my son and introduced myself as his father, primarily, and asked the officer what the problem was? The officer said he had been trying to interview my son for some time but my son had been avoiding him.
As a father, I wanted my son to face up, as I was always taught, to the consequences of his actions. We often talk about that in this parliament. I said to the police officer: ‘He is home now. If you come around you can interview him’. I invited the police into my home to interview my son because I did not want my son avoiding the consequences of his actions. Member for Port Darwin, yes, I did mention I was a member of the Legislative Assembly. Your comment earlier about different standards for people in the community was interesting - police officers. You said as parliamentarians we are probably on a par with the general public. I do not believe we are, member for Port Darwin. There is a higher expectation of us as parliamentarians, and my mention of the fact I was a member of this Assembly was purely in the context that more was expected of me, and my family, than the ordinary citizen. That is the context in which that comment was made.
Police came and conducted a preliminary interview with him. They asked whether he could go to the police station the next day, which he did. I ensured he had a lawyer with him, but he made a statement to the police. He was summonsed; he pleaded guilty and was fined about $200. That is the truth of what happened that night, member for Port Darwin.
Then, blow me down, against this background: ‘Burke’s finished, say CLP heavies’ appeared in the NT News on 17 June 2003. Here is another one on 19 June 2003: ‘Rebel Elferink may go at it alone’. Remember that, member for Port Darwin. The push was on to dump Denis Burke as leader and you were not happy your colleagues from Central Australia had changed their vote and were saying you were not happy and were going to the backbench. There were editorials about Denis Burke, and I have quite a few about various things.
Around that time, or just prior to that time, is when the allegations arose about me. As to the investigation and my recollection of what happened, there was no investigation up until the time these issues were raised by the CLP in the media and we see Camden Smith, political reporter. Hello, hello; surprise, surprise! Yes, I was interviewed by police; yes, the matter was referred to the DPP; however, I will quote what the Police Commissioner said at the time. Mr White said he had received advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Rex Wild QC, and decided not to pursue a case against Dr Burns. He said he believed it was appropriate in matters involving parliamentarians and police officers that independent advice be sought.
I saw that comment by the Police Commissioner as saying yes, we need to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. It was referred to the DPP, but unlike the member for Katherine - I suppose I am returning to it - there was never any finding of wrongdoing. There have been findings of wrongdoing - you talk about illegality, I will use the word wrongdoing in relation to the member for Katherine - regarding his conduct by the Ombudsman in that report. In contrast, there have never been any findings of wrongdoing against me.
I stand proud, as a father and a parent, that I did the right thing by my son. I made him face up to the consequences of his action, be interviewed by police, suffer the consequences and be fined, and I am proud of that. Proud of it! Let us hope we have an end to those particular allegations.
There has been much talk in parliament today about innuendo and everyone has a history. That is true, and I admire the member for Fong Lim for saying he was only human. I am probably just about as human as the member for Fong Lim. I was a bit of a larrikin and a tearaway in my younger days. I probably need to get my ASIO file; I probably need to get my Queensland police special branch file. I probably need to dig out the photos of me at Nimbin in 1971, or whenever it was. We all have a bit of history. I saw something the other day. Unfortunately, a very dear friend of mine died, and I had some pictures where I look like Jethro Tull. I cannot play music as well as Jethro Tull. Anyway, that was the 1960s.
The Leader of the Opposition said, on 18 August 2010: ‘We live in a world where rumours abound, but rumours do not amount to anything as far as I am concerned until they are verified’. We are approached by all sorts of people with allegations about this, that, and the other. Some have an axe to grind, some are obsessive, and some are mentally ill. We need to be very careful about what we appropriate from people who come knocking on our door. I agree that we need to be careful about what we say in this House and about others. It was a bit of double standard for the opposition too as to where is the boundary. Digging up something about someone that occurred in the past - where does it stop, where does it begin?
I could not help but think about the documents early in this Assembly that were dug up about the member for Daly about his employment. Remember that? Yes, I remember that. That was a bit gratuitous as well.
Let us not all say we are perfect. We are in the political game together. I lay it on the record again: I hold no hard feelings against the member for Katherine. I am sure he is not feeling all that friendly towards me right now, but the member for Blain prosecuted that case against me in 2003 and I do not hold any grudges against him. The former member for Goyder was in there, possibly even the former member for Macdonnell; I cannot recall. Several members were having a few punches at me, and I felt I was fighting with my hands behind my back because I would have loved to have said what I have said here …
Mr Elferink: Why didn’t you?
Dr BURNS: You are a little constrained about what you can say, and I did not like talking about my son.
This parliament is a strange place for those sorts of things, but I have put it on the table now. It has obviously been very difficult for the member for Katherine. However, if you are around this House for a while you have to deal with difficult situations and the heat in this parliament. Unfortunately, it is all part of it. I was bound to raise these issues. If the opposition had a report like that against a minister, some of them would have been running around the sides of this wall. Let us get real about it. I am bound to bring this into parliament. I have moved this motion, which will not be sustained from what people have said.
Madam Speaker, we should put it to the vote.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will implement another important Council of Australian Governments reform. This reform is about the harmonisation of technical measurements, specifically those used to describe the content of alcohol in a person. For many years the Northern Territory has enforced drink-driving laws by the use of alcohol analysis equipment. This equipment measures the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath and then expresses the result in terms of the concentration of the alcohol in the blood that corresponds to that measurement of alcohol in the person’s breath.
The National Standards Commission has now developed a new Australian Standard of Evidential Breath Analysers which is being adopted nationally. This means NT Police need to modify their existing breath analysing instruments that currently express the amount of alcohol measured in breath in terms of the equivalent blood alcohol concentration. This will ensure that the devices continue to comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth’s National Measurement Act 1960 and National Measurement Regulations 1999.
The adoption of this new standard of measurement means that offences detected by breath analysis need to be defined by reference to the amount of alcohol contained in a person’s breath. This bill delivers the changes necessary to achieve this. In future, breath testing evidential instruments, for example Drager Alcotest 7110, will express the measurement of alcohol in terms of grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath. This standard will keep the legal limit at 0.05 in these units, but it will be a breath alcohol concentration rather than a blood alcohol concentration.
The opportunity has also been taken to undertake some housekeeping which adds clarity to the intent of some sections within the Traffic Act. These include:
providing the Registrar with a power to exempt a class of driver/person, for example police officers, from certain road rules while in training;
providing definitions for improved clarity, for example the ‘prescribed form’ for traffic control devices;
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan. It appears we are lacking a quorum, ring the bells.
Thank you. We have a quorum.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the miscellaneous amendments are in the main merely clarifying the current situation so there may be no doubt in the intent of these provisions.
I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
Regarding the terms of reference, our government is committed to an open and transparent estimates process. There were a number of changes to the process last year which worked well. This year we have worked further on those changes. We are always looking to improve the estimates processes.
Principally, the terms of reference for the 2011-12 process incorporate recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee Fifth Report to the Eleventh Assembly presented to the Assembly last year. Last year, the global time limit was 50 hours; this year we have increased the global time limit by 20% to 60 hours. This sees 10 more hours compared to last year. That will allow the committee to examine the expenditure of government, department by department, line by line. This is an important process for opposition and Independent members to query the government on how it is spending money, and the results for that expenditure. The challenge is for these extra 10 hours to be used wisely and not squandered.
An important feature of estimates this year will be the increase in time limits for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer to eight hours. This is an increase from last year’s time limit of seven hours. I commend both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer - seven to eight hours is a long time taking much concentration. As always, they will acquit themselves well in the estimates process.
It is a very daunting process, but is also one ministers welcome. I certainly welcome it because it gives me an opportunity to learn more about my portfolio areas. In the estimates process there is always the capacity for surprises for ministers sometimes with the answers that are given. Basically, it is sometimes a bit of a follow-up. Sometimes the opposition might not notice an answer that has the minister’s antenna waving around fairly furiously. However, the opposition certainly has an opportunity to speak to public servants in a direct sense and question on matters of administration.
The Public Accounts Committee has been provided with the flexibility in determining how many hours each minister appears before the Estimates Committee within the global time limit of 60 hours. This was the process adopted last year, and will continue this year. However, there is a maximum time limit of seven hours for each minister for the Estimates Committee hearing and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
As members would be aware, estimates this year will be held over two weeks - Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week - and sitting days have been reduced to reflect these additional Estimates Committee days.
Finally and very importantly, both portfolio ministers for the Government Owned Corporation, which is the Power and Water Corporation, will be present during the Power and Water Corporation hearings. Thus, not only will the Board and Chief Executive of Power and Water appear before the Government Owned Corporation Estimates Committee, we will also have the shareholding minister, who is the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer, and the Minister for Essential Services. That will be riveting viewing on the television. It is good that the shareholding minister, the portfolio minister, and the Under Treasurer are there. That will provide opposition and Independents an opportunity to ask questions about Power and Water and its Statement of Corporate Intent. Also, it provides Power and Water Corporation an opportunity to place on the record the positive things it is doing - and it is doing many positive things. It cuts both ways. We need to recognise the good work the Power and Water Corporation does, particularly its staff.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we look forward to the estimates process. We encourage the opposition and Independents to have stronger lines of questioning, to engage in the conversation that is the estimates process and to interrogate. I also encourage the public and the media: this is as an open process; come to hearings that are of interest. This is an integral part of a healthy democracy. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, like the minister, I shall not be on my feet for very long. This motion is essentially a procedural motion outlining how the Estimates Committee will operate and how it will work. The processes of the Estimates Committee are substantially different now to what was originally introduced by the Northern Territory government, and I am not ungrateful for the improvements. I will even go so far as to say now the Estimates Committee has formed into the structure it has, it is, in my view, an improvement on the former estimates process, even as it was run by the Country Liberals prior to the change of government in 2001.
Whilst it will still suffer from one aspect, and that is the capacity to pursue matters to exhaustion as was the old set of rules, the truth is that 60 hours spread over two weeks should be sufficient time for any effective opposition to raise issues that are important to it. The growth and change of shape of the Estimates Committee, particularly in recent times, reflects the vulnerable nature of a minority government, and that is reflected in the structure the Estimates Committee is now taking. I do not believe I will be substantially breaching the protocol of confidentiality of a PAC to say prior to lunch we discussed the structure and nature of how the Estimates Committee should operate - a very civilised discussion about getting some of the minutiae right.
The acknowledgement by government and the Standing Orders Committee that senior ministers, particularly the Chief Minister and the Treasurer and, by de facto, the Attorney-General, deserve longer scrutiny simply because of the enormity of the budget they carry and the importance of the roles they have, is now acknowledged in this process.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to standing in front of this House after the Estimates Committee processes are completed, being able to report, as we have done in recent years, that it was done fairly, openly, honestly, and that we have had a good and sufficient opportunity to examine the budget which the Treasurer delivered to this House yesterday.
The Treasurer is asking this parliament to pass a law, the Appropriation Bill - I have not looked at the exact figure - which will carry a request for several billion dollars from Treasury. It deserves careful scrutiny and it deserves critical and analytical questions be asked. I hope ministers will take this as an opportunity not to obnubilate but to explain what is going on in their portfolio areas. There is no reason government should be embarrassed or ashamed of what it is doing. It can run a strident defence of its decisions; I have no objection to that. That is the purpose of the process, but to cover or dodge questions as has happened in the past would be an ongoing disappointment to me.
Having said that, I would like to spear off on a slightly different tangent because I will not get another opportunity to do so. I listened carefully to the previous debate where the Leader of Government Business made some comments. He could have saved himself a great deal of angst if he had explained what had happened originally. I am glad he has taken the opportunity to do so and acknowledge the difficulty that set of circumstances placed him in. I am grateful the matter is now cleared up and, as far as I am concerned, unless there is some other issue surrounding it I have no cause to ever raise it again.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud to support Budget 2011-12 as handed down by the Treasurer yesterday. I have said in parliament, and also publicly, that this has been a very difficult budget to craft, especially given the rapidly declining GST pull at a national level. The fact those numbers were changing on a regular basis has made this budget a difficult beast to put together. I am proud of it because the budget supports jobs. It protects jobs in the Northern Territory until the banks start lending to the same criteria and levels prior to the GFC, or certainly to an improved level than they are now. If you talk to developers, business people or homeowners, getting approval for finance to purchase your home, extend your overdraft, a business loan or a developer getting finance to get a project off the ground, access to credit or finance is very tough at the moment.
If we had taken the decision not to step into deficit and protect jobs in the Territory we would have seen people lose their jobs in significant numbers. We would have seen small businesses close, and many medium to larger businesses put people off. When you are in government you have to take responsible positions not politically popular ones, and keeping growth in the economy and keeping people in jobs is the responsibility of government to do whatever it can to keep people in work.
I turn to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition in what was probably the worst reply I have ever heard in this House. The Leader of the Opposition offered not one single policy initiative in his response. The entire response was almost a critique of the fiscal management of the Territory Labor government from a very warped perspective; certainly a perspective that is not supported by any economist I know of, or any of the pre-eminent economic commentators. I am going to take the opportunity this afternoon to put the record straight regarding some of the nonsense sprouted by the Leader of the Opposition.
Essentially, one of the charges he laid against the government was it had somehow not used the additional GST revenues received to good purpose and the accusation was that this money had been wasted. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: look around the Northern Territory and see the massive infrastructure spends that have occurred in all regions over the last seven, eight to 10 years. You can look at the hundreds of extra nurses, teachers, doctors, allied health professionals, improved service delivery with the oncology centre up and running, and the roads that have been upgraded throughout the Northern Territory.
If we look at the expenditure on housing throughout the Northern Territory you can see there has been massive and significant investment relating to infrastructure and services. The Leader of the Opposition is essentially saying all the additional GST money should have been put in the bank and should not have been spent; we should not have used the opportunity from additional Commonwealth revenues to improve services and infrastructure for Territorians.
I disagree. I am very proud that this government has put over 600 extra nurses into our health system throughout the Territory. I am very proud that, as a government, we have recruited hundreds of extra doctors to the Northern Territory, and very proud we have hundreds of extra teachers in our classrooms. I am proud of the infrastructure that has been built in every region of this great Northern Territory. Out of that expenditure comes the fact that since being in government we have an extra 26 000 people employed in the Northern Territory.
We had, during the times when the banks were lending freely, a transformation in this economy where, for the first time since self-government, private sector investment and confidence from the private sector to invest in the Northern Territory - confidence from the banks to loan to businesses to invest in the Northern Territory - drove so much of the economic growth and employed more people, creating new jobs, creating new small businesses, and expanding small businesses to medium businesses and medium businesses to large businesses.
For the Leader of the Opposition to say we should not have used any of that extra money, should have put it all in the bank, would have seen, even in the last three years, fewer than 12 000 jobs created in the Northern Territory. We put much of that money in the bank for a rainy day. Those eight surplus budgets in a row delivered by a Labor government - no CLP government in the history of the Northern Territory delivered eight surplus budgets in a row in 27 years in government - wrote down $582m of debt and $0.5bn was put in the bank for a rainy day and reduced nett debt to revenue liabilities. That has enabled us, at a time when we need to go into deficit, to reach into the coffers and go into deficit.
The Leader of the Opposition’s assertions that the government should have put all the money in the bank and should not have expanded service provision in the Territory, particularly to regional and remote communities that had been starved of infrastructure and service delivery for many years, that all that money should have gone into the bank, is economic madness in the extreme. He talked about the need for greater economic security. We certainly would not have greater economic security under a Country Liberal Party government which put all the money in the bank, did not invest in infrastructure that has been productive, and seen private sector investment on the back of it. We would have many thousand fewer jobs in our economy today under a CLP government which would have refused to spend and put all of the money in the bank. To what end, goodness only knows. Government’s responsibility is to deliver services and create an economic climate that gives the private sector the confidence to invest.
He talked about the nett interstate migration. The reality is - and it is mentioned in the budget papers - over 1200 people were transferred out of the Northern Territory with the relocation of the 7 RAR Regiment from Darwin to Adelaide. A decision was made by the Army to relocate the regiment and that has had a significant impact on those population flows. It is not, as the Leader of the Opposition would like to have it, people fleeing the Northern Territory as a result of the increased cost of living. It is as a result of a decision by the Army to transfer a regiment from Darwin to Adelaide - 1200 people will have a significant impact on population flows.
The Leader of the Opposition also is not taking into account - maybe he does not read the economic pieces written in the paper - that there has been a significant reduction, again as a result of Commonwealth government policy, regarding people coming to the Territory on 457 work visas. People’s visas are expiring and they are leaving the Northern Territory. That has also contributed to that nett loss of population.
He also does not recognise - and I have an interesting graph here - that it has been the historical trend of the Northern Territory over a near 30-year period to have nett interstate migration loss. The only three times in our history where we have had nett interstate migration gain were the periods 1982 through to around the third quarter of 1985, and 1986, where we were still very much in the post-Cyclone Tracy rebuilding phase. We then went into significant nett migration loss from the period 1985 through to 1994 - a 10-year period. Then, from 1994 through to 1997, we saw the decision of the then Commonwealth government to commit to Robertson Barracks, and we had a spike in interstate migration positives as a result of that project. Then, from 1997 through to around 2005, we saw a nett migration loss. Then, from 2005 to around 2009-10, the major projects such as the Darwin LNG plant, the Rio Tinto Alcan G3 expansion, Blacktip, and several major mining companies committing significant investments saw it rise again.
The historical trend has been, for the best part of 30 years, nett migration loss. It goes to show the wisdom of this government to pursue a transformation in the Northern Territory’s economy in securing the INPEX project, and also developing the marine supply base for the Northern Territory - to get away from these boom/bust major project cycles to having in place a substantial and substantive industrial base that is more or less immune to those cycles and will provide a steady stream of employment for decades to come.
The Leader of the Opposition ignores major policy decisions that are external to the Territory in 7 RAR being transferred, changes to 457 visa and overseas immigration quotas on the Northern Territory, and the historical nature that we are between major projects. Whenever that has happened in the Territory there has been a nett migration loss. That is the reality as opposed to the hyperbole from the Leader of the Opposition.
He misquoted Access Economics. I quote from their latest report, which talked about ‘mesmerising prospects on the horizon for the Northern Territory’. They are far more assertive in their growth projections for the Northern Territory than Treasury. They say we will average 5% economic growth for the next five years, the strongest in the nation alongside Western Australia. We are a little more conservative at 3.5%. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition was reading; when I look at Access Economics’ forecast it is full of hope and acknowledges the Territory’s best times are yet to come with ‘mesmerising prospects on the horizon’.
He said we were in a negative growth phase at the moment. That is not true. We will come in at around 2.2% for the 2009-10 financial year. I contrast that since this Labor government has been in government we have had positive growth throughout the 10 years, as opposed to the zero percent growth inherited in 2001. When the rest of the country was in positive economic growth we were stalled at zero percent growth.
He talked about the housing market and, again, what a warped view of the housing market the Leader of the Opposition has. He talked about high levels of unsold properties. The only high levels of unsold properties in the Northern Territory are units priced at $800 000 and above, and those developers who have put those units on the market, by and large, are cashed up enough to carry the holding costs of those investments. They are not discounting those unit prices aggressively because they are holding onto them for the final investment decision from INPEX to see the top end of the market kick back in again. There are no high levels of unsold properties at the medium and lower ends of the market; the only unsold properties are the $800 000 and above. That is predominantly because the banks are making it much tougher for finance, and the developers can afford the holding costs of not putting them on the market or discounting them to sell them. That is the reality of what is happening in the property market as opposed to the fantasy from the Leader of the Opposition.
He also said there were only a handful of major projects on the horizon. He said he went to the APEA Conference in Perth. I do not know who he was talking to at that conference. I was there for the best part of three days and probably had 20 different meetings with companies that were exploring, investing, or looking to invest in the Northern Territory. There is a massive pipeline of projects on the way to our north and northwest. There are projects like Montara, Kitan, Prelude, INPEX, GDF SUEZ and Sunrise. Over $1bn-worth of exploration activity is going to take place in Northern Territory-administered waters over the next five years. An assessment from APEA and other commentators is with the rapid development of floating LNG technology we could see between seven and 10 floating LNG platforms that we are looking to capture the service, supply and maintenance of from the Port of Darwin as a result of our marine supply base initiative within the next 10 years.
The Leader of the Opposition said he attended APEA. If he did, I have no idea who he spoke to because everyone I spoke to was very excited about the future prospects, very excited about doing business in the Northern Territory, and very positive about the Northern Territory’s future.
He talked about the cost of living. I acknowledge the Territory is an expensive place to live; it has always been an expensive place to live. It is expensive because of the tyranny of distance, the small population base, virtually all consumables have to be imported whether from down south or overseas, and those transport costs are factored into virtually every purchasing decision that is made. The high cost of delivering infrastructure, the high cost of building to cyclone codes - the cost of living in Darwin has always been a challenge and expensive, and he said people who do not have a job pack up and leave. That has always been the case. It was the case when I came here in 1983. It is all relative, and if people do not have a job they go back to networks they have back down south, family networks, friendship networks and a slightly reduced cost of living. There is nothing unusual or different to what has always been the case in the Northern Territory.
That is why we are doing everything we can in this budget to subsidise the cost of living in the Northern Territory, to help people out with their power bills to the tune of $820 per year, to help families out with the costs of childcare to the tune of around $1000 a year for every family with a child in full-time childcare. It is why we have the back to school bonus, why we provide pensioners with the most generous concessions in the country, and free bus travel for students. The list goes on. The government recognises the cost of living is an issue, and we have more subsidies here to help address those cost of living issues than anywhere else in the country.
Regarding losing your job and packing up and leaving, that is why this budget is in deficit. It is in deficit to protect jobs; to keep people in the Northern Territory until the next wave of major projects can see people move from government funded infrastructure projects to work on private sector funded infrastructure projects. The Leader of the Opposition just does not get it.
He also, with regard to his entire commentary, fails to recognise the total collapse in private sector investment. That is why the government has had to step in and go into deficit. The credit markets have dried up as a result of the GFC. Competition in the banking sector is much reduced as a number of those overseas banks that were in the Australian market are not in the Australian market today. Many of them do not exist at all. Talk to business people or people seeking a home loan from the banks. At breakfast today I was talking to a business person in the real estate market who said it is not that people do not want to buy properties. They get people to sign up subject to finance who then cannot access the finance.
If the government does not step in at times like this, the only consequence is people will lose their jobs in the thousands. The Opposition Leader just does not get it at all. That is why the business community is supporting this budget. The business community is totally understanding of the fact we have to go into deficit. I saw Chris Young on the news last night saying he wished the Australian government would take the same position as this government and pursue reasonable and responsible deficits to support the economy instead of a mad headlong rush into surplus when you do not need to do so. That was Chris Young and with all due respect to Chris, he is not naturally on our side of the equation and supportive of this government but he understands how the economy works and understands, on behalf of his members, how important it is that we have taken the steps we decided to take.
The other side of the economy is the investments we are making in the bush in this budget. Again, there was no vision from the Leader of the Opposition at all regarding developing infrastructure in the bush, services in the bush, and jobs in the bush. He hardly touched on it at all apart from saying we need to have more of the intervention. He did not say where, how, or how much he was prepared to commit to fund services and infrastructure in the bush.
I have a very instinctive understanding that if the opposition gets over the line at the next election it will take the axe to the bush to find those savings. It will find them in the bush - the $677m committed to infrastructure. I point out the comments from the member for Port Darwin on the announcement in the lead-up to Budget 2011-12 that the government was committing $17m to Wadeye to transform the power generation source from diesel to gas. The comments were: ‘That is all well and good but that is $17m you are not spending in town’. The axe is going to fall on those types of projects. This is the right thing for the government to do in relation to the cost of electricity provision. Gas is going to be much cheaper than carting very expensive diesel hundreds of kilometres across roads to fire that power station. Sometimes you have to spend a dollar to save 10, and the axe will fall on those types of projects.
There is $677m in this budget for infrastructure in the bush for housing, roads, schools, and health clinics, and that has been boosted by today’s announcement by Warren Snowdon, Nicola Roxon, the federal Health minister, and Senator Crossin of another $80m to be spent on infrastructure for health clinics in remote parts of the Northern Territory. It is only Labor governments, both federally and in the Territory, that have a vision for a future for people who live in our remote towns and regions of the Northern Territory and are backing that vision with hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure and services. We have a long way to go; there is no magic wand.
My colleague, the minister for Indigenous services, said today in Question Time there have been decades of neglect so there needs to be decades of commitment. We understand there needs to be decades of commitment, and for our term in government, however long that lasts, you will see that commitment from a Labor government in the Territory. I doubt very much that you would see a similar level of commitment by the Country Liberal Party if it were to achieve government at the next election.
I will touch briefly on the marine supply base because this is the Northern Territory’s next big major project and one which will really capitalise on the investments we are seeing offshore in oil and gas exploration, production, and production platforms. At the moment off the North West Shelf and to the north of us, most of those platforms are serviced and supplied either out of Perth or Singapore. Our discussions with those companies are that if the infrastructure was here in the Territory, if the business case stacked up, then they would switch their service and supply from those bases to the Northern Territory. We have tested that to date by seeking expressions of interest for a joint venture partner, or a PPP, to partner with government to build, own and operate a marine supply base out of the Port of Darwin. We have had significant interest, internationally, in that proposal. We now have three preferred bidders working up final bids to the government, and we will be looking to make a decision on the preferred proponent by the end of the year.
This really is an initiative that will develop and then sustain a very significant increase and improvement to the engineering capability of Northern Territory businesses to not only assist and participate in the day-to-day maintenance of those platforms, but also to get a lion’s share of the work on the periodic total shutdowns these platforms and processing plants have to have through their 40- to 50-year life of operation. Obviously, the service and supply of not only drilling production consumables but also crew changes and crew consumables on these platforms is significant, and will support many thousands of jobs in the Northern Territory, both directly and indirectly.
Once those financial investments are made by the big multinational oil and gas companies then regardless of economic cycles, those facilities keep on producing. If they keep on producing they need supplying and servicing and, irrespective of those economic cycles, it is a floor under the base of the economy of the Northern Territory. That is why my government has had the vision not only to chase and secure INPEX for the Northern Territory, but to develop the potential for this industry here through the marine supply base initiative.
Budgets are all about number and dollars; the economy is all about numbers. I instinctively understand economies are not a means to an end in themselves; they are about people. They are about people having good, well-paid jobs. It is about being able to provide for quality schools, health services and recreational facilities. It is about quality infrastructure. It is about opportunities for Territorians; it is not just about the numbers in themselves. For those 26 000 people who now have jobs in this economy - 12 000 of them since the GFC as a result of government having to go into deficit - I make absolutely no apologies whatsoever. The Treasurer said today if you ask a person …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, I will be very quick.
If you ask people whether the government should go into a responsible deficit for a period of time or sacrifice jobs and lose jobs in the economy, I know what 99% of people would say.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to support Budget 2011-12. I commend the Treasurer. I commend Treasury and Treasury officials who work extraordinarily long, hard hours putting the budget together. I was speaking to the Under Treasurer the other day, and virtually everyone in Treasury worked over the Easter period when many of us were enjoying time with our family and friends. I thank them for their hard work and endeavours on this budget. I thank all my Cabinet colleagues for working through this process with a very difficult set of numbers this year. I commend the budget to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak in relation not only to this budget but other budgets as well. The government would have us believe a budget occurs in a vacuum in the sense there are no other budgets either side of it, and that only one budget ever matters. A budget is just that: a budget. It is what we are going to spend as a jurisdiction in the next 12 months. It is what we are going to receive in cash; it is what we are going to pay out in cash. It is a very simple equation: if you receive more than you spend you have a surplus; if you spend more than you receive you have a deficit.
One has to look at this budget in the context of the last 10 years, because the fundamental issue I have with this government is it ignored a repeated warning from many sectors about its continued decisions to expand money which had come to it from not only planned budget increases, but extra money it did not expect to receive. Year in, year out, as the former shadow Treasurer, I would sit here, with exasperation, and watch this government receive increasing amounts of money - some of which it did not even expect to get - and not reduce debt accordingly. Like a true Labor government, it sees expenditure as the only fiscal target it wanted to meet. Granted, its fiscal policy did see some reduction in nett debt.
It is interesting to compare this jurisdiction with two other jurisdictions in relation to the Northern Territory’s finances. One was a conservative jurisdiction - the federal jurisdiction - which reduced our debt to nothing. We had no nett debt at a federal level. In fact, we had money in the bank. The former federal government, under Howard/Costello, was very careful not only to get rid of the $90bn black hole left by the Keating era, but gradually, year in, year out, reduce that debt. It had money in the bank at the time of the change to the Rudd Labor government. Very quickly, of course, we returned to deficit budgets. That is one of the reasons we, as jurisdictions, are responsible for saving when we are getting more money.
The Northern Territory government’s expenditure on a year-on-year basis – I will put it so it is easier to understand, I do not want to talk about the budgetary gobbledygook. The last CLP budget was $2.2bn. The current budget is about $4.6bn, which means the Territory government is now receiving more than twice as much as the last CLP government received. It is from that you generate these debts of revenue ratios and all that sort of thing. The truth is this government is getting a bucket load more cash every year, far in excess of CPI growth over the same period.
Last year, the Treasurer was forced to admit during the estimates process - I think she put a figure of just under $700m as unexpected income - the GST money we did not budget for because the GST turned out to be an even bigger mother lode than we expected it to be. During that period the government, if it had restrained itself to spending what it had budgeted for, could have taken that $600m off our debt. If it had just allowed growth in certain areas of the public service to be limited to a more restrained level - I am not saying no growth at all, I am just saying a more manageable growth than what we have seen - if it had done that over the period of those years, it could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no reason that within six or seven years of taking over the reins of government the Northern Territory’s debt could have been zero, we could have had money in the bank.
Another jurisdiction - and to ensure we are making fair comparisons - Western Australia had a Labor government and, to the credit of that Labor government, it reduced Western Australia’s debt to zero. Even Labor governments can manage it if they put their mind to it
It is the great, hoary, old chestnut of this government to say, every time we talk about the growth of the public service, we are going to hack 800 public service jobs. It is nonsense; it is not going to happen. No one is going to be fired; there will be no forced redundancies, nothing like that. If you had restrained growth - bear in mind the public service has grown from 14 000 to about 18 500 at the moment, you can see growth has been substantial. The government has chosen to do this rather than save money. So, in a period of great growth, it chose to spend the extra money. It was warned in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. It had been repeatedly warned through the whole process that, sooner or later, hard times would be visited upon us. My concern is this government has missed the opportunity of a century to reduce our debt to zero. It chose not to; it chose to spend it.
There was a contraction in our debt which was good but, unfortunately, looking at the forward estimates now, we are going to be borrowing our backsides off. We are going to increase nett debt by over 100% in a few years. If you use the non-financial public sector as a yardstick, our current nett debt situation is about $2bn; our debt situation will be $3.8bn in four years’ time. Why is our baseline debt now after this long period of sustained growth? Yes, I do not have a major problem with a deficit budget, but it is much better to announce a deficit budget when you have savings in the bank so you do not have to borrow - you will not have to spend $400 000 a day on interest repayments as will be the case in the not so distant future in the Northern Territory - $400 000 every single day is what we are going to be coughing up for no productive outcome when we could have been better positioned to absorb this situation.
The government says this is a responsible budget and will prop up the economy - the Country Liberals have done that. I ask all honourable members to have a quick look around. Yes, the building we are standing in is a direct response to - I think it was called the recession we had to have, and I can tell you that recession we had to have hurt the Northern Territory particularly. It was a particularly tough time, and the government of the day saw people were going to end up in situations where they would struggle to put food on the table. The government of the day decided to do exactly what this government is doing: raise capital through borrowings to prop up the economy. I understand that. It was probably the most expensive choice because whilst the project engineer was Multiplex, I am fully aware that tons of contracts associated with this building were directed to local small firms.
I remember driving past the back of this building one day when the tilers were working. There was not one big truck with ‘big tiling company’ written on the side. There was a bunch of utes. I do not know how many small subbies were occupied on this building; however, none of those small subbies got rich but were able to keep a roof over their head and pay the mortgage. That is what the government does. It is called countercyclical spending.
That expression harks back to John Maynard Keynes, the economist, who, basically, and I seriously oversimplify his argument for the sake of the debate, used an old Aesop’s fable comparing the grasshopper and the ants. The ants squirrelled away diligently in the good times and could get through the bad times. The grasshopper had one big party and all of a sudden found himself starving to death come winter. The Keynesian approach is to expend money during the bad times. We saw that being done by the international community in response to the most recent global financial crisis. However, there is a component in that argument which has been overlooked by so many of the players and is being deliberately overlooked by the Treasurer. That component is simply this: the Treasurer fails to acknowledge that in the good times she did not make hay. She spent it all; she had a very grasshoppery good time.
We now find ourselves in a situation where the bad times are here and government has only one way to respond - to borrow more money. Anyone who owns a credit card understands the peril of that approach. Whilst we have a six-inch thick pile of budget papers in front of us, the truth of the matter is if you borrow money you have to pay it back. Our credit rating is AA+. It used to be AAA+. It went AA+ under the former CLP government. That means we have a slightly higher cost in sourcing money. If you read the Treasury Corporation’s Annual Report you will see most of the loans we have maturing in the near future are not going to be paid off. They will be re-borrowed against and we will have new loans. The borrowing program has been particularly bountiful. The problem is the savings program has not been anywhere near as bountiful and, as a consequence, we are now ramping up the debt of Territorians. Every household of mum, dad and two kids has $120 000 worth of debt attached that some future government will have to sort out.
This then takes us to the point where the Treasurer says: ‘Do not worry about it. We have a step-up program’. If you are able to project four or five years in advance and say we will be in surplus in the year 2015-16, why not put that in your budget papers? The reason is it is very difficult; exponentially more difficult to predict what is going to be happening in four years time than what is going to be happening next year. Not one of the budget papers I read prior to 2008 had any expression or expectation in it of a global financial crisis, yet, as we were getting closer to the crisis, the warning signs were starting to appear. The closer the future, the easier it is to predict.
I can tell honourable members what I will be doing tonight with some certainty; however, I am not sure I can tell honourable members what I will be doing in five years time with any certainty. This is what we ask Treasury to do. Treasury does a forward projection and, as far as it is prepared to look, which is out to the year 2014-15, there are deficits; nothing but red ink the whole way across the bottom of the page. There is a nebulous assertion that after that time we are going to step into a surplus based on what? Treasury is not prepared to describe what those future years are going to look like because it is too risky. There are too many variables and too many unknowns. Why on earth would you?
For the Treasurer to run the argument: ‘Oh, don’t worry about it; it is all going to be mickey mouse in about five or six years time’ - you do not know. There could be a global depression at that point. Let us say there is a terror attack using a nuclear weapon in New York City. What happens to the Territory budget as a result of the ensuing calamity? Those things are utterly unpredictable. Even the things you can guess at like bond rates are difficult to project out to the future.
At last year’s estimates Treasury demonstrated much speculative work goes into putting these forward projections together. How do we know it is speculative? Compare a forward projection of four years ago to where we are today and you will see the vast difference between what is predicted and the outcome. We cannot, with any comfort, take any joy from the assertion by the Treasurer that we are headed to surplus when there are no grounds to accept that assertion. All I see in the projections available through the uniform presentation framework between now and the expiration of projections is red ink the whole way.
This government has no problem borrowing but eventually you have to pay that money back. The government says that is a manageable debt and compared to Greece and Portugal we are in a much better position. However, Greece and Portugal are now recipients of bailout packages and austerity measures. I do not want to see the Northern Territory pleading for bailout packages and austerity measures. I want the Northern Territory to have a manageable debt, hopefully even a zero debt. Why is that such an objectionable thought, particularly when this government has been given the opportunity of a century - the introduction of the GST and the subsequent economic strength we have seen over the last 10 years - to not position the Territory to absorb this punch. We are not in a strong position to absorb the punch and, as a consequence, we have to borrow from the future because that is exactly what a borrowing is. It is taking away money that would be available to us in the future and amplifying it now. That is what I find objectionable. This government has chosen to expend money rather than show a little more restraint and get rid of our debt. It has been done in other jurisdictions, and for that reason this government really has failed the Northern Territory, not necessarily for what is happening in isolation this year, but what has happened over the past few years.
I have strayed somewhat from my shadow portfolio duties and will turn to issues of the Department of Justice. Having had a cursory view of the Department of Justice document, Budget Paper No 3, I notice the presentation has changed somewhat from last year. That, I say in advance, will generate questions in the estimates process. I am concerned about a couple of components and, once again, as part of the budgetary process we should not just read the budget papers and expect to have a comprehensive view of what is happening within a particular department. I am intrigued about what the Department of Justice described it wanted to achieve, and its annual reports.
The strategic plan of the Department of Justice has run into hiccups - there have been problems with internal administration. The Auditor-General’s report of October 2010 shows some management issues which I believe have now been addressed. Those matters will continue to be policed by the Auditor-General. More globally speaking, the strategic plan of the Department of Justice is not meeting some its benchmarks because the performance indicators are producing results which are less than this government has promised the people of the Northern Territory.
Looking at the strategic plan, there are increased requirements for numbers of court hours and increased requirements for other benchmarks which do not reflect what was anticipated at the outset. The question I have for the Department of Justice is: what is going on? If you look at the last annual report of the Department of Justice – DOJ report is easier - compared to what was anticipated and what the strategic plan was trying to achieve, it is pulling up short.
The reason that is important is this government commits itself to certain expenditures during the budgetary process on certain policies. Those policies, if they were successful, would lead to organisations like DOJ reaching its benchmarks and targets as described in its strategic plan. However, when you go to the annual reports, you realise, whilst the variations are not dramatic - for example, the figures are not necessarily doubled - they are still significant variations. That, if you distil it to what we are talking about, means government policy has not been achieving what government intends it to achieve. The Department of Justice said: ‘This is what we are going to achieve’. When you turn to the annual report, those outcomes are not as comprehensive as you would hope them to be.
I can flag at the outset, for the government and Department of Justice, I will be inquiring into those particular issues in the estimates process because, if the Department of Justice is not meeting its key performance indicators - I am talking about its attempt to reduce certain levels of offences and those sorts of things – it means there is something wrong with government policy. It is not the fault of the Department of Justice; it is simply the organ by which the government exerts its policies within the community. It is the government’s fault if the department is not reaching those key performance indicators. It clearly demonstrates we have a measurement system in place which is useful and, hopefully, constructive. The test is quite simply this: is the government prepared to change its policies if it cannot demonstrate those policies are working? From last year’s DOJ annual report, there are good grounds to believe those policies are well short of the intended outcomes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the estimates process.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I respond to the government’s Budget 2011-12. Specifically, I will talk about the child protection services in the Northern Territory, and the budget for child protection.
I congratulate the Northern Territory government for increasing the amount of money it intends spending on child protection. The minister spoke earlier today about the impressive increase and how, over the last 10 years, the government has progressively spent more and more on child protection. There is only one reason why the government has spent more and more money on child protection over the last 10 years: the government has dug itself into a deeper and deeper hole when it comes to the provision of child protection services in the Northern Territory.
The only way in which it can address the matter, apparently, is by continuing to throw money at child protection, and not really think about the proper and right way to go about mending a system which is broken. Many reports over the last 10 years have confirmed child protection in the Northern Territory is not working; it is not meeting the needs of the most vulnerable sector of our society. Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily mean the problem goes away, and the last 10 years is proof of that. We have seen this government do little apart from throw money at the child protection problem in the Northern Territory.
The new Department of Children and Families was established by the Henderson government on 1 January this year. This was a reaction to mounting pressure on the government to address the serious failures when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory. It was a reaction to mounting pressure from the children and families sector and from stakeholders throughout the Territory who contributed to the board of inquiry into child protection and its report Growing them strong, together released to the public in October last year, just six months ago. We have a new department, the Department of Children and Families. This department has a new facelift and has been given a lot of money in this latest budget primarily to resolve some of the very deeply entrenched problems in child protection.
Yesterday I raised a matter of public importance about the case of a baby abandoned by its parents in a laneway in Tennant Creek last week. The baby was found by a cyclist at midnight or thereabouts, and taken by this cyclist to a person, another member of the public who, thankfully, took the child to the hospital and then the police, and was, thankfully, rescued from a potentially fatal situation. Yesterday, I raised in parliament how this case was managed by the Department of Children and Families is quite clear evidence that the child protection system in the Northern Territory is continuing to fail the children of the Northern Territory. It is continuing to not respond correctly, capably or effectively to the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society. Within hours, that child was returned to its family, to the 22-year-old mother and the 29-year-old father who had abandoned it just hours before. The fact it was returned directly to its parents is proof the child protection system is not working, and it also proves money is not the answer to the problem.
The answer to the problem in the Northern Territory goes far beyond just money. We need to look at the report handed down in October 2010 if we want the answers to why the child protection system is not working. The Growing them strong, together report highlighted the need for a change in culture throughout the Department of Children and Families, a change in how this department is managed and a change in how the government goes about providing this vital statutory service in our society, a service our society desperately needs in the Northern Territory for a whole range of reasons.
The Growing them strong, together report highlighted the need to support staff, support child protection workers throughout the Northern Territory, and to provide adequate and suitable training to equip them to carry out what is an extremely difficult, stressful and demanding area to work in. The case of the abandoned child in Tennant Creek would suggest more training is required when it comes to the staff in Tennant Creek. Those child protection workers in Tennant Creek who managed this case over the last week were under considerable pressure. It was an unusual case, perhaps. A case which required a critical response, a crisis response, and it required a comprehensive assessment of what would have been a very difficulty family situation; a situation I do not think could have been assessed within a few hours.
Adequate training would have indicated this child should have been placed in a temporary care arrangement, perhaps a foster care arrangement, until a comprehensive assessment was undertaken. Unless you have the training and support in your job as a child protection worker, sometimes you do not know what the options are; sometimes you do not know you are not equipped to make the best decisions. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many people throughout the Northern Territory who have responded to this case, returning the child directly to the family, to the parents who abandoned it, was not a good decision.
The Growing them strong, together report talked about how to stimulate and promote family support services and the need for widespread reform in support services throughout the Northern Territory to children and families. It talked about the need to improve systems, policies, procedures and tools to enable child protection workers to carry out their jobs - to carry out their statutory and non-statutory work. The Growing them strong, together report talked about fundamental changes in philosophy and how to go about providing child protection services, most of which does not require huge amounts of money. It requires conviction and commitment by the Northern Territory government for change. We are not seeing this change. We have not seen change in the child protection system over the last 10 years despite numerous reports and inquiries into child protection, despite coroner’s inquests into the death of a 13-year-old child several years ago, and despite numerous reports of very poor case management of children.
Good case management requires some money; it does not require a large amount of money. It requires skilled practitioners who are trained and supported; it requires a good work environment with good management. It does cost money but throwing money at it alone is not the answer. It requires good management and good governance.
Good management is needed and a minister who really commits to the job of child protection; a minister who knows exactly what is going on and responds to the needs of the department. It requires the practical and sincere implementation of the Growing them strong, together report, the 147 recommendations which outline, in detail, what needs to be fixed in the child protection system in the Northern Territory, and many ideas as to how it can be fixed. It requires a genuine and sincere commitment to that process and we not seeing that at the moment. We are not seeing the Northern Territory government give that sincere long-term commitment to change.
Today, I witnessed probably one of the most appalling acts in my seven months as a member of parliament. I watched the government try to crucify the member for Katherine for a business transaction that took place in 2003, before he became a member for parliament, a transaction which really has nothing to do with the business of government here today. It is appalling and incredible that the government could raise this business the member for Katherine was involved in.
When I think about child protection in the Northern Territory, I think about a 13-year-old girl, Deborah Melville, who was in the care and protection of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families, a girl who perished - who died at the hands of this government. A girl called Deborah Melville who died under a tree in Palmerston whose case was well-known to this government; a case well-known to the Department of Children and Families. How can the government, how can the people who sit across the room from me now, criticise the member for Katherine for a business transaction that took place years before he entered parliament, knowing they have committed far more serious acts than a car transaction that went a little haywire?
We are talking about a death here. The writing was on the wall years ago for this government. It has not performed when it comes to child protection. It has failed the Northern Territory in many ways. Deborah Melville is just one case. I feel ashamed to be a part of a parliament that could sit back and throw stones when it has committed acts which are far more serious, far more heinous, and far more shameful than what the member for Katherine has been involved in.
When you talk about throwing more money at child protection services in the Northern Territory, that is great and I commend the government for doing so. However, I stress the problems we are seeing in the child protection system in the Northern Territory cannot be resolved by money alone. They have to be resolved by people who are truly committed to change how we do the business of child protection, and that has to come from the top down. It has to come from the minister. It has to come from the senior management of the child protection services.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only hope the case of Deborah Melville, and other children seriously neglected by the Department of Children and Families - that this government really makes some changes. Throw more money at it by all means and I will commend you, but I will not commend you until I see changes in the way things are done in child protection.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you, member for Brennan, at 5.30 pm we go to General Business and you will have the opportunity to continue your remarks after General Business.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak about the Northern Territory Labor government’s Budget 2011-12. The first thing it reminded me of is last year and the year before. Many of us are new to this House. It has become quite a challenge to understand how budgets work. I first thought - this is prior to politics - much of the money coming into the Northern Territory is federal money and therefore you would have to wait until the federal budget comes down before you knew how much money you had to play with each year. Then you could set your own budget, a little like how the average person at home sets a budget. Until you know how much you earn, it is very hard to set your own budget.
I have learnt no, that is not the way it works. The Northern Territory delivers a budget prior to knowing exactly how much money the federal government is going to give the Territory. That is clearly illustrated by today’s announcement of a new hospital for the Palmerston area. Let me tell you, in 2008 the Country Liberals went to the election with a promise to invest in a hospital for Palmerston and the rural area, and it is something I have advocated and pushed for. In recent times we have even had a local alderman, Pete Davies, through his 360 show, bring forward a petition to get a hospital for the Palmerston area.
I was interviewed on ABC radio about the time the federal government announced the 1500-bed asylum seeker facility at Wickham Point. I figured at the time, being a person who tries to look at positives and opportunities, while I certainly agree the federal government has it wrong, wrong, wrong when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers in this country, for goodness sake, we have a front door. People are welcome to use it, but those who come through the back door should be turned away. However, if we were going to have a 1500-bed facility in the Palmerston and Darwin area then, perhaps as a measure of leverage, the Northern Territory government could run off to Canberra and say: ‘We will have that 1500-bed facility, but how about you build us a hospital as a gesture of good faith’. The question asked of me by ABC radio was about how our local infrastructure might be stretched with this new facility. I thought about it for a moment, and I figured it takes long enough to get from Palmerston to the hospital, let alone the rural area. If we are going to have a 1500-bed facility at Wickham Point, and we have a so-called Super Clinic in Palmerston - that still does not operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day as originally promised, where people could be seen by a doctor at any time, which still does not occur - now we are supposed to believe we are getting a hospital. This is just an announcement.
I, as a local member, and as a father of four in Palmerston, absolutely welcome even a sniff that we might get a hospital. I will not rest until this government has delivered on that one. Do not make it up; do not string people along. Deliver on your promises.
The ABC mentioned what it would be like to have a 1500-bed facility. The infrastructure in Palmerston is already stretched with a 24-hour Super Clinic that is not 24 hours. How would our ambulance service cater for this facility? If this facility is over the bridge at Elizabeth River on Wickham Point with 1500 people, there is a likelihood someone might be injured or need some kind of medical attention and, if an ambulance was called it would have to drive from the top of Palmerston, through Palmerston, across the Elizabeth River Bridge, out to the Wickham Point facility then travel all the way out to Tiwi. I figured a rough estimate - I am not an expert - 40 to 45 minutes, maybe closer to an hour. That is just getting them to hospital. For that hour the vehicle is off the road; it is no longer available for residents who may need an ambulance. Therefore, if our infrastructure is already stretched to the limit, how is it going to be stretched even further with this facility? This could be a fantastic opportunity to ask the federal government for a hospital in the Palmerston or rural area that not only catered for Palmerston and rural residents, but also this new facility and be less of a tax on our local infrastructure. In fact, we would be benefiting, from a community perspective, and have a decent health system available for people living in Palmerston and the rural area.
Madam Speaker, to the budget. We welcome certain areas of the budget. It is always welcome when money is going to be invested into our community. However, the budget papers are put on your desk in one day and, all of a sudden, you are supposed to be an expert and understand everything within the budget papers. I am sorry; I am not up to it. I cannot digest everything in the budget papers within a 24-hour period.
The member for Port Darwin said he looks forward to the estimates, so do I. In the next month our heads will be in the budget papers looking for information to help us provide Territorians with the best criticism or critique, if you like, of the Northern Territory budget. It is not easy …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, it is now 5.30 pm. In accordance with Standing Order 93 debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Is the member for Port Darwin here? It is in his name. He is the only person who can move it. He is not here?
Ms Purick: Madam Speaker, can I not speak to it?
Madam SPEAKER: No, because Mr Elferink has to move the motion. It is his motion. If you wish to, you can move a motion to seek leave to - member for Port Darwin, you can move your motion. We were about to suspend it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I quite missed the time. I apologise to honourable members.
Madam Speaker, I move - That –
Madam Speaker, there would not be a member in this place who is unaware of the circumstances surrounding the findings of the Ombudsman in relation to the cattle station owned by the Charles Darwin University, namely Mataranka cattle station.
The cattle station essentially is part of the Charles Darwin University’s project, run on a partly commercial basis for the purposes of educating people and supporting the Northern Territory cattle industry. Members will be aware that the Ombudsman has written in her report a whole series of findings in relation to what occurred on the cattle station, but most particularly page 62, if memory serves me, where the Ombudsman makes this observation in relation to an earlier report done by Mr Stockwell. The Ombudsman says:
I pause briefly to point out Charles Darwin University, since receiving this report, has taken unprecedented strides in correcting many of the issues identified in the Ombudsman’s report, to its credit. Barney Glover has taken me through many of the things they have sought to repair, and if you look at Mr Riggs’ diary entries in relation to the matter, it demonstrates someone who has taken a fairly high level of concern to fix many of the things that occurred at the cattle station.
I note from the Murphy report that the last identifiable potential act of suffering on the cattle station beyond what would be normal, natural attrition relates to an event which occurred in April 2010, and we will return to that issue shortly. I reiterate this is not about what the university is doing now; this is about what had occurred in the past. The university has put in an enormous effort to rectify these problems. I acknowledge that. However, the fact that the Ombudsman identified approximately 800 dead head of cattle as a result of neglect still remains a concern.
The university has pointed out, as have other players in this issue, one major problem with the Ombudsman’s comment is that, if 800 cattle had died, where are the skeletal remains? In the not-so-distant past the media has carried reports of 800 dead cattle being placed into an unmarked or mass grave somewhere on the cattle station.
I am concerned about these issues because they remain unresolved. This series of events has caused the Northern Territory government substantial embarrassment. Indeed, from freedom of information documents, it is clear the embarrassment of the Northern Territory government was what it was seeking to avoid as a strong influencing factor in its decision not to pursue prosecutions in relation to this matter. In fact, it is clear from this government’s attitude that its non-prosecutorial philosophy was even in place as late as January 2011 when Ray Murphy, who was looking into some residual events occurring at the cattle station, outlined in his interim report to government that there was still substantial and real evidence available of a potential act of animal cruelty. Rather than the government responding by giving Mr Murphy an investigation team, or running an independent investigation, the government’s instruction to Mr Murphy was quite clear: ‘Go and look at it and report back in April’. That demonstrated Mr Murphy was being asked to investigate something and report back to government at a time government knew, and was absolutely aware it would run into the expiration of the statute of limitations which applies to offences under this act. That simply is not good enough.
My concern is certain issues remain unresolved. Had the government taken upon itself to properly prosecute this matter - perhaps even prosecuted the university through some vehicle or another - it would have, by doing so, given all the players in this issue an opportunity to state their case. The complex issue for the university at the moment, and Mr Ian Gray, the former manager of the station, as well as the DPI staff who visited the cattle station and raised concerns very early in the piece, as well as ministers themselves, none have had an opportunity to clearly explain their role in the matter. Even when I have spoken to Mr Ian Gray he has been extremely circumspect. Not because he does not want to; he has made it abundantly clear to me he wants to speak widely and fulsomely in relation to this issue. However, he finds himself bound by an agreement or a confidentiality clause which he is very reluctant to breach. I note he has made some comments in the media, but clearly a small media article, even a medium-sized media article, is not sufficient for Mr Gray to state his case.
On my reading of the DPI assertion in relation to the conduct of Mr Gray, as well as my reading of the Ombudsman’s report, Mr Gray’s reputation will be difficult to recover. There are clearly serious criticisms of his conduct. However, a prosecution would have at least enabled Mr Gray to have his day in court free of the confines of a confidentiality clause. The only other vehicle available to Mr Gray to tell us what occurred is parliamentary privilege where, once again, his confidentiality clause could not reach him. We can create an opportunity for Mr Gray, who is the central figure in many respects in this matter, to state his case.
Equally so, it is incumbent on this House to enable the Ombudsman to state her case. She has clearly discussed at some length what occurred on that cattle station. I note the Ombudsman, in her report, refers to the figure of 800 only twice and both references come from the quote I made earlier from page 62 of the report. Eight hundred dead cattle through neglect would represent, as far as I am aware, one of the most, if not the most, serious cases of animal cruelty in the history of Australia. To relegate the number of 800 to a footnote tells me the Ombudsman was either not as centrally occupied with that number as many other people have been, or she realised the number was essentially a speculative number. She uses the word ‘approximately’ quite carefully in the report, because that is what it is - an approximation based on some assumptions.
It would be worthwhile to have Mr Stockwell give evidence before a committee of this House so he can tell it what he thinks and what he saw. It would be also important for the Ombudsman to not only justify her assertion of 800 cattle dying as a result of neglect on the cattle station, but also I would seek from the Ombudsman a source of information which could substantiate the assertion there exists a mass grave somewhere on Mataranka Station. This issue now lies at the very core of this whole matter.
I urge the Ombudsman to make available, even in-confidence information she has, which will lead to the discovery of the missing skeletal remains. That is not an unreasonable request. The 800 figure has been universally accepted - and I accepted it - but people are now challenging it. There are many questions surrounding this issue. At the heart is the failure of government to successfully prosecute. That raises another central motivation for my wanting the select committee formed; that is, the government’s actions be investigated so we can report back to this House methods to avoid such calamitous circumstances occurring again.
The Northern Territory government has, to my astonishment, been unable to respond to this case anywhere near as effectively as I hoped it would. Clearly, the systems within government have failed. I acknowledge the government has agreed this outcome has not been good enough. This goes to the reputation of the Northern Territory government and its capacity to protect and police animal cruelty issues in the Northern Territory. This is very important, particularly in this instance, for the cattle industry. The cattle industry in the Northern Territory should be able to say, with great comfort, the regulatory environment that surrounds their industry is robust and, moreover, effectively policed. At the moment, it would be a hard case for any cattleperson, or the cattle industry as a whole, to assert either of those two assumptions. This is such a deplorable failure by government to respond to an awful situation that no satisfactory outcome has been achieved for the cattle industry,
My concern is the cattle industry would be mindful of two things. First, it wants the reputation of the industry protected and nothing of what has occurred on Mataranka Station will give it any comfort the industry is being well protected. Second, it should be able to say not only does it self-regulate in a proper way - and most cattle stations are extremely careful with their herds; it is the reason they exist - but there are external audits systems in place; namely, the regulatory bodies which look at these things.
The DPI, as much as it could, responded to the situation the investigators from DPI found on the cattle station. The Ombudsman’s reports shows DPI inspectors shooting cattle because of the condition of the cows. However, all in all, what we gain from this whole process is insufficient government responses have led to exactly the sort of thing the government was trying to avoid in the first place – embarrassment.
Ministers of this House, former and current - there were three current ministers I am aware of - understood and knew the investigation was afoot. It is also clear the department was fully aware of what was occurring on the cattle station months before any evidence of the first minister being made aware. That strikes me as a failing in the system. If I, as minister, was made aware of something like this, months after initial reports came in, I would be very upset.
Too many questions have been left unanswered. No one has been given an effective platform to state their case. Questions still surround the missing cattle, so I appeal to a government which has said it is prepared to do all that is necessary to ensure these things do not happen again, to support a motion for a select committee which will be primarily driven to establishing two things: what happened and how we can stop it happening again. It is not an unreasonable ask. Even the government will not suggest this has not been a top-of-mind political and community issue locally, interstate and internationally.
It would do this government no good at all to resist this motion and vote it down because of the concern so many people have that government avoided responsibility at the outset for the sake of avoiding further embarrassment. If it does vote against this motion to set up a select committee, it is my understanding - I have already spoken to the member for Nelson - the matter will be investigated by another parliamentary committee which already exists. Whilst it will be a much poorer outcome, it would still be a vehicle by which this will be investigated, so it will be investigated anyhow.
I urge this government not to resist this motion, but rather acknowledge it has a duty to send a signal to the industry, to the people of the Northern Territory, and the people of Australia and overseas, that this government is open to scrutiny, will accept scrutiny, and will vote in support of scrutiny, which is something it has promised. I hope the government takes that point of view, because if not, it will be upon its head and no one else’s heads that the allegations of cover-up will continue to fall.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin. My background, and also my interest in the pastoral industry, is cause for me to support a select committee to get to the root cause of cattle dying on a particular property. I say at the outset that I have more than a passing interest in this and declare that I have a family member who works at the university and also works very closely, or has done, with the Animal Ethics Committee. I place that on the public record.
Four key areas need to be addressed by this committee, and in any future work regarding improving training and research with animals and animal ethic committees in the Territory. One of those is the Animal Welfare Branch and the legislation associated with animal welfare. The other area is the Department of Resources, notably the primary industries people, the stock inspectors and the government vets. Another is the Animal Ethics Committee itself. We have the committee associated with the university, and there are animal ethics committees associated with many universities around Australia, and rightly so. However, what are the obligations of such a committee, and where is its accountability regarding what it does and how and where it does it? The fourth component in this debate is the role of Charles Darwin University as the lessee of this pastoral property.
In any accident that takes place in life, regardless of the industry, there is never one single cause. We know why the cows died - they ran out of water and food; they are not going to come back. We need to understand the contributing factors for those cows dying or getting into such a condition that they died. In my dealings with the university, cattle people, and people on the ground close to this matter, I would ask questions such as: in the committee of relevant people was there a management plan for the pastoral land? Was there a business plan? Did they have specific plans in relation to rotation of paddocks? Did they have a specific breeding program? Did they have a program for when they take weaners away from their mothers? What was their program with NLIS and tagging of their cattle? What was their feeding regime? What was their supplement regime?
This would all be covered in a plan for a pastoral property. If there was one, was it developed by the station people exclusively, or was there involvement by university staff in Darwin? How often was the station visited by the powers to be from the university, even government people for that matter? What was the state of the cattle station? Was it in excellent condition? Did it have broken fences? How many herds did it have? What were the exact numbers? What type of breeding programs were they running? What was the relationship between this pastoral property, given it was not under the control of the Pastoral Lands Board, and the rest of the cattle industry? Did they have a working relationship? What was the working relationship between the pastoral property and the rural college versus university staff in Darwin? There are many questions regarding how the station was run. What were the staffing relationships? What were the staffing ratios?
There are other questions I would like to ask to work out what happened and why, and what we need to put in place to ensure it never happens again on that pastoral property, or any other pastoral property, or any other area where animals are used in training and research.
For example, I have questions about maintenance of equipment. Was there a maintenance schedule? Was there a maintenance program regarding cattle troughs and bores? What was their fire management program? Did they have OHS policies? What were the procedures and policies regarding fatigue management of staff? Did the manager have to travel from the station to Darwin on a regular basis and, if so, why? What was the biosecurity program for the station? There are many questions regarding how it was run which relate to the university and management; I understand that. It also relates back to accountability to the government and the broader community.
I thank the minister for the briefing I received on the Ray Murphy report; it was very enlightening and useful. Regarding human resource policies at the university, my question at the briefing was whether there was an exit interview for staff associated with the property. Of course, there was no answer and that is fine. I know the history of the station manager who has since left - his work previously and his track record, which was very good.
I am also familiar with the meat and livestock research regarding percentage of stock that die on pastoral properties in the Northern Territory as well as elsewhere. I have done much reading and talked to many people regarding this issue because it is a very serious one and, clearly, systems have failed. They have not only failed the animals, more importantly, they have failed people. We have to keep things in perspective here. The cows and horses cannot be brought back; however, we have much collateral damage to people, which is what we need to remain focused on, as well as getting best practice systems, regulation and laws in place.
I mentioned what I see as four key areas - the Department of Resources and the relationship between government agencies. What was the relationship? Was it good enough in regard to the animal welfare people versus the Department of Resources? Who was doing what and who was responsible? Should one have been the lead agency? The question could be asked: in 2009, when this first occurred, and if the university or the Animal Ethics Committee was not in a position to quickly remedy the problem, why did the Northern Territory government not step in and take charge and control at that time?
There are many questions. Many systems need to be changed. I believe the minister is serious when she says she does not want to see this happen again. Perhaps we need to overhaul the legislation. The government has said it will review the Animal Welfare Act and, if that is true, I welcome it. The question could be asked: should the Animal Welfare Act be with that department? Perhaps it should be somewhere else.
Do we need to look at animal ethics committees interstate to see how they operate? What projects are currently in the Northern Territory regarding working with animal ethics committees? Are they best practice? The work of a select committee would help in ensuring this situation was never repeated. It is a concern to the university as manager and operator of the station, and to the pastoral industry and the community as a whole.
The university has changed its processes and systems and has accountability and things it must do in accordance with the Ombudsman’s report and recommendations. However, I believe it is a bigger picture than just the university and the management of its property; it involves government agencies, animal ethics committees, and research. To some extent it involves the community.
I urge the minister to seriously consider and support this motion because much good can come from this case. I know from my time in the mining industry when tragedies and accidents occurred one single thing was not the cause. There are layers and layers of contributing factors, and sometimes it takes a long time to have things changed and rectified. At the end of the day, we need to put in that work, effort and commitment so it is behind us. Then we can move on and have a pastoral industry, and training and research through the university, of which everyone is justifiably proud.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion put before the House by the member for Port Darwin. It is important this parliament has a good look at what occurred at Mataranka, not purely for the circumstances surrounding Mataranka, but in animal welfare across the Northern Territory.
Whenever there is a breakdown in the system, in the political system, in the bureaucracy, in communication, an obvious disconnect, it is the role of this parliament to examine, scrutinise and question that. One thing I agree with previous speakers in the House is we want to ensure we learn from this experience and that it never happens again.
Let me state at the outset, the death of so many livestock at Mataranka Station and the inadequate animal welfare response, by both the university and government agencies, is not acceptable. What happened at Mataranka Station in late 2009 was an absolute disgrace. The response of government agencies, and the animal welfare authority in particular, was too slow. The response of the relevant government agencies and the university’s administration was disjointed and confused. The Ombudsman’s investigation and 550-page report has highlighted those, and other major deficiencies, that need to be addressed.
Significant action has been taken to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and there is further work to do, especially in regard to the use of animals in teaching or research, and the monitoring of licences issued for these purposes. There are substantial lessons to be learnt from this major incident to ensure such an event does not occur in the future. It is for these reasons I strongly support the reference of these issues to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I am concerned about the disconnect that has been very clear throughout this process between agencies, non-government agencies, those who had roles and responsibilities on the day-to-day running of matters across the Northern Territory, I want to see this issue scrutinised by this parliament.
I welcome that scrutiny. I welcome it so much I would appear before the Council of Territory Cooperation to speak about this issue, to ensure this does not happen again in the Northern Territory – to ensure we not only learn from this terrible case at Mataranka Station, but we fix it, improve the system and ensure all those people who should be connected in passing information, and be responsible about the care and welfare of animals across the Northern Territory, know their role and responsibilities.
I am prepared, as a minister of the Crown, to appear before the Council of Territory Cooperation to ensure this is a fair and just process of inquiry, with integrity. I put forward amendments to this motion to reflect that. The terms of reference of the Council of Territory Cooperation provide for additional authority over and above that referred to in the member for Port Darwin’s motion. There is no need to establish another committee to look into these very important issues. The response should not be to establish a committee with less authority than the Council of Territory Cooperation already has.
The Ombudsman’s report highlighted a number of high-priority actions that must be taken, both by the university and government. The university has established a Mataranka Station Advisory Committee which provides advice on the station’s operations. The university has had the operation of its Animal Ethics Committee externally reviewed by experts in this field. The university has also created a new position of Animal Welfare Advisor to provide an internal expert capacity in this area.
I say categorically to this House there is no cover-up. There is no embarrassment to this minister or this government in what has taken place. We want openness and transparency in the scrutiny of this, and the Council of Territory Cooperation will see that. There is no embarrassment about what has happened here; there has been no attempt to want to hide anything. I have been on the public record saying everything must be open on this; it is a disgrace and we must learn from it in a way that provides confidence across the Northern Territory to those who work in the field of animal research or own animals but, also, to have confidence in the systems of government in the Northern Territory to be capable of looking after what they should.
I entirely agree with the members for Port Darwin and Goyder: we have to look at the systems that set up our government, the systems that must be there to work and protect those we serve. In this case, any failure requires this parliament to ensure we address it in a fair and just manner, allowing all parties a fair opportunity to put their case. That is why my amendment will reflect the call for this to be referred to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services has undertaken an independent functional assessment of the Animal Welfare Branch. At the time of the Mataranka Station incident, the Animal Welfare Branch had no substantive specialist investigative or regulatory experience or focus. In response to the functional review, two new suitably-qualified persons have been recruited to manage and direct the branch. An enhanced training program for investigation and enforcement is being implemented. The department has also engaged consultants to develop a Certificate IV in investigation specifically for animal welfare focused on the legislation, law, and processes applicable to the Northern Territory Animal Welfare Act.
As clearly identified by the Ombudsman, there was a lack of clarity between the Department of Resources and the Animal Welfare Branch concerning the roles and responsibilities for action under the Animal Welfare Act. An operational protocol has been formally developed and adopted between the Department of Resources and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services to clearly set out the procedure to be followed when investigating matters of livestock welfare.
In response to other matters raised by the Ombudsman’s report, issues relating to teaching and research involving animals in the Northern Territory are being reviewed to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. It has become apparent the role and function of animal ethics committees in the current act have not been well understood. It is an area I have been clearly concerned about, and it is good to hear the member for Goyder’s questions regarding this motion and the practices of animal ethics committees generally. It is a grey area we in this parliament need to ensure we understand, as well as those people whose roles and responsibilities are to function within those committees.
In addition to the Charles Darwin University’s Animal Ethics Committee, there are nine other licence holders who utilise the services of interstate-based animal ethics committees to undertake research in the Northern Territory. There are issues relating to the internal operation of animal ethics committees and their external monitoring under the current legislation which I believe require further detailed assessment and consideration of the adequacy of current legislative arrangements.
As I stated at the beginning and have said consistently, the livestock deaths at Mataranka Station in 2009 were avoidable; it was an absolute disgrace. The response of the university and government agencies at the time was seriously inadequate. It is obvious that, for a range of reasons, the university and government agencies did not act quickly and decisively enough to alleviate the animal welfare issues identified in September 2009.
I am disappointed no prosecution has been made under the Animal Welfare Act in regard to this incident. I welcome any scrutiny of any decisions made throughout that time. There are important lessons to be learnt from this incident and the Ombudsman’s extensive report. The changes made by government agencies in response to the Ombudsman’s report have greatly strengthened the capacity of the animal welfare authority to manage animal welfare issues and prosecute any future incidents of animal neglect or cruelty. Acting on the Ombudsman’s recommendations, any similar incident in the future will be addressed swiftly and decisively.
We are already seeing improved practices in more recent complaints. This is what I want to see change, what this parliament wants to see change, and what I expect to see from the Council of Territory Cooperation in its scrutiny of these things. I also strongly support further scrutiny of the improvements made and consideration of further improvements that may be necessary.
For this reason, I support the reference of these issues to the Council of Territory Cooperation for further reassessment and consideration. As stated from the beginning, I am prepared to address the Council of Territory Cooperation so, in a very strong bipartisan approach of this parliament, we are sending a signal to the people of the Northern Territory that we take animal welfare very, very seriously.
Madam Speaker, I move that all words after ‘that’ be deleted and replaced by the following …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we get a copy of that circulated as quickly as possible, please?
Madam SPEAKER: She has not moved the amendment yet, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the problem. It would have been nice to receive some notice of this.
Madam SPEAKER: This is the way it works in the parliament, member for Port Darwin. Minister, if you could just move the amendment, please.
Mr Elferink: Courtesy would have suggested you would have distributed this first.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, if I may clarify for the member for Port Darwin. This was with the Table Office earlier today. In fact, it …
Mr Elferink: Well, why was it not with me?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: It should have gone to you. I am not too sure why it did not.
Mr Elferink: You could walk across the Chamber and give me a copy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: I received notice of this in the parliament, so I assume the member for Port Darwin would receive his in the parliament too.
Mr Elferink: I gave you notice yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms McCARTHY: You have it now, member for Port Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I move - That all words after ‘That’ be deleted and replaced by the following:
In closing, I reiterate to the parliament the importance of this issue and the importance, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, to give confidence back to the people of the Northern Territory and Australia, that this government is very much on the road to improving the area of animal welfare and that we are serious about the care and concern of our animals.
I put to all members of this House my amendment to the motion by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the amended motion and thank the minister for bringing it forward. I also thank the opposition for bringing forward its motion because it is from that motion that, after quite considerable discussions between me and the member for Goyder, me and the minister, and me and the Chief Minister - there was much discussion yesterday.
I believe we have come, to some extent, to something unique in that the government has supported an opposition motion, with amendments. Basically, what has been put forward from this side of the House is something also unique in that a minister has offered to be questioned by that committee. Last night in adjournment I said one thing I heard when I was in Perth recently at the parliamentary accounts committee meeting was, generally speaking, ministers do not turn up for committee meetings.
Here we have something unique, and I am pleased to say the Chief Minister has advised me today that ministers will, or can, attend Council of Territory Cooperation meetings within certain guidelines. I thank the minister for volunteering to come before the Chief Minister made this statement. That shows the government, in this case, is fair dinkum, because it will probably get a fair amount of flack from various sources in relation to this very serious matter. It is a matter that has concerned not only people in this parliament, but also members of the public.
If you take some indication from the newspaper - not always a good indication of popular thought - you would still get a fair idea people were very concerned about what happened to the cattle at Mataranka Station.
I hope other ministers who had responsibility in relation to the particular matters the CTC will investigate will also turn up for the meetings. It is very important. We have two ministers for Local Government and we also have a minister for Resources, because there were two departments dealing with this issue of animal welfare, and also in relation to the pastoral side of the matter we are looking at investigating.
I remember about a year-and-a-half ago there were problems at Mataranka and I went on radio saying I did not think the university should operate agricultural colleges. It is something I still lean to because I went to a horticultural college in Melbourne that was taken over after I left by Melbourne University, as were a number of agricultural colleges in Victoria and other states. Gatton University, an independent agricultural college, was taken over by one of the universities in Queensland. I did not believe that was a good move. To some extent, agricultural colleges are unique. They are not the same as some highfaluting university in the city; they are about developing skills for people who will work on the land. Perhaps that consideration needs to be looked at; although I understand our university in the Northern Territory is small and has to battle to obtain enough funds to exist. The more courses it can run and the more people involved in those courses the more viable the university.
I remember saying that and wondering whether the whole concept of an agricultural college - if anyone remembers, when you drove to Katherine you went past the Katherine Rural College. Now you go past the Charles Darwin University Katherine campus. It does not have the same ring about it to me, so I made that note because Mataranka Station is a very important part of the development of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory. It is very important the pastoral station operates to the highest standard required because we know today the best way to ruin a good industry is to show you do not care about what people out there - the market - think.
If the market discovers there has been some particular issue on a cattle station it is more than likely to boycott the product because word will get around that such and such is not handling the animals well. You know how it works with some of these more radical green animal welfare groups - they can cause much damage to industry. Not only do we need to be careful how we operate our own broader pastoral industry, we also have to be very careful how we operate our educational facilities that deal with agriculture.
I also, at the invitation of the Vice-Chancellor last year, undertook a tour of Mataranka Station with the advisory board and the new manager at the time, Tony Griggs, who runs the station next door and who was the manager some years ago. He pointed out some deficiencies in the way the station facilities had been designed. He said the width of some of the lane ways was not adequate. In some cases there were not enough watering points around the facility, and he had put in processes to overcome some of those difficulties. I was there, from memory, in April/May, and the cattle were in good condition. He explained he was not there to necessarily tell us about all the issues that had occurred previously, but to show us the university, even back then - that is early last year - had put in processes to turn things around because the cattle were in a pretty good state when we saw them.
This inquiry will be, hopefully, investigating, finding out whether government departments, even ministers, had done their job properly and what the failings were. We can highlight all that and, as the member for Goyder, who gave a very good summary of some of the issues we would be looking at said, yes, we can look at that but we cannot bring the cattle back. We know a number of cattle died. We can argue the toss whether it was 200 or 800; however, we know cattle should not have died. We could argue the toss whether it is cruelty or neglect. Neglect is probably closer to the word because, if it happened to be poor management - and that management may not have been the manager’s fault; it may have been someone else’s fault. It could have been the budget was not adequate. We do not know.
However, other things could have caused the problem the Council of Territory Cooperation would be looking at. We also do not want to go over too much old ground. We have two reports now, one from the Ombudsman and one from Ray Murphy. I had a very thorough briefing with Ray Murphy. I now know why he was a policeman, because he was able to bring his skills of detective work to look at the particular issue in relation to some of the matters the Ombudsman had raised but not investigated.
The whole issue of how educational bodies in the Northern Territory deal with animals - not necessarily just cattle, how we deal with animals in educational courses - is an area we should be looking at. Whilst some of the focus will be on Mataranka, the areas the minister just spoke about, such as how the animal ethics committee operates, are extremely important because it will be the central point for seeing how educational bodies use animals in either teaching or scientific research. We use animals, not just for teaching, but also for research in relation to disease or finding out more about the makeup of particular animals. Many of us cut up frogs at school to find out what made them tick. The poor old frog probably was not too rapt, but that is how you found out how a frog worked. I am not saying those type of things will not continue. We have to ensure there are set guidelines so those experiments or research, or that side of teaching, is clearly controlled, and people are checking these educational facilities to ensure they are doing the right job.
We can see how the animal ethics committee operates, what role it had to play in the matters revolving around the animals that starved at Mataranka, and whether there was any relationship between how that operated, the management of the station and, eventually, the poor management of the cattle.
Talking off the top of my head, an advantage of the Council of Territory Cooperation is the ability to bring people on board who are experts in the field. At the moment the CTC has someone who came onto the committee as a member - Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN. If she wishes to be on the committee when we are discussing child protection matters she can give us a bit more expert advice, and also, ask questions. Again, that is one of the differences between the CTC and some of the other committees – we have that ability, if required, to bring on people who might help us dig into some of these matters a little more sharply, because there certainly will be many issues here.
The amendment has two sides to it that we have to ensure we take in context. We can look at what happened, but also, what are we going to do about the positive side. I am very aware the Vice-Chancellor, Barney Glover, is concerned that continual bad publicity will harm the university. That is a fair comment, but that should not stop us looking at the issue, otherwise we would not be doing our job.
If we can get some positives out of what has occurred, if we can set up structures and ensure, through those structures or changes to legislation, this does not happen again, the university will come out better and stronger for it. If we make it part of what is happening, inclusive of the changes and - it has already brought in changes; the department has already brought in changes - we will look at seeing what those changes are. If, from a pretty sad episode we can bring out some positives, then we can say the university has come on board.
We know it has been doing much good work. I say to the public in general, even members of parliament, there is an open day at the university in June or July, so look in the paper for the chance to see what state the station is in. I will certainly be going down - I have an invitation. I would like to compare it with what I saw over a year-and-a-half ago to see what changes have come about since a new manager has been there.
We have to keep a broad mind in relation to this. Obviously, you could turn this into a political bun fight, and there are issues of politics here. I believe the public really want to know why it occurred, why no prosecutions have occurred and, if there are good reasons, let us explain it. One of the worst things is to tell people something cannot happen, but no one gives an explanation for it. Sometimes that can be the fault of the media looking for a headline but not looking for much in the way of guts underneath the headline. We need to clearly explain what has happened, why it has happened, and then move on. That would be what the public wants us to do. Our university is a good university. Yes, it has to struggle because it is a small university, but it is great the Northern Territory has its own university. We should be proud of what it can do.
If this committee can clear the air in relation to what has happened, what is happening and what the future is, that will be a great outcome for the committee. There will be much work in relation to what the committee has to do. From what I understand, the opposition will support the amendment …
Mr Westra van Holthe: No.
Mr WOOD: It will not support the amendment.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I told you we had this discussion before. We will talk about it in a second.
Mr WOOD: Well, if that is it, I cannot do anything about it. However, my negotiations and discussions today with the Leader of the Opposition did not give me that impression at all. However, if that is the way it is, that is the way it is. I am supporting it. If there is some technical or political reason why the opposition will not support it, so be it. I thought this might have been a historical chance where there has been some give and take. The government could have said there is no way ministers will appear before this committee and, in many ways, it has every right to.
From talking to other members of parliament in Perth, ministers do not turn up at committee meetings and the reason is to keep it apolitical. Here we have a change of mind by government to say ministers will be able to attend the Council of Territory Cooperation meetings. The select committee could have been knocked on the head - even I could have said no.
However, by negotiation and some goodwill, we have exactly the same terms of reference; we have a government committee that is willing to take on the issue; a government willing to take some flack over the matter, especially when you ask ministers to attend the meeting. I would be very disappointed if I find, after all that work, the opposition says it will not support the motion; however, I am not the opposition and I am not the government. Both have every right to run their own agenda but, it would be very disappointing after all that work to find the opposition says no to this matter.
I live in hope, as I always do. People might swallow a little pride and work towards getting a solution for the Territory. We will see what happens.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I speak to the amendments proposed by the member for Arnhem. It is disappointing the opposition is not supporting the amendments and putting this whole matter to the CTC. I believe it was a good solution, a good way forward. The CTC is already established. A major concession was made by the minister and government that the minister appears before the CTC. That was always a complaint of the opposition. There are good reasons under normal practice why government, in the terms of reference of the CTC, did not agree with ministers appearing before the CTC. We believe there is adequate scrutiny of ministers through the estimates process, through Question Time, and through a whole range of processes.
As stated by both the members for Nelson and Port Darwin, this is an important matter for our cattle industry. Even though these terrible events occurred at an educational institution, it still reverberates through the cattle industry.
It is my understanding there is a proposed Four Corners program looking at cattle exports from the Northern Territory into Indonesia. I do not know what sort of frame they are putting that in; what sort of light they are going to paint. Even though it is a completely separate issue, I would say they will pull this whole issue of Mataranka Station into this program. That is bad for our cattle industry.
I am not saying money comes over the suffering of animals. I was also distressed when I heard about cattle starved at Mataranka Station. I know Charles Darwin University, particularly, Vice-Chancellor Barney Glover, feels a great deal of remorse about this and really has worked hard, as the member for Nelson said, to rectify the situation, get the systems in place and try to address this issue.
This committee was another step forward. As the member for Nelson said, let us see what went wrong with the system, let us see in an open and transparent way what the responsibilities were, and let us see how much has been fixed and how much more needs to be fixed.
It is very brave of the minister, in such a controversial and emotive subject, to step forward and say: ‘I am prepared, in a spirit of cooperation, to appear before the CTC, give evidence, and have that discussion with the CTC’. I believe it is obstinate of the opposition to maintain a position against this going to the CTC. There is more than a little politics at play here because, as we all in this Chamber know, the opposition withdrew from the CTC. It put its reasons forward; it believed it was not fruitful and did not want to be engaged in it. That was disappointing and counterproductive because the CTC has achieved a great deal.
Whilst I was not appearing before the CTC, I was more then happy to go to the Tiwi Islands with the Council of Territory Cooperation, and other places it wants to go with SIHIP, and hear what people, and the Council of Territory Cooperation, have to say.
It is a constructive forum and the public service is very attentive, when staff appear before the Council of Territory Cooperation, to ensure they give evidence in a frank and honest way and they take on board the issues the Council of Territory Cooperation raises. As a minister I am not appearing before the Council of Territory Cooperation; however, I advised parliament recently I received a letter from the Council of Territory Cooperation about a whole range of issues related to SIHIP. By gum, I replied to the Council of Territory Cooperation and tried to give the best and most truthful answer I could. As a follow-on from that, I went to the Tiwi Islands to see whether problems were ongoing, and whether issues raised by the Council of Territory Cooperation had been adequately addressed.
I implore the opposition; this important issue goes beyond party politics. It goes to our institution, Charles Darwin University; it goes to our live cattle exports. When I was Primary Industry minister, there was a push in southern states to cut live animal exports altogether. This is all based on what happens out of some of the southern ports with live sheep exports. In the Northern Territory - and I am sure both sides of this Chamber agree - the mortality rate of our live cattle industry is very low. Very few cattle die on the short two- to three-day journey from Darwin to southern Sumatra and Lampung.
As minister, I visited Lampung and saw the facilities for those animals. To be honest with you, member for Port Darwin, what I saw in those animals in Lampung was transformational. The animals are bred in the Northern Territory, but when they go to Indonesia they flourish on the rich feed and attention they are given. It suits Indonesia to have the cattle initially bred and raised in the Northern Territory, and the final stages are for them to feed those animals and have them slaughtered for the local markets in Indonesia. It is also a very important part of their economy, so it is an important relationship. I am sure the minister for Primary Industries could tell you the value of that market. My recollection is well over 200 000 beasts a year are exported from the Northern Territory into Asia, Indonesia in particular. We are looking to open up further markets in Vietnam - an important step forward for us also.
I implore the opposition to consider its position in this instance. Everyone has moved on this issue. I have risen to ask the opposition to reconsider its position and agree to this very sensible amendment put forward by the member for Arnhem, to really engage with the Council of Territory Cooperation, to become part of the Council of Territory Cooperation for this particular inquiry - not the ongoing CTC - and really achieve what we all want: better outcomes in animal welfare, protecting our live cattle export, and ensuring the public knows everything is okay there and with Charles Darwin University.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak to the amendment to the motion which only reached my desk at the end of the minister’s contribution. If this minister was really genuine about the decision to approach this matter with a bipartisan attitude, she would have spoken to me about this amendment beforehand.
I spoke to the member for Nelson prior to this and made it clear to him I did not like the idea of changing this motion and having the matter referred to the CTC. I will get back to that reason shortly.
Having made that observation, I can give the government this much comfort: whilst I do not want this to be referred to the CTC - because the CTC has proven itself to be an utterly toothless tiger and a vehicle to do nothing other than keep this Chief Minister in his job and away from his own parliamentary colleagues - it is a better vehicle than nothing. I can signal at this stage I will not be supporting this amendment. If this amendment passes and the amended motion is put to this House, so be it. We will join the CTC for the purposes of this investigation. However, the CTC has become an oubliette into which information flows and is never seen again. We get to see reports in this House from time to time where the government says to most of the answers: ‘No, we are not doing it’, or ‘Noted’. It really puts the ‘no’ into noted, I have to say. That is what happens. That is the full extent of what happens when something goes to the CTC.
Small wonder this government is prepared and determined to have the matter flicked off to the CTC because it is an empty place on which much money is spent and not many results are generated ...
Mr Wood: You would not know; you are not on it.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that interjection. The reason I am not on it is because it is a waste of taxpayers’ money for the outcomes it receives, which is what I am worried about. You must remember this member’s idea of a Council of Territory Cooperation is something he had no idea would look like when he suggested the idea and signed up for this bit of paper. They pulled another shifty on him. We are going to get a minister before the Council of Territory Cooperation. Why do we not get three? Why do we not get the Minister for Central Australia and the member for Daly, who was the former minister with carriage of these areas, giving evidence before this committee as well? Are they interested in doing so? Are they going to commit to doing so? They have all had an involvement, at one point or another, in this process.
I can well imagine why government wants to do this. However, it ill behoves them to say: ‘We will support any measure’ - and the minister said any measure - ‘to investigate these matters’. Here is a measure: the motion as it currently stands. That is not any measure the government is prepared to support so, once again, it is about platitudes and avoiding responsibility.
I do not accept these amendments; they are not good. In fact, ultimately, the CTC will, I am afraid, become a black hole into which evidence falls and not much appears …
A member: I hope you join it when it is a black hole.
Mr ELFERINK: That is part of the problem with this government. There was a very good reason why I suggested - and even the member for Nelson acknowledged this in conversation - there should be an opposition member in charge. At least the public would have some confidence with the chairmanship of the committee that there is real scrutiny. The member for Nelson acknowledged that was not necessarily a bad idea; it happens in other jurisdictions. However, he has suddenly realised the flagging legitimacy of his committee can be bolstered by looking into this issue. The member for Nelson, who wants to rise above politics, has his own political motive for pursuing this matter being referred to the CTC.
There is no greater power in the CTC than was described in the original motion as asserted by the minister. This is just another attempt to avoid scrutiny by this government …
Mr Wood: You are making it up.
Mr ELFERINK: … and trying to give the appearance of availing itself of scrutiny.
Mr Wood: For a lawyer, you are just making it up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson is clearly out of control.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: He is clearly out of control and I ask that he restrain himself.
The member for Nelson, whether he likes it or not, is motivated by politics. He has something to prove with his CTC and has not been able to prove it. Now, he seeks to make this particular issue a vehicle by which he can breathe life back into a dying organisation.
Madam Speaker, the …
Mr Knight:Why are you joining it then?
Mr ELFERINK: I have to because you guys are mucking about with this particular issue. You are not prepared to have a select committee. We are joining it reluctantly because we have to; because you blokes are too interested in playing politics with this issue. The people of the Northern Territory certainly want a much better performance than we are seeing out of this government at the moment. You sought to avoid embarrassment in the first place. You have your hands all over this. I want the member for Daly to stand in this House and say he will give evidence as far as his involvement was concerned. Will the member for Daly do so?
Mr Knight: You are infatuated with me, John.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Will the member for Daly do so? No, Madam Speaker, he will not.
He may feel I am infatuated with him, but I think he is simply the worst minister this government has - the worst minister. The $200m minister, because that is the value of the mistakes he has inflicted on the people of the Northern Territory. That is why I am concerned about the quality of this minister’s performance, and his failure to ensure things were being properly looked after when he was initially advised of this demonstrates his lack of capacity. Will we hear from him in the CTC? No, we will hear from the minister who has received the handball pass. Flog it off to the member for Arnhem; she will have to sort it out; she can give evidence in front of the committee.
The people of the Northern Territory do not want this issue farmed out to a committee with an agenda for a bunch of other issues on it. They want a single committee whose sole purpose to exist is to investigate this one issue alone. That is what the people of the Northern Territory expect. The fact is this government wants to flick it off to a committee which exists only because of an arrangement it has with the member for Nelson, and the member for Nelson has known it for some time …
Mr Wood: I have heard it once, I have heard it twice; it will never stop.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I know the member for Nelson finds my comments objectionable …
Mr Wood: No, I do not.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, everyone else …
Ms Scrymgour: You just do not - twist and turn.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I know the member for Nelson finds my comments objectionable …
Mr Wood: No, boring.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson finds my comments objectionable because this is an area he is truly sensitive about - he needs this to work. He has come out of the last crisis this government found itself in - nearly back at an election or nearly tossed out as a decision from the member for Nelson.
He made an arrangement, the only thing he has been truly responsible for, and it has not really produced sufficient outcomes. It has not. What is the wonderful change we have seen as a result of the CTC? A few ‘noted’, many ‘noes’ and ‘we disagrees’ from government. That is not what the member for Nelson promised.
Referring this matter to the CTC is to cast it aside as far as the government is concerned, and it is a disappointment the people of the Northern Territory will not have a select committee whose sole reason for existence is to look into this important issue. It is going to become an agenda item on another committee, and that is a disappointment.
Madam Speaker, the opposition will not support this amendment. However, if the amended motion passes, then we will have to take second best.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have an amendment before the Chair as moved by the Minister for Local Government, which I will now put. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, do you wish to make a concluding speech before I put the question?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): No, Madam Speaker, we will comply with the guarantee given.
I am disappointed in this House for not establishing a specific committee for these purposes. However, the people of the Territory will simply have to, now the government has involved itself in the way is has, accept second best. Shame on this government for not allowing a select committee to advance this issue.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, before I start I would like to put forward an amendment to the motion. I have made a few slight changes. Can I move that amendment now? Is that how you would like me to proceed?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr GILES: It will be distributed. I seek leave to move that amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: You just move the amendment because it is your motion.
Mr GILES: I move –
1. That this parliament establish a permanent committee titled the Innovation, Development and Trade Committee to investigate trade and industrial development opportunities for the Territory future.
2. The Innovation, Development and Trade Committee is to:
(a) be made up of six members, three government, two opposition and one independent, with the Chairperson being appointed from the Committee;
(b) meet six times a year and will have made available briefings from the department of Business and from major projects;
(c) engage with business, governments and individuals to investigate economic investment opportunities for the Territory;
(d) be provided a budget as negotiated with Territory government; and
(e) report to parliament twice a year on activities, expenditure and results and make recommendations to parliament providing direction on business opportunities.
Madam Speaker, the motion is pretty much the same as before; I have just taken out a couple of sentences and a paragraph for grammatical purposes.
During that privately-funded visit - we went for three days of intensive work around how to progress opportunity; how to identify an opportunity and bring it forward to fruition - we visited many sites, including petrochemical plants, looked at some biomedical research work, some solar research work and saw how some greenfield sites had been developed into vibrant economies, creating many jobs and servicing many countries from that small country, Singapore.
Part of our deliberations were how to advance the logic behind the development in Singapore by identifying how they have moved forward and how we can relate that into the Northern Territory; take some of that learning and move forward.
Many people know I am a strong advocate of economic development and, in this position, not just in the bush, but more broadly. It is very important the Northern Territory, in particular Darwin, establishes itself into the future as being Australia’s capital of Southeast Asia. We need to establish ourselves as the capital of Southeast Asia by building relationships and partnerships with our Asian neighbours. The Northern Territory government does a little work in that area; however, we have to identify opportunities for economic advancement and industry creation, and that involves innovative ways of looking at things and undertaking practices.
I see this committee as being a fluid committee not bound by strong or restrictive terms of reference, but by flexibilities in the sense that members of the committee will have the ability to meet with business and industry leaders, to undertake research and analysis, to identify best practice and seek emerging opportunities on an international and national basis to see how we can bring those to fruition in the Northern Territory.
I am a passionate advocate of increasing the population in the Northern Territory so long as the infrastructure meets that population need so Territorians do not have to put up with any negative side effects of a greater population. The sooner we can accelerate our population the better, and the infrastructure needed to go with it. As we develop a greater captaincy of Australia and Southeast Asia, we need to take on a redefining of our societal structures in the Northern Territory to be more of a migrant jurisdiction, particularly with some of our closer neighbours and trading partners in the region.
What people expect of parliamentarians is a knowledge base. They expect us to be, in certain ways, the be-all and end-all, and would like to put faith in the fact we are setting the right direction for them into the future. We often see ideas from people who are consummate in this Chamber. Often, things are referred to as thought bubbles and, sometimes, they are really good ideas and there is no opportunity to take things forward.
I have spoken before about special taxation zones and how they might work in the Northern Territory. I know the Chief Minister has similar ideas, with good merit, but how can you take them forward, especially on a partisan approach? I see this committee as having an opportunity to bring those ideas together, researching them and lobbying from a committee perspective, which allows you to lose some of the political baggage from your party.
We often speak in this Chamber - the member the Nelson is an advocate - of uranium mining and nuclear power. The Araluen by-election did significant damage to our sovereign risk. We are not as well looked upon as we once were, and we need to restore some confidence in that debate. The opportunity for a committee to take a bipartisan approach to industry development, trade, and innovation would go some way to rebuilding that confidence regarding sovereign risk.
We are over our silliness on this side of the Chamber and now have our uranium position quite clear - a fantastic thing. However, when we look at the whole uranium mining debate in the Northern Territory, people are still very scared to speak about it. People may be scared, but we need to look further and start talking about the relationship the Northern Territory needs to have with India into the future. What are the impacts of international agreements? How can we lower some of the restraints of those agreements to start selling uranium to India? What pressure do we have to put on the foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, to say we want open up negotiations? How can we jointly apply pressure?
Currently, it is one government and an opposition. The opportunity for this trade committee to look into international treaties and restraints which stop the sale of uranium to India is something we could really get our teeth into - have a good understanding and educate the backbenchers on the government side, some people on our side, and Independents, to ensure we fully understand these issues rather than what we know in a piecemeal fashion, and debate them out further.
Nuclear power is the same. There are many new technological advances and devices that can provide nuclear power in small capacity. There would be too many people in this Chamber afraid to talk about it, but there would be an opportunity to research it, find out what it is all about, leave some of that political baggage behind - or not - and drive forward some reforms. I am not saying this committee is about uranium and nuclear power; however, they are two issues that can thoroughly be investigated through such a committee.
The carbon tax is another concept. The federal government is moving into the area of a carbon tax. People on either side of the Chamber support or do not support the carbon tax; however, it is important we know what the carbon tax really means to the Territory, and what it is going to mean into the future. Will it be beneficial to remote or urban locations, or is it just going to be the high inflationary tax we think, with a devastating effect on the cost of living no matter where we go?
In preparing for this motion, I looked around Australia and the world for examples of similar committees. When I was in England two years ago as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association tour, we spent a fair amount of time in the English parliament and I learnt of committees there. One committee had politicians and business people on the same committee looking at opportunities. They had greater partnerships together and learnt from one another.
I will quickly run through some economic parliamentary committees courtesy of research by the Northern Territory Library: in New South Wales, the Legislative Council Standing Committee on State Development; in Queensland, the Economic Development Committee; in Victoria, the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee; in Western Australia, the Economics and Industry Committee; Tasmania, the House of Assembly Select Committee on Scottsdale Sawmills was a particular select committee; South Australia has the Budget and Finance Committee, the Economic and Finance Committee and the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. The House of Representatives has a Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and a Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts; one on Economics; one on Education and Employment; one on Infrastructure and Communications; and one on Regional Australia. The Senate also has a Standing Committee on Economics; one on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; one on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; one on Rural Affairs and Transport; and joint committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and one on Treaties.
The Canadian Senate has one on Foreign Affairs and International Trade; and Banking, Trade and Commerce. The House of Commons in Canada has a Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; a Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; and one on International Trade. New Zealand has select committees. The House of Lords has a Science and Technology Committee. Scotland has an Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. The European Union has a number of committees, including International Trade, and one on Economic and Monetary Affairs. South Africa has a committee on Trade and International Relations.
This is not a new thing. The Northern Territory is attempting to mature by seeking statehood and moving forward in a number of areas. As part of that maturity, we need to improve our parliamentary process and the way we look at things, the way we try to develop our economy, and the way we try to develop business. The proposal for such a committee would give us the allowance and flexibility to investigate some opportunities.
I refer to Singapore and how, at Jurong, the Singapore government moved to reclaim land and built all the islands up together so it was one hardstand area. They are building petrochemical plants, with the upstream and downstream opportunities that come with it. How can we embed those things into the Northern Territory? There is a real opportunity. We can look at the opportunities that present to us now and things we have lost; for example, Arafura Resources, a $780m project lost to Whyalla, South Australia. That is a significant disappointment - significant jobs have been lost.
Regarding upstream and downstream, what opportunities can we see with Dow Chemicals and Majellan? These are probably more from a government point of view. From an early point, a committee such as this would have the opportunity to investigate and put forward ideas, concepts and plans about how we can bring that industry and those opportunities, in an embryonic stage, to the Northern Territory.
One opportunity present right now which probably is not widely known is plenty of oil in Central Australia. Some has been found and unused, and plenty more exploration is commencing. If oil and gas is found in some of those exploration areas, there is an opportunity for us to add value to the product identified or found, if and when it is mined. We should be moving to a state where we can investigate what some of those possibilities are into the future. Should we be building a petrochemical plant in Alice Springs or Central Australia? That is an opportunity we should be taking.
In trying to advance economic development we need to understand what it is. I understand economic development as something that holds - it is about four pillars: economic, social, cultural and environmental. It is about understanding those four things and massaging them as we try to build the economy across the Northern Territory, with this committee in mind, and taking on board the notion of making Darwin Australia’s capital of Southeast Asia. We have to keep those four things in mind when we build better relations overseas. How can we build better relations with Southeast Asia? The member for Casuarina has been spending time overseas trying to develop trade links. There is a fair amount of live cattle export, and he also is involved in his Resources portfolio.
We have to do much more of that. He has to do much more of that from a ministerial perspective; however, we, as a parliament, have to do much more to build those relations. It is important to understand those countries and find opportunities. One opportunity now is the study of Asian languages in school; the opportunity for cultural exchange programs where classes visit some of these countries. We are building economic ties; however, much more needs to be done and this is where we could do it.
I have looked at the profiles of many of our neighbours in Southeast Asia - population, land mass, GDP and some of the import/export specialities. What I call our closest neighbour, Indonesia, has 240-odd million people sitting on nearly 2 million square kilometres. It is roughly the same size as the Northern Territory, although it is made up of a number of islands. In 2006, it had a GDP per capita of $US1636. In 2011, it is estimated to have a GDP per capita of $US3270. In a six-year period, it has doubled its GDP per capita. Although it is starting from a low base, that is a significant increase in an economy that is starting to move along.
I have had a quick look at some of the major Australian exports to Indonesia - I am using DFAT figures from a DFAT website. In 2009-10: wheat, $726m; live animals, $442m excluding seafood; aluminium, $269m; and crude petroleum, $179m. The major Australian imports from Indonesia totalled $2294m: gold, $326m; monitors, projectors and televisions, $144m; and $140m for wood, simply worked It is interesting when looking at Indonesia’s principle export destinations that Australia comes in at No 8, on 2.8%. We are also No 8 as an importer, at 3.5%.
Singapore is another good country to look at with a GDP per capita for approximately 5 million population of $US31 600 in 2006. It is now forecasting $US44 960 for 2011, roughly speaking. We are No 8 in Singapore’s principle export destinations but No 17 in imports, at 1.6%. Singapore is in the petroleum area, generally.
Malaysia has Australia sitting at No 8 as an export destination and No 11 as a principle import destination of 2.2%. Australia’s major exports to Malaysia focus around crude petroleum, and it also imports crude petroleum at $2939m.
I could go through all these countries; however, it tends to show most of the trading partners in Southeast Asia have places like China, Japan and Singapore as their major trading partners. Some, such as Cambodia and Laos, have the United States and Thailand.
If we look at the Philippines - we now have direct flights to Manila - Australia ranks at No 17 in its principal export destination, with the United States, Japan and the Netherlands coming in first, second and third. The Philippines’ principle import sources ranks Australia at No 15 with Japan, United States and China coming in at first, second and third.
It is very interesting to look at some of those figures. When you look at how the Northern Territory information reads with our population of about 230 000 people, the Northern Territory’s trade in 2009-10 had goods exports of $4980m and services exports of $901m, and imports of $3051m and services of $471m. In relation to the percentage share of Australian trade, the exports were at 2.5% in goods and 1.7% in services; and imports 1.5% of goods and 0.9% in services.
Our major exports in 2009-10 were natural gas, manganese ores and concentrates and live animals, excluding seafood. Our major imports were natural gas, refined petroleum and non-electric engines and motors. Our principal export destinations are Japan at 39%; China at 24%; United States at 9%; and Indonesia at $339m, with a 6.8% share. Of that $339m, the majority is live animals. Our nearest trading partner, with 240 million people approximately - we are exporting $339m. That is not a significant contribution the Territory is making in export value. Our principal import sources come from Singapore, Kuwait, Japan, United States and Thailand.
I hope that brief explanation of some of the economic factors of several Asian neighbours and the Northern Territory shows how there are severe economies on our doorstep. We are not fully utilising access to those economies from an Australian perspective, particularly a Territory perspective. The raw figures of 240-odd million people in Indonesia, right next door, and we only export in the 2009-10 financial year $339m worth of goods is a real concern. That information comes from DFAT and ABS.
As we move forward debating this committee we need to reflect on what we can do. Some of the things we can consider in this committee - and I have said it is a fluid committee; it is flexible - it is important we bed down the exact terms of reference – we can look at what industry opportunities there are. For example, what do we see the future of Central Australia being? At the moment, Central Australia is a welfare state. We have to come up with an industry to move that forward. That could be petrochemical; it could be a transport hub. We could look at building the outback highway, becoming a transport hub and linking us properly. In economic development, what role can sister cities play in harnessing the four pillars, in a cultural sense, and bridging some gaps between Alice Springs and Jakarta for example, or Tennant Creek and somewhere in China that appreciates phosphate because of the new phosphate mine at Wonarah? Some real economic dimensions could be explored here.
As a part of my research I read about the organisation called ANDEV, Australians for Northern Development, which came about as a result of Kevin Rudd’s proposed mining resources rent tax before he was evicted. It has taken on a broader lobbying role and is looking at what it can do to lobby the federal government for better opportunities for economic development in the northern parts of Australia. One of the things it is very interested in is strategic economic zones. This is used in other parts of the world, particularly China, and is something I have been advocating for, for a number of years; something I first stumbled on in the Murdi Paaki region of west New South Wales probably 15 or more years ago. Sam Jeffries - if anyone knows Sam - was very active in pushing for an economic zone out there. They are now more commonly referred to as strategic economic zones. It is very important and could help the current government achieve some of its broader economic goals, and is something the Northern Territory can more generally achieve into the future.
I have spoken a little about what this investigation can do. I am really keen to hear what the Minister for Business and Employment will say, and what the member for Nelson will say in relation to this. I do not want to keep talking, I prefer to sit down. I reiterate that this body can look into the future, build networks and create relationships with people, and bring that information back to parliament and recommend a way forward in areas we may not have considered before, such as enhancing marine supply bases or Defence zones in the Northern Territory, or possible expansion of Pine Gap.
As part of the future of the Northern Territory we need to increase our migration. We need to incorporate more Southeast Asian migrants into the Northern Territory on a permanent basis, and on a temporary basis with 457 Visas, to increase the ability of our small and large businesses to get the job done. It is very important. I will take a seat and hear from the Minister for Business and Employment. We will see what he has to say.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on behalf of the government in relation to this motion. I will recap the motion: it proposes to establish a permanent standing committee of the parliament consisting of six members - three government, two opposition, one Independent; meet six times per year, receive briefings from government departments on major projects and, basically, do all activities required to complete its work.
From the outset, the government’s position is not to support the motion for this standing committee, and I will list the reasons.
First, I comment how refreshing it is to hear the other side talking about development. Everyone would realise this side of the House is probably the most proactive, pro-business, pro-development government ever in the Northern Territory. Under the leadership of the Chief Minister, who was formerly the Business minister and the minister for Asian Relations, it has a strong position on economic development - a position of boosting the economic potential of the Northern Territory and building its capacity.
I come from the right side of the Labor Party. We are in unison with the views of the Chief Minister. Under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, the Country Liberals - Terry sits very closely to a colleague of ours, Jamie Robertson - he almost sits that far left of us. He certainly sits on the left of the Labor Party on many things. It is so refreshing to hear someone …
Dr Burns: Why not put him in the same camp as Curly?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, Terry Mills would probably be snuggled in between Curly Nixon and Jamie Robertson in relation to philosophical points of view on the economy and economic development. It is refreshing to hear the old-style conservative viewpoint about boosting the economy and chasing economic development and trade opportunities.
The reason I support economic development is because it raises the standard of living for everyone - not just people who are able to get those jobs. Money from that increased economic development flows into government coffers and the government is able to spend more money on social programs and those more vulnerable and needy in our society. It affects everyone. It lifts the standard of living, the lifestyle and the quality of life of everyone in our community.
That is why this last 10 years of the Labor government - under the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin and through the current leadership of Paul Henderson - has seen the economic performance of the Northern Territory significantly grow. We are on the cusp of even greater economic development, increased potential and capability of Territory businesses, and putting the Northern Territory and Darwin on the map within Asia and as a gateway to Asia.
The reason the government would not support this committee is much work is going on in this area. Within my own department, we have responsibilities around the Northern Territory Research and Innovation Board. This is made up of business people, professionals who really look at research and innovation proposals and projects, and steer and guide the position of the Northern Territory with respect to research and innovation. The government provided $1.12m over three years for research and innovation, and Proof-of-Concept and scholarship grants as well. Through the recipients of those grants, the board has been able to leverage some $12m in grants and funding into the Northern Territory, so it is certainly a worthwhile project.
We also have the Research and Innovation Awards which are held annually. I have been to those since becoming minister, and it is inspiring to see all those projects coming online and the ideas Territorians are putting together.
There is a great deal of strategy around investment and trade, which includes the China Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy and the minister for Resources. The Department of Resources is actively involved in attracting investment from China into our resources sector and it has certainly borne fruit.
Recently, the minister launched the Japan Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy. Japanese interests have been concentrated on the gas industry. I will talk about INPEX later, but Japan is also interested in rare earths and other minerals, and that strategy certainly will help.
Around the Defence industry, we have the Defence Support Industry Development Strategy. We also have the manufacturing strategy. We have given the Manufacturers Council, which is a subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce, some money to actively work on their own strategy and that is coming forward.
The minister for Resources has the Agribusiness Strategy, and the Minister for Local Government and Tourism has the Aviation Futures Strategy, the Tourism Strategic Plan and the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy as well.
All these strategies have had involvement and cooperation between government, industry and non-government organisations in their development. One of the key references I have as the Minister for Trade and Asian Relations is the Growing International Trade strategy which was released in 2009 by a very young member for Johnston. This took quite a considerable amount of time to come together. It was done, not ostensibly by the government, but by industry. There is a great deal of ownership within this document. It runs through the details of our economy and where our strategy is going forward in the different sectors, and also looks at our key markets of China, Indonesia and Japan. We are also looking at the emerging markets of the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia for opportunities.
Only recently, we had a governor from the Philippines visit. I met the Governor of Negros Occidental in the Philippines on the inaugural Jetstar flight. He was very interested in cattle, and followed that up with a trip to the Northern Territory. He met with the Cattlemen’s Association, and I have met with him again and we are putting things in train. Those markets can be a little fickle; however, we are providing resources from the Department of Resources and my department to make all that happen for him.
The member for Braitling touched on sovereign risk. I concur with the member for Braitling with respect to this. Working with the Manufacturers Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the International Business Council, there is a very consistent theme about bipartisanship in the area of investment and trade. We have to be very cautious in the politics of trade and investment. We had some recent incidents of involvement so there is a very strong push from key leaders within those areas to achieve bipartisanship. However, we are a very small place. We have access to these groups on a regular basis. We have strategies, done in collaboration with industry and wider groups, as far as their development goes. That has borne fruit.
Not only is my department involved in trade and investment attraction. There is interest from time to time in major projects with the Department of the Chief Minister. Those bigger, more significant projects are elevated in status to the Department of the Chief Minister where they can bring together all agencies, not just the department of Business, to open doors.
It may be the department of Lands looking at industrial land or whatever it might be, or getting the Land Development Corporation, and other departments, under the tent to make the process of those projects as seamless as possible and attractive enough. It has been the case where businesses have said we are very small; we are a very small population, a small parliament; a small government in some ways. They see that as an advantage. It is very nimble. Try turning some of the bigger jurisdictions around these projects. They do not move as fast; they do not move as nimbly as we can to make things happen.
The Chief Minister’s Department - creating an oil and gas task force - has been looking at the marine supply base as a major project. This came from the Chief Minister recognising there was potential for other marine supply bases and the need for INPEX to have some launching facilities for their rock offloading. Those projects are coming. We are at the stage of short listing three international consortiums and have not required a parliamentary committee to do that.
Last year I launched the InvestNT - a portal for investors. When we go to Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, or even when we were in Shanghai for the World Expo, we were talking to various Chambers of Commerce about visiting the Northern Territory and doing some business. Their initial investigations can now be done through the portal of InvestNT, and can be done in Mandarin or some other languages. They can see what is happening economically in the Northern Territory; what the trade routes are like, what the transport systems are like. They can make a decision and when they express an interest my department, and the department of Asian Relations, is able to engage with these people and test their interest in projects we have.
Although we will not be supporting this permanent committee of the parliament, it is something industry has been calling for - a bipartisan approach to these projects. Government has those key areas covered around our task forces and strategies, and it is something I will continue to pursue.
I congratulate the member for Braitling for his interest. It seems he is alone over there in this real drive into raising the economic potential of the Northern Territory. He has reeled off a series of numbers, and certainly our trade has ebbed and flowed with certain countries. Some of those things are beyond our control, but it is something we need to keep beavering away at. We need to boost our live cattle potential in the Philippines market. The Australian dollar is not helping at the moment and has caused problems in the past. Some of the quarantine issues have also been a problem. He highlighted other jurisdictions with similar committees and that is something to look at. However, we will not be supporting the motion today. I commend the member for bringing the motion to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot allow my comments to commence without reference to what I was trying to gather from the member’s comments. I am certainly not going to be drawn on his read of the politics of the Opposition Leader. He has been reading comic books, poor fellow, and would not understand the matters he is describing or trying to discern anyway by way of some kind of sledge.
What I picked up listening to the argument from the minister is it appears he supports the motion but is unable to garner the support of his colleagues, which is an indication perhaps of sentiment and wishful thinking, but the inability to convince and persuade. A minister who is to be taken seriously in his leadership ambitions needs to strengthen these attributes - if I may provide you with some advice, minister.
You used, as a central plank to your argument, trade matters and the like needed to be regarded and approached in a bipartisan manner. Therefore, that argument accepted and understood has strength and merit. It has always been generally understood, in my time in this parliament, that is the way to proceed with international matters, particularly around trade and the strategic advantage we have in the Top End and the Territory generally.
Although that is the argument and a strong point, you cannot bring yourself to support this. You say it is because we are already doing these things. You have a pretty weak position which betrays the fact that although you say something, you are not able to carry that argument through.
Why would this motion come forward if all the things you just said, minister, were the case; that you are doing a grand job and are probably the most pro-development government in the history of the Northern Territory? You need to show some evidence of that rather than further empty words.
A motion like this comes forward from a very good argument put by the member for Braitling: to strengthen the capacity of members of the parliament to engage in important matters. There is a whole network of people across the Territory with experience in the region. I have had a long interest in the region, have studied and worked in the region, and am able to speak to people all over who understand and are trained in these matters. There is a sense of disappointment in the social capital already established and the infrastructure in relationships built within the region that have fallen into decay under this Labor government.
We only have to look at the formation of the first ministry under a Country Liberals’ government and the Asian Relations and Trades minister. That led the way to this nation recognising our strategic positioning, and leading the nation in recognising we are part of Asia. That showed itself in all manner from our exchanges - sporting, through our education curriculum, and all manner of engagement across our region. It bore fruit. Out of that came the Trade Development Zone. We had a leading and unique position in BIMP-EAGA – the Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East Asian Growth Area. We had a special place on that, earned as special respect for the way in which previous Country Liberal administrations had represented and pushed the interest of this region into our immediate region. I hear from the BIMP-EAGA network that has dropped off. The things the minister is asserting and alleging by way of platitudes do not bear the test of evidence.
There is significant disappointment that the work already put in to establish the interest has not been maintained. Regarding Asian relations, first, in the relationship which leads to trade, we need to build our capacity to understand how we engage and relate to our neighbours and understand them. Talking about bipartisanship, if you genuinely believed in that you would have mounted a stronger argument than the one you did, and you would also have backed up your claim of not needing such a committee because of the great efforts you are doing.
The Chief Minister thought of having a marine supply base - so there you go, what a great man is he. That is an obvious thing which has been talked about for a very long time. We will see whether it happens or not.
Further evidence: Korea is an interesting country with a similar profile to Australia. The Territory could form a strategic connection to Korea. The Prime Minister’s recent visit was commented on as being a very successful trip. Having met the Koreans, that is a country we should spend a bit more time with. Many students from Korea come here. I would like to hear government respond to this at some stage.
There is a very extraordinary link between a Territory business and Korea through Norman and Cindy Millington, who have developed a modular housing concept which has been taken up by the Koreans and spread across Europe and Asia. It started in Darwin. They are bringing the product back to Darwin to meet need within Australia. However, it is an idea that started here, with a special connection that has been extended from Korea right across the region. Those sorts of people need to be brought into these committees to ensure the endeavour of private citizens is properly strategised and supported, and maximum benefit gained.
The minister, in response to this motion, also said we need to be nimble and we have that advantage. Nimbleness will come with knowledge and increased understanding, and the capacity to make decisions that are effective. Therefore, a committee such as this would provide that capacity to build knowledge and understanding, and be able to make more strategic decisions. It was a surprise, listening to the speech of the minister, when he indicated, on one hand, support and, then, fell into line with his colleagues. That is disappointing. You need to be consistent in your argument, hold a firm view, run it all the way through and, if you genuinely believe you have done a fantastic job, let us see some evidence. Let us see whether you can make some value out of what the Millingtons are doing with the connection into Korea. What sort of benefits could that run into SIHIP? What sort of benefits could that run into spin-offs into our own local economy? They are doing it tough, but they are applauded in Korea.
The opportunities we have for BIMP-EAGA and our engagement there, if we created this committee it could enhance that engagement and bring value to it. Tell us more about your plans with BIMP-EAGA. Tell us about our representation within the region – Surabaya and Jakarta. Tell us how you are going to increase the uptake of knowledge within our education profession regarding cross-cultural training and language tuition so we have the capacity to understand and engage from young people to old people and ensure we have the capacity to build on the opportunities. Tell us more about your strategic plan because, if you are not going to be part of something such as this, which builds in capacity within the members of parliament in a genuinely bipartisan way, you have to provide much evidence to substantiate the arguments you ran to explain your opposition to such a motion.
Madam Speaker, I believe this motion deserves support. It is put forward in good faith and only because of the absence of any coherent vision and plan from this Labor government. I suspect, if there has been much movement in the place, if what the minister had to say was true - all these great things are happening, this is the best thing and the best government ever in the history of the Northern Territory - there would be no need for such a motion. Obviously, that is a fallacy; therefore, a motion like this is required and should be supported.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by the member for Braitling is a good motion. I am not willing to support or knock it on the head at the moment. There needs to be more detail on how this committee would get up and running. I prefer, if it was possible - and at this stage it is difficult to do - to look at the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to see if it has run its term and ask whether the government would look at giving it new terms of reference, and this would be a good terms of reference.
I do not know if the existing Environment committee has finished the job it has been given by this parliament, so the other option is to write to the Council of Territory Cooperation to see if there could be a subcommittee of the CTC. That would get this off the ground for the time being. Knowing the Environment committee has pretty well run its course, there is an opportunity there. I am happy to write to the Chair of that committee, and minister Knight, who, from what he said, seemed to indicate that the government is doing something about it and he supports it. Perhaps at the present time he cannot get full government support. I ask the minister to put to the government that this motion goes through the existing Environment committee. It is something that has not been discussed very often in this parliament. We need to put more emphasis on business.
The member for Blain mentioned the connection with one of our companies, and building in Korea. This is much smaller than what he was talking about, but is innovative thinking. A lady in Howard Springs has produced a Benat Cap, which I have a photo of here. This cap can be used in soccer. You might say, so what? This cap has a neoprene front to it. One of the problems wearing a cap in soccer is you can injure the person when going for the ball, or you can injure yourself. This lady has invented a cap with a neoprene front which has been approved by the Football Federation Australia for use in football games, as far as I know, throughout Australia. It is very important for the Northern Territory, where you want young people to cover up from the sun. It is a simple invention I believe will go a long way. I have promoted it in my newsletter because it is one example of small business we must encourage in the Northern Territory.
I was on radio this morning saying we can talk about statehood all we like. The Commonwealth government funds the Territory to about 80%. You might support statehood but would it really be statehood or just statehood in name because most of our income does not come from us? We have to develop an economy, business and trade. We need to do all those things. We have to get people off welfare. While we continue on welfare and continue relying on the GST, even if we became a state, I would have trouble regarding it as a real state because we need to stand on our own two feet.
I support the member for Braitling’s motion. I will not be voting on it but I am not opposing it. I am happy to write to the chairman, and I will even write to the Chief Minister. I would be happy to take a letter to the Council of Territory Cooperation to see if that is an alternative; maybe we can work a way around this. It may need a little working through, but this is well worth the government’s consideration. The minister for Business and Employment, whilst he may say one thing, believes another - he believes this would be a good idea. I am hoping he can influence his party to get this off the ground because it is a motion well worth supporting.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion forward. I want to clarify a couple of things the Leader of the Opposition said in relation to this. Of course government would like to support this motion, and we have had discussion within government on this matter. We recognise our Asian relations and trade connection is very important; however, we also recognise this Assembly has 25 members and, on the government’s side, we have a limited number of members. There are already a large number of committees, and another one has come into being today in relation to the important issue of Mataranka Station. It comes down to trying to allocate the resources and members on our side.
Backbenchers on this side spread themselves between a number of committees and also have parliamentary secretary duties, so I agree with the member for Nelson. The government is not opposed to it. We would like to engage in this way but need to find a less formal way of doing so.
It is a good idea to have a bipartisan approach to this; however, I need to highlight a couple of parameters, particularly picking up on what the Leader of the Opposition said. He talked about the absence of a plan on the government’s side. When we came into government, and when the Chief Minister, who was then Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, asked the relevant department where the plan of engagement was, there was not one. There was no written plan regarding Asian relations and trade. There had been much activity the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, particularly BIMP-EAGA and areas like that. There were many memoranda of understanding hanging around the walls, but I do not think, objectively, there had been much benefit to the Northern Territory from that.
We were talking earlier about the cattle industry. The live cattle trade is probably the shining example of an export trade that has flourished over the last 10 to 15 years but, beyond that, I know of many businesses that were part of the Shane Stone push into Asia, the whole BIMP-EAGA edifice, and many of those businesses were literally skinned alive. They had goods on wharves, they had to pay money to certain entities to move their goods or even get their goods back again. It was a nightmare for them.
None of these business people will say this publicly; however, I am sure members of the opposition are aware of what people say about that time – basically, it was great. Shane Stone, give him his credit, had an entre to the President of Indonesia, and this government’s relationship with Indonesia is very close. Clare Martin met with the President of Indonesia also, which shows the importance of that relationship. As a government, we have endeavoured to look to other regions than BIMP-EAGA for our trade. The member for Casuarina has been very active in China, particularly in the minerals area. There has been much interest from Chinese entities in exploring and developing, in a cooperative and collaborative way, the mineral wealth of the Northern Territory, which is a very positive thing. He could point to quite a number of examples of development and there is much interest there.
Clare Martin and her bid to get INPEX was very important - thinking outside the square. She and Mr Tyrrell talked about the issue and said: ‘Why not? Why not have a go? Why not go over there and put our case? Why do we have to let Western Australia take INPEX from underneath our nose?’ They went over and argued a case, gave a presentation, and it excited interest from INPEX and, as a parliament, we are very hopeful of a final investment decision in the last quarter of this year. I was very heartened to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s bipartisan remarks about support for INPEX, particularly during the process of the environmental assessment in Darwin Harbour. INPEX is taking massive strides. It is very important to the Northern Territory.
What I want to express to this Assembly, though, is this government might not necessarily hold the same views as the previous government in our economic and trade engagement with Asia and may be looking to other areas to develop our markets. I may be mistaken, but I believe the member for Blain might speak Bahasa Indonesian. He is a great advocate of Indonesian language in our schools - a fantastic thing. One of the tragedies with Indonesia in recent years is because of the trouble and calamity in Indonesia, many of our students and teachers have not been able to visit because of travel warnings, which has shut a door that was a very exciting part of school life for many Territory kids - go to Indonesia, be immersed in the language and learn about the culture and places on our doorstep. To some degree, unfortunately, we have lost that very important link.
In the current context, there has been much talk in the last few days about the death of Osama Bin Laden. I even heard some apologists on the television tonight, the Geoffrey Robertsons of the world, saying maybe this was an assassination or an execution. I do not really share that view. However, I digress. The terrorists of the world have certainly set a question mark over Indonesia, and I really hope those travel warnings to Indonesia can be lifted when the threat of terrorism abates. Indonesian authorities are doing the best they can to address this issue.
The member for Blain is very attached; he is focused on Indonesia, but that does not mean to say as a government we are not. I visited when I was Tourism minister. It was at the time Garuda had ceased flights to the Northern Territory. It was almost a race between the member for Blain and me to see who could get there first, and who was accompanying who. I had arranged meetings with senior Garuda officials and senior government officials to put the Northern Territory’s case to Garuda. I was a little bemused to hear at the time Terry Mills said: ‘It was really good that minister Chris Burns accompanied me. We went together to show a united face in Jakarta’. I did not travel with the member for Blain to Jakarta. When I heard the member for Blain was also in Jakarta I invited him, and his party, to an official dinner I was hosting. I invited him to speak at that dinner. There were quite a few people from the Indonesia Australia Business Council, and some quite senior people in the Indonesian government. It was good that we showed a united and bipartisan front to the Indonesians.
I want to place on the record, and I have not spoken about it before, that I did not accompany the member for Blain to Jakarta. I was on the same plane as the member for Blain on the way home. It was a Garuda flight from Jakarta to Bali. The member for Blain, obviously, had some very serious business in Bali. We came back to Darwin on the Jetstar flight. I was not able to accompany the member for Blain on his very important business trip to Bali. I place on the record that I did not accompany him to Jakarta. There needs to be real bipartisanship, if that is what we are talking about, not political point scoring about who accompanied who, who did this, who did that. It was a bit of a shock to read that.
There is value if we can find other ways to achieve this idea the member for Braitling has. Obviously, he has had discussions with the member for Daly. We need to cooperate; we are a small parliament. I am aware a number of members on the other side have been travelling overseas and addressing various conferences, and that is good. I am with the member for Braitling when the media criticise us for travelling overseas on legitimate purposes. The member for Sanderson recently addressed a transport conference in Singapore, and I say good on the member for doing that. I am aware the member for Katherine recently attended a conference in Cairns. He submitted his RTD report the other day. I commend members for travelling, for engaging with business and various conferences, because it can only benefit this parliament.
Madam Speaker, on that basis, I really want to support the member for Braitling. Hopefully, I have elucidated the reasons why government cannot support it. Government would like to support it, but it comes down to people and resources. It comes down to physical and dollar resources in the number of committees existing at present. As the member for Nelson said, we need to negotiate a way forward on this. I am not opposed to it outright. As the member for Daly said, he is certainly a great advocate for it but, when you are involved in these discussions as a government, you have to look at resource and priority issues in what you do. Obviously, something like Mataranka is of extreme importance to this government, and I hope the opposition also. Let us use our resources wisely. Let us see if we can have a more informal arrangement, or something other than a committee. Reluctantly, member for Braitling, I am unable to support your motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it must be getting late in the day; I had a bit of a chuckle, and that was good. I thank the members for Daly, Blain, Nelson and Johnston for speaking. Five of us agreed on the same thing, but have all taken different paths on how we go forward. There was some good debate.
I want to say, categorically, putting forward this motion is no negative reflection of anyone working in the area of Asian relations and trade. However, the section worked much better when it was with the Department of Business rather than the Chief Minister’s Department, because it takes more of a political role rather than an outcome-based role, even though they are working for the same type of issues. In no way am I denigrating officers in that area, but trying to bolster what is done there and looking for a greater future. I said at the outset this is fluid, it is flexible. Trying to find a way forward in developing a committee will take some time. I have not established a committee before, as people would understand, and I am also in opposition.
The member for Nelson spoke about the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. We spoke about that before coming into the Chamber. The member for Arafura, if I am correct, has tabled a report of that committee and is in the middle of debate about that report. I anticipate that committee will be finalised soon. The member for Nelson expressed he will be writing to the Chairman of Committees seeking the possibility of an innovation development and trade committee taking over from that committee once it is finished. We can work to develop the terms of reference. I will also write to the Chairman of Committees, and the Chief Minister, as you said, along with the minister for Business. It is a good suggestion and I will take it up.
In the meantime, how to work this through? The member for Nelson talked about flicking it to the CTC. Our side is not on the CTC; however, that would be good. I support that concept. I am unsure, logistically, if anything has to happen or if it is just happens. Perhaps I will write to him as chair and ask him to look at it. I might also talk to my colleagues about whether I, and the member for Fong Lim, can become involved in developing the terms of reference with the CTC with a view to the establishment of that committee post the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. That is a good way of doing business.
I like to get things done, and if we can find a way to make that happen - me, the member for Daly as the minister, perhaps the Resources minister, the member for Fong Lim, and anyone else who wants to talk about this and start driving forward some economic approach in trade and development innovation will be a good way to go.
The member for Johnston said it is important to travel and I thank him for recognising that. I am not aware what the member for Katherine did in Cairns, but this is what it is all about. The same as the member for Sanderson in Singapore - Dave and I have done that. We all travel for different reasons. It is important to take some clean eyes to learn new ideas and bring valuable information back to the Territory for our growth.
In summation, I will write to the chair of the CTC to see if he can start working on this concept. I will see if the member for Fong Lim and I can be involved in that, and I will write to have the committee established once the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee finishes.
Madam Speaker, let us put the motion and see what happens.
Motion negatived.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move to withdraw General Business Notices Nos 3 and 4.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I was to move that the following matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report: the member for Casuarina, Mr Vatskalis, in relation to statements made by him in this House during the February sittings 2011, in which the minister asserted during Question Time that the Ombudsman supported the government’s proposed changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act; and further, that the committee be empowered by this motion to examine relevant witnesses and call for the production of relevant documents.
Madam Speaker, upon reflection and being mindful of some of the comments made in earlier debates in this House, whilst I still believe the minister himself had endeavoured to reflect a conversation disingenuously, it is not sufficient, in hindsight, to sustain a motion to the Privileges Committee. Therefore, I seek to withdraw this motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly –
1. call on the Australian government to exempt the Northern Territory from the proposed carbon emissions taxes for at least 50 years or until such time as global consensus has been reached on a worldwide carbon emissions reduction plan; and
2. through the Speaker, forward the terms of this motion to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
Madam Speaker, this motion is pretty self-explanatory. Anyone in this Chamber who has been following some of the media I have in the last couple of weeks, and following what I said in the Alice Springs sittings, will know it is my view the carbon tax proposed by the Gillard government in Canberra is a great big, new tax on everything. It will tax us; it will cost us for everything we use – the services we buy, products we use and the like.
It will hit Territorians harder than anywhere else in the country. This debate is not about whether we do or do not believe in climate change. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that whether we agree or disagree with that concept, the Northern Territory and Territorians are among the lowest emitters of carbon dioxide anywhere in the world on a relative-to-land-mass basis. According to the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index, Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions relative to land mass are just 51.52 tonnes per square kilometre; that is the whole Australian land mass. The Northern Territory is one-sixth of that land mass and has just over 1% of the Australian population. On Australian terms, we do not contribute very much to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Compare Australia’s emissions to countries like China - it has 681 tonnes per square kilometre; the United States has 632 tonnes per square kilometre; Japan has 3500 tonnes per square kilometre; and the United Kingdom has 2249 tonnes per square kilometre. It becomes apparent the Northern Territory and Territorians are not great contributors to global warming.
I have been on the record with media releases, debates in Alice Springs, and was very fortunate the Northern Territory News saw fit to publish, on 16 April, an article I wrote headlined: ‘Carbon Tax Will Hit Us Hard’. I proposed three reasons why the Northern Territory should be exempt from carbon taxes.
First, the Northern Territory is a fledgling economy. We have not had long to develop. In fact, it is fair to say we are probably 200 years behind the rest of Australia. The rest of Australia has been able to develop and create industries and economies for the last 200 years without the imposition of a carbon tax. There should be a recognition that the Northern Territory be given the same leg up to develop its economy. Based on the way the Australian government has negotiated at various international forums, this falls in line with its views as well because the Australian government attends these international forums and, in order to gain consensus for a global emissions trading system, says places like China, India and other developing countries need to be given a leg up in order to develop their economies.
We are asking for nothing different in this motion. There needs to be recognition that the Northern Territory is a developing economy - we need to develop. If we are ever going to shrug the tag of being a mendicant state - always on the government tit in Canberra - we need to get away from that …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Tollner: Sorry, the government breast.
Ms WALKER: I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: It is a saying. I did not mean to offend, member for Nhulunbuy. If we are ever to get off the government breast we need to be given the same opportunity to develop as other parts of the country have been given over the last 200 years.
The second thing is in a carbon-constrained global economy, the Northern Territory actually holds some of the keys to developing a carbon-constrained economy. I am talking about our natural gas resources and our vast uranium resources. If the rest of the world is to be weaned off coal and other fossil fuel burning activities, gas is certainly a solution.
We hear the Chief Minister talking all the time about our clean, green gas. Whilst it might not be completely clean, it is certainly a much cleaner fuel than other alternatives like oil and coal. Similarly, uranium is probably considered the cleanest fuel to provide base load power into the future. The last thing our uranium miners or our gas industry needs is an impediment that makes their product - our product from the Northern Territory - more expensive on the global market. That does nothing to encourage other countries to use greener methods of generating electricity, and does much to discourage development of those industries in the Northern Territory.
The third reason the Northern Territory will be hit hardest is because we are a small population spread over vast distances. We have huge issues with distance and isolation. We have just over 200 000 people living on a land mass that is one-sixth of the Australian continent. Forty percent of Northern Territory households rely on petrol or diesel for their own power generation - an incredible amount of our people.
We often debate in this House Indigenous issues about closing the gap; about finding economic development opportunities for Indigenous people, predominantly in remote and far-flung areas. The last thing people in those areas need placed on them is a further impost. We can talk about health, education, and all those things and, whilst they are important, a job gives dignity and hope in the future. We need to be developing jobs opportunities in the bush, in regional and remote Northern Territory areas. When those areas rely so heavily on petrol and diesel to get from A to B - all products in these areas are trucked or flown in, power generation is largely diesel, gas or petrol, and to place a carbon tax in those areas is completely detrimental and inhibiting to their future aspirations.
In a nutshell, I am very keen for this debate to proceed so I will not talk for long. I urge this Assembly to take this motion seriously because it will send a powerful message to Canberra that it can do what it likes around the rest of the country, but we need to be given a bit of a leg up. We have not had 200 years to develop our economy like other parts of the country. We hold some of the keys to a carbon-constrained global economy; that is, our gas and uranium resources.
Finally, some of our poorest and downtrodden citizens will be among the hardest hit by far. I urge people in this House to support this motion so we can start lobbying Canberra for those things we deserve.
Quickly before I finish, having spent some time in Canberra I know how it works. Right now there are lobbyists from all over the country from industries, governments, NGOs, and big businesses, all lobbying as hard as they can to ensure they get there fair shake under the new legislation. The Territory needs to send a very strong message to Canberra that this is not on; we are a developing economy and we need a fair go.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, broadly the government shares the sentiment of the Territory not being disadvantaged or it costing Territorians and businesses in our community. However, we will not be supporting putting a position to Canberra around this, mainly because there is still very little detail on the proposed carbon tax. It is a space we are actively analysing and gauging to see where it all goes. Treasury is working to analyse what details are available of the impact on different sectors of our economy. We are very cognisant of the ripple effect through our economy.
However, it is interesting to see the member for Fong Lim is now a climate change believer …
Mr Tollner: No.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, you accepted there was a need to address carbon, so I am interpreting you are now a believer in climate change. That is a good move to make.
The Chief Minister has reiterated our position of there being no adverse effects to our economy, our small businesses, our vital pastoral sectors, and our manufacturing sectors. The member for Fong Lim highlighted, in some creative calculations on carbon emissions per square metre in the Northern Territory …
Mr Tollner: It came from the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index.
Mr KNIGHT: No, you extrapolated it to the Northern Territory, which was quite creative.
The Chief Minister has made it very clear the government will not be supporting something which has adverse effects on our community.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the Northern Territory being a fledging economy - and it is. It is a small but advanced economy. Whilst other states, through circumstances, have started off with old technologies, we have leapt forward through a quirk of fate where we ended up with gas. The Channel Island Power Station was going to be a coal-fired power station. It moved from Stokes Hill Wharf and was going to be coal-fired, and is why it was located on Channel Island. Around that time they found gas, and it switched to gas. Although it is not completely clean, it is certainly much cleaner than coal-fired and certainly is …
Mr Wood: D I R T Y.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Wood: It is dirty.
Mr KNIGHT: Dirty?
Mr Wood: Read the emissions of all your gas producers.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: All right. Well, it is much cleaner than coal.
It was a quirk of fate. We ended up with a cleaner fuel and were able to move fairly quickly to an energy source where we could use new technologies. Those other states, through a quirk of fate, have localised sources of cheap coal and will certainly use those. That will be the position of the southern states, because they have coal in the ground and will persist with that. They will look at the alternatives of geosequestration as a mitigating alternative to those emissions.
The member for Fong Lim also talked about a carbon-constrained economy and the use of gas and nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the lowest polluter of carbon dioxide; however, I wonder if Australia is ready for it. That debate is still to happen. We are not ready for it here because we do not have the generation capacity of even the smallest nuclear power plant. I still have trouble figuring out how to cost a kilowatt of power out of a nuclear power station against the centuries of cost of storage of those nuclear fuel rods after they have been used. How do you factor into today’s prices the cost of centuries of storage? Yes, it is probably greener in some ways, but it is certainly extremely costly.
Gas is something the Northern Territory will be using for a very long time, with new fields being discovered. We have a gas sales agreement with Blacktip for 25 years. There are other fields beyond that which could supply Darwin and the greater Darwin area, all the way down to Alice Springs as it does now.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the small population and large land mass, and about various communities and small towns throughout the Northern Territory which run off diesel. We have a universal tariff in the Northern Territory so whether you are in Borroloola or Nakara you pay the same for your power. It is balanced out across the Territory. Yes, if and when we have a carbon tax, places using diesel would have a higher cost, but that would be balanced out across the Northern Territory and would ease that burden.
Much discussion has yet to occur. I thank you for bringing this forward. You are the only one on that side interested in this area and can see the potential for …
Mr Wood: I spoke about it in Alice Springs!
Mr KNIGHT: You talk about nuclear power all the time.
Mr Wood: Do not be scared.
Mr KNIGHT: It is a space we are eagerly observing and analysing. People in Treasury and other areas of government are actively keeping an eye on this. Strong representations will be made to the government. The government has a good relationship with the federal Labor government and, hopefully, that relationship will see concessions with this scheme. With all the arguments about the gas industry, we should be given the same level of, if not more, exemptions than any other energy sector or industry down south. It is something the government will actively pursue, actively lobby, as you will through your colleagues interstate. I am sure the Chamber of Commerce, the Cattlemen’s Association, and all the various stakeholder groups will be actively analysing what this means.
I am keen to see how those benefits occur. There has to be some articulation of the benefits of the carbon tax. There has to be leadership in Australia to prepare our economy for a low carbon economy where, ultimately, I believe the world will go. If we are ahead of the game our economy will change sooner; it will be ready sooner for low carbon industries and have a competitive advantage. I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this proposal forward. This is a rerun of Alice Springs. For those who did not make it to Alice Springs, this is a bit of a Groundhog Day. We will not be supporting this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am surprised the government would not give some concessions in relation to supporting this motion because we will be affected by a carbon tax. We rely nearly entirely on fossil fuels to supply energy for the Northern Territory. The amount of energy we produce by solar and wind is very small, even though the government might jump up and down every now and then saying: ‘Look at this, look at this’ …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: If you look at the amount of energy produced in the Northern Territory, about 95% is produced by diesel or gas. That is the reality we are not facing up to.
It is good sometimes hopping on an aeroplane because it gives me a chance to read when I would not otherwise have the opportunity to do so. There was an article in the business section of The Australian last Thursday - I was hoping to dig up a copy in time, but that does not matter - in relation to both sides of parliament not being willing to look at the reality of life when it comes to nuclear power. I know people knock nuclear power, and that is fine …
A member: Do not say both sides.
Mr WOOD: It was referring to the federal side of politics because what you have, in this case, is people who are not facing up to the facts. I have that article now, thank you. The heading is that nuclear power should be an option in any carbon debate. Regardless of the issues in Japan - I have asked before, because there is an accident somewhere does technology stop dead? The space shuttle blew up twice going into outer space - did we stop running that? No, we improved it. When the first car crashed into a tree and everyone went through the windscreen, what did we do? We put seatbelts in and installed airbags. We did not sit around and say: ‘Oh, too hard, too dangerous’.
When the Fukushima nuclear power plant fell apart because of a tsunami people said: ‘Oh, no, we cannot have that’. I listened to an interesting debate on Lateline one night where a person who was not pro-nuclear power was interviewed and said if we are now scared of nuclear power we will go back into coal-fired power stations, which will make matters worse. He said he might not like nuclear power but, at least at the present time, it is reducing the amount of carbon into the atmosphere. He also said not one person has died from the Fukushima power plant, yet about 2800 people die in China per year just from coal mining, let alone the emissions from coal. Coal produces radioactive material and dumps on people in those communities; it dumps on people in Australia …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: For some reason, that is okay, but when it comes to one person perhaps receiving radiation from a nuclear power plant, all hell breaks loose. Sometimes we lose sight of reality when it comes to these matters. I am not a fan of nuclear power in the sense that I accept there are dangers with it, but there are dangers with conventional power. If you look at the effect the tsunami had on the oil refinery in Japan - it blew up in a neighbourhood. There was not much mention of that; however, the nuclear power plant was mentioned day in, day out. Of course, we should be cautious with all forms of power.
When I ask people why we are introducing a carbon tax the answer is we are trying to reduce the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by coal, gas and oil power stations, and by motor cars. That is the main form of carbon into our atmosphere. How are we going to stop it? Some people think you can shove it into the ground - carbon sequestration.
It is not proven technology. In some cases where it is being used it is very expensive technology; you have to find the right subsoils to put it in, and there is no guarantee it will not come out later on. It may work in some areas, it may not. Look how many cars travel down the main street of Darwin, every one with a petrol tank full of fuel. Darwin is just a drop in the bucket. If you are talking Beijing, London, New York and the rest of the world, how many petrol tanks are there per day burning up oil? Can you tell me how we are going to replace that at this present time because that is burning carbon?
Has someone worked out how to run the motor car in the future without burning carbon? Can someone tell me how we are going to get rid of oil-fired, gas-fired and coal-fired power stations and have the energy to produce what this building is made out of - concrete, steel and aluminium? They are massive users of energy which cannot be made, under our present technology, by solar or wind power. From the basis solar is not 24-hour and wind is generally not 24-hour, the only way you can store power is through batteries which have to be made using rare earths like lithium, and they, in themselves, produce carbon.
The reality is no one wants to take up the argument or explain to me - those people who are against nuclear, but dislike coal, gas and oil power stations - how to produce the very things our cities and our wealth is built on …
A member: Moonshine.
Mr WOOD: Moonshine might not get you too far.
Mr Elferink: What are you going to run the still with?
Mr WOOD: The cement, the steel. I recently heard one of our big industrialists realised if we are to produce the amount of steel China needs we will have to increase energy in Australia by an enormous amount. That was one of the reasons they went to South Africa, or one of the African countries, to get more uranium reserves. We can stand here as, in my case, rank amateurs, but I am sure if people in the business of industrial development know about population growth in the world, and match that with the amount of materials required to service that increase in population, where are we going to get the energy if we are saying oil, gas and coal are on the nose? If we put great carbon taxes on this form of energy without having replacement energy, where are we really heading?
People do not realise this is not a simple debate. I am glad the member for Fong Lim has brought it on. I know he is talking specifically about carbon tax, but it is bigger than that.
When I was in Perth, Bernard Salt, who writes for The Australian and is a demographer, spoke about the 10 fastest growing suburbs in Australia. Believe it or not, the way Melbourne is growing at the moment it will pass Sydney in population in a few more years. One of the suburbs was Wyndham, which is not in north Western Australia, it is in the western suburbs of Melbourne, and requires 7500 houses to be built per year.
Look at the energy required to provide the materials for a house: aluminium windows, concrete floors and glass. If we decide to put a carbon tax on things will we start importing those materials from overseas because they will become too expensive, otherwise the price of a house goes up? If we do not want to do that, why are we not willing to debate whether we should have another form of energy?
This document says there are too few politicians willing to debate the issue because, obviously, it is not a popular debate in many parts of Australia, especially after the Fukushima accident. It does not help when you have headlines in our local paper mentioning Japanese air pollution and you read page 2 and find there is nothing wrong; it is about 1000 times below the applicable limit. Nuclear power is sensationalised. People are scared of it because no one is willing to say: ‘It needs to be looked at as an alternative form of energy’. If we are to reduce carbon we need to look at it.
Millions of cars are burning carbon and no one has come up with any solution, at least from a political point of view, of how to turn that around. I went to a conference in Perth a couple of years ago to look at alternative forms of energy for vehicles, and hydrogen is still the one. Hydrogen is a clean form of energy, not like the gas the minister talked about. It produces water. It is a clean form of energy to run cars quite well. Existing cars can be converted to hydrogen.
The problem is, to produce hydrogen you require heat and, to produce heat, you require some sort of energy, and that form of energy presently has to come from coal, gas or fire. You might try to produce hydrogen, but you are still producing carbon because the source of the hydrogen comes from a carbon source of energy. The one way to produce hydrogen without producing carbon is to use nuclear power. Again, we should be careful with nuclear power. However, it has been used in the world for the last 50 years.
Technology has moved on; we no longer drive T-Model Fords. We drive modern cars with electronic equipment to ensure it is safe. Society learns from its mistakes and, hopefully, improves technology. That is what we need to be saying: yes, there are issues about nuclear power; however, can we not look at it in a less emotive but real way? Is it an alternative for Australia to maintain a carbon-free energy society that would lead the world? We would not have to find ways to have a carbon tax or put carbon in the ground; we would be able to produce a clean energy source.
It is hoped one day we can produce nuclear power through fission - the ongoing method - however, that seems some time away. In the meantime, do we wash our hands of the hard questions and continue, as we do in the Northern Territory, diesel power stations in the remote areas, gas in the areas closer to the gas pipeline, and oil – that is where diesel comes from in the first place? I put, as one side of the debate, we are being forced into a carbon debate because we are not willing to look at an alternative form of energy which will not produce carbon.
I thought the debate on ABC Lateline was a balanced approach to the whole argument - nuclear power, love it or hate it, at the moment is keeping carbon emission down. Hopefully, we can find better sources. If renewable energy can do the job, by all means. However, no one has convinced me sunlight and wind will produce this floor, cement, all the aluminium in the windows, or all the steel that holds up this building. When you ask people who are opposed to nuclear power how to do it from sustainable energy like wind and solar, they do not have any answers because, unfortunately, there is no answer at the moment. I am all for solar and wind, it has its place; however, if you want to sustain a modern manufacturing industry you have to look elsewhere.
In relation to the carbon tax, my concern is similar to that of the member for Fong Lim - we are a developing economy in the Northern Territory. One reason you can argue - I do not want to get too much into debate about the budget – is governments in the Northern Territory have gone into deficit quite a number of times. Who built the Crowne Plaza? Who built Yulara Resort? Government went into debt. Why did it go into debt? Because it said we had to develop the economy because it was a growing economy and there is no doubt it is still a growing economy. That is why I do not mind the government putting money into infrastructure because we are a small population, we cover a big area, and we are developing. It is going to take quite a bit of time. Yes, governments will go into debt. As long as they can pay that debt I am not going to be overly concerned because that is the way the Northern Territory will develop. I have said if you want to develop parts of the Northern Territory, put in bitumen roads and electricity and it will develop automatically. You see it in country parts of Australia where infrastructure has been built.
In the Northern Territory in years gone by, before Power and Water became what it is today, infrastructure was placed around the rural areas of Darwin. I owned a block of land in Adelaide River and power was put on there. You had a covenant on your block and paid $5000 for your power. It does not seem to happen anymore. Unless you have the money for the power, the lines, the poles and the transformers it is very difficult to get infrastructure where it is needed.
We are a developing economy. The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association has said this will be disastrous for it, and it will be. We eat meat and we need to grow food. If we are being penalised for growing food because we have long distances to our markets, that is certainly a backward step.
Transport is by diesel; diesel will be taxed. Materials will come to a farm in the form of chemicals, cartons, materials such as fencing material, all that sort of stuff. It will be transported using a carbon energy source. Is that going to be taxed? If it is, farming will be more expensive, and people at the shop will pay when they buy their rump steak.
Madam Speaker, the member for Fong Lim brought this on and we have to give him time to sum up. We do not tackle the hard questions and are too afraid of some of the radical greenies. I would like to know from the radical greenies - it does not have to be a radical greenie – but someone who does not believe in nuclear power, who is opposed to the dirty forms of energy we have through gas, oil and diesel: how are you going to produce cement? It is a very basic part of what our society is. If someone can tell me how we produce cement without a solid base of energy, if it is solar and wind, well, I will go he.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I say thank you to the members in this Chamber, those who spoke on this motion, also those who did not speak on this motion. Members from both sides of the Chamber were chafing at the bit to talk. I wanted this to come to a head tonight, and am grateful for the support I received from all members.
Very quickly, member for Daly, thank you for your contribution, I am grateful. We now have a member of the Labor Party in Australia talking openly about a carbon tax. Previously, the Labor line has always been it is about a price on carbon. It has never talked about it being a carbon tax so, member for Daly, good on you, mate, you have belled the cat. It is a carbon tax. We all know it, and it is great you do too.
Member for Daly, good on you for raising the issue of nuclear power. But, as you so often tell us, get a briefing, mate. I say the same to you in relation to nuclear power. Go to ANSTO, get yourself a briefing.
My good friend on my left, the little bald man from Nelson, has been to Lucas Heights. He has had a briefing. Other members of this Chamber have also done this, and I have done it a couple of times. The reason I am imploring members to do it is because we have a world-class research centre in Australia with some incredible information on all things nuclear. Member for Daly, a helpful suggestion: go to Sydney and visit ANSTO at Lucas Heights before you start waxing lyrical about the pros and cons of nuclear power.
I never suggested nuclear power for the Northern Territory. I have said in this debate nuclear power is one of the keys to the solutions for dealing with carbon emissions into the future. We need to have a debate somewhere down the track when we have a larger transmission system or new technologies arrive with nuclear power. I am not suggesting it for the here and now. The rest of the world needs our uranium and we should be trying to supply our uranium to the rest of the world at the most economical cost possible. People will not buy our uranium if they can get it cheaper somewhere else. We need to keep costs down for uranium mining, and also for gas production.
Finally, my colleague on my right, our fantastic shadow Environment minister, has drawn my attention to the National Pollutant Inventory. This is the federal government’s own organisation run through the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and it issues substance fact sheets. The NPI contains data on 93 substances that are emitted into the environment. The substances included in the NPI have been identified as important because of their possible health and environmental effects. Interestingly, out of those 93 substances identified as dangerous, carbon dioxide is not on the list at all. That is an aside.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chamber and all the people in this House. I am now very keen to see it put to the vote, and I hope people support this motion.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
In speaking to this adjournment debate, I take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank one of our school leaders, Denise Wilkowski, on her retirement.
In 1975, Denise and Lech Wilkowski, a young married couple, set off on a trip around the world from the United Kingdom. After arriving in Australia they ran short of money, as young people do and, since they were both teachers, Denise and Lech approached the Commonwealth Teaching Service in Perth. They were offered jobs on the spot and, within 24 hours, were given a visa to work and were on a plane bound for Darwin. At the farewell last week for Denise in Mitchell Street she talked about that being one of the best things in their lives and one of the best things to ever happen because it opened up a wonderful adventure for Denise and Lech.
Upon their arrival in Darwin, Denise and Lech lived on a passenger ship in the harbour for a few months as there was no other suitable accommodation left standing following the destruction of Cyclone Tracy. In the first week of April 1975, Denise began working at Casuarina High School. She was employed as a geography, history and social education teacher, but Denise started teaching English, home economics and typing. In December 1976, Denise and Lech resigned from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to continue their around the world adventure and spent a couple of months touring Australia before heading to New Zealand.
They settled in Auckland and, after scraping the ice off the windscreen of their car for a third time in one day, Lech let it be known in no uncertain terms he wished he was back in Darwin. Denise agreed, and within a week they arrived back here.
Throughout Denise’s long and varied 36-year career within the education system in the Northern Territory she has held such positions as: classroom teacher; senior teacher; assistant principal; acting principal; Director of Curriculum Studies; President of the Association of NT School Educational Leaders, ANTSEL; and Senior Director, Centre for School Leadership, Learning and Development. Throughout Denise’s career she has experienced many career firsts, including becoming the first substantiative female principal at Taminmin and Sanderson high schools. Denise has always taken an active interest in the professional development of her colleagues and is known for always being willing to take the time to act as a mentor and coach for aspiring leaders.
In recognition of her ongoing commitment to education Denise has received a considerable number of awards, including the 2010 ANTSEL Meritorious Service Award as well as life membership, and the 2010 Principals Australia NT John Laing Award.
Denise emphatically says she is retiring from full-time employment and is looking forward to spending quality time with Lech. Denise advises she needs to practice and hone her fishing and boat launching skills, plans on travelling, and building her business and interest as a marriage celebrant. Denise is renowned for her caring nature and willingness to offer assistance and lend a hand and will be greatly missed by all.
Denise, I thank you for your dedication to education in the Northern Territory over the past 36 years. You have helped to shape the Northern Territory through educating and supporting our future leaders. I attended Denise’s farewell, where there was a slide show of her life before she came to the Territory and in the Territory. What a wonderful adventure it has been for Denise and Lech.
One picture I was very envious of was a giant barramundi, and in those days they did not measure them by metres - whether it was 1m-plus - it was a 20 pounder, which is the old Territory term for a really big barramundi. The only time I can remember barramundi being measured in those days is if the tail flapped over the end of the HJ Toyota - that was a very big barramundi.
She had pictures of her life in the Territory, her teaching life, and some of the overseas exchanges she had been on to Canada. What a wonderful adventure it has been for Denise and how much she has supported others in her professional work. It was interesting to see ex-students had now become school leaders. In other words, she taught people at school, they have taken up the profession of teaching themselves, and now are her colleagues and still look to her for advice and support. It was very good to hear some of her colleagues talk about the times Denise supported them. They said: ‘Sometimes when I needed a kick up the backside Denise gave it to me surely and sharply. When I needed a shoulder to cry on Denise was there to listen to my concerns, and when I needed encouragement, when I needed a debate about an issue, I could enter into a lively debate with Denise’. Denise will be sadly missed.
Denise and her husband will be staying in the Northern Territory and I hope she will continue her involvement with education in the years to come. I do not think she will be able to resist the temptation, and I know all her colleagues wish her well in her retirement. I am sure all members in this Assembly do likewise.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about two sad issues - the passing of two Central Australians.
William Benjamin Hayes was born on 19 November 1943 at Alice Springs Hospital. He lived on Undoolya Station and attended the Hartley Street School. He was fourth generation of the well-known Hayes pastoral family. The original William Hayes came to Central Australia in 1884 replacing the old wooden telegraph poles with steel poles, and then went on to dam sinking in the area. The first station owned and operated by the Hayes family was Maryvale, or Mount Burrell.
Bill was a devoted husband of Jan, loving father of Jenny, Billy and Matthew, and the proud grandfather of Jessica, Hannah and Laura, Jenny’s children; William, Tom, Sam and Harry, Billy’s children; and Rebecca and Ella, Matthew’s children.
Jan and Bill were married in 1966 and lived on Deep Well Station bringing up their three children. In 1993, young Billy took over Deep Well and Jan and Bill moved to the upper end of the property and established Ooraminna Homestead. Ooraminna has been integral to the Alice Springs tourism industry, allowing thousands of visitors from Australia and overseas the opportunity to experience rural outback with real people who live and work the land.
Bill was a well-known horseman excelling at all equine sports, from being a jockey and winning three Alice Spring Cups, rodeo riding, campdrafting and always supported the Alice Springs Show. This year will be the first year he will miss. Bill was the Australian Champ of Campdrafting in the early 1980s, and was inducted into the Australian Stockman’s Hall of Fame in 2010.
Bill’s life and love was the land, cattle, horses and his beloved family. He was a wonderful caring husband, father and grandfather, and a long-term true friend of many who will be sorely missed in Australia and Central Australia.
Bill could see good in everyone - a gentleman, a real bushman, and a true Alice Springs identify. Bill tragically lost his life in a mustering accident on his beloved Deep Well Station on 30 April 2011 at the age of 67. His death has shocked everyone, and tributes have come from far and wide. Many people in Alice Springs will miss Bill.
I knew Bill. Many of my close friends were very good friends with Jan and Bill Hayes, and still are with Jan. My condolences go to Jan and the whole Hayes family. I understand the funeral will be this Friday at 2 pm.
Madam Speaker, I also wish to briefly talk about the passing of another friend of mine, Mr Shaun - Shaun Rothwell. It is believed Shaun passed away in a tragic accident in the driveway of his home in Larapinta in the Braitling electorate on 11 or 12 April 2011. I have known Shaun for a few years and considered him a friend. He was a bloke who was larger than life. I understand the member for Araluen was a friend of the family as well. It is funny, he always reminded me of Krusty the Clown the way he looked with his long hair. I always thought he should not have a funny name like Mister; he should have been called Krusty. He was born on Australia Day which seems so fitting.
He was the 1999 Central Australian of the year. He was a passionate advocate for everything, always willing to help out anyone. He is going to be sorely missed by the Rothwell family and, in particular, his wife Chantelle, and little Zachy. He was known to many people around Australia, but particularly in Alice Springs. He was involved in many different organisations, such as Rotary, Apex, and on the Hamilton Downs Youth Camp, which I am now on. On the night of the tragic accident there was a Hamilton Downs meeting. He did not attend and, when that finished, there was an Apex meeting which he attended and I did not. The accident happened just after that.
He was a CDEP Manager for Ngaanyatjarra Council in Western Australia. He worked, from time to time, with my wife in a similar role in a different area. He was a member of the Country Liberal Party Branch in Alice Springs, and would often turn up with one of his mates, Mick Gallagher. He spoke to me about becoming involved in politics down the track. We had a few chats about how that might happen, and we even discussed the transition of me leaving and him taking over. I helped him out with his council campaign when he ran for the recent council election by giving him some advice, not managing things.
There is a funny story. He designed the sign for his election campaign. He had a big picture of Alice Springs, a big picture of himself, but forgot to make his name really big. I said: ‘Mate, people need to know your name so they can vote for you’. You learn these lessons along the way. I thought that was quite funny.
He will be missed because people like him do not come along too often. Seeing him go makes you realise you need to step up to the plate a little more and have more community involvement. I will do much more and I hope other people will. It really affected me; he was a good friend and I am sorry to see him go.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk on three areas of interest in my electorate. I have written to the Minister for Lands and Planning and roads on two of them. One is in regard to bus shelters in the rural area - or should I say lack of bus shelters.
I wrote to the minister about getting a bus shelter in Humpty Doo, not far from Humpty Doo Primary School near the tavern. That bus stop is used by many elderly people who live nearby and, of course, children from Humpty Doo Primary School and St Francis of Assisi Primary School. I have noticed a number of bus shelters along the Stuart Highway, notably the Knuckeys Lagoon area, where a nice, fancy bus shelter has been erected and I noticed a nice, fancy bus shelter on the Stuart Highway outside the Palmerston Indigenous Village. They are probably justified insofar as people use the bus shelter. I put it to the minister, and the government, that there is a dire need for a bus shelter to service elderly people and children in the Humpty Doo area.
Coincidentally, I was travelling around Palmerston looking at some of the new areas and in the new suburb of Johnston, which has only just had the roadworks and headworks put in, and although it is unlikely that anyone will be living there for two to three years, there is a nice, fancy bus shelter. That will be standing there empty, not used for upwards of three years, when that money could have been better spent putting a bus shelter in Humpty Doo.
I accept the park and ride is being developed nearby; however, it is not going to assist people who use this bus shelter. I will be writing to the minister again to see if government can see its way clear to providing a much-needed shelter for the elderly, the pensioners and the young children in that area.
I extend my thanks to the Minister for Lands and Planning in regard to an application to rezone two blocks on the west end of Gulnare Road. They have been, and will always be, incredibly waterlogged blocks; they are only about 10 m above sea level. The rezoning application has been withdrawn after sustained pressure by residents. I have been working with residents and other stakeholders who have a very strong interest in these two blocks. There is a very good reason they are still undeveloped, and that is the nature of the land. I have received advice from the department that the government is going to undertake land capability studies in regard to those two blocks, which is appropriate and should have been done before the rezoning application was submitted.
There is no doubt all the prime pieces of land available for subdivision, whether it be the rural area or elsewhere, have gone. Now, perhaps in some move I have not quite worked out, they are looking at where there is empty space to chop it up into smaller blocks. That is not good enough. I acknowledge and thank the minister for the common sense which has prevailed. Let us do some land capability studies; let us get a good look at these blocks because we do not want a repeat of what happened at Herbert. We have seen only too clearly the problems with those blocks. Development should not have taken place in the way it has. There have been reports recently from the EPA. The member for Nelson has been working with some of the residents in that area, and it has been acknowledged there are, and have been, problems with how they were approved for development - not all of them, but some should not have been approved.
I have also written to the minister and have listened to the member for Johnston say that the government tries to get responses to opposition members’ letters within 30 days --a month - which is good news. Sometimes replies to my letters take upwards of six weeks and they are not particularly complicated letters.
My letter to the minister was regarding clarification of the road reserve outside the Noonamah hotel and shops. The hotel proprietors have planted and maintain various shrubs and plants on the road reserve. They are more than happy to do so because it adds to the quality of their establishment and looks attractive. They are good flowering plants. They also maintain the rubbish, but it is the road reserve. We have tried to get some answers from government, perhaps even some assistance as to responsibility. It is a main stop for tourists and travellers coming in and out of Darwin and, with the development of Weddell taking place over the next five to 10 or 20 years, more people will be going past that establishment.
It is important to establish in this planning stage who is responsible for this large area of land that currently looks attractive, but is not legally the responsibility of the nearby shop or business people. I ask the minister if, when those letters hit his desk, he could look very carefully at the one in regard to the road reserve outside the Noonamah Tavern and shops - and if I could have a reply. I am happy to set up meetings between departmental staff and the businesses to see if there can be some kind of compromise.
I thank the minister also in regard to his commonsense decision about Gulnare Road. It is inappropriate for those blocks to be developed in the way proposed. Perhaps they should be looking at turning them into open space or recreational space, like Freds Pass.
I ask the minister, and will be writing again, regarding a bus shelter for those elderly people, pensioners and young children near the Humpty Doo school and St Francis of Assisi school.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I talk once again on the subject of child protection in the Northern Territory.
Today we were told through the media a person charged in the Northern Territory with not reporting suspected sexual abuse of a child had their case dismissed. The youth worker involved, Jodi Hunt, a 33-year-old, apparently fronted the Alice Springs Magistrates Court yesterday for a hearing on one count of failing to comply with mandatory reporting conditions. The magistrate involved was David Bamber.
This is a very important case in the history of child protection in the Northern Territory and it is for this reason I raise this case. This case is, as I said, the first of its kind since the Care and Protection of Children Act was passed by parliament in 2007. No one has ever been charged with failing to mandatorily report a child suspected of abuse or neglect. This woman, Jodi Hunt, was apparently charged late in 2010 and it has taken some months for it to come to court.
We need to know the circumstances around this particular case. It is very important because it has implications for children in the Northern Territory, and all adults in the Northern Territory have a responsibility to report suspected child abuse or neglect. It also has implications for people working with children, specifically child protection workers.
It raises the question of safety for workers. Workers who are working with children need to know exactly what the requirements are for them to mandatorily report cases. It also highlights the need for workers to know exactly what the legal system means by that. The woman involved in this case, Jodi Hunt, was interviewed on ABC radio tonight on the PM program. She explained a little of the circumstances around her case. She said she worked in a remote Aboriginal community with children and described herself as a youth worker. She said she had a very demanding job which involved working with many children. She said she had some minor concerns about a child she was working with, and it was not until a second incident occurred that it became obvious to her there was an issue around suspected child abuse and neglect of a sexual nature. It took some time to cement in her mind that what she was seeing was sexualised behaviour in a child.
After a process of investigation, she was charged with failing to mandatorily report a suspected case of child sexual abuse. She described the experience as ‘mortifying’. She said: ‘Being charged with this was extremely difficult to deal with’. She was clearly shocked by what had happened to her, and felt it was probably unfair by the comments she made. That is my interpretation of what I heard on ABC radio tonight.
For workers such as Jodi Hunt, having this case brought before court - I am not saying it is a good or bad thing - shows that the Northern Territory government is serious about this issue. Every adult throughout the Northern Territory has eyes and ears and should be looking and assessing the possibility that children are being abused and neglected, which is an extremely positive thing. However, what it could do, I fear, is scare some people. Obviously this has been quite a traumatic experience for Jodi Hunt, the first person to ever be charged with this offence.
People working with children may feel a sense of fear around reporting child abuse and neglect - fear of prosecution, fear of doing the wrong thing, fear of not notifying child abuse and neglect or suspicions of it, or fear or notifying suspicions of child abuse and neglect. It raises many issues. I am raising this tonight because the people of the Northern Territory need to be informed about this case. It is an historical case, and will give much more insight to the public of the Northern Territory about exactly what this government needs and what the legal people in the Northern Territory mean when they expect people to report cases of suspected child abuse and neglect because it is mandatory. There is also a need for certainty within the public around the definitions and expectations of the care and protection of children.
Hearing Jodi Hunt speak on radio tonight raised issues for me about the need for youth workers to be trained in this area, to assess, to see, and to be able to identify suspected child abuse and neglect. It is a matter of experience and maturity, education, and exposure and perception. All those things are not necessarily something we are born with. We have to develop over time as youth workers, as people who have given their lives to working with children in any capacity.
It also raises the issue for anyone, regardless of their background and chosen profession, to be educated on the expectations around these things and what we should be looking at - the signs of sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and physical abuse in children. With this sort of case on the table it means anyone could be facing these types of charges - anyone who comes into contact with children who might not know what they are seeing is actually a sign or symptom of abuse.
I raise this tonight because it is a very important case for the Northern Territory government in its history in managing child protection services in the Northern Territory. It is an interesting case, given the failure of this government to adequately provide child protection services in the Northern Territory. It is interesting and somewhat ironic that through poor performance - particularly of the various Labor ministers over the years - this 33-year-old youth worker working in a remote part of the Northern Territory should be targeted as failing to meet the child protection requirements of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
Madam Speaker, I put this on public notice. I ask the Northern Territory government to provide the people of the Northern Territory information about this case as soon as possible to ease anxiety, fear and misunderstandings that this issue might create.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I raise a couple of issues. The first I want to deal with is a communication I have received from Fay Miller, the former member for Katherine. It arises from a debate in the House earlier today. I will read the letter into the Parliamentary Record:
Yours sincerely
Fay Miller
Madam Speaker, that is to correct the record, and I table the document.
On another matter, in my electorate I have the Darwin Performing Arts Centre. I had the great pleasure of seeing the Back to Bacharach concert put on by the Darwin Chorale in the Cabaret Room at the Darwin Performing Arts Centre.
I knew they were looking for a name for the concert; they settled on Back to Bacharach. I would have preferred Bacharach Attack, and I suggested it to them but it was, unfortunately, rejected. I am pleased to say I thoroughly and completely enjoyed the show. I had my foot tapping the whole way through.
I thought it was an exceptional performance, particularly by Vanessa Sundstrup, a harpist who performed a couple of numbers. I was blown away. I was truly astonished, and I know everyone else at the table with me was truly astonished about what she achieved with the harp. She has enormous credentials, both here and overseas, in her harping, so to speak. I recommend if anybody gets an opportunity to listen to Vanessa Sundstrup’s efforts, make the time because it is really worthwhile.
I was so impressed I would like to enter into the Parliamentary Record and congratulate each of the following people: the band - Yoris Wilson, Tony Joyce, James Teh, Greg Jansen and Nora Lewis; the singers - Jenny Ashton, Jenny Atkinson, Julie Domanski, Liz Gammon, Peg Gellert, Annette Gore, Pam Hibberd, Valerie Hristova, Liz Keith, Anne Lilley, Louise Michie, Josie Roberts, Kathryn Parle, Jennie Russell, Pam Smith, Janine Sutter, Lindsay Amner, Mike Ashton, Echel Edens, Philip Gerber, Martin Gore, Lyn Bond, Siobhan Casey, Appol Craufurd, Rebecca Dearden, Charisse Gallagher, Renae Mulligan, Karin Mulligan, Jenny Scott, Pam Tibbits, Bev Turnbull, Mary Verus, Fiona Wake, Jill Williams, Divino Fernandez, David Hibbert, Paul Lassemillante, Reg Prasad, Bob Scheer, Andrew Telfer and Darwin Youth Choir.
I also thank the extras who helped put on the show: Des Gellert, technical support from Darwin Entertainment Centre, Darryel Binns, Janine Sutter, Mary Verus, Charisse Gallagher, Cavenagh Trust, Martin and Annette Gore, Jenny Atkinson, Pam Smith, Fiona Wake, Jenny Scott and Anne Lilley.
The performance of Back to Bacharach was extraordinary. They not only did Bacharach, but a couple of others just to round it out from the same era, including a Godspell medley. I have to say, that ear worm has been with me since the day I heard it back in April until today; I found myself still humming it in the shower this morning. If I was feeling inclined, I would give folks a good rendition from what I could remember, but I am mindful of the sensitivity of the ears of many parliamentarians and would not torture them with my voice.
I congratulate the cast, the crew, the band and the performance as a whole. It demonstrates how good local talent is in the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I also pass on my condolences to Jan Hayes at Deep Well Station and Ooraminna Homestead. I was the member for Macdonnell for eight years and they were my constituents. I met Billy on many occasions. I would often go to Ooraminna Homestead, where Jan would be in the kitchen and Billy would occasionally be there, and I was always welcomed with open arms. Jan’s welcome was always effusive, warm and heartfelt.
To hear of her loss filled me with deep sadness. The Hayes family is not an insubstantial presence in Central Australia; nevertheless Billy’s loss will be deeply felt. I have not been there in a while, but I presume Billy Junior and Tracey are still on the station at Deep Well at the homestead, and they too will be feeling the loss, as would the rest of the family. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family. I am deeply saddened. They are part of a pioneering family that opened up Central Australia. They have been friends of both Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people alike.
I enjoyed their company and liked the Ooraminna Homestead environment so much that I spent the turn of the millennium at midnight at Ooraminna Homestead where Jan and Billy Hayes made us welcome. I cannot begin to express my shock at what I heard. Suffice to say I am sure it is nothing like the shock Jan Hayes had when she was told. My heartfelt condolences go out to her. I know her family will rally around her as the Hayes family always does to support each other through these difficult times. They are difficult times nonetheless. God rest Billy’s soul.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also express my condolences for Billy Hayes. I knew Bill quite well, and Jan; they were friends of Elara and me. We have been to Ooraminna on a number of occasions and spent many a good night there, as did the member for Port Darwin, and in much the same environment - Bill always at the bar keen to have a beer, and Jan is just such a lovely person. I can only begin to understand how she must be feeling because the whole Central Australian community was in deep shock on Saturday afternoon when the word started to filter through that Bill had passed away. He had so much more to offer and so much more to give us all. He was certainly one of the pioneering cattlemen of the Northern Territory and a wonderful Centralian.
There will be many more words said about Bill. I intend to say a few more about Bill on other occasions. I would like to recite the poem the member for Stuart began yesterday. He only mentioned the first couple of lines. I would like, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and members of this House, to read the poem by Murray Hartin in its entirety.
It was written by Murray Hartin, also a great friend of Bill and Jan’s. I was at Ooraminna on my birthday a few years ago - we had a party there. Murray was there and recited the poem. Bill and Jan were so proud Murray had written this poem about Billy Hayes.
I would like to read that now and, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is some very mild language in this poem. I hope you will allow me to complete it in the spirit of the Territory, in the spirit it was written and, indeed, the spirit of Bill and Central Australia. It is called Turbulence by Murray Hartin:
That was a poem by Murray Hartin - not delivered the way Murray does it; he does it to perfection, as you could imagine. It was written about the wonderful Bill Hayes. I am not sure how much is true. You asked Bill and he said: ‘I was never afraid to fly. It was all right’. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful tribute. They were very proud of it, and we are all very proud of Bill Hayes. There will be plenty more said about the great man. To Jan and all the Hayes family, vale Billy Hayes, he will be sadly missed.
Mr MILLS (Blain): I should have let you go last, mate. That was fantastic. I heard that years ago; I did not know that was Billy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about two very exciting and important developments in the Northern Territory, the first one being the Larrakia Trade Training Centre. With other members of the Chamber, I was fortunate to attend the recent opening in the port area, and the dinner celebrating the commencement of this important project.
It is a very important project because the opportunities we have within the region present us with the need for a response that is going to add value to the opportunity; that is, training. I place on the Parliamentary Record congratulations to the Larrakia Development Corporation and to INPEX for coming together to provide a very important response to the opportunities we have, which are not underestimated. The Larrakia Development Corporation has shown extraordinary leadership, a very good insight, and a generous offer of support in partnership with INPEX.
This is the issue that has been responded to, and if one talks to those in business which are seeking to ply their trade, to create wealth, to be productive, this is a description of the problem that was recognised by the Larrakia Development Corporation. Along came INPEX to assist it in providing a solution to this well-known problem. I quote from Building a Pipeline of Skilled Territorians:
I went to the opening of the centre and I learnt that is where my son is doing, one day a month, some of his trade training. I was not aware that he is doing it there, and he speaks well of it. It is going to fill a very important niche and will be a building block for success.
Another very important building block that needs to be established if we are going to have young people, or older people, equipped to be participants in the opportunities the oil and gas industry provide, is the need for skilled workers. The Larrakia Trade Training Centre can provide that. However, we need it at the higher level as well. To that end, I will speak now of Charles Darwin University and Vice-Chancellor, Professor Barney Glover.
In this Chamber many years ago I heard described the need for an oil and gas institute. I was struck at the time, with all the sensible things said at that time, that that had not occurred. Now, we have the opportunity. We have a drain of skilled labour; the Larrakia Trade Training Centre has been established, but we still need to capitalise. We do not have that oil and gas institute. I commend Professor Glover and the initiative of those who have supported a proposal from Charles Darwin University. I understand the Chief Minister is aware and supportive of this proposal. It is a significant proposal I will happily work on with the Chief Minister to ensure it has maximum opportunity for success.
We have trained workers from the Larrakia Development Corporation but we need the higher order skills that would come through the university and the proposed North Australian Hydrocarbon Centre of Excellence.
The Hydrocarbon Centre of Excellence at Charles Darwin University will offer cutting-edge specialist research services and accredited education and training to the developing oil and gas industry in northern Australia and Southeast Asia. This vision will be realised in 2011-12 through the appointment to CDU of a research team comprising researchers in gas processing, separation and capture, and corrosion, with leadership provided by Professor Robert Amin, former Chair of the Woodside Foundation and Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Curtin University in Western Australia.
This is an important response, and one that will add another building block to a response to capitalise on the opportunities we have been presented with. When we talk of INPEX we cannot just say INPEX is going to come and it will do this. INPEX has stepped into the space, in partnership with the Larrakia Development Corporation, and provided investment.
The university has put forward a proposal and is seeking support from opposition. I pledge my support to this proposal and will do all I can. I understand the Chief Minister is similarly supportive. I am happy to combine our efforts to ensure this important proposal is successful.
At this stage there will be engagement of industry so it can recognise this kind of investment is going to ensure the capital that is built - which is social capital through education - will have as many local people as possible equipped, capable and able to be participants in this opportunity. It is unfortunate this proposal is being discussed now when Clare Martin spoke of it some time ago. Nevertheless, Charles Darwin University has stepped into that space.
I look forward to reporting further on this important proposal, which will add the other parts to the response already provided by the Larrakia Development Corporation, to whom I pay my special respects for the leadership it has shown in this field.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Legal Studies students from Darwin High School who are participating in the Step Up Be Heard Program, a new program offered by the Legislative Assembly which replaces the former Youth Parliament. They are here today with Ms Jane Farr, their teacher. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I advise that next Wednesday, 11 May, the students will be conducting their own Youth Parliament in the Chamber. I encourage members to come along to meet them.
TABLED PAPER
Letter of Thanks – Premier Anna Bligh
Letter of Thanks – Premier Anna Bligh
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a letter from Hon Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland, in response to the copy of the resolution by the Northern Territory parliament relating to the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi which was sent to the Speaker of the Queensland parliament, Hon John Mickel MP.
TABLED PAPER
Royal Wedding – Letter from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Royal Wedding – Letter from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also table a copy of a letter accompanying the gift to His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales and the then Ms Catherine Middleton to acknowledge their wedding from me, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
A member: Did they like our presents?
Madam SPEAKER: I have not yet received a response. Perhaps I will table the response.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 164)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill puts in place a package of measures announced as part of Budget 2011-12 by proposing amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act, Stamp Duty Act, Taxation Administration Act and Payroll Tax Act. One of the key measures in the bill is the proposed reduction of the payroll tax rate from 5.9% to 5.5% from 1 July 2011. This brings forward delivery of the government’s election commitment to reduce the payroll tax rate to 5.5% by 2012.
The bill also increases the current annual threshold of $1.25m to $1.5m from 1 July 2011. This means that from 2011-12 businesses paying wages of up to $1.5m will not pay any payroll tax in the Territory. Similar to the approach adopted in Queensland, the bill introduces a change to the annual threshold which now becomes a deduction from an employer’s taxable wages. For a business paying wages of more than $1.5m, the deduction will start at $1.5m and reduce by $1 for every $4 in wages that it pays above the $1.5m. As a result, the deduction will be extinguished for an employer who pays wages of $7.5m or more.
The introduction of the higher annual threshold and lower payroll tax rate operates to exclude more small and medium businesses from having to register for and pay payroll tax. This will particularly benefit locally based businesses. The reducing nature of the deduction improves the equity of the tax system and removes red tape for larger businesses as they will no longer need to supply the additional information about wages paid across Australia required to apportion a general annual threshold exemption.
These measures are expected to provide $6.7m in payroll tax savings to businesses in 2011-12. Most locally-based businesses will pay less payroll tax, with businesses that pay wages of up to $3m saving as much as $14 750 each per year. Although some larger businesses may pay more payroll tax as a result of the changes to the annual threshold, this will be partially or fully offset by the lower payroll tax rate.
In keeping with government’s commitment to payroll tax harmonisation, the bill also proposes amendments to the employee share scheme provisions. This is based on consistent legislation developed in consultation with other states. The amendments are necessary as a result of the Commonwealth updating and shifting its employee share scheme provisions from the 1936 Income Tax Assessment Act to the 1997 version.
Another key measure in the bill is it seeks to increase the conveyance stamp duty rate that applies to transactions of $3m or more from 4.95% to 5.45% from 1 July 2011. This rate change will provide a return to the Territory on very high-value property transactions that is more consistent with the average of the rate in other states and territories, while maintaining the Territory’s tax competitiveness. As the increased rate will only apply to high-value transactions of at least $3m, it will have no impact on small to medium business, or on homebuyers generally.
The additional revenue raised from this measure enables government to fund initiatives such as the new BuildBonus scheme which supports homebuyers by providing a one-off $10 000 grant to homebuyers of a new home valued up to $530 000. BuildBonus is aimed at assisting low- to middle-income earners enter the affordable housing market, and encouraging investment and construction activity in the affordable housing sector. The assistance is targeted at purchase of new housing, including units, where construction commences on or after 3 May 2011. The BuildBonus scheme builds on the affordable house and land packages developed in Alice Springs such as at Ridges Estate, and as part of ongoing land releases in Palmerston.
The $530 000 limit complements the increased Homestart NT price caps. BuildBonus also demonstrates the government’s continued commitment to a balanced housing market across all market segments, a priority for the Northern Territory as outlined in the Territory 2030 Strategic Plan. BuildBonus applies to contracts to build or purchase signed from 3 May 2011 until 31 December 2011, and to owner builders where construction of the home commences in that time period.
I now turn to a number of minor measures proposed by the bill to enhance the simplicity, efficiency, and equity of the Territory’s revenue legislation. It is proposed that most of these measures commence from 1 July 2011. The first of these measures allows the Commissioner of Territory Revenue to waive, in special circumstances, the requirement of the stamp duty home incentive schemes and the First Home Owner Grant that a person should occupy a home as their principal place of residence. Currently, the only circumstances where an applicant can be exempted from this requirement is where the applicant has died, or if there is more than one applicant, where at least one of the applicants will fulfil the six-month residence requirement. This exemption has now been extended to recognise that certain applicants may be unable to commence occupation of their home due to a significant change in circumstances outside their control. For example, a person’s home could be destroyed by a fire or natural disaster before they can commence occupation and the time it may take to rebuild the home may be unclear. It is proposed this measure commence from 3 May 2011.
The second minor measure seeks to clarify that the commissioner’s general discretion to remit interest on a tax default extends to reducing or not imposing interest on tax being paid under an instalment arrangement. This will primarily assist small businesses and ineligible stamp duty first homeowner concession recipients who are having difficulty managing their tax obligations. It will also align with instalment arrangements made in relation to recovering a First Home Owner Grant. The commissioner will continue to impose any instalment conditions that are necessary in the circumstances of each case.
For reasons of equity, the third minor measure proposes to extend the current ability to provide a stamp duty exemption or refund for a conveyance of matrimonial property on the breakdown of a marriage where certain conditions are met. The amendment means that an exemption or refund can now apply to the breakdown of a de facto relationship and the conveyance of property resulting from binding financial agreements.
The fourth minor measure clarifies that instruments are considered to be duly stamped where stamp duty is paid under a returns-based arrangement such as for insurance duty. This is important as an instrument that is not duly stamped cannot be entered in an official register and is inadmissible in a civil court.
Finally, the bill proposes to repeal various pieces of revenue legislation that are no longer required, generally because they relate to taxes that were abolished five or more years ago.
Madam Speaker, I believe this bill delivers on government’s commitments in a number of areas. I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Member for Katherine – Vehicle Disposal
Member for Katherine – Vehicle Disposal
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move – That the Assembly -
- 1. condemn the member for Katherine for not giving a full and truthful personal explanation on 31 March 2011 regarding the used car scandal he has been embroiled in and, in so doing, he has deliberately misled this Assembly and the people of the Northern Territory. Principally, he asserted that he had merely made ‘mistakes’ and he did not inform the Assembly of the damaging findings in the 2004 Ombudsman’s report into the matter, namely that:
(a) he altered the original Notice of Disposal and Application to Transfer documents, not once but twice, and …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister should be cognisant of the fact that this is not an Ombudsman’s report. If you are going to start talking about honesty, sunshine …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat!
Mr ELFERINK: … if you are going to start talking about honesty, sunshine, then be honest.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I will resume.
- … that it was ‘difficult to accept Senior Constable Westra van Holthe’s denial that this was done without intention to deceive or avoid prosecution and penalty …’(p12);
(b) it was ‘clearly open to inference that this was a deliberate attempt by Constable Westra van Holthe to avoid statutory penalty for his failure to register a motor vehicle transaction and pay transfer fees and stamp duty within 14 days of the sale’. (p12);
(c) the alteration itself was ‘unlawful’. (p12);
(e) his unauthorised access of MVR records at his home constituted a ‘conflict of interest and improper conduct’. (p14).
- 2. call on the Leader of the Opposition to immediately remove the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer and outline his knowledge of the scandal and when he became aware of the Ombudsman’s report.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is no Ombudsman’s report. Start calling it what it is - a letter to Mr Rowley - and stop being dishonest.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, it is the document I tabled yesterday. It is clearly from the Ombudsman. It …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Is it addressed to this parliament or addressed to an individual? If so, who?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: He is not being honest, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister has the call. You do not have the call.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, there are clear findings of the Ombudsman in relation to this matter which are detailed in this document. I will continue with my speech.
This is an important debate in the context of this, the 11th Assembly of this House. It is important because it goes to the question of integrity, not only the integrity of the member for Katherine but also the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. The issues raised go to the heart of a very important question for all Territorians to consider in 2012: whether the CLP is, indeed, fit to govern the Northern Territory.
At a very basic level, this matter relates to the questionable conduct of the member for Katherine in a used car transaction in 2003. In addition, it relates to the important question of whether he used his position as a police officer, not only for his own financial gain and to evade paying stamp duty and other fees, but also to try to cover his tracks when he was found out over this transaction. It also relates to the personal explanation given to this Assembly by the member for Katherine in the last sittings, and whether it was a full and truthful explanation.
These questions relate to the character of the member for Katherine, and whether he is fit to hold the shadow portfolio of Treasury and, indeed, whether he is fit to hold any ministerial portfolio should the CLP’s small target strategy enable it to secure office at the next Territory election. These matters of character and suitability will rightly be assessed by Territorians at the next election.
The question for Territorians is this: if the member for Katherine, and I quote again from the document from the Ombudsman: ‘… used his position as a police officer to his own personal advantage’ can he be trusted not to do so as a minister. Serious questions also need to be answered by the Opposition Leader, so expert in answering important questions. His silence as to whether he offered Leo Abbott a job to get him to set aside his candidature in Lingiari remains deafening to this day
With his shadow Treasurer in the frame for serious issues raised above, the Opposition Leader cannot hide in this debate like he did from the media for seven hours at the Hot Rock restaurant, not just hiding, but cowering, using the apt description by his own members. He needs to speak in this debate. He needs to remove the shadow Treasurer from his post. Anything less further highlights his inability to lead this deeply divided opposition and, even more importantly, his inability to lead the Territory.
Now, to the specific matters raised in the motion …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You will get your chance. First, the member for Katherine did indeed offer this parliament a personal explanation in the Alice Springs sittings. Whilst it is …
Mr Elferink: You never have.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Whilst it was very tightly-worded, based on the evidence we now have I do not believe it was a full explanation of this matter.
Mr Elferink: You have never given an explanation for your conduct.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I ask for some courtesy from the members opposite. They can speak …
Mr Mills: You will not get any courtesy from us.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Drysdale! Member for Port Darwin! Member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: Whilst it was very tightly-worded, based on the evidence we now have I do not believe it was a full explanation of this matter. Indeed, questions must now be raised as to whether it was entirely truthful and whether he, the member for Katherine, has deliberately misled this Assembly.
To ensure this debate is based on the facts, I have already tabled a copy of this 2004 Ombudsman’s report, and we can have …
A member: It is not a report!
Dr BURNS: It is a report to Mr Rowley.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is deliberately being deceptive. This is not a report, it is a letter. He knows he is being deceptive.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please resume your seat. Do not rise on a point of order like that again.
Dr BURNS: I have a copy of the Ombudsman Act and I am prepared to argue whether it was a report to Mr Rowley on this matter, and whether the member for Katherine was afforded an opportunity, as specified under the Ombudsman Act, to comment on the adverse findings found in this particular document. That is what he needs to answer, Madam Speaker.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Do not read the current act, read the old act.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, that is not a point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I have already tabled this document which states that under the protocols established between police and the Ombudsman, this thorough investigation was supervised by the Joint Review Committee, the JRC, which comprised the commander of the Professional Responsibility Division of police and the Deputy Ombudsman.
Member for Katherine, this parliament needs to weigh your personal explanation given in the Alice Springs sittings against the findings of the Ombudsman to determine whether your personal explanation was full and truthful, whether you have deliberately misled this parliament, and whether you are fit to be shadow Treasurer.
The established facts and allegations against the member for Katherine are as follows:
First, on 21 February 2003, the member for Katherine, then a senior constable in the Northern Territory police, purchased a vehicle from Mr Michael Rowley, a Katherine businessman, for $14 000. Although you were issued with the transfer papers by Mr Rowley, you do not transfer it into your name in the specified time, as required by law and, similarly, you do not pay stamp duty.
On 4 March, you agreed to sell the car to Mr Michael Rockman, an Aboriginal man of Lajamanu, for $15 000, and then $17 000 on 5 March – a day later - when you learnt he could spend an extra $2000. Significantly, member for Katherine, you attempt to make the transfer of the vehicle directly from Mr Rowley to Mr Rockman and alter the transfer document by inserting Mr Rockman’s name instead of your name. You also alter the sale date from 21 February to 5 March, and you also alter the sale amount from $14 000 to $17 000. In essence, you intend to make a profit without paying stamp duty and leaving Mr Rockman to pay your liability. I will leave the lawfulness of your actions until later.
Mr Rowley gets wind of what is going on; he is upset because he alleges while you paid a $3000 deposit, you had not honoured the agreement to pay instalments. He says the car is not yours to sell and attempts to block the sale. You now attempt to insert yourself into the documentation regarding the sale. With the help of Brevet Sergeant Wenn of Lajamanu, you now create a new, separate document which shows you as the original purchaser from Mr Rowley on 4 March, not the actual date of 21 February, and yet another purchase price of $9000.
Furthermore, as part of this insertion, you also alter the original transfer document a second time to show yourself rather than Mr Rockman as the purchaser from Mr Rowley. You also alter the sale price once again from $17 000 to $9000. You left the incorrect sale date as 4 March, remembering you had already altered that from 21 February.
Madam Speaker, to be clear: the member for Katherine altered these legal documents not once, but twice. He altered the name of the buyer on the original transfer document he received on 21 February from himself to Mr Rockman and back again. He altered the sale price from $14 000 to $17 000, and then to $9000. He altered the date from 21 February to 4 March.
Member for Katherine, it appears you did pay stamp duty this time. However, you paid stamp duty on $9000 rather than the $14 000 on the original transfer form. Member for Katherine, you then try to push your version of the transaction through the MVR office in Katherine around 17 March. You had the MVR remittance package from Lajamanu delivered to your house …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would seek he address his comments through the Chair and not directly to the member for Katherine.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could direct your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Dr BURNS: Okay, Madam Speaker. You have - and it is not you, Madam Speaker - the MVR remittance package from Lajamanu delivered to your house …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin, member for Drysdale, order! Member for Greatorex! Order!
Dr BURNS: … before it is due to be delivered to the MVR office. This occurs at least two weeks before it is normally delivered. To your great discredit, you rope a young constable into delivering this package to your house. It is difficult to ascertain what actually occurred when you intercepted this package; however, one thing is clear: this package, when it is delivered to the MVR in Katherine, contains the altered and misleading documents relating to the sale of this vehicle.
What runs through this sorry affair is that most of the actions of the member for Katherine were done whilst he was in uniform, and the recurrent accusation that he used his position as a police officer for his own personal financial advantage is something the Ombudsman comments on at length in the document which has been tabled.
It is appropriate now to turn to the three key findings of the Ombudsman in relation to the allegations made against the member for Katherine. I will also compare these findings with the personal explanation given by the member for Katherine at the last sittings.
First, the allegation that Senior Constable Westra van Holthe altered the original Notice of Disposal and Application to Transfer to avoid payment of transfer fees, penalties for late lodgement and/or stamp duty. Member for Katherine, you admitted to the Ombudsman that you altered and re-altered the transfer documents, but you denied any deliberate plan to avoid paying stamp duty. I will read from pages 12 and 13 of the Ombudsman’s document. I quote:
- The JRC is of the opinion that in altering the signed documents twice and in not re-altering the date of sale, it is clearly open to inference that this was a deliberate attempt by Constable Westra van Holthe to avoid statutory penalty for his failure to register a motor vehicle transaction and pay transfer fees and stamp duty within 14 days of the date of the sale. The alteration itself is unlawful and this is dealt with above. Acting unlawfully and/or dishonestly is also improper conduct and a breach of the Code of Conduct. The JRC notes that disciplinary action has been initiated against S/Const Westra van Holthe.
- It is difficult to accept S/Const Westra van Holthe’s denial that this was done without intention to deceive or avoid prosecution and penalty for not lodging the documents on time.
I will read that again:
It is difficult to accept S/Const Westra van Holthe’s denial that this was done without intention to deceive or avoid prosecution and penalty for not lodging the documents on time.
It is important for the Assembly to weigh these particular findings and facts against the member’s personal explanation. Indeed, member for Katherine, you mentioned in your personal explanation on 31 March 2011 of being: ‘embarrassed by the mistakes I made’ without any acknowledgement of wrongdoing. The inference of mistakes rather than intent also occurs within a number of other elements of your personal explanation, including the statement that you ‘mistakenly put the wrong vehicle purchase date on the registration papers’.
Member for Katherine, as the Ombudsman has obviously concluded, there was no mistake with the alteration of the sale date, there was no mistake in altering and re-altering the buyer’s name and the purchase amount, and there was no innocent interception of the MVR package simply ‘to complete a signature block’, as you said in your personal explanation. This interception was the culmination of the whole sad exercise of assembling doctored documents for you to complete the sale and, in the words of the Ombudsman:
- … to avoid statutory penalty for his failure to register a motor vehicle transaction and pay transfer fees and stamp duty within 14 days of the date of the sale.
That is on page 12.
Furthermore, for you to maintain your weak denials not only indicates your lack of remorse, but also makes you unsuitable to be shadow Treasurer, let alone Treasurer. Indeed, how can anyone who so obviously avoided paying stamp duty be fit for such a position? How can he have any credibility in a budget debate or in estimates? Leader of the Opposition, you need to remove this man from his position as shadow Treasurer.
In your personal explanation, whilst you mentioned disciplinary hearings you did not mention the Ombudsman’s report or even the Ombudsman’s investigation into this matter and the findings. I know from the Ombudsman’s report you would have had a chance to comment on those findings. It is in the Ombudsman Act. You mentioned the referral to DPP; you did not mention a referral by the PRC to the Northern Territory Treasury in relation to avoidance of stamp duty, and to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for further action. You also inferred that your so-called ‘mistakes’ were inadvertent and not calculated which, as we have seen, is quite the opposite from the findings and considered opinion of the Ombudsman. Therefore, through blatant omission and inference, I believe you have deliberately misled this parliament.
I turn to the second allegation, that of improper conduct as a police officer. You conducted most of your dealings in relation to this matter whilst in uniform. You certainly used your position as a police officer, with assistance from others, to generate other dodgy paperwork - a 13A receipt to support your alteration of the date of the sale from 21 February on the form generated by Mr Rowley to 4 March on the form you submitted to Katherine MVR. This other form, the 13A receipt, generated from Lajamanu Police Station, was dated 4 March, a date which the Ombudsman does not accept:
- The JRC concludes that on the information before it, however, that it is more probable that the 13A receipt was, in fact, filled out later than 4 March 2003’.
That is on pages 8 and 9.
Furthermore, as mentioned previously, you used your position as a police officer, with the assistance of others, to intercept the MVR package being sent from Lajamanu Police Station to the MVR in Katherine. Sadly, you co-opted a junior officer into this scheme. Indeed, the Ombudsman’s report clearly finds that you used your position as a police officer inappropriately, and to your own personal advantage:
- The JRC is of the opinion that Constable Westra van Holthe could be perceived to have used his position as a police officer to…his advantage, in that he could be perceived to have sought to gain your trust and confidence in him by conducting a significant part of the negotiations on duty and/or in uniform.
That is directed at Mr Rowley.
Further, in relation to your unauthorised interception and access to the MVR remittance package from Lajamanu sent two weeks earlier than usual and delivered to your house in Katherine before being delivered to the MVR in Katherine, the JRC finds as follows:
- The investigator put it to Constable Westra van Holthe that he took advantage of his position as a police officer to get otherwise unauthorised access to the remittance package documents. He did this so as to attempt to regularise the documentation relating to his version of the transaction. S/Const Westra van Holthe disputes that this action is a conflict of interest.
- The JRC is of the opinion that the unauthorised access is a conflict of interest and improper conduct.
That is on page 14.
Third is the allegation you attended the MVR office in Katherine to gather support from that office to prove the transaction has been improperly recorded so as to counteract the claims made by Mr Rowley.
In essence, the member for Katherine, on the same day he had properly accessed the documents in his own home, also attended the MVR office to push and bully his dodgy paperwork through the MVR process so he could benefit from the sale. As the Ombudsman noted, you also wanted to put a stop to Mr Rowley’s claim that you had attempted: ‘To avoid statutory penalty for failure to register a motor vehicle transaction and pay transfer fees and stamp duty within 14 days of the sale’. Ironically and arrogantly, by doing so, you further demonstrated to the JRC that once again you:
- … used his position as a police officer to his personal advantage. This represents improper conduct and a conflict of interest.
That is page 14.
No mention of any of this in his personal explanation just mention of mistakes, which he inferred to be seemingly inadvertent oversights. Once again, he has deliberately misled this House through blatant inference and omission.
I wish to commend police officers across the Northern Territory for their courage, dedication and, above all, their honesty and integrity. Sadly, member for Katherine, in you personal explanation you to argue that: ‘Most police officers at some time in their careers have complaints made about their actions; I am no different’. Given the findings in this Ombudsman’s document in relation to avoidance of stamp duty, the alteration of MVR documents and, most importantly, that you used your position as a police officer for your own personal advantage, your comments are a disgraceful slur against your fellow officers in that you infer such complaints against them are commonplace.
Of further concern was the allegation by Mr Rowley that, immediately following his letter, he believed there were attempts to intimidate him, his family and his staff. Furthermore, Mr Rowley alleged he was told by a third party that the member for Katherine had been overheard in conversation with others saying that Mr Rowley would pay for making the complaint against him and he would not be safe going to or from work.
Finally, through your personal explanation, you do not acknowledge there was wrongdoing on your part. Territorians will therefore rightfully ask: does he have the integrity and the temperament to fill the role of Treasurer, which requires the utmost probity in dealing with sensitive and confidential information - information and influence which could be easily turned to substantial financial gain for individuals or companies? Unfortunately, we have seen such corruption in Queensland on both sides of politics, and we do not want to see it in the Northern Territory. In a nutshell, member for Katherine, you could not be trusted as a police officer, you cannot be trusted in a personal explanation, and you cannot be trusted as a shadow Treasurer, let alone Treasurer.
This matter presents important challenges for the Leader of the Opposition. We call on him to explain to this House when he became aware of the matters involving the member for Katherine, including when he became aware of this document, which I have called an Ombudsman’s report, because it is a report to Mr Rowley. I would be interested to hear what the member for Katherine has to say about the process and whether he was allowed to comment on the allegations and findings of the Ombudsman that are made in this document. I suspect he was. I would be very surprised if he was not.
I understand that when Senior Constable Willem Westra van Holthe was announced as the CLP candidate in Katherine in 2008, Mr Rowley went to the electorate office of the then member for Katherine, Mrs Fay Miller, and informed that office of the matters involving Senior Constable WiIlem Westra van Holthe. There have also been a number of media reports relating to this matter from December 2010 to the present.
The Opposition Leader needs to inform this House whether he was made aware of these matters following Mr Rowley’s visit to the Katherine electorate office prior to the election in 2008. Did he discuss this matter with the member for Katherine at that time? Subsequent to the 2008 election, was he made aware of the matter and/or the existence, nature and content of this Ombudsman’s document, and the findings, by the member for Katherine or any other person, and when did he become aware? Prior to the personal explanation by the member for Katherine in the last sittings, was he given a copy of the findings of the Ombudsman, or was he briefed as to the findings of the report? Furthermore, did he have discussions regarding the findings of the report with the member for Katherine or any other person prior to the personal explanation by the member for Katherine in the last sittings?
In relation to the previous question, was he aware of these matters before he appointed the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer? That is a crucial question I hope the Opposition Leader will answer. If he was not aware of the Ombudsman’s report and the matters raised before the personal explanation, after publication of an article by Nigel Adlam in the Northern Territory News on 8 April 2011 regarding the Ombudsman’s report, did he then require the member for Katherine to submit a copy to him and discuss the matter, particularly in relation to the personal explanation? Now that he definitely does have a copy of the Ombudsman’s report, does he intend to remove the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer?
Also, is he sure there is no other opposition member who may have been involved in similar shenanigans around the transfer of vehicles, avoidance of stamp duty, and other statutory costs? Maybe he wants to ask his parliamentary wing the question and see what answer he receives. These are important questions that need to be answered by the Leader of the Opposition. We know he is very adept at avoiding questions. It is now around 200 days since he was asked whether he offered Leo Abbott a job in return for him standing down as the CLP candidate for Lingiari – still no answer, yes or no …
Mr Elferink: He has given his answer.
Dr BURNS: No, he has not.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: No, he has not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I have also put these questions on notice for the Leader of the Opposition. I have written him a letter and, as ministers, there is an expectation we reply within 30 days. I hope the Leader of the Opposition can reciprocate.
Regarding this motion and based on the facts, the Leader of the Opposition needs to inform the House as to whether he accepts the personal explanation by the member for Katherine as being adequate and truthful. He also needs to tell this House and the people of the Northern Territory whether he believes the member for Katherine is a fit and proper person to be shadow Treasurer, let alone Treasurer of the Northern Territory. The Opposition Leader needs to be consistent and decisive on this matter.
In relation to Leo Abbott, he argued that as soon as he became aware through media reports of a breach of a domestic violence order by Mr Abbott, he publicly withdrew his support for Mr Abbott as the CLP candidate for Lingiari saying: ‘I am standing my ground on principle’. He said he would never compromise that and could not devalue his currency.
Through this document, even the Leader of the Opposition should be able to see the lack of integrity of his shadow Treasurer. If he was honest, he would also know the personal explanation given by his shadow Treasurer was deliberately misleading, particularly in relation to the significant matters of wrongdoing raised in this report.
The Leader of the Opposition should also be greatly concerned that the member for Katherine inferred in his explanation he merely made mistakes in a tone which indicates they were almost inadvertent oversights. They were not. To be consistent, you need to apply the same standard to the member for Katherine as you did to Leo Abbott. You have the power to remove your shadow Treasurer; you need to show leadership and stand him down. We know it will be difficult. Your actions against Leo Abbott were easier.
As revealed by some nasty internal CLP e-mails, Leo Abbott was merely political cannon fodder for your main political goal of damaging Damian Hale through your despicable campaign in this House in August 2010 to win Solomon. CLP Treasurer, Graeme Lewis, advised in an e-mail: ‘Put petrol on the issue’ - of domestic violence – ‘and fix Hale right up’. Former Chief Minister Shane Stone was quoted as saying in an e-mail: ‘We pull his …’ – meaning Leo Abbott’s preselection – ‘… and, at the same time, challenge the ALP to do likewise with Hale’. Shane Stone added: ‘Terry Mills could call for the disendorsement’.
Leader of the Opposition, are you nothing but a pathetic puppet on a string, or are you going to show some real leadership and integrity this time? It would be harder for you to sack the member for Katherine. In contrast to Leo Abbott, the member for Katherine is an important number for you to hold onto your position as Opposition Leader. Will you put your self-interest and self-preservation before the integrity of your leadership? Territorians will be watching very closely to see whether you have the strength to do the right thing.
Many people, including a significant number of your own supporters in business, are saying the Opposition Leader and the CLP are not fit to govern. I hope I am incorrect in predicting the outcome; however, I feel your weakness will lead to a lack of action against the member for Katherine and this inaction will only further confirm the view that you are not fit to govern.
In closing, I reiterate this debate is a crucial one in the context of this Assembly. The member for Katherine has deliberately misled this House and needs to be condemned. Importantly, Territorians can clearly see the character of the person the CLP is putting forward as Treasurer, and the weakness of the Opposition Leader in not sacking him.
I say again, the Opposition Leader is not fit to lead and the CLP is not fit to govern.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Port Darwin, I remind you that at 11 am I will be calling the Leader of the Opposition to make his budget reply.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I find it incredulous that the person this government would choose to run this slanderous smear campaign would be the person on the thinnest ice of them all. I am not going to defend the actions of the member for Katherine. What occurred during that period has been described by the Ombudsman and the member for Katherine. What we have from the Ombudsman’s report, as the minister likes to call it - and pause here for a second, this demonstrates, by calling it a report, the dishonesty with which the government is bringing this matter forward …
Ms Lawrie: It is pretty thorough.
Mr Mills: It is not a report.
Mr ELFERINK: It is correspondence to a complainant - a Mr Rowley. However, because the government is so anxious to prosecute this matter it has determined it is fit to call it a report for the purpose of public consumption. We would like to rebadge things from the outset. Even in the motion there is an attempt to mislead people of the Northern Territory.
I also point out a comment the minister made in relation to this matter - the contents of this letter are the considered opinion of the Ombudsman at the time as a result of the Ombudsman’s role, and oversight role of the Joint Review Committee or JRC, which is essentially the ethics committee of the operation of police officers. There is no doubt what was described as the facts was wrong, and the member for Katherine has described them as mistakes. The member for Johnston would have us believe there is a spectre of villainy and corruption associated with it. That is not for this House to decide because that can only be known in the heart of the member for Katherine. What can be known are the facts and that is up to the electorate to decide, which is precisely what the minister said.
This then returns us to the issue of the minister’s own conduct. It is necessary to go here because of the parallels which exist between the conditions surrounding the member for Katherine and the conditions surrounding the minister himself. The minister running this case, the member for Johnston, was, very early in his ministerial career, investigated for potentially interfering in a police investigation.
Ms Lawrie: Found not to have.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. The Treasurer says: ‘Found not to have’. The allegations against the minister were police at one point had cause to attend his home address, and the essential allegation was he said words to the effect: ‘Do you know who I am?’, and also: ‘I will have your badge for this’ in an attempt …
Dr Burns: Wrong. Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, stand up and give a full explanation.
Members: He has.
Mr ELFERINK: He has not. That is the point; he has never made a personal explanation in relation to this matter. All we have from the minister is a denial: ‘I did nothing wrong’. That is exactly what we have from the member for Katherine. What does the minister rely upon to demonstrate the quality of his denial: ‘I was never prosecuted by the director of Prosecutions. The file went there, but I was never prosecuted’.
Well, guess what, Madam Speaker? Let us turn our attention to the letter from the Ombudsman to Mr Rowley, which says - and I do not have to read it - ‘these matters have been referred to the DPP’. Where was the prosecution? There was no prosecution! The fact is this matter was not only referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions but, moreover, was also referred to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, both of whom could have initiated a prosecution if there was sufficient evidence to, I presume, demonstrate the requisite mens rae this minister is alleging. Sadly for his case and argument, there is one major flaw: neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor the Registrar of Motor Vehicles chose to proceed with a prosecution.
Whilst the minister uses the word ‘unlawful’, no unlawful conduct has been described. In fact ...
Dr Burns: By the Ombudsman, that is the question.
Mr ELFERINK: The Ombudsman cannot pronounce guilt. That is what you are trying to put into the Ombudsman’s mouth.
Dr Burns: The Ombudsman said it.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, that is the problem this minister has. His defence in his matter of interfering in a police investigation as a minister of the Crown was: ‘I did nothing wrong. The DPP said I did nothing wrong because they did not prosecute me’. Has the DPP prosecuted the member for Katherine?
A member: No.
Mr ELFERINK: No. So, the full dressage surrounding these particular allegations comes down to a single question: is the member for Katherine innocent at a criminal level? Yes. Is the minister for everything innocent at a criminal level? Yes. He never did anything wrong. A court did not convict him ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I never suggested the member for Katherine had done anything criminal. I quoted from ...
Mr Elferink: You said unlawful! Sit down!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: I said unlawful. I resent the implication by the member for Port Darwin that I have acted in a criminal way, and, under Standing Order 62, I ask him to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, addressing this particular issue, I just said you were innocent ...
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr ELFERINK: I said the very opposite of what you are alleging. Do not start twisting people’s words.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arafura, what is your point of order?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I ask the member for Drysdale to withdraw the word ‘shit’.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I did not hear it, but I ask you to withdraw.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: By the minister’s own standards a senior constable, who in the greater scheme of the ranks of the police force is on the junior side, should, if he has a problem which is recognised - because the internal review processes of the police force found there were shortcomings - he has admitted to making a mistake and has been fined for making those mistakes. The level of the fine associated with this particular error was $750. If you go to court for a minor traffic offence, that is about what you get.
The police force places staff in an interesting situation because it has two levels of accountability where most citizens have one. The accountability of the average citizen - including ministers of the Crown, no less - is they are innocent until proven guilty, with all the protections of a normal court system. That is what the minister is relying on in his declaration of innocence in relation to his conduct. Police, however, do not enjoy that.
A parallel many people would understand is professional footballers who play Rugby League, soccer and Aussie rules have codes of conduct. From time to time, footballers breach those codes of conduct and, from time to time, are fined for non-criminal activity. That is what has occurred with the member for Katherine when he was a police officer - he was fined for his mistakes. No such secondary level of culpability was attached to this minister of the Crown when the allegations made by attending police against him were investigated.
Dr Burns: No, you made the allegations. The CLP did.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. I ask what was sent to the DPP? What was investigated? Was the DPP sent an empty envelope or were there statutory declarations taken by attending police in that envelope? Was that something in the envelope other evidence to support allegations against the minister? We do not know, because we do not have a personal explanation from this minister. What we have is an adjournment debate denying any wrongdoing because the DPP chose not to prosecute the matter. By that standard, the minister has declared his innocence. I can just as comfortably, and quite properly, declare the innocence of the member for Katherine from any criminal wrongdoing, yet this minister quite happily attaches the word ‘unlawful’ to his conduct. That is a direct allegation of criminal activity …
Dr Burns: By the Ombudsman.
Mr ELFERINK: There is no criminal history.
Dr Burns: By the Ombudsman, not me, I did not …
Mr ELFERINK: You have – I am going to pick up on this interjection. You are relying on the Ombudsman’s ‘considered opinions’ entirely to prosecute your case. Clearly, the DPP and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, in both instances, did not agree with the considered opinion of the Ombudsman because they chose not to prosecute the matter. This leaves Territorians with a simple question in relation to the conduct of the member for Katherine.
Clearly, he has erred. I do not know, and no other person other than the member for Katherine can know, what was going on in his mind and his heart at the time these things occurred. We know the facts and some surmised opinions by the Ombudsman. Let us be clear on that: the test as to whether people trust or do not trust the Ombudsman on this particular issue, or who they believe, is the electorate. It is right and proper that members of this House be scrutinised from time to time. I have never asserted we should not be scrutinised. However, there are boundaries which have an ability, from time to time, to be crossed. To allege unlawfulness, when no unlawfulness has been proven is, I believe, an unfortunate step to take. To allege criminal conduct when no criminal conduct has been established …
Dr Burns: Alleged criminal conduct.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you said unlawful.
Dr Burns: I said unlawful, and that is what the Ombudsman said.
Mr ELFERINK: That is an opinion. I could tell you some of the opinions I have heard about the conduct of the Leader of Government Business on the night police had cause to attend his house and, if they had been successfully prosecuted, would have been criminal, but they were not, so he stands guilty of nothing.
Going back to the internal processes in place for the investigation of these matters, the member for Katherine is fined $750 for his conduct. What happens next? A year later, as I understand it, he is promoted to sergeant. He has not lost any pay or conditions other than the fine he has to pay, and the matter is put to bed by the Northern Territory Police Force.
Clearly, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered the matter insufficient for criminal prosecution. Clearly, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles considered the matter insufficient for criminal prosecution. Clearly, the Northern Territory Police Force found the matter sufficient for internal disciplinary proceedings and closed the file and allowed him to get on with his career.
What is really behind this is not a genuine desire to discover and uncover the alleged activities of the member for Katherine. This is all about several things.
One - government knows it stinks. It is on the nose in the public domain which presents it with two choices. One, it can attempt to lift its game, elevate itself and become better at what it does. However, knowing that is beyond its capacity, it defers to the standard Labor hate machine, which is to run down everyone else in the process. That is what this is about. It is not about lifting itself up; it is about lowering itself. One thing the Labor Party does so much better than the conservative forces in the country is hate. It truly hates and carries grudges with a monumental level of antipathy in its heart.
That is what we have to contend with so we are stuck with a question. I have spoken to Dennis Bree from the fifth floor about this. Indeed, I have spoken to the minister himself and asked: ‘Where do we go with this; what do we do with this approach?’ I have counselled against this in the parliament before. What do we do? Do we start opening up every wound we can find of every member in this House - and there are plenty, and I have described behind the scenes some of the things we are aware of in relation to some members opposite, and we have restrained ourselves from going there.
It is my understanding a minister of the Crown, only several days ago, approached a member on this side of the House saying: ‘God, do we really want to go down this path?’, particularly in relation to some of the information I have given to Dennis Bree …
Mr Henderson: You did not have any problems going for Damian Hale, did you?
Mr ELFERINK: This is at the heart of what really drives us. This is not about Terry Mills or Willem Westra Van Holthe. This, in the words of the Chief Minister himself, is entirely about revenge. The hate machine, the loathe machine, the spite machine is brewing below the surface. You are a despicable bunch; an awful, despicable bunch. That is what this is about – payback: ‘We are going to pay them back; we are going to hurt them’.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is about the unlawful actions of the member for Katherine, and the cowardice of the Leader of the Opposition in failing to sack the shadow Treasurer who tried to avoid stamp duty.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Member for Port Darwin, you only have about a minute to go.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. I will seek to continue my remarks at a later date.
This is about their hate. Before we go to the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply know this: we will conduct ourselves with greater honour and integrity than you are capable of dreaming of. You will see that when I finish my debate after the lunch period. This is a hate machine which is using every vile tool at its disposal to go after members on this side of the House and tempting a fight, which will be a pox on both our houses. It will be a disgusting pox which will diminish politicians in the eyes of the electorate universally in the Northern Territory. That is something these haters of a professional standard are more than happy to take us to. It shows the level of indignity they are prepared to embrace for the sake of hate and political cheap shots.
Ms Scrymgour: I cannot believe you are defending him. Unbelievable!
Mr ELFERINK: I am not here defending the conduct of the member for Katherine; I am defending reality. The member for Katherine admitted he made mistakes. You people would make many more.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to complete my remarks after lunch break.
Madam SPEAKER: It will not be after lunch. It will be after the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the budget.
Leave granted.
Debate suspended.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Media Arrangements – Opposition Budget Reply
Media Arrangements – Opposition Budget Reply
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that I have given my leave for the Northern Territory News to take photographs during the budget reply.
If the Northern Territory News photographer could go down further into that area - not actually on the floor.
Mr Mills: Are you sure that is a camera, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: I am hoping it is not a gun because it is aimed at me at the moment!
APPROPRIATION (2011-2012) BILL
(Serial 163)
(Serial 163)
Continued from 3 May 2011.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Budget 2011-12 is not a budget for our time; it is a budget of our time - 10 years under Labor; a decade of fiscal ill-discipline, self-indulgence and wasted opportunities. It is not a budget with vision to rebuild Territory finances and support the private sector drivers of the economy; it is about survival not success. This budget has at its centre a broken promise framed in a hope to secure the survival of the Territory Labor government; that is all. It is credit card budget leaving Territorians a debt to repay for years to come. Deficits are forecast right through the forward estimates, and debt is set to rise in 2014-15 to $3.9bn.
The Treasurer is more than happy for the community to presume the budget will be in surplus in 2015; however, there is nothing in the budget documentation which in any way supports that position. Let me be clear: the budget papers do not contain a plan to return the budget to surplus. Perhaps wishful thinking on behalf of the Labor government but there is no plan contained within those documents. What they show is a long line of future deficits.
We are on a downward debt spiral and, though promised, there is no plan for future surpluses. The Treasurer, as she is wont to do, blames declining Commonwealth revenue, but it is very fair, if that is the excuse, to ask the question: what has happened to the hundreds of millions of dollars in GST windfall since 2001? What happened to that? This was announced outside the budget and beyond expectation. Year after year I warned, first, Treasurer Stirling, and then Treasurer Lawrie to put some aside to save for a rainy day. Now the difficult times are here and you cry an excuse and the cupboard is bare when you had the opportunity to put something aside. What do you do? You reach for the credit card. Happy to spend other peoples money, to heck with the consequences.
For those who understand how to manage money and take responsibility, there is no getting around this: debt has to be repaid and Labor has an appalling record when it comes to the repayment of debt. To make matters worse, this government pays $70m in interest to service its debt every year. That is $200 000 every day just in interest repayments. By 2014-15, that will have doubled to $161.2m, which is about $400 per day. Imagine what you could do with that extra money rather than sending it to the bank.
Like last year, along with declining revenues, deepening deficits and enlarging debt, there is no let up, there is no change to the spin. The former Labor Finance minister Lindsay Tanner - and I enjoyed that read - describes well the condition that has infected this Labor administration and this budget when he said:
- The creation of appearances is now far more important for leading politicians than the generating of outcomes.
True words. For the past three weeks we have been subjected to stories about record spends in health, more money for infrastructure, more on this and more on that, with the sense the Treasurer is hoping someone will applaud. It sounds great. It is good spin but I believe Territorians are fare dinkum and can see right through this. They see the real record of this government. Spending money is one thing, but what do you get for it? You go to the shop, you buy something, you expect something; you spend the money, you expect something.
What do Territorians receive as a result of the service delivery of this appalling Labor government - so self-indulgent? They get longer waiting times in hospital emergency departments, worsening literacy and numeracy results amongst our children, and violent crime is out of control. Rents and mortgage repayments are pushing families to the brink – real pressure at the home. After 10 years of Labor it did not need to be like this.
The huge boost to Territory income through the GST gave the Labor government more money than any previous Territory government - more than it could have even dreamt of. That is a fact. That revenue was entrusted to us and was a ticket to greater economic security for the Territory. As always with Labor governments, it is too easy to spend and too hard to save - too hard to say no: ‘Someone may not like it, so let us just spend and to heck with tomorrow’. It was squandered recklessly in the good days and today we face a very real economic challenge. We are awake to that because it is going to have to be responded to; it will not go away. It will not be masked by spin.
The challenges are all the more heightened because Labor could not manage responsibly in the times of plenty - it spent when it had it. What hope do we have under this administration in the more difficult and challenging times? If you look at past form, we do not have the form that will allow us to handle the challenges of the future.
The truth is small business owners are doing it tough, as are families. Shopkeepers, hairdressers and tourist operators are hurting. Pubs in the city are struggling and shops in the mall are empty. Local firms are going to the wall. That is a personal tragedy for those under that excruciating pressure. Spin will not cover that. In fact, Labor policies and core economic management have driven up the cost of living to such an extent that more than 100 people leave the Territory than arrive each month. The government’s financial mismanagement has given one thing to Territorians and, for many, sadly, it is a reason to leave. It is the Treasurer’s ‘kick it out’ - a forced economic evacuation of our best and brightest. They have flown interstate because they can no longer afford to live here. They make that decision. However, there are those who cannot make that decision and stay here. Those who are economically active make a decision to go, but why do they go?
This is a government of missed opportunity. The latest Access Economics report clearly states - if you were to read it plainly, Treasurer - that the Territory is heading in the wrong direction. Our major projects are scaling down at a time when the other resource states are ramping up ready for the next great boom. We cannot even say we are bogged. We are worse than that - we are going backwards, Treasurer, relative to the other jurisdictions at a time of great opportunity.
I turn to the economic circumstances facing the Territory. I can see these and I speak to others who describe it quite plainly. While the wheels were wobbling in some economies earlier, the global financial crisis hit at the end of 2008 while the Territory was in a pretty good position. It was still working through a pipeline of projects: high-rise apartments were on the go; mining, oil and gas projects were completing expansions; and there was a range of Commonwealth projects such as SIHIP and the intervention. However, once these projects worked their way through the system the squeeze began.
While the Territory was protected for some 12 months after the GFC, the opposite was true elsewhere. Conditions improved across the rest of Australia while ours began to slide. Workers began to seek better conditions elsewhere. Private sector investment dropped dramatically and, as a consequence, the Territory now faces the same economic conditions that were in force at the beginning of the last decade: slowing or negative GSP - a nett negative growth cycle. We are now exposed, and we have not made adequate preparations.
Nett interstate migration - skilled workers moving back to home base - is reducing our demand for accommodation. High volumes of unsold properties - ask around, you will learn - and the high cost of living and doing business generally means housing is not being considered for current investments. Territory businesses are struggling to find skilled workers as a result of government’s failed housing policies, making it a costly disincentive for workers who love the Territory to stay. The rebuilding in Queensland following Cyclone Yasi and the floods will add further pressure to those skilled labour demands as they have the incentive to go to other places.
Mining capital investment has peaked in the short term. Oil and gas investment onshore and offshore is yet to kick in, and there are only a handful of major projects in the start up list. The 2011 plan for the Labor government is about waiting for INPEX. This government has laid a bet and placed all its eggs in one basket - the INPEX basket.
The Territory enters 2011-12 with significant adjustments in population, and they are significant if you do an assessment of the way the population is shifting as a result of negative economic pressures. The Territory is home to about 230 000 people, 120 000 of whom are in employment. Our nett growth from natural means is about 2500 per year; however, 100 people per month are leaving the Territory for interstate. The participation rate - the number of people actually in the workforce - is high compared to the national average, while the rate of unemployment in urban centres is very low. In fact, the Territory is proclaimed as having the highest unemployment statistics in Australia at about 2.3%. However, these figures do not tell the full story.
There are jobs on offer in the Territory - make no mistake. If you want a job and have the skills, you have a job, and there are many eligible workers. If you do not have a job, the cost of living is unaffordable and the pressure too great - the highest grocery, rent and electricity prices in Australia. The unemployment rate is low and the participation rate is high because of the economic factors. If you do not have a job, you pack up and leave.
What is even more alarming is the Chief Minister is out of touch or in denial about this important economic fact and the social consequences that flow from it. Responding to a question during the Alice Springs sittings about the Territory’s negative interstate migration, Chief Minister Henderson went into spin mode and claimed it was the first quarter of negative migration after eight quarters of growth - wrong. It highlights how out of touch this Chief Minister is. This government is oblivious to the hardships faced by Territorians struggling with extraordinary cost of living pressures and the very real concerns of small business struggling to hold skilled workers. They are being enticed to go elsewhere and it is very expensive to live here. The Chief Minister should have known in every quarter for the 12 months to September 2010, more people left the Territory for interstate than migrated here from other jurisdictions. In the September quarter, negative interstate migration was 288; 168 in the June quarter; 375 in the March quarter; and 332 in the December quarter 2009. You only have to look around to see the ‘for rent’ signs which tell you a story if you have eyes to see through the spin. For the Chief Minister to downplay the important statistics highlights his shaky grip on reality and complete disregard for important facts.
This is not just a one-off demographic oddity. It is a trend that shows people are looking elsewhere to set up a home and raise a family. There was a time when people looked to the Territory to set up a home and raise a family. Now they are looking outside, and that has some severe social and economic consequences.
With this picture firmly in mind, I turn now to the Territory budget and the desperate state of the Territory’s finances. Despite record GST revenues, our projected total debt and liabilities exceed $4.7bn. Last year, the Treasurer forecast a $268m deficit at the end of the financial year; yesterday, we found out the figure was actually $295m. The Treasurer promised the deficit would drop to $172m next year, but has now admitted it is set to soar to $387m. In 2014-15, the end of the forward estimates period, the budget is still forecast to be $195m in the red. Disturbingly, the Treasurer has broken her promise to reveal when the budget will be back in surplus. Including Power and Water, the Territory’s debt will double from $2bn to $3.8bn between now and the end of the forward estimates instead of trending downwards.
Nett debt to revenue is swiftly increasing to 47%, from 15% just two years ago. Labor says its budget is responsible and responsive; it is not. It is a budget you get when government is reaching for the election starting line. Let us see if we can get there. We in the opposition recognise the Commonwealth and Territory budgets are under pressure and we recognise it is largely contributed to the hands of its makers - the Labor Party. Canberra has already signalled a tough budget next week, and with increasing reliance on Commonwealth revenue, we know we will not be spared. The budget papers indicate revenue from the Commonwealth now makes up 82% of our budget. Of that, over 50% comes in GST receipts; receipts that have generously provided the Labor government with a fat serve of income. However, instead of putting away some of the GST fat for the past 10 years, there is no buffer; there is nothing in the bank to even out the funding so we do not have to rely on higher deficits and more debt.
When the GST collection and distribution was first introduced in 2001 - I was in the parliament then - a minimum amount was guarantee to the states and the Territory benefited from this arrangement, particularly through the post-GFC in 2009-10. It is estimated the GST excess over expected revenue since its introduction would have been sufficient, if it had been saved, to eliminate the Territory’s debt of $1bn. What a much better position we would be in today with an extra $100m to spend on roads, schools, police and hospitals. That is $100m each and every year just by saving the GST. Looking to forward years, GST in the budget papers is growing by more than 5% per year. That growth in GST income must be managed wisely and well, and not squandered away.
I have to cut to the chase. The Territory can only spend the money it actually earns. Next year the Territory, on an own-source revenue and GST pool, will earn $3.521bn but spend $3.896bn. Realistically, Labor is running a disastrous 10.6% budget deficit. The Territory government has a debt to own source revenue ratio of 169%. Why is that so? Because the GST and local taxes are the only sources of money the Territory can spend on what it wants. It is the only money the Territory has to pay that debt. Every other dollar is tied to an outcome on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Treasurer has created a total nett debt in this budget that will cost Territorians about $31 500 per person - that is man, woman, and child; everyone, including superannuation liabilities.
Labor says it needs to go into debt to keep the economy going. However, no amount of government spending will fill the gap caused by a slackening in private investment. Only a government that creates the environment to attract private investment can address that imbalance and create a stable economy. Labor’s property bubble, caused by slow land release and a decade of inaction, has seen a collapse of private investment. It got the policy mix wrong, and now the budget bottom line has to pay.
The government has announced a 3% cut in public sector expenditure and a further 2% cut in services. That means a tough time for public servants, who already cop the blame for ministerial incompetence and lack of decision-making, and an even tougher time for families forced to endure a slackening of core services. By bulking up executive levels, frontline public servants bear the burden. A visit to the MVR on any day will show you where public sector jobs should be. A visit to the hospital, calling for a police officer, getting your kids a good quality education which achieves the minimum national standard, or getting a building permit would all be improved by frontline service staff.
The government announced in this budget a $1.5bn infrastructure spend. We on this side of the House welcome, support and encourage investment in infrastructure. The Territory needs investment in productive capital to grow and prosper. However, Labor’s headline figure is yet another cruel joke. The Treasurer has made much of the infrastructure spending but has failed to mention the extent of the money the government has failed to spend. This year’s budget contains $649m of revoted works from the 2010-11 Budget. Next year, there is $479m in promises that will not be delivered.
It is worth remembering a proportion of the money not spent last financial year was rolled over from the previous budget and the budget before, and so on and on it goes. Commitments like the Mereenie Loop - remember that one? - the Alice Springs emergency department, the Fog Bay Road, the East Arm port development, the CBD bypass of Katherine - projects revoted time and time and time again. This government rolls out promises for infrastructure, but what it says it will spend is not what it delivers.
There are a number of other specific areas of budget expenditure I would now like to address.
The government’s latest land release announcement for Zuccoli confirms Labor’s ongoing incompetence. Failing to deliver on the expectations it raises about land release is a trademark of this government. I find it astonishing that we are so land rich but have a land shortage. How can that be? The government recently promised to release 450 lots at Zuccoli over the next five years. As recently as 2009, the government promised to release 210 lots in 2010, and an additional 240 this year. That represents a substantial reduction in the government’s land release promises of just two years ago. Land release drives residential construction. Construction presently contributes about $300m per quarter to the economy, but is down about $200m to $300m from the heights of the recent boom.
New house construction, even withstanding the recent release of extra land in Johnston and Bellamack, will be severely affected in the short term. Even with the BuildBonus grant, new home construction prices are significantly higher than available used stock. While the Treasurer has announced a $10 000 grant for Territorians wanting to build a home, it hardly seems enough to address a serious shortfall in houses required. The ABS says about 30 homes per month are currently being financed for construction. The government’s own budget papers from 2009-10 forecast Darwin and Palmerston need about 2200 homes and units over 18 months to meet expected demand but only 1100 new dwellings were build last year – half the required amount.
Join the dots. Is it any wonder 1200 more people left the Territory for interstate than arrived in the 12 months to September? You could see the awful logic there. Make no space in the market, increase demand, increase the cost of living, and people have to make a decision to leave. That has serious consequences.
Law and order: there is no better illustration of the government’s failures to address law and order than the problems besetting Alice Springs. What an absolute failure of duty and care - a failure by this government to provide even the most basic of services. The statistics speak for themselves: in the past five years assaults increased by 97%; house break-ins by 64% - these are homes that have been broken into; people live in these homes – 64%. Commercial break-ins - people trying to contribute to the local economy - increased by 185%; motor vehicle thefts by 97%; and property damage by 71%. Darwin and the rest of the Territory follow similar patterns, and after 10 years of Labor it is not getting any better. It is getting worse.
To believe the Treasurer, throwing money at these problems somehow magically makes them disappear, but not for citizens. These statistics are people’s stories. The violence, the theft, the vandalism and drunken antisocial behaviour is damaging our lifestyle; it is hurting tourism and is killing off business. What does Labor do? Well, nothing ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr MILLS: It is not surprising Labor’s police budget contained no additional police officers for Alice Springs ...
Ms Lawrie: Alcohol reform! Support it!
Mr MILLS: There was some welcome money for an additional Police Beat in Karama - the Treasurer’s electorate - but no commitment to Alice Springs. We hear those temporary police sent to Alice Springs prior to the Alice Springs sittings have all but been removed – out of sight, out of mind. There is a pressing need for additional police to deal with law and order issues in Alice Springs, however, the government’s budget commitment fails to deliver a single new police officer to the town. The Country Liberals would locate an additional 20 officers in Alice Springs; Labor will provide none. We will honour our commitment to return the police communications unit to Alice Springs.
I cannot raise my concerns about this government’s failure to directly address the social problems facing Alice Springs without mentioning the call for further direct action in Indigenous policy. With the Northern Territory Emergency Response coming to an end next year, the only people calling for more funding and support, and thinking about this serious issue to address the unfinished business of the intervention are Tony Abbott and the Country Liberal Party …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Any further action in Indigenous communities should be done in …
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sorry, this is most unusual, but the interjections are constant and ongoing. We heard the Treasurer in silence yesterday, and that courtesy should be extended ...
Ms Lawrie: No, you did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: There were interjections coming from the opposition yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, please resume your seat. Honourable members, it is a courtesy to listen to the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: … member for Arafura, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Any further action in Indigenous communities should be done in conjunction with traditional owners and community members. To end the intervention …
Ms Scrymgour: You have changed your tune.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura!
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To end the intervention next year while there are still significant issues to be addressed - issues that manifest themselves very acutely in places like Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine - is grossly irresponsible.
Child protection: for years the government knew of serious failings within child protection but ignored them. A backlog of more than 1000 reports not investigated beggar’s belief. NT Families and Children’s failure to listen to a series of warnings from health professionals concerning children at risk was the catalyst for the establishment of the Bath inquiry.
I am pleased the government has taken some action on child protection and welcome increased investment in protecting Territory children. This funding is long overdue, but it will take more than just dollars to fix the Territory’s broken child protection system. The investment must be sustained and government must provide a very real commitment to cultural and practical change in the delivery of child protection services. The recently released six-monthly progress report does not give me much hope. It was delivered in a glossy brochure, complete with a smiling minister and self-congratulations. I am sure Territorians will forgive me; I will not join in those celebrations until I see a better system.
Health: last week’s release of figures by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows the Territory has the worst emergency response times in the country. Just 63% of emergency, 47% of urgent and 44% of semi-urgent presentations to Territory hospitals were seen within the required time frames. While this represents a minor increase on last year, they are considerably below the national average. We will be looking to see that the increase in health funding announced in this budget makes considerable inroads in this area. We want to see actual change.
Education: sadly, our students continue to lag behind the rest of the country with city, rural and remote schools way behind the national standard in literacy and numeracy. Despite the best efforts of principals, teachers, school councils, and good kids, government policies are not addressing the systemic shortcomings in our system. In the bush, attendance continues to be at unacceptably low levels. Despite its rhetoric about the importance of improving attendances, the government failed to introduce legislation designed to link truancy and family responsibility orders until the February sittings. The new laws should have been in place by the start of the school year if you were serious. The My School website shows urban schools with attendances similar to those in other jurisdictions that have poorer academic outcomes. Schools can only do this with adequate resources and we will be tracking the government’s education expenditure to monitor real improvements and student outcomes.
Boat registration: our wonderful Territory lifestyle is also under threat from Labor. Fishing enthusiasts are confused and worried about the government’s handling of the fishing permits fiasco and the Chief Minister’s failure to negotiate fishing access for anglers affected by the High Court’s Blue Mud Bay decision, a decision that will affect every Territorian. All we have seen is a multimillion dollar draft proposal aimed at appeasing traditional owners but ignoring the freedoms enjoyed by fishing lovers who will still have to register their boats under Labor’s proposal. Fishos know this financial hit is coming, yet the government, in typical fashion, failed to make note of this new outlay of upward of $10m in the budget - no mention. The Territory government has shut Territory anglers out of the negotiations, which is another betrayal by Labor.
Tourism is a billion dollar a year industry in the Territory; however, the sector is doing it tough. The high Aussie dollar, the floods in Victoria and Queensland and Cyclone Yasi, the high cost of living and adverse publicity from our high crime rate is hurting the industry further. Now, at a time the sector needs support, the government has cut the tourism budget by 3.9%. We can only hope Oprah Winfrey plans to make a return trip to the Territory providing much-needed publicity, because this government is bereft of ideas on how to stimulate this vital industry.
Alcohol: the government has promised $5.2m to expand existing treatment options and establish new services to treat people with significant alcohol problems. This funding includes $3.5m to expand treatment and rehabilitation services provided by non-government organisations. However, within the budget handed down yesterday, there is only a $2.564m increase in funding for Alcohol and Other Drug services. Where is the remaining $2.6m the government has promised?
Carbon tax: one area the government failed to address in its economic overlay is one of the greatest threats to the future development of the Territory. When the Territory moves into 2012, it may well have to deal with yet another Labor government tax, a tax on carbon we steadfastly oppose. If economists and commentators are correct in their assumptions, under federal Labor the Territory faces a potential carbon tax bill of over $300m per year. That is a tax on every tank of petrol - 6 a litre; on every household budget for power - $1000 a year; a tax on food, groceries, a tax on goods and services. It is a tax with no clear and defined global goal. In a country which produces just 1% of global CO2 emissions - we in the Territory produce just 1% of that - it is not a tax that will deliver more jobs or promote Territory investment. It is a tax on coal, on oil, on gas, and on our pastoral industry. It is a tax on the Territory lifestyle.
We can do much better. There is no talent at all, though Labor would think so, in just throwing buckets of money around the place hoping for applause and bouquets of flowers. The trick is you have to get real results from every dollar you spend. More than $1bn on health, yet waiting times are still unacceptable. There is $930m on education but, on average, our kids still do not reach minimum education standards in literacy and numeracy. There is more money for police, but law and order is still out of control.
These are the issues; that is where the focus should be, not the money but the result. Despite all its spending, there is a serious blockage within government preventing those dollars producing real results on the ground. We demand results. I am committed to providing the leadership necessary in government to get a better return on the government dollar - bang for buck - better oversight of expenditure - and ministers actually driving departments to deliver better services is the place to start. More disciplined and effective management of Territory finances in order to deliver core services and improved infrastructure is also required.
Since Labor came to office, government expenses have grown an average of 7.2% per year. The government has been steamrolling funding but services are just getting worse. Today, I will announce a Country Liberals government will conduct a complete financial audit of the Territory government’s financial position. That audit will be undertaken by experts and include a focus on a number of issues, including the long-term sustainability of the NT budget position and our wasteful expenditure built up over 10 years of consecutive Labor governments. It will be the start of a new era in transparency in government expenditure and responsibility to get the most out of the government dollar.
The Country Liberals will save $400m by striking out the new prison from the budget. The government yesterday committed $27m to building the new prison, three years after the plan was first announced by the former Justice minister, the member for Johnston. The history of delays and bungling that have plagued this project are well-documented and are a reflection on this government’s appalling capacity to deliver on its projects. However, the delays could provide a much needed lifeline, and it is not too late to stop the development of that prison and put the money into a program that will give a real result, and make savings at the same time.
The Chief Minister yesterday, rather than defend the indefensible - a weak budget - was trying to reach out and attack the Territory opposition. He asked me to find $295m worth of savings. The prison is the largest single public project in Territory history and its impact is already being felt in the forward estimates. It is not too late for the government to swallow its pride and backtrack on that. It should upgrade Berrimah prison and adopt our proposal to develop a prison farm in Katherine and other centres with rehabilitation and education facilities.
The Country Liberals will sell off NT Fleet ...
Mr Henderson: It will not save you any money, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: ... a government asset we believe should be managed by the private sector. NT Fleet has nett assets totalling $90m and produces a surplus of $10m a year. It manages 3500 vehicles across the fleet. While departments should be responsible for choosing vehicles to meet their specific requirements, I see no reason why government should be in the business of providing fleet management services. In all likelihood, the 33 staff employed by NT Fleet will be absorbed into the public service in areas where their skills can be best utilised, such as administration, procurement, and management. Instead of the government providing a car provision service to itself, for which government pays, we will lease those cars through the private sector. We believe at least another $10m a year could be saved by reducing government self-promotion.
Labor has an appalling track record when it comes to delivering on its promises or providing essential government services; however, credit where it is due. When it comes to self-promotion, the Henderson government is in a league all of its own. First, the government mastered the art of the glossy brochure, but the Public Information Act nipped that in the bud. Now, it has taken to the small screen and the airways to continue the process of shameless self-indulgence. You only need to tune into commercial television any night of the week, or talk-back radio, to see or hear examples of the Henderson government spruiking about itself. It is one thing to use the media to issue a safety message or a health warning; it is another thing altogether to see the government using advertising to create a favourable impression before or after a run of bad press.
This week, for example, the government ran an advertisement detailing its pothole repair program. Over the past few weeks my colleagues, the members for Drysdale and Braitling, have generated considerable media interest with their accounts of the appalling state of the Stuart Highway. What does the government do to address the pothole problem? It produces a television campaign. Under the Country Liberals, the money used for an ad would be used to fill a pothole. As Joel of Woodroffe says on the NT News website: ‘That is their job I thought? No need to waste taxpayers’ money telling the public about it’.
On a related topic, I also count the number of political and media advisors employed by government. It is deeply concerning that government needs an army of spin doctors to sell its programs. It will also save $1m a year by closing the three wasteful and indulgent offices of the Chief Minister. The offices in Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs are simply shopfronts for government spin. The Country Liberals support core frontline public servants like police, teachers and nurses, not government spin doctors. Local members should provide a conduit between the parliament and the executive. It is offensive the Labor government has tried to usurp the important community role played by MLAs. Even if they are not Labor members, they have a legitimate role chosen by their communities.
We will also take a significantly different approach to dealing with problem drinkers to ensure government expenditure targets problem drinkers and is not wasted on the vast majority of responsible Territorians.
There is also millions of dollars in revenue out there this government is too frightened to collect. We will not be afraid to collect the fines and ensure public housing tenants pay their rents. Yesterday, the Chief Minister called on the Country Liberals to provide details of our savings and outlined, typically, a doomsday scenario of program cuts and job losses. You were wrong, Chief Minister. Scrap your prison, sell off a non-core government asset, rein in your self-promotion and save in excess of $500m in one fell swoop, and not a single public service job has been lost. I will provide further details of our plans for the Territory over the coming months in the lead up to the next Territory election, and Territorians will have a very clear picture of the responsible management of Territory finances by a Country Liberals government before the next election.
The Country Liberals want to create an environment which avoids the impact of the boom-bust cycle on Territory businesses. That is why we will establish a new body, Infrastructure NT, charged with advising government on responsible and productive projects linking government and the private sector. It will create a project pipeline to ensure best practice and best economic outcomes for the Territory. It is about jobs, population growth, and creating an environment to better deliver economic benefits for all Territorians.
Training is another area in which we can do better. A capacity to respond efficiently and appropriately to the opportunities that come with future growth is required. That response needs to be seen all the way through our education system, from technical studies in primary and middle schools, through to school-based apprenticeships and the programs offered at our university. If we do not better coordinate, and I believe we can, we will be left behind.
To achieve this, I am working through models to recognise the need for industry and business to have greater responsibility and input into training and to connect the two. My start point is a structure which has education responsible for school education, and higher education and industry and business for apprenticeships and training. It is about doing what we do best: proper coordination and proper leadership. Education should be responsible for book learning, industry for skills learning, and match the two. It is an area of policy development the Country Liberals will open up a debate, and I look forward to further discussion in this area.
Last September, I released a planning discussion paper titled Planning for Greater Darwin: A dynamic harbour city, which looks at requirements for population centres, industrial expansion, environmental enhancement and the future infrastructure needs of Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield and other Top End growth centres. The document was intended to get the community talking and thinking about planning, and I believe it has achieved that outcome. The document has posed some big questions instead of answering them such as: where would one million people live; where will heavy industry go; where and when will the next dam be built; should Weddell develop on the water or back from the mangroves; and how does Darwin interact with the development of Cox Peninsula? It is unusual to release a detailed planning proposal from opposition but it filled a void created by the government’s failure to release its own plan for Darwin.
Planning for Greater Darwin continues the tradition of the Country Liberals planning for the Territory’s strategic direction. It is easy to forget how much of the Territory’s physical …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I will just let it go through.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you.
Mr MILLS: … and lifestyle infrastructures were put in place under Country Liberal governments.
The Country Liberals launched the air links with Royal Brunei, Garuda and Malaysian Airlines; connected the Alice Springs Power Station to Palm Valley gas; planned for and developed Palmerston and put Weddell on the drawing board; built the Alice Springs to Darwin gas pipeline; supported the plans to develop Cullen Bay; built most of our schools and the university; facilitated significant resource development like McArthur River; built East Arm Port; and secured the Alice Springs to Darwin railway which the Labor opposition dismissed as a faded dream.
Now it is the Country Liberals in opposition building on our past achievements with a renewed vision for the Territory’s Top End.
It foreshadows satellite cities linked by an integrated transport system, and the construction of new road and rail linkages, including a spur line from the main rail line from Berrimah into the CBD, and light rail services. It also outlines heavy industrial development at Glyde Point, a proposal government still has not, in a decade, responded or committed to. It looks at water, energy, health, educational and recreational needs as the Territory’s regional population grows, and identifies a second airport for general and commercial aviation. It casts a critical eye over our non-built environment with a focus on mitigating the impacts of natural hazards such as crocodiles, mosquitoes, tropical weather systems, and climate change, and offers up options for the Weddell development, either on the edge of the Elizabeth River, or retention of a mangrove buffer between the city and the water.
Planning for Greater Darwin not only describes what needs to be done, it also outlines how it will be done. It underscores the importance of our policy to establish a Northern Territory Planning Commission which will focus on long-term strategic planning while preserving the role of the Development Consent Authority to assess the merits of planning proposals. It is also supported by a robust EPA. It shows we are serious about the Territory’s future and we mean business.
The Country Liberals have a plan which represents good government and sound policies. Labor is desperate to hang onto power by whatever means. The Henderson government has done nothing to show any lasting legacy. You just have to look around town; there are no initiatives, no lasting monuments which create a legacy or point to a coherent narrative. There is no record of a job well done. Yesterday’s budget confirms this government’s incompetence. Let me make it absolutely clear: this government is big on debt and short on service delivery. We demand better; Territorians certainly deserve better.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Member for Katherine – Vehicle Disposal
Member for Katherine – Vehicle Disposal
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we will be moving back to Government Business. The member for Port Darwin has the call. I believe he has about 11 minutes, which will take us through to lunchtime.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am quite grateful this matter was intervened through the budget reply because it highlights one particular issue: what government has brought into this House today is vitriol and an extension of its contempt and hate. What the Leader of the Opposition brought into this House today was a considered reply to a budget which talked about the future of Territorians. No more direct or stark contrast is required to demonstrate the difference between what we aspire to be and what this government is.
We heard an interjection from the Chief Minister that this is just about payback for Damian Hale. If that is true, it sets this House and the members of parliament on a course of mutually-assured destruction, for all the reasons I described before. I have counselled against this type of thing in the past, and I am concerned we are choosing to go down this path again. The government has a choice. If it believes the questions asked about Damian Hale were a smear campaign, then it had what is, essentially, a moral choice: ‘Do we do the same thing as the people we accuse of being engaged in a smear campaign, or do we step back and worry about what this is really about – the good governance of the Northern Territory?’
And, sadly, blinded by anger, justified or otherwise, the government chose a path where it was better to climb into the gutter where, in its opinion, the CLP was. Okay, that is the choice it has made. How does that make the Territory a better place? From that world view all you can see is it will offer the people of the Territory a choice - we are bad, but they are worse.
_____________________
Distinguished Visitor
Hon Steve Hatton
Distinguished Visitor
Hon Steve Hatton
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Hon Steve Hatton. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Mr ELFERINK: The decision by government to pursue this, and made clear by the interjection by the Chief Minister that this is all about revenge for Damian Hale, means we are presented with the same moral choice. As I was saying before the Opposition Leader’s reply, we know stuff about them, and I would not be surprised if they know stuff about us. The moral choice I have is do I engage with the next salvo back in that direction? The answer is, unlike the government, I will not go to the people of the Northern Territory at the next election with the attitude of ‘they are worse than us’. What I, and the Country Liberals, will take to the people of the Northern Territory at the next election is we are about governing for the people of the Northern Territory, and we, as a consequence, are better than them. Let us fight this on the policies.
The problem is, in the Chief Minister’s haste - and he has this occasional habit of letting his language fly before he thinks about the consequences, which is a hallmark of anger - he has also returned to the debate the matter surrounding the former member for Solomon. I am sure he would not want that rehashed; however, the Chief Minister introduced that matter because he did not think about what he was saying.
As far as members on this side of the House are concerned, the Leader of Government Business has it right in one respect: it is up to the people to decide. The Leader of Government Business did not fulsomely and openly explain his conduct when he was investigated by police; that explanation still has not come forward. All details surrounding the circumstances of the member for Katherine are now in the public domain. I challenge the Leader of Government Business, if he believes people have the right to know, instruct the police force to release all documents surrounding the allegations that he interfered with a police investigation, including statutory declarations and other evidence obtained by attending police. If he is prepared to do that, he has met his own benchmark. If he is not prepared to do that he stands condemned as a hypocrite and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … that is the double standard he applies. It is easy to run in these debates: ‘Oh, I have them now. I have my focus on the other guys’, but where is the focus on our own conduct? Where is the moment when we reflect on what we do? I can tell you, I would like to be perfect. But, guess what? I cannot walk across a swimming pool; none of us can. It is about time we turned our attention to what really matters to Territorians, which is the good governance of their jurisdiction.
The conduct alleged to be criminal or unlawful by the Leader of Government Business has not been demonstrated to be so. It is a considered opinion of an Ombudsman who referred that matter, which was not pursued by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The same defence the minister uses applies to the member for Katherine, and rather than being blinded by what the government does so well - run smear campaigns and spite campaigns - I urge that we get back to the core business of government, which is providing for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
To do otherwise in these circumstances would only serve to diminish us all in the eyes of our electorate and, when we go to the polls the next time, we will stand condemned as having failed them because we are too busy worrying about what happens in this room, and the points we score, than what happens in other places in the Northern Territory. The member for Katherine has made his mistakes and has paid the penalty considered appropriate at the time, and that is how the matter should be dealt with. The minister is doing nothing more than trying to stir the pot. I am deeply concerned that he would introduce into the debate, down the very tail end of it, allegations that Mr Rowley in some way was threatened. That is a deceitful way to approach this matter …
Dr Burns: That is in the Ombudsman’s report.
Mr ELFERINK: That is nothing more than a considered opinion.
Dr Burns: I said it was an allegation.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is the point. You just repeat allegations no matter how unfounded they may be.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is an allegation from a person who pursued those allegations through the lawful process. It is nothing more than that.
What we hear from this government is a focus on repeating people’s allegations. That is all it will take to be condemned under this government; a mere allegation has to be made. Stalinist Russia used to operate on that system where you were sent to the Gulag. All you had to be was denounced. No court, no trial, off to the Gulag you go, and that is the standard this government has put on this matter: ‘We will repeat the allegations until we are blue in the face and try to make them as true as possible’. You cannot allege criminality where no criminality is established. I do not allege criminality in relation to the minister’s conduct; however, there was an investigation. Something happened behind the scenes. I ask the minister, in relation to his conduct when he was a minister and the allegation of interfering with a police investigation, if he genuinely believes he did nothing wrong surely he can allow that investigative material to be released so he can be judged accordingly by the lesser standard he is applying to the member for Katherine.
This government has run out of ideas, run out of options, and is now running a deficit budget. It is no surprise this debate is occurring on the very day the budget reply is happening. I do not doubt the ocean of ministerial media advisors on the fifth floor are currently on the lines ringing every journalist in town trying their damnedest to sell this story, to do anything to obscure the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply.
That is what this is about. It is a tissue-thin attempt to deflect attention from the shortcomings of this government. That is why I do not support this motion. It is not a genuine heartfelt motion. It establishes nothing about the member for Katherine beyond what the Ombudsman has alleged. The fact there was no prosecution of the member for Katherine by two separate government authorities to which this matter had been referred makes it clear that whilst the Ombudsman can have an opinion, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and the DPP had a different opinion. We can extrapolate all we like from the conduct of the member for Katherine and infer by his conduct particular motives. Clearly, the minister and the Ombudsman had come to certain conclusions not reflected by the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles or the DPP - simple as that. This is where we are at. Do we govern for the people of the Northern Territory or do we govern to score political points and diminish us all?
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Exposure Draft – Housing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I rise today to table an exposure draft of a bill to amend the Housing Act. The purpose of this draft bill is to enable the establishment of public housing safety officers who will be equipped with more powers to deal with antisocial behaviour in public housing. Establishing public housing safety officers is part of a broader strategy to support Territory Housing in delivering safe, secure and healthy public housing in our community. It will also set a new framework for effective management of the antisocial behaviour in public housing properties by tenants and visitors.
There are two aspects to antisocial behaviour occurring in Territory Housing properties: first, antisocial behaviour involving tenants and their visitors; and second, antisocial behaviour from itinerants using common areas in public housing complexes and vacant properties.
Antisocial behaviour in and around public housing and causing damage to public housing is totally unacceptable. Whether that be violence, excessive noise, people being a nuisance or damaging property, tenants and surrounding neighbours should not have to tolerate it. I am tabling this exposure draft of the Housing Amendment Bill to establish public housing safety officers. Modelled around the successful establishment of transit safety officers on the public bus network, public housing safety officers will have targeted powers to deal with issues specific to Territory Housing properties.
The major provisions of the draft bill include: appointment and procedures for public housing safety officers; a clear definition of antisocial behaviour; circumstances by which a public housing safety officer can access a public housing premises and offences against the act; the process by which Territory Housing can require a tenant to enter an acceptable behaviour agreement; and penalties for non-compliance within an ABA.
Powers to be conferred on the public housing safety officers include: powers to direct individuals to stop antisocial behaviour conduct or direct them to leave the public housing premises; powers to instruct individuals to leave public housing properties for up to 12 months; powers to arrest and detain; powers to search and seize dangerous articles and liquor; powers to issue notices where required; and ability for a PHSO - public housing safety officer - to act as a professional witness in eviction processes. Public housing safety officers will be trained using similar packages currently provided to transit safety officers and Northern Territory police officers.
Training will also include: conflict resolution; risk analysis; empty hand restraint; and how to identify mental health issues. They will work hand-in-hand with tenancy managers to identify and target hot-spots and create more support for police. These public housing safety officers will also work closely with tenants to achieve safer and more harmonious public housing dwellings and complexes.
To go hand-in-hand with the new public housing safety officers outlined in this legislation, the department will also introduce a new three-strikes policy. The policy will implement a new structured process for the department, as landlord, to deal with problem tenancies. Territory Housing will have a new set of procedures to be followed to rectify antisocial behaviour. This will enhance the department’s capacity, as landlord, to make application to terminate tenancies. The department will be able to present more structured cases of reasons why to evict when they take cases before the Commissioner for Tenancies.
For tenants, it will also provide them with a clear structured understanding of what is acceptable and what is not and, most importantly, the ramifications for disregarding our expectations of behaviour.
Enough is enough, and that includes public housing. We need to take strong action to manage the small number of tenants and visitors to public housing residences who do not comply with the rules and expectations of living in public housing. The amendment supports the Territory government’s Safe Territory and Housing the Territory initiatives, and will create more harmonious neighbourhoods.
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services will be making this exposure draft available to stakeholders for comment, and I will also be asking them to put it on the Internet. I encourage interested people and interested organisations to contact the department for more information and to make comment.
Madam Speaker, I commend the proposed bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
MOTION
Member for Katherine – Vehicle Disposal
Member for Katherine – Vehicle Disposal
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this motion is opposed in the strongest terms. It is treated with the contempt it deserves. It is a shameful, low standard that has been drawn and presented for this parliament to respond to. It sets a dangerous precedent. What is this precedent? The precedent we now have is the use of a member’s mistake of many years prior to entry into this parliament for political capital. The precedent is one which ignores a personal and genuine explanation. It overlooks that it occurred some eight years ago. It has no regard for the fact no charge was laid, the member suffered embarrassment at the time, was punished and penalised, and in the admission of the member concerned in his personal explanation, it was a one-off event; and the record supports that.
It is acknowledged to be an embarrassing time for the member, but it was dealt with comprehensively long before the member entered parliament. To demonstrate the strength of that statement, the member continued to serve in the police service and was promoted thereafter.
That is the precedent which has been established for this parliament. Why is it dangerous, Madam Speaker? It sets a dangerous and very low standard which makes fair game of activities of members of this Chamber which may, and most likely would have, occurred long in the past, which has no bearing upon their performance in this Chamber. There are members in this Chamber - having been a member in this Chamber for 11 years – about whom I have knowledge of certain things that remain with me. Does this now dangerous precedent put me in the position where these matters can now be brought forward so we could gain political capital from them? I will resist that because this parliament should have its standards and traditions preserved, and because I believe it does nothing to provide any kind of strength or confidence to our community in the leadership we are meant to exhibit here.
Much can be made of it. Attempts can be made; however, these attempts are clearly motivated by a contemptuously low standard established by this Labor government to bring this forward at this time simply to embarrass a member. This member made his explanation. This member has worked for his electorate and has been supported, and continues to be supported, by the people of Katherine. I stand by their representative.
I have been provided with a letter carefully crafted by the Leader of Government Business. I am more than happy to answer those questions, right here and now.
The first question I was asked, the purpose of which I can only guess is plain for anyone to see: a distraction from a government that needs to be held to account to its primary task of delivering services to the Territory community and providing some leadership. The first question was: were you made aware of these matters prior to the Territory election in 2008? No, I was not.
Second question: did you discuss this matter with the member for Katherine at the time? The answer is obvious: of course not.
Subsequent to the 2008 election were you made aware of the matter? Of course I had been made aware subsequent to. When? After the last sittings in Alice Springs is when I became aware.
In relation to the previous question: were you aware of these matters prior to appointing the member for Katherine as the shadow Treasurer? Well, self-evident, no. It does not change the fact, the nature of the incident and its relevance today.
Prior to the personal explanation, was I given a copy of the Ombudsman’s report? It was not a report. It was a letter between the complainant and the Ombudsman - no, of course, not. If I was not aware of it, was I made aware of it afterwards? Yes, of course, I was, because I saw it published in the Northern Territory News by Nigel Adlam. Of course I had an interest in this matter. That is when I became aware of it.
Now that I am in receipt of this letter, will I remove the member for Katherine as shadow Treasurer? No, I will not, for the reasons I have described. These matters have been dealt with and belong in the past.
The Territory government is setting a dangerous precedent because there are members in this Chamber where the same game could be played, but I will tell you that I am instructing my colleagues not to go down that path, tempted as we are, with the kind of grubby business we have been witness to in this Chamber.
We have charges made by the Leader of Government Business who puts himself in a very vulnerable position by pushing out on this front. It exposes all of us - every single one of us is exposed by this stunt. It brings into play what was really at the heart of this: that desire to wreak revenge on the Country Liberals for asking questions during Question Time regarding the candidate for the seat of Solomon.
If you read the questions, they could have been asked in this Chamber and could have been asked outside. There was no drama there. Who raised the issue of the families? It was the Chief Minister. Families were not mentioned. What was asked was that which was in the public domain, and what was sought was clarification - an explanation - but what we were provided with was the bringing into play of family. That was not the action of members of the Country Liberals, and that which was asked here could have been asked outside. Yes, it was difficult. Yes, it was unpleasant, but that member was a member of parliament and these matters were in the public domain. These were questions that needed to be asked and clarified, and it was in that exchange that matters which have so offended the members of the Labor Party, that have resulted in their attempt at revenge - apparently their motivation for this low act - justifies, apparently, what we have today, on the day the opposition holds the government to account for its appalling budget. That is the justification.
Another question that sits at the end of this gutless little letter sent to me which is clearly describing, in manifest form, a motivation, a political intent, is the question of Leo Abbott - did I offer him a job? No, I did not. I will say for the record the matter was plainly that there were problems with pre-selection which left very much exposed the candidate and the party, and I had no other course of action. Those matters should finish and we get on with business. I will be standing by the member for Katherine.
I condemn this government and any member who has supported and seen justified going down this path for the very reason it raises the possibility of doors being opened, of cupboards being opened, of investigations being made, whispering campaigns; crafting of little stories which are put onto the table for us all to look at.
This is not the forum for these matters to be discussed. The question for government is when did it become aware of this? If it was so concerned when did it seek to have this matter dealt with? Why choose this day of all days? I think you have made a mistake. I know you have made a mistake. If we are talking about tactics, you have made a tactical mistake because on this day people will know exactly what your motivation is. You are not genuine, you are not interested, and you are not really concerned. These matters have been responded to and the response from the opposition is to treat this motion with the contempt it deserves.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion. I find the wording of the motion interesting, the way the motion is being put, and the clinical way in which the minister came into this House and put forward his arguments. When you look at the motion it is not about the member for Katherine. This motion has absolutely nothing to do with the member for Katherine; it is simply designed to be a diversion from the main game. This motion is a stunt; nothing more, nothing less.
We have just witnessed a horror budget and, as time moves on, I am certain it will be seen as such. When the government spin has ended and people have a chance to analyse this budget, look at it for what it really is in the cold light of day, after some scrutiny they will see it is a budget of re-promised promises, of debt, deceit and deficit. It is a budget that lets everyone in the Northern Territory down.
The government knows it only too well. This government will do the mandatory day or two of singing, dancing, carrying on and saying what a wonderful budget it is; however, it knows deep down this is a budget of spin and deceit. The best way Labor governments know to deal with those issues is to spin a little bit more, provide a stunt and distract from the main game. That is what this motion is about.
It was interesting this morning listening to the Leader of the Opposition talk about the potholes in the highway. A few people jump up and make a few squeals. I remember during the Alice Springs sittings talking about the several hundred potholes between Hayes Creek and Pine Creek, and the fact the government was a disgrace because it was not spending its roads money properly. What do we see after that? Not a mad scramble, although I went to Mataranka on the weekend and was quite happy to see work under way on the potholes. However, I am also not surprised to see a range of pothole ads on the television. It is the way of the government - glossy brochures, big spending advertising campaigns, anything it can do to distract from the main game. This motion we are debating today is nothing more than that.
As has been said by a number of speakers in this House, we are all human. We have all done some things in our past we are not particularly proud of, or that we would not like revealed in the cold light of day as people who occupy a public office. I am probably more human than most people in this House. I had my fair share of larrikin behaviour, naughtiness and going off the rails when I was young - probably more than most people here. I look around the Chamber and see such fine, upstanding, decent people and I often scratch my head wondering how I managed to gain a seat amongst such illustrious company.
Mr Wood: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: The fact is, member for Nelson, my first election campaign in 2001 was marred by the revelation - which I provided – that I had a cannabis possession conviction when I was a teenager in Queensland. At that time I was facing a charge of drink-driving. The minister asked, in his opening remarks, if there were any other people on this side of the House who had similar problems with registration and the like. I have to, in all honesty, put my hand up and say: ‘Yes, I am one of those people’. Twice now I have been done for having an unregistered trailer when I first arrived here - both simply mistakes. I did not pay the registration on time; I was pulled up by the police and charged for having unregistered trailers. It is not something I am proud of.
At the time I did not contemplate a public life and it did not bother me too much. It was something where you turn up to court, plead guilty, pay your couple hundred dollar fine and take off. That is the reality. On two occasions I failed to register trailers and, in the Northern Territory, a trailer is considered a motor vehicle. Having these types of offences is not something you want to promote amongst your constituents. .
As a kid I remember being nabbed by the local shopkeeper for stealing a bottle of tomato sauce. We used to get hot chips at lunchtime - 20 for a big bag of chips - and rather than me walking into the supermarket and paying 50 for a bottle of tomato sauce, I decided to stick it down the front of my pants, which probably gave me away. In any case it is not something I am proud of.
Talking about primary school, I was one of those exceptions in the class. I got the cuts nearly every year from about Grade 1 to Grade 7. In Grade 1, I got the cane for putting plasticine in the hair of the bloke sitting in front of me. Plasticine is an awful thing to get out. The point I am making is we have all done things we are not proud of at some time or other.
I am probably more human than most people in this room. I look back on my life and sometimes wish I had done things differently. It has been a dream of mine my entire life to have a career in politics. In fairness, most of your life it is something you think of as a dream out of your grasp. If I really though it was possible I may have taken a different path in life.
One of the things that makes parliament great is we have a past. In the dining room last night I was discussing with colleagues from both sides of this Chamber some of the heinous crimes committed by politicians in Australia. In a previous debate I outlined a long list of Labor politicians who have been gaoled for some incredibly nasty crimes. We are human; we make mistakes. It does not exempt us from the repercussions of making those mistakes. In public life you have to expect to cop a bit more than most citizens of this country. In that regard, it is a bit hard to say: ‘Come on, it was years ago; you should not be raising these things’.
The reality with the member for Katherine is this happened quite some time ago. Clearly, it is something he is not proud of. When he was giving his personal explanation in Alice Springs he was not thumping his chest and carrying on about how clever he had been. He was genuinely remorseful.
That should have been the end of the matter, and probably would have been the end of the matter except we now have witnessed a horror budget. We know government is ducking and weaving and doing everything it possibly can - running ads and making announcements for the last two weeks. Goodness me! There was a time when governments would hoard all that information until they delivered the budget speech. These days, with this government, there is a progressive roll-out of budget announcements long before the budget is delivered. Come budget day, as was the case this time, there is practically nothing left to announce. It is the Treasurer getting up on her feet and there is no great fanfare. By budget day all the goodies are well known by the community. All that is left to come out is the pain.
In this case the pain runs very deep indeed. We are very deep in debt, the deficit is growing, the books do not balance, and we know we are in a horror position in the Northern Territory. We look at the Treasurer who compares herself to other states and places in Australia. Well, surprise, surprise! They have all had to endure Labor governments as well. We know what Labor governments are about. Most people on the street know what Labor government is about - big spending, big debt, big deficits and high taxing. That is a Labor government. That is the hallmark of Labor governments across the country. Those people in this House who know a little about polling will tell you the strength of the Labor vote is in areas such as health, education, and the environment.
The strength of the Coalition side has always been in economic management, balancing the books, ensuring the country is adequately defended, and ensuring law and order is taken care of in a meaningful way. They are the strengths and are what people recognise. Talk to people on the street and they say: ‘Oh well, you go through a period of time with the Libs, or times with the Country Liberals, and they will always balance the books; they will always make sure. But, eventually, you need to spend a bit so you vote in a Labor government’. The pendulum swings. That is the reality.
What has become an even greater reality is Labor governments around the country and their penchant to spin a message and promote things that are not really there. In this case, the government is running a very negative message about the member for Katherine it hopes will, somehow, embrace the Leader of the Opposition, fuel speculation about leadership challenges and, ultimately, distract completely from the horror budget that has just been handed down.
Madam Speaker, I did not want to speak for too long in this debate but I had to put in my two cents worth. This motion has absolutely nothing to do with the member for Katherine and everything to do with running a political stunt, running a line and distracting from the negativities of the budget. That is a sad thing and is why I will not be supporting this motion. I call on all decent-thinking people in this House to not support it either. It is not about who has skeletons in what closet, although much has been said about that during this debate. This is all about distracting from the horror budget that has just been handed down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a speech I classify as one of the more difficult speeches. Some of the discussion before lunch made me feel quite upset at the standard debate sometimes falls to in this House. It is a difficult speech as this motion put forward by the government says - and people know my position because of the numbers in this House. This motion basically asks me to condemn someone. I can either support this motion, which would mean I support condemning the member for Katherine; or I could abstain, as I do occasionally in this House, and that, because of the numbers, would mean the member for Katherine would be condemned.
I would like to put forward an argument I have thought very seriously about since this was first brought up in Alice Springs.
When I realised, even after the member for Katherine had put forward his personal explanation, the government intended to go ahead with the original motion and decided to change it over the weekend to what we have before us today, which did not change much in my point of view, the only thing that convinced me - I started to doubt there was any moral high ground here and this was more about party politics. The member gave a statement in Alice Springs, and whether you totally agree or not, that was the statement he made. Then it seemed to move to another level.
I have read the Ombudsman’s response and the member’s statement from the Alice Springs sitting and it is not a good read, there is no doubt about it. However, the matter was dealt with by the police internally, and the member for Katherine was found guilty on a number of charges and disciplined. The matter was sent to the DPP; no charges were laid. The matter was referred to Motor Vehicle Registry; no charges were laid. The member says he was not given a copy of the Ombudsman’s response to Mr Rowley. If that is true, how can what the member said in Alice Springs be compared to what the Ombudsman said?
Regardless, the member for Katherine did something wrong. Whether it was a foolish mistake or a deliberate mistake, the people of Katherine can make that judgment. Whether the issue should be forgotten after eight years, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. Whether he should be forgiven, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. Whether he has been punished enough, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. Whether he should be their representative, the people of Katherine will make that judgment. That judgment will be made at the next election by the people of Katherine, not this parliament. Of course, that will have the proviso that before the next election his party will decide whether he is the candidate at the next election, and it will make that judgment, not this parliament.
I, too, have concerns about the way the member for Katherine - and he would not be the first or the last - sold a vehicle above the average price to Aboriginal people or organisations. In fact, the Ombudsman says Mr Rowley said to the member for Katherine, by selling the vehicle at Lajamanu at the time of royalties, he could get out of the deal as long as he split the profits - they were both in it. However, because the member for Katherine did not mention it, which is not a crime, it is not misleading.
What is being attempted today? The member for Katherine did something wrong, but is there a moral hypocrisy floating over this debate? Is this debate being driven by other reasons designed to pick up some political points? Is, as the motion reads, this really a matter of the member for Katherine misleading the parliament, or is it a case of the government exacting revenge?
The argument is his personal explanation is different from the Ombudsman’s version; therefore he deliberately misled the parliament. While the member for Katherine’s explanation may have been more repentant, contrite, or worded more strongly, is one thing. Whether it was deliberately misleading is more a matter of opinion rather than fact. We could spend valuable time debating that; however, has the point not already been made?
The member for Katherine was found guilty eight years ago by the JRC, and most people in his electorate would have heard about this and will make up their own mind. However, is the government misleading the parliament? Is this more about getting back by the government for previous tactics of the opposition? In previous debate that is exactly what this is all about - it is about Damian Hale. That is one of the worst periods I have seen in this parliament. I was quite shocked at the attacks on Damian Hale, who I find a pretty good bloke, a pretty decent fellow. I have no sympathy for the CLP when it finds the government attacking it, but I will get back to that later. If I was the CLP, I would say we probably deserve what we are getting today. It is the tough side of party politics; all war and we take no prisoners. No wonder fewer people want to take on life in public office.
Whilst I cannot stop the party politics that often fills this House with grubbiness and vindictiveness, this parliament did not elect the member for Katherine - the people did. Leave it to the people and move on - we have other work to do. For some, all is fair in love and war, or an eye for an eye, but I have better things to do. We are elected to parliament by the people not this parliament. I do not support what the member has done and it should not be construed that way, but let us not forget this was eight years ago. When do you forgive or allow someone to change their life around?
As the member for Fong Lim said, we all have skeletons in the closet. I am no better than anyone else here; I do not even pretend to be better than anyone else. The people will make their judgment on all of us at the next election. The opposition, at times, has not been exactly kind to me either, and I find my present role very difficult. Not all the time – sometimes. However, I try not to hold grudges because in the end that makes me a poorer person.
I will not condemn this man but will mention several quotes I took from a book recently. This one is for the opposition and comes from the 14th century: ‘Curses, like chickens, come home to roost’. That is probably what is happening today. I say to the government, using a quote from Mahatma Ghandi: ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.
Madam Speaker, those are two good reasons why I will not support this motion. The third reason is I am sick of it. For similar reasons, I will not support the motion on the paper today against the Minister for Health. I have better things to do.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to put on the public record that I do not support this motion. I speak from experience and put back on the Country Liberal Party - if you look at the election campaign when I stood for the Labor Party, it must have been the dirtiest campaign ever conducted. I am like the member for Nelson; I do not like to hold grudges against people. We should all move on in life. We all have a big task ahead of us. We have roads to fix, we have to house people. People are living in poverty and living hungry.
The member for Katherine gave his explanation to the parliament in Alice Springs. As the member for Nelson has said, he will be judged by his electorate of Katherine. Those people will hold him responsible for his actions of eight years ago.
I speak from experience of the dirtiest campaign run against me by the CLP; however, I do not like to carry this heavy, dirty baggage on my back, continuously crouching, carrying this negativity around when there are so many good things we can contribute in this House to move the Territory forward.
We have seen, during Question Time, the budget the government put forward for the Territory people with much infrastructure, roads money, education and good things for Aboriginal people living in poverty. There are other areas where the government could have done better. Today we had the Cattlemen’s Association talking about the roads. The Treasurer, quite rightly, has also said we had extraordinary rain this year, and not just in the Top End, in Central Australia as well.
The member for Katherine will be judged by his constituents. He has gone through the process of being investigated by police internally, and these matters went to DPP. That is something he will have to talk to his constituents in Katherine about, and is something they will do come the election next year.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. First, I would like to say there is no even up or hatred on my part, either towards the member for Katherine or in relation to Damian Hale. When the member for Port Darwin raised the issue of where this is all going a few weeks ago with me, I told him I thought this was a legitimate line of political inquiry, and I still believe that. That is why today I presented what I thought were cogent reasons, based on the Ombudsman’s report - and I will come to the issue of the Ombudsman’s report in a minute - and a very reasoned argument. I thought my language during the debate was pretty moderate, and I tried to restrict myself to the language used within the Ombudsman’s report.
I have been a recipient of many censure debates in this parliament, and know what it is like to be on the receiving end in spades. Some of the language used in some of those censure debates was vengeful and personal. In this game you have to take it on the chin. People on the other side are aspiring ministers and you have to take it on the chin, you cannot bear grudges. What I said today, and the case I put forward today, is not out of any grudge or vengeance for Damian Hale. I still believe it was a legitimate form of political inquiry and argument.
Why do I believe that? Because Mr Rowley is an aggrieved person. This matter has been before the courts in a commercial sense and there has been some form of settlement. Obviously Mr Rowley felt aggrieved; he felt his case had not been raised sufficiently, and felt sufficiently aggrieved to go to the former member for Katherine’s office and make the statements he said he had made there.
The questions I have raised today have been quite legitimate. I said in my speech, and it was acknowledged by the member for Port Darwin and a number of members speaking, that ultimately the decision will be made by the electors of Katherine. I did not say that exactly - that was the inference. The decision about this whole matter to some degree, amongst a range of other things, will be - and the leadership of the other side - made by electors. They will make their decision based on a whole range of things; this could be one factor in the matter.
What I have brought forward today is not borne out of any grudge or any even up for Damian Hale, although, like the member for Nelson, I was very uncomfortable about what happened with Damian Hale during the federal election campaign. It was probably one of the worst sessions I have been through in this parliament, and I was not even at the pointy end of it. Lord knows, I have been on quite a number of occasions in this parliament.
I will come to the issues you raised in relation to the 2003 incident involving my son and police soon, because I was on the receiving end of that …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate the minister’s choice to introduce his family members into it, I have very carefully during this debate sought not to introduce any family members into this. If you check the Hansard I have not referred to any family members. I would like the minister to understand I have tried to restrain myself to only the minister’s conduct and otherwise have spoken in very general terms deliberately.
Dr BURNS: I accept that, member for Port Darwin. However, as everyone knows, it was a police matter involving my son. I will turn to it within my speech.
To turn to the argument the member for Port Darwin used, that what I have called an Ombudsman’s report is not a report at all, I direct the member for Port Darwin to section 100 of the Ombudsman Act - Subdivision 3. This is a section about police complaints and says:
100. Report containing adverse comment.
1. This section applies if, on the investigation, the Ombudsman proposes to make adverse comment in the report about the Commissioner, the Police Force, the Police Civil Employment Unit, a police officer or another person.
If we turn now to this document, the first page of the opening letter says:
- The JRC has finalised its consideration of your complaint and provides this report for your information and/or comment.
This is a report of the Ombudsman, let us get that straight; let us not try to duck and weave that. I say that the member for Katherine, according to the legislation, would have been given every opportunity to comment. He is saying he was not given any opportunity to comment on the adverse findings of the Ombudsman’s report. That seems contrary to the legislation and should be followed up if he was not afforded natural justice for these very serious allegations. He had the chance to jump to his feet and talk about this today; however, he has not availed himself of that. He is sitting there indicating no. That question, I imagine, would need to be answered by the member for Katherine. It would be unusual if the Ombudsman and the JRC did not give him an opportunity to comment on these adverse findings.
We can see from the report he was interviewed on all the issues, including the allegations raised by Mr Rowley. That is very important. I am not going to repeat what I said earlier. Obviously, I wrote that speech myself and was very careful about it. I tried to keep my speech related to the Ombudsman’s report. Yes, I did make some criticisms of the member for Katherine and the Opposition Leader. However, in what I said, I tried to be fair to the member for Katherine. I certainly did not truncate any quotes from the Ombudsman’s report when there was ambivalence or a doubt in the findings. I tried to be quite evenhanded in what I had to say. People will make their own judgments about that.
I brought this forward as a line of political inquiry, mainly because - yes, this was in the past; however, I felt, as the member for Nelson felt, the personal explanation given by the member for Katherine in Alice Springs was not really adequate or full. I outlined that in spades in my speech. I am not going to go over that again.
I will talk a little about the member for Port Darwin drawing parallels to the matter involving me and my son in 2003. As minister, I answered questions in this parliament in 2003. The member for Port Darwin was wrong. He said the matter occurred when I was a minister. The police actually came to my house before I became a minister - from memory it was in 2002. The incident occurred in August 2002. The publicity, the headlines, did not occur until around June 2003.
My son had had a minor traffic accident. The police had been chasing him to get a statement and were becoming quite frustrated about it. A policeman rang my house about 8 pm or 8.30 pm wanting to speak to my son. My son took the phone and I could see he was a little distressed. I took the phone from my son and introduced myself as his father, primarily, and asked the officer what the problem was? The officer said he had been trying to interview my son for some time but my son had been avoiding him.
As a father, I wanted my son to face up, as I was always taught, to the consequences of his actions. We often talk about that in this parliament. I said to the police officer: ‘He is home now. If you come around you can interview him’. I invited the police into my home to interview my son because I did not want my son avoiding the consequences of his actions. Member for Port Darwin, yes, I did mention I was a member of the Legislative Assembly. Your comment earlier about different standards for people in the community was interesting - police officers. You said as parliamentarians we are probably on a par with the general public. I do not believe we are, member for Port Darwin. There is a higher expectation of us as parliamentarians, and my mention of the fact I was a member of this Assembly was purely in the context that more was expected of me, and my family, than the ordinary citizen. That is the context in which that comment was made.
Police came and conducted a preliminary interview with him. They asked whether he could go to the police station the next day, which he did. I ensured he had a lawyer with him, but he made a statement to the police. He was summonsed; he pleaded guilty and was fined about $200. That is the truth of what happened that night, member for Port Darwin.
Then, blow me down, against this background: ‘Burke’s finished, say CLP heavies’ appeared in the NT News on 17 June 2003. Here is another one on 19 June 2003: ‘Rebel Elferink may go at it alone’. Remember that, member for Port Darwin. The push was on to dump Denis Burke as leader and you were not happy your colleagues from Central Australia had changed their vote and were saying you were not happy and were going to the backbench. There were editorials about Denis Burke, and I have quite a few about various things.
Around that time, or just prior to that time, is when the allegations arose about me. As to the investigation and my recollection of what happened, there was no investigation up until the time these issues were raised by the CLP in the media and we see Camden Smith, political reporter. Hello, hello; surprise, surprise! Yes, I was interviewed by police; yes, the matter was referred to the DPP; however, I will quote what the Police Commissioner said at the time. Mr White said he had received advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Rex Wild QC, and decided not to pursue a case against Dr Burns. He said he believed it was appropriate in matters involving parliamentarians and police officers that independent advice be sought.
I saw that comment by the Police Commissioner as saying yes, we need to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. It was referred to the DPP, but unlike the member for Katherine - I suppose I am returning to it - there was never any finding of wrongdoing. There have been findings of wrongdoing - you talk about illegality, I will use the word wrongdoing in relation to the member for Katherine - regarding his conduct by the Ombudsman in that report. In contrast, there have never been any findings of wrongdoing against me.
I stand proud, as a father and a parent, that I did the right thing by my son. I made him face up to the consequences of his action, be interviewed by police, suffer the consequences and be fined, and I am proud of that. Proud of it! Let us hope we have an end to those particular allegations.
There has been much talk in parliament today about innuendo and everyone has a history. That is true, and I admire the member for Fong Lim for saying he was only human. I am probably just about as human as the member for Fong Lim. I was a bit of a larrikin and a tearaway in my younger days. I probably need to get my ASIO file; I probably need to get my Queensland police special branch file. I probably need to dig out the photos of me at Nimbin in 1971, or whenever it was. We all have a bit of history. I saw something the other day. Unfortunately, a very dear friend of mine died, and I had some pictures where I look like Jethro Tull. I cannot play music as well as Jethro Tull. Anyway, that was the 1960s.
The Leader of the Opposition said, on 18 August 2010: ‘We live in a world where rumours abound, but rumours do not amount to anything as far as I am concerned until they are verified’. We are approached by all sorts of people with allegations about this, that, and the other. Some have an axe to grind, some are obsessive, and some are mentally ill. We need to be very careful about what we appropriate from people who come knocking on our door. I agree that we need to be careful about what we say in this House and about others. It was a bit of double standard for the opposition too as to where is the boundary. Digging up something about someone that occurred in the past - where does it stop, where does it begin?
I could not help but think about the documents early in this Assembly that were dug up about the member for Daly about his employment. Remember that? Yes, I remember that. That was a bit gratuitous as well.
Let us not all say we are perfect. We are in the political game together. I lay it on the record again: I hold no hard feelings against the member for Katherine. I am sure he is not feeling all that friendly towards me right now, but the member for Blain prosecuted that case against me in 2003 and I do not hold any grudges against him. The former member for Goyder was in there, possibly even the former member for Macdonnell; I cannot recall. Several members were having a few punches at me, and I felt I was fighting with my hands behind my back because I would have loved to have said what I have said here …
Mr Elferink: Why didn’t you?
Dr BURNS: You are a little constrained about what you can say, and I did not like talking about my son.
This parliament is a strange place for those sorts of things, but I have put it on the table now. It has obviously been very difficult for the member for Katherine. However, if you are around this House for a while you have to deal with difficult situations and the heat in this parliament. Unfortunately, it is all part of it. I was bound to raise these issues. If the opposition had a report like that against a minister, some of them would have been running around the sides of this wall. Let us get real about it. I am bound to bring this into parliament. I have moved this motion, which will not be sustained from what people have said.
Madam Speaker, we should put it to the vote.
Motion negatived.
TRAFFIC AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 166)
(Serial 166)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will implement another important Council of Australian Governments reform. This reform is about the harmonisation of technical measurements, specifically those used to describe the content of alcohol in a person. For many years the Northern Territory has enforced drink-driving laws by the use of alcohol analysis equipment. This equipment measures the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath and then expresses the result in terms of the concentration of the alcohol in the blood that corresponds to that measurement of alcohol in the person’s breath.
The National Standards Commission has now developed a new Australian Standard of Evidential Breath Analysers which is being adopted nationally. This means NT Police need to modify their existing breath analysing instruments that currently express the amount of alcohol measured in breath in terms of the equivalent blood alcohol concentration. This will ensure that the devices continue to comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth’s National Measurement Act 1960 and National Measurement Regulations 1999.
The adoption of this new standard of measurement means that offences detected by breath analysis need to be defined by reference to the amount of alcohol contained in a person’s breath. This bill delivers the changes necessary to achieve this. In future, breath testing evidential instruments, for example Drager Alcotest 7110, will express the measurement of alcohol in terms of grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath. This standard will keep the legal limit at 0.05 in these units, but it will be a breath alcohol concentration rather than a blood alcohol concentration.
The opportunity has also been taken to undertake some housekeeping which adds clarity to the intent of some sections within the Traffic Act. These include:
providing the Registrar with a power to exempt a class of driver/person, for example police officers, from certain road rules while in training;
providing definitions for improved clarity, for example the ‘prescribed form’ for traffic control devices;
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Brennan. It appears we are lacking a quorum, ring the bells.
Thank you. We have a quorum.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the miscellaneous amendments are in the main merely clarifying the current situation so there may be no doubt in the intent of these provisions.
I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Appointment of Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Appointment of Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move –
- That the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee 2011-12 and a Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee 2011-12, pursuant to the terms circulated to members yesterday.
Regarding the terms of reference, our government is committed to an open and transparent estimates process. There were a number of changes to the process last year which worked well. This year we have worked further on those changes. We are always looking to improve the estimates processes.
Principally, the terms of reference for the 2011-12 process incorporate recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee Fifth Report to the Eleventh Assembly presented to the Assembly last year. Last year, the global time limit was 50 hours; this year we have increased the global time limit by 20% to 60 hours. This sees 10 more hours compared to last year. That will allow the committee to examine the expenditure of government, department by department, line by line. This is an important process for opposition and Independent members to query the government on how it is spending money, and the results for that expenditure. The challenge is for these extra 10 hours to be used wisely and not squandered.
An important feature of estimates this year will be the increase in time limits for the Chief Minister and the Treasurer to eight hours. This is an increase from last year’s time limit of seven hours. I commend both the Chief Minister and the Treasurer - seven to eight hours is a long time taking much concentration. As always, they will acquit themselves well in the estimates process.
It is a very daunting process, but is also one ministers welcome. I certainly welcome it because it gives me an opportunity to learn more about my portfolio areas. In the estimates process there is always the capacity for surprises for ministers sometimes with the answers that are given. Basically, it is sometimes a bit of a follow-up. Sometimes the opposition might not notice an answer that has the minister’s antenna waving around fairly furiously. However, the opposition certainly has an opportunity to speak to public servants in a direct sense and question on matters of administration.
The Public Accounts Committee has been provided with the flexibility in determining how many hours each minister appears before the Estimates Committee within the global time limit of 60 hours. This was the process adopted last year, and will continue this year. However, there is a maximum time limit of seven hours for each minister for the Estimates Committee hearing and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
As members would be aware, estimates this year will be held over two weeks - Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week - and sitting days have been reduced to reflect these additional Estimates Committee days.
Finally and very importantly, both portfolio ministers for the Government Owned Corporation, which is the Power and Water Corporation, will be present during the Power and Water Corporation hearings. Thus, not only will the Board and Chief Executive of Power and Water appear before the Government Owned Corporation Estimates Committee, we will also have the shareholding minister, who is the Treasurer, the Under Treasurer, and the Minister for Essential Services. That will be riveting viewing on the television. It is good that the shareholding minister, the portfolio minister, and the Under Treasurer are there. That will provide opposition and Independents an opportunity to ask questions about Power and Water and its Statement of Corporate Intent. Also, it provides Power and Water Corporation an opportunity to place on the record the positive things it is doing - and it is doing many positive things. It cuts both ways. We need to recognise the good work the Power and Water Corporation does, particularly its staff.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we look forward to the estimates process. We encourage the opposition and Independents to have stronger lines of questioning, to engage in the conversation that is the estimates process and to interrogate. I also encourage the public and the media: this is as an open process; come to hearings that are of interest. This is an integral part of a healthy democracy. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, like the minister, I shall not be on my feet for very long. This motion is essentially a procedural motion outlining how the Estimates Committee will operate and how it will work. The processes of the Estimates Committee are substantially different now to what was originally introduced by the Northern Territory government, and I am not ungrateful for the improvements. I will even go so far as to say now the Estimates Committee has formed into the structure it has, it is, in my view, an improvement on the former estimates process, even as it was run by the Country Liberals prior to the change of government in 2001.
Whilst it will still suffer from one aspect, and that is the capacity to pursue matters to exhaustion as was the old set of rules, the truth is that 60 hours spread over two weeks should be sufficient time for any effective opposition to raise issues that are important to it. The growth and change of shape of the Estimates Committee, particularly in recent times, reflects the vulnerable nature of a minority government, and that is reflected in the structure the Estimates Committee is now taking. I do not believe I will be substantially breaching the protocol of confidentiality of a PAC to say prior to lunch we discussed the structure and nature of how the Estimates Committee should operate - a very civilised discussion about getting some of the minutiae right.
The acknowledgement by government and the Standing Orders Committee that senior ministers, particularly the Chief Minister and the Treasurer and, by de facto, the Attorney-General, deserve longer scrutiny simply because of the enormity of the budget they carry and the importance of the roles they have, is now acknowledged in this process.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to standing in front of this House after the Estimates Committee processes are completed, being able to report, as we have done in recent years, that it was done fairly, openly, honestly, and that we have had a good and sufficient opportunity to examine the budget which the Treasurer delivered to this House yesterday.
The Treasurer is asking this parliament to pass a law, the Appropriation Bill - I have not looked at the exact figure - which will carry a request for several billion dollars from Treasury. It deserves careful scrutiny and it deserves critical and analytical questions be asked. I hope ministers will take this as an opportunity not to obnubilate but to explain what is going on in their portfolio areas. There is no reason government should be embarrassed or ashamed of what it is doing. It can run a strident defence of its decisions; I have no objection to that. That is the purpose of the process, but to cover or dodge questions as has happened in the past would be an ongoing disappointment to me.
Having said that, I would like to spear off on a slightly different tangent because I will not get another opportunity to do so. I listened carefully to the previous debate where the Leader of Government Business made some comments. He could have saved himself a great deal of angst if he had explained what had happened originally. I am glad he has taken the opportunity to do so and acknowledge the difficulty that set of circumstances placed him in. I am grateful the matter is now cleared up and, as far as I am concerned, unless there is some other issue surrounding it I have no cause to ever raise it again.
Motion agreed to.
APPROPRIATION (2011-2012) BILL
(Serial 163)
(Serial 163)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud to support Budget 2011-12 as handed down by the Treasurer yesterday. I have said in parliament, and also publicly, that this has been a very difficult budget to craft, especially given the rapidly declining GST pull at a national level. The fact those numbers were changing on a regular basis has made this budget a difficult beast to put together. I am proud of it because the budget supports jobs. It protects jobs in the Northern Territory until the banks start lending to the same criteria and levels prior to the GFC, or certainly to an improved level than they are now. If you talk to developers, business people or homeowners, getting approval for finance to purchase your home, extend your overdraft, a business loan or a developer getting finance to get a project off the ground, access to credit or finance is very tough at the moment.
If we had taken the decision not to step into deficit and protect jobs in the Territory we would have seen people lose their jobs in significant numbers. We would have seen small businesses close, and many medium to larger businesses put people off. When you are in government you have to take responsible positions not politically popular ones, and keeping growth in the economy and keeping people in jobs is the responsibility of government to do whatever it can to keep people in work.
I turn to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition in what was probably the worst reply I have ever heard in this House. The Leader of the Opposition offered not one single policy initiative in his response. The entire response was almost a critique of the fiscal management of the Territory Labor government from a very warped perspective; certainly a perspective that is not supported by any economist I know of, or any of the pre-eminent economic commentators. I am going to take the opportunity this afternoon to put the record straight regarding some of the nonsense sprouted by the Leader of the Opposition.
Essentially, one of the charges he laid against the government was it had somehow not used the additional GST revenues received to good purpose and the accusation was that this money had been wasted. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: look around the Northern Territory and see the massive infrastructure spends that have occurred in all regions over the last seven, eight to 10 years. You can look at the hundreds of extra nurses, teachers, doctors, allied health professionals, improved service delivery with the oncology centre up and running, and the roads that have been upgraded throughout the Northern Territory.
If we look at the expenditure on housing throughout the Northern Territory you can see there has been massive and significant investment relating to infrastructure and services. The Leader of the Opposition is essentially saying all the additional GST money should have been put in the bank and should not have been spent; we should not have used the opportunity from additional Commonwealth revenues to improve services and infrastructure for Territorians.
I disagree. I am very proud that this government has put over 600 extra nurses into our health system throughout the Territory. I am very proud that, as a government, we have recruited hundreds of extra doctors to the Northern Territory, and very proud we have hundreds of extra teachers in our classrooms. I am proud of the infrastructure that has been built in every region of this great Northern Territory. Out of that expenditure comes the fact that since being in government we have an extra 26 000 people employed in the Northern Territory.
We had, during the times when the banks were lending freely, a transformation in this economy where, for the first time since self-government, private sector investment and confidence from the private sector to invest in the Northern Territory - confidence from the banks to loan to businesses to invest in the Northern Territory - drove so much of the economic growth and employed more people, creating new jobs, creating new small businesses, and expanding small businesses to medium businesses and medium businesses to large businesses.
For the Leader of the Opposition to say we should not have used any of that extra money, should have put it all in the bank, would have seen, even in the last three years, fewer than 12 000 jobs created in the Northern Territory. We put much of that money in the bank for a rainy day. Those eight surplus budgets in a row delivered by a Labor government - no CLP government in the history of the Northern Territory delivered eight surplus budgets in a row in 27 years in government - wrote down $582m of debt and $0.5bn was put in the bank for a rainy day and reduced nett debt to revenue liabilities. That has enabled us, at a time when we need to go into deficit, to reach into the coffers and go into deficit.
The Leader of the Opposition’s assertions that the government should have put all the money in the bank and should not have expanded service provision in the Territory, particularly to regional and remote communities that had been starved of infrastructure and service delivery for many years, that all that money should have gone into the bank, is economic madness in the extreme. He talked about the need for greater economic security. We certainly would not have greater economic security under a Country Liberal Party government which put all the money in the bank, did not invest in infrastructure that has been productive, and seen private sector investment on the back of it. We would have many thousand fewer jobs in our economy today under a CLP government which would have refused to spend and put all of the money in the bank. To what end, goodness only knows. Government’s responsibility is to deliver services and create an economic climate that gives the private sector the confidence to invest.
He talked about the nett interstate migration. The reality is - and it is mentioned in the budget papers - over 1200 people were transferred out of the Northern Territory with the relocation of the 7 RAR Regiment from Darwin to Adelaide. A decision was made by the Army to relocate the regiment and that has had a significant impact on those population flows. It is not, as the Leader of the Opposition would like to have it, people fleeing the Northern Territory as a result of the increased cost of living. It is as a result of a decision by the Army to transfer a regiment from Darwin to Adelaide - 1200 people will have a significant impact on population flows.
The Leader of the Opposition also is not taking into account - maybe he does not read the economic pieces written in the paper - that there has been a significant reduction, again as a result of Commonwealth government policy, regarding people coming to the Territory on 457 work visas. People’s visas are expiring and they are leaving the Northern Territory. That has also contributed to that nett loss of population.
He also does not recognise - and I have an interesting graph here - that it has been the historical trend of the Northern Territory over a near 30-year period to have nett interstate migration loss. The only three times in our history where we have had nett interstate migration gain were the periods 1982 through to around the third quarter of 1985, and 1986, where we were still very much in the post-Cyclone Tracy rebuilding phase. We then went into significant nett migration loss from the period 1985 through to 1994 - a 10-year period. Then, from 1994 through to 1997, we saw the decision of the then Commonwealth government to commit to Robertson Barracks, and we had a spike in interstate migration positives as a result of that project. Then, from 1997 through to around 2005, we saw a nett migration loss. Then, from 2005 to around 2009-10, the major projects such as the Darwin LNG plant, the Rio Tinto Alcan G3 expansion, Blacktip, and several major mining companies committing significant investments saw it rise again.
The historical trend has been, for the best part of 30 years, nett migration loss. It goes to show the wisdom of this government to pursue a transformation in the Northern Territory’s economy in securing the INPEX project, and also developing the marine supply base for the Northern Territory - to get away from these boom/bust major project cycles to having in place a substantial and substantive industrial base that is more or less immune to those cycles and will provide a steady stream of employment for decades to come.
The Leader of the Opposition ignores major policy decisions that are external to the Territory in 7 RAR being transferred, changes to 457 visa and overseas immigration quotas on the Northern Territory, and the historical nature that we are between major projects. Whenever that has happened in the Territory there has been a nett migration loss. That is the reality as opposed to the hyperbole from the Leader of the Opposition.
He misquoted Access Economics. I quote from their latest report, which talked about ‘mesmerising prospects on the horizon for the Northern Territory’. They are far more assertive in their growth projections for the Northern Territory than Treasury. They say we will average 5% economic growth for the next five years, the strongest in the nation alongside Western Australia. We are a little more conservative at 3.5%. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition was reading; when I look at Access Economics’ forecast it is full of hope and acknowledges the Territory’s best times are yet to come with ‘mesmerising prospects on the horizon’.
He said we were in a negative growth phase at the moment. That is not true. We will come in at around 2.2% for the 2009-10 financial year. I contrast that since this Labor government has been in government we have had positive growth throughout the 10 years, as opposed to the zero percent growth inherited in 2001. When the rest of the country was in positive economic growth we were stalled at zero percent growth.
He talked about the housing market and, again, what a warped view of the housing market the Leader of the Opposition has. He talked about high levels of unsold properties. The only high levels of unsold properties in the Northern Territory are units priced at $800 000 and above, and those developers who have put those units on the market, by and large, are cashed up enough to carry the holding costs of those investments. They are not discounting those unit prices aggressively because they are holding onto them for the final investment decision from INPEX to see the top end of the market kick back in again. There are no high levels of unsold properties at the medium and lower ends of the market; the only unsold properties are the $800 000 and above. That is predominantly because the banks are making it much tougher for finance, and the developers can afford the holding costs of not putting them on the market or discounting them to sell them. That is the reality of what is happening in the property market as opposed to the fantasy from the Leader of the Opposition.
He also said there were only a handful of major projects on the horizon. He said he went to the APEA Conference in Perth. I do not know who he was talking to at that conference. I was there for the best part of three days and probably had 20 different meetings with companies that were exploring, investing, or looking to invest in the Northern Territory. There is a massive pipeline of projects on the way to our north and northwest. There are projects like Montara, Kitan, Prelude, INPEX, GDF SUEZ and Sunrise. Over $1bn-worth of exploration activity is going to take place in Northern Territory-administered waters over the next five years. An assessment from APEA and other commentators is with the rapid development of floating LNG technology we could see between seven and 10 floating LNG platforms that we are looking to capture the service, supply and maintenance of from the Port of Darwin as a result of our marine supply base initiative within the next 10 years.
The Leader of the Opposition said he attended APEA. If he did, I have no idea who he spoke to because everyone I spoke to was very excited about the future prospects, very excited about doing business in the Northern Territory, and very positive about the Northern Territory’s future.
He talked about the cost of living. I acknowledge the Territory is an expensive place to live; it has always been an expensive place to live. It is expensive because of the tyranny of distance, the small population base, virtually all consumables have to be imported whether from down south or overseas, and those transport costs are factored into virtually every purchasing decision that is made. The high cost of delivering infrastructure, the high cost of building to cyclone codes - the cost of living in Darwin has always been a challenge and expensive, and he said people who do not have a job pack up and leave. That has always been the case. It was the case when I came here in 1983. It is all relative, and if people do not have a job they go back to networks they have back down south, family networks, friendship networks and a slightly reduced cost of living. There is nothing unusual or different to what has always been the case in the Northern Territory.
That is why we are doing everything we can in this budget to subsidise the cost of living in the Northern Territory, to help people out with their power bills to the tune of $820 per year, to help families out with the costs of childcare to the tune of around $1000 a year for every family with a child in full-time childcare. It is why we have the back to school bonus, why we provide pensioners with the most generous concessions in the country, and free bus travel for students. The list goes on. The government recognises the cost of living is an issue, and we have more subsidies here to help address those cost of living issues than anywhere else in the country.
Regarding losing your job and packing up and leaving, that is why this budget is in deficit. It is in deficit to protect jobs; to keep people in the Northern Territory until the next wave of major projects can see people move from government funded infrastructure projects to work on private sector funded infrastructure projects. The Leader of the Opposition just does not get it.
He also, with regard to his entire commentary, fails to recognise the total collapse in private sector investment. That is why the government has had to step in and go into deficit. The credit markets have dried up as a result of the GFC. Competition in the banking sector is much reduced as a number of those overseas banks that were in the Australian market are not in the Australian market today. Many of them do not exist at all. Talk to business people or people seeking a home loan from the banks. At breakfast today I was talking to a business person in the real estate market who said it is not that people do not want to buy properties. They get people to sign up subject to finance who then cannot access the finance.
If the government does not step in at times like this, the only consequence is people will lose their jobs in the thousands. The Opposition Leader just does not get it at all. That is why the business community is supporting this budget. The business community is totally understanding of the fact we have to go into deficit. I saw Chris Young on the news last night saying he wished the Australian government would take the same position as this government and pursue reasonable and responsible deficits to support the economy instead of a mad headlong rush into surplus when you do not need to do so. That was Chris Young and with all due respect to Chris, he is not naturally on our side of the equation and supportive of this government but he understands how the economy works and understands, on behalf of his members, how important it is that we have taken the steps we decided to take.
The other side of the economy is the investments we are making in the bush in this budget. Again, there was no vision from the Leader of the Opposition at all regarding developing infrastructure in the bush, services in the bush, and jobs in the bush. He hardly touched on it at all apart from saying we need to have more of the intervention. He did not say where, how, or how much he was prepared to commit to fund services and infrastructure in the bush.
I have a very instinctive understanding that if the opposition gets over the line at the next election it will take the axe to the bush to find those savings. It will find them in the bush - the $677m committed to infrastructure. I point out the comments from the member for Port Darwin on the announcement in the lead-up to Budget 2011-12 that the government was committing $17m to Wadeye to transform the power generation source from diesel to gas. The comments were: ‘That is all well and good but that is $17m you are not spending in town’. The axe is going to fall on those types of projects. This is the right thing for the government to do in relation to the cost of electricity provision. Gas is going to be much cheaper than carting very expensive diesel hundreds of kilometres across roads to fire that power station. Sometimes you have to spend a dollar to save 10, and the axe will fall on those types of projects.
There is $677m in this budget for infrastructure in the bush for housing, roads, schools, and health clinics, and that has been boosted by today’s announcement by Warren Snowdon, Nicola Roxon, the federal Health minister, and Senator Crossin of another $80m to be spent on infrastructure for health clinics in remote parts of the Northern Territory. It is only Labor governments, both federally and in the Territory, that have a vision for a future for people who live in our remote towns and regions of the Northern Territory and are backing that vision with hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure and services. We have a long way to go; there is no magic wand.
My colleague, the minister for Indigenous services, said today in Question Time there have been decades of neglect so there needs to be decades of commitment. We understand there needs to be decades of commitment, and for our term in government, however long that lasts, you will see that commitment from a Labor government in the Territory. I doubt very much that you would see a similar level of commitment by the Country Liberal Party if it were to achieve government at the next election.
I will touch briefly on the marine supply base because this is the Northern Territory’s next big major project and one which will really capitalise on the investments we are seeing offshore in oil and gas exploration, production, and production platforms. At the moment off the North West Shelf and to the north of us, most of those platforms are serviced and supplied either out of Perth or Singapore. Our discussions with those companies are that if the infrastructure was here in the Territory, if the business case stacked up, then they would switch their service and supply from those bases to the Northern Territory. We have tested that to date by seeking expressions of interest for a joint venture partner, or a PPP, to partner with government to build, own and operate a marine supply base out of the Port of Darwin. We have had significant interest, internationally, in that proposal. We now have three preferred bidders working up final bids to the government, and we will be looking to make a decision on the preferred proponent by the end of the year.
This really is an initiative that will develop and then sustain a very significant increase and improvement to the engineering capability of Northern Territory businesses to not only assist and participate in the day-to-day maintenance of those platforms, but also to get a lion’s share of the work on the periodic total shutdowns these platforms and processing plants have to have through their 40- to 50-year life of operation. Obviously, the service and supply of not only drilling production consumables but also crew changes and crew consumables on these platforms is significant, and will support many thousands of jobs in the Northern Territory, both directly and indirectly.
Once those financial investments are made by the big multinational oil and gas companies then regardless of economic cycles, those facilities keep on producing. If they keep on producing they need supplying and servicing and, irrespective of those economic cycles, it is a floor under the base of the economy of the Northern Territory. That is why my government has had the vision not only to chase and secure INPEX for the Northern Territory, but to develop the potential for this industry here through the marine supply base initiative.
Budgets are all about number and dollars; the economy is all about numbers. I instinctively understand economies are not a means to an end in themselves; they are about people. They are about people having good, well-paid jobs. It is about being able to provide for quality schools, health services and recreational facilities. It is about quality infrastructure. It is about opportunities for Territorians; it is not just about the numbers in themselves. For those 26 000 people who now have jobs in this economy - 12 000 of them since the GFC as a result of government having to go into deficit - I make absolutely no apologies whatsoever. The Treasurer said today if you ask a person …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, I will be very quick.
If you ask people whether the government should go into a responsible deficit for a period of time or sacrifice jobs and lose jobs in the economy, I know what 99% of people would say.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to support Budget 2011-12. I commend the Treasurer. I commend Treasury and Treasury officials who work extraordinarily long, hard hours putting the budget together. I was speaking to the Under Treasurer the other day, and virtually everyone in Treasury worked over the Easter period when many of us were enjoying time with our family and friends. I thank them for their hard work and endeavours on this budget. I thank all my Cabinet colleagues for working through this process with a very difficult set of numbers this year. I commend the budget to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak in relation not only to this budget but other budgets as well. The government would have us believe a budget occurs in a vacuum in the sense there are no other budgets either side of it, and that only one budget ever matters. A budget is just that: a budget. It is what we are going to spend as a jurisdiction in the next 12 months. It is what we are going to receive in cash; it is what we are going to pay out in cash. It is a very simple equation: if you receive more than you spend you have a surplus; if you spend more than you receive you have a deficit.
One has to look at this budget in the context of the last 10 years, because the fundamental issue I have with this government is it ignored a repeated warning from many sectors about its continued decisions to expand money which had come to it from not only planned budget increases, but extra money it did not expect to receive. Year in, year out, as the former shadow Treasurer, I would sit here, with exasperation, and watch this government receive increasing amounts of money - some of which it did not even expect to get - and not reduce debt accordingly. Like a true Labor government, it sees expenditure as the only fiscal target it wanted to meet. Granted, its fiscal policy did see some reduction in nett debt.
It is interesting to compare this jurisdiction with two other jurisdictions in relation to the Northern Territory’s finances. One was a conservative jurisdiction - the federal jurisdiction - which reduced our debt to nothing. We had no nett debt at a federal level. In fact, we had money in the bank. The former federal government, under Howard/Costello, was very careful not only to get rid of the $90bn black hole left by the Keating era, but gradually, year in, year out, reduce that debt. It had money in the bank at the time of the change to the Rudd Labor government. Very quickly, of course, we returned to deficit budgets. That is one of the reasons we, as jurisdictions, are responsible for saving when we are getting more money.
The Northern Territory government’s expenditure on a year-on-year basis – I will put it so it is easier to understand, I do not want to talk about the budgetary gobbledygook. The last CLP budget was $2.2bn. The current budget is about $4.6bn, which means the Territory government is now receiving more than twice as much as the last CLP government received. It is from that you generate these debts of revenue ratios and all that sort of thing. The truth is this government is getting a bucket load more cash every year, far in excess of CPI growth over the same period.
Last year, the Treasurer was forced to admit during the estimates process - I think she put a figure of just under $700m as unexpected income - the GST money we did not budget for because the GST turned out to be an even bigger mother lode than we expected it to be. During that period the government, if it had restrained itself to spending what it had budgeted for, could have taken that $600m off our debt. If it had just allowed growth in certain areas of the public service to be limited to a more restrained level - I am not saying no growth at all, I am just saying a more manageable growth than what we have seen - if it had done that over the period of those years, it could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no reason that within six or seven years of taking over the reins of government the Northern Territory’s debt could have been zero, we could have had money in the bank.
Another jurisdiction - and to ensure we are making fair comparisons - Western Australia had a Labor government and, to the credit of that Labor government, it reduced Western Australia’s debt to zero. Even Labor governments can manage it if they put their mind to it
It is the great, hoary, old chestnut of this government to say, every time we talk about the growth of the public service, we are going to hack 800 public service jobs. It is nonsense; it is not going to happen. No one is going to be fired; there will be no forced redundancies, nothing like that. If you had restrained growth - bear in mind the public service has grown from 14 000 to about 18 500 at the moment, you can see growth has been substantial. The government has chosen to do this rather than save money. So, in a period of great growth, it chose to spend the extra money. It was warned in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. It had been repeatedly warned through the whole process that, sooner or later, hard times would be visited upon us. My concern is this government has missed the opportunity of a century to reduce our debt to zero. It chose not to; it chose to spend it.
There was a contraction in our debt which was good but, unfortunately, looking at the forward estimates now, we are going to be borrowing our backsides off. We are going to increase nett debt by over 100% in a few years. If you use the non-financial public sector as a yardstick, our current nett debt situation is about $2bn; our debt situation will be $3.8bn in four years’ time. Why is our baseline debt now after this long period of sustained growth? Yes, I do not have a major problem with a deficit budget, but it is much better to announce a deficit budget when you have savings in the bank so you do not have to borrow - you will not have to spend $400 000 a day on interest repayments as will be the case in the not so distant future in the Northern Territory - $400 000 every single day is what we are going to be coughing up for no productive outcome when we could have been better positioned to absorb this situation.
The government says this is a responsible budget and will prop up the economy - the Country Liberals have done that. I ask all honourable members to have a quick look around. Yes, the building we are standing in is a direct response to - I think it was called the recession we had to have, and I can tell you that recession we had to have hurt the Northern Territory particularly. It was a particularly tough time, and the government of the day saw people were going to end up in situations where they would struggle to put food on the table. The government of the day decided to do exactly what this government is doing: raise capital through borrowings to prop up the economy. I understand that. It was probably the most expensive choice because whilst the project engineer was Multiplex, I am fully aware that tons of contracts associated with this building were directed to local small firms.
I remember driving past the back of this building one day when the tilers were working. There was not one big truck with ‘big tiling company’ written on the side. There was a bunch of utes. I do not know how many small subbies were occupied on this building; however, none of those small subbies got rich but were able to keep a roof over their head and pay the mortgage. That is what the government does. It is called countercyclical spending.
That expression harks back to John Maynard Keynes, the economist, who, basically, and I seriously oversimplify his argument for the sake of the debate, used an old Aesop’s fable comparing the grasshopper and the ants. The ants squirrelled away diligently in the good times and could get through the bad times. The grasshopper had one big party and all of a sudden found himself starving to death come winter. The Keynesian approach is to expend money during the bad times. We saw that being done by the international community in response to the most recent global financial crisis. However, there is a component in that argument which has been overlooked by so many of the players and is being deliberately overlooked by the Treasurer. That component is simply this: the Treasurer fails to acknowledge that in the good times she did not make hay. She spent it all; she had a very grasshoppery good time.
We now find ourselves in a situation where the bad times are here and government has only one way to respond - to borrow more money. Anyone who owns a credit card understands the peril of that approach. Whilst we have a six-inch thick pile of budget papers in front of us, the truth of the matter is if you borrow money you have to pay it back. Our credit rating is AA+. It used to be AAA+. It went AA+ under the former CLP government. That means we have a slightly higher cost in sourcing money. If you read the Treasury Corporation’s Annual Report you will see most of the loans we have maturing in the near future are not going to be paid off. They will be re-borrowed against and we will have new loans. The borrowing program has been particularly bountiful. The problem is the savings program has not been anywhere near as bountiful and, as a consequence, we are now ramping up the debt of Territorians. Every household of mum, dad and two kids has $120 000 worth of debt attached that some future government will have to sort out.
This then takes us to the point where the Treasurer says: ‘Do not worry about it. We have a step-up program’. If you are able to project four or five years in advance and say we will be in surplus in the year 2015-16, why not put that in your budget papers? The reason is it is very difficult; exponentially more difficult to predict what is going to be happening in four years time than what is going to be happening next year. Not one of the budget papers I read prior to 2008 had any expression or expectation in it of a global financial crisis, yet, as we were getting closer to the crisis, the warning signs were starting to appear. The closer the future, the easier it is to predict.
I can tell honourable members what I will be doing tonight with some certainty; however, I am not sure I can tell honourable members what I will be doing in five years time with any certainty. This is what we ask Treasury to do. Treasury does a forward projection and, as far as it is prepared to look, which is out to the year 2014-15, there are deficits; nothing but red ink the whole way across the bottom of the page. There is a nebulous assertion that after that time we are going to step into a surplus based on what? Treasury is not prepared to describe what those future years are going to look like because it is too risky. There are too many variables and too many unknowns. Why on earth would you?
For the Treasurer to run the argument: ‘Oh, don’t worry about it; it is all going to be mickey mouse in about five or six years time’ - you do not know. There could be a global depression at that point. Let us say there is a terror attack using a nuclear weapon in New York City. What happens to the Territory budget as a result of the ensuing calamity? Those things are utterly unpredictable. Even the things you can guess at like bond rates are difficult to project out to the future.
At last year’s estimates Treasury demonstrated much speculative work goes into putting these forward projections together. How do we know it is speculative? Compare a forward projection of four years ago to where we are today and you will see the vast difference between what is predicted and the outcome. We cannot, with any comfort, take any joy from the assertion by the Treasurer that we are headed to surplus when there are no grounds to accept that assertion. All I see in the projections available through the uniform presentation framework between now and the expiration of projections is red ink the whole way.
This government has no problem borrowing but eventually you have to pay that money back. The government says that is a manageable debt and compared to Greece and Portugal we are in a much better position. However, Greece and Portugal are now recipients of bailout packages and austerity measures. I do not want to see the Northern Territory pleading for bailout packages and austerity measures. I want the Northern Territory to have a manageable debt, hopefully even a zero debt. Why is that such an objectionable thought, particularly when this government has been given the opportunity of a century - the introduction of the GST and the subsequent economic strength we have seen over the last 10 years - to not position the Territory to absorb this punch. We are not in a strong position to absorb the punch and, as a consequence, we have to borrow from the future because that is exactly what a borrowing is. It is taking away money that would be available to us in the future and amplifying it now. That is what I find objectionable. This government has chosen to expend money rather than show a little more restraint and get rid of our debt. It has been done in other jurisdictions, and for that reason this government really has failed the Northern Territory, not necessarily for what is happening in isolation this year, but what has happened over the past few years.
I have strayed somewhat from my shadow portfolio duties and will turn to issues of the Department of Justice. Having had a cursory view of the Department of Justice document, Budget Paper No 3, I notice the presentation has changed somewhat from last year. That, I say in advance, will generate questions in the estimates process. I am concerned about a couple of components and, once again, as part of the budgetary process we should not just read the budget papers and expect to have a comprehensive view of what is happening within a particular department. I am intrigued about what the Department of Justice described it wanted to achieve, and its annual reports.
The strategic plan of the Department of Justice has run into hiccups - there have been problems with internal administration. The Auditor-General’s report of October 2010 shows some management issues which I believe have now been addressed. Those matters will continue to be policed by the Auditor-General. More globally speaking, the strategic plan of the Department of Justice is not meeting some its benchmarks because the performance indicators are producing results which are less than this government has promised the people of the Northern Territory.
Looking at the strategic plan, there are increased requirements for numbers of court hours and increased requirements for other benchmarks which do not reflect what was anticipated at the outset. The question I have for the Department of Justice is: what is going on? If you look at the last annual report of the Department of Justice – DOJ report is easier - compared to what was anticipated and what the strategic plan was trying to achieve, it is pulling up short.
The reason that is important is this government commits itself to certain expenditures during the budgetary process on certain policies. Those policies, if they were successful, would lead to organisations like DOJ reaching its benchmarks and targets as described in its strategic plan. However, when you go to the annual reports, you realise, whilst the variations are not dramatic - for example, the figures are not necessarily doubled - they are still significant variations. That, if you distil it to what we are talking about, means government policy has not been achieving what government intends it to achieve. The Department of Justice said: ‘This is what we are going to achieve’. When you turn to the annual report, those outcomes are not as comprehensive as you would hope them to be.
I can flag at the outset, for the government and Department of Justice, I will be inquiring into those particular issues in the estimates process because, if the Department of Justice is not meeting its key performance indicators - I am talking about its attempt to reduce certain levels of offences and those sorts of things – it means there is something wrong with government policy. It is not the fault of the Department of Justice; it is simply the organ by which the government exerts its policies within the community. It is the government’s fault if the department is not reaching those key performance indicators. It clearly demonstrates we have a measurement system in place which is useful and, hopefully, constructive. The test is quite simply this: is the government prepared to change its policies if it cannot demonstrate those policies are working? From last year’s DOJ annual report, there are good grounds to believe those policies are well short of the intended outcomes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to the estimates process.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I respond to the government’s Budget 2011-12. Specifically, I will talk about the child protection services in the Northern Territory, and the budget for child protection.
I congratulate the Northern Territory government for increasing the amount of money it intends spending on child protection. The minister spoke earlier today about the impressive increase and how, over the last 10 years, the government has progressively spent more and more on child protection. There is only one reason why the government has spent more and more money on child protection over the last 10 years: the government has dug itself into a deeper and deeper hole when it comes to the provision of child protection services in the Northern Territory.
The only way in which it can address the matter, apparently, is by continuing to throw money at child protection, and not really think about the proper and right way to go about mending a system which is broken. Many reports over the last 10 years have confirmed child protection in the Northern Territory is not working; it is not meeting the needs of the most vulnerable sector of our society. Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily mean the problem goes away, and the last 10 years is proof of that. We have seen this government do little apart from throw money at the child protection problem in the Northern Territory.
The new Department of Children and Families was established by the Henderson government on 1 January this year. This was a reaction to mounting pressure on the government to address the serious failures when it comes to child protection in the Northern Territory. It was a reaction to mounting pressure from the children and families sector and from stakeholders throughout the Territory who contributed to the board of inquiry into child protection and its report Growing them strong, together released to the public in October last year, just six months ago. We have a new department, the Department of Children and Families. This department has a new facelift and has been given a lot of money in this latest budget primarily to resolve some of the very deeply entrenched problems in child protection.
Yesterday I raised a matter of public importance about the case of a baby abandoned by its parents in a laneway in Tennant Creek last week. The baby was found by a cyclist at midnight or thereabouts, and taken by this cyclist to a person, another member of the public who, thankfully, took the child to the hospital and then the police, and was, thankfully, rescued from a potentially fatal situation. Yesterday, I raised in parliament how this case was managed by the Department of Children and Families is quite clear evidence that the child protection system in the Northern Territory is continuing to fail the children of the Northern Territory. It is continuing to not respond correctly, capably or effectively to the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society. Within hours, that child was returned to its family, to the 22-year-old mother and the 29-year-old father who had abandoned it just hours before. The fact it was returned directly to its parents is proof the child protection system is not working, and it also proves money is not the answer to the problem.
The answer to the problem in the Northern Territory goes far beyond just money. We need to look at the report handed down in October 2010 if we want the answers to why the child protection system is not working. The Growing them strong, together report highlighted the need for a change in culture throughout the Department of Children and Families, a change in how this department is managed and a change in how the government goes about providing this vital statutory service in our society, a service our society desperately needs in the Northern Territory for a whole range of reasons.
The Growing them strong, together report highlighted the need to support staff, support child protection workers throughout the Northern Territory, and to provide adequate and suitable training to equip them to carry out what is an extremely difficult, stressful and demanding area to work in. The case of the abandoned child in Tennant Creek would suggest more training is required when it comes to the staff in Tennant Creek. Those child protection workers in Tennant Creek who managed this case over the last week were under considerable pressure. It was an unusual case, perhaps. A case which required a critical response, a crisis response, and it required a comprehensive assessment of what would have been a very difficulty family situation; a situation I do not think could have been assessed within a few hours.
Adequate training would have indicated this child should have been placed in a temporary care arrangement, perhaps a foster care arrangement, until a comprehensive assessment was undertaken. Unless you have the training and support in your job as a child protection worker, sometimes you do not know what the options are; sometimes you do not know you are not equipped to make the best decisions. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many people throughout the Northern Territory who have responded to this case, returning the child directly to the family, to the parents who abandoned it, was not a good decision.
The Growing them strong, together report talked about how to stimulate and promote family support services and the need for widespread reform in support services throughout the Northern Territory to children and families. It talked about the need to improve systems, policies, procedures and tools to enable child protection workers to carry out their jobs - to carry out their statutory and non-statutory work. The Growing them strong, together report talked about fundamental changes in philosophy and how to go about providing child protection services, most of which does not require huge amounts of money. It requires conviction and commitment by the Northern Territory government for change. We are not seeing this change. We have not seen change in the child protection system over the last 10 years despite numerous reports and inquiries into child protection, despite coroner’s inquests into the death of a 13-year-old child several years ago, and despite numerous reports of very poor case management of children.
Good case management requires some money; it does not require a large amount of money. It requires skilled practitioners who are trained and supported; it requires a good work environment with good management. It does cost money but throwing money at it alone is not the answer. It requires good management and good governance.
Good management is needed and a minister who really commits to the job of child protection; a minister who knows exactly what is going on and responds to the needs of the department. It requires the practical and sincere implementation of the Growing them strong, together report, the 147 recommendations which outline, in detail, what needs to be fixed in the child protection system in the Northern Territory, and many ideas as to how it can be fixed. It requires a genuine and sincere commitment to that process and we not seeing that at the moment. We are not seeing the Northern Territory government give that sincere long-term commitment to change.
Today, I witnessed probably one of the most appalling acts in my seven months as a member of parliament. I watched the government try to crucify the member for Katherine for a business transaction that took place in 2003, before he became a member for parliament, a transaction which really has nothing to do with the business of government here today. It is appalling and incredible that the government could raise this business the member for Katherine was involved in.
When I think about child protection in the Northern Territory, I think about a 13-year-old girl, Deborah Melville, who was in the care and protection of the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families, a girl who perished - who died at the hands of this government. A girl called Deborah Melville who died under a tree in Palmerston whose case was well-known to this government; a case well-known to the Department of Children and Families. How can the government, how can the people who sit across the room from me now, criticise the member for Katherine for a business transaction that took place years before he entered parliament, knowing they have committed far more serious acts than a car transaction that went a little haywire?
We are talking about a death here. The writing was on the wall years ago for this government. It has not performed when it comes to child protection. It has failed the Northern Territory in many ways. Deborah Melville is just one case. I feel ashamed to be a part of a parliament that could sit back and throw stones when it has committed acts which are far more serious, far more heinous, and far more shameful than what the member for Katherine has been involved in.
When you talk about throwing more money at child protection services in the Northern Territory, that is great and I commend the government for doing so. However, I stress the problems we are seeing in the child protection system in the Northern Territory cannot be resolved by money alone. They have to be resolved by people who are truly committed to change how we do the business of child protection, and that has to come from the top down. It has to come from the minister. It has to come from the senior management of the child protection services.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only hope the case of Deborah Melville, and other children seriously neglected by the Department of Children and Families - that this government really makes some changes. Throw more money at it by all means and I will commend you, but I will not commend you until I see changes in the way things are done in child protection.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you, member for Brennan, at 5.30 pm we go to General Business and you will have the opportunity to continue your remarks after General Business.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak about the Northern Territory Labor government’s Budget 2011-12. The first thing it reminded me of is last year and the year before. Many of us are new to this House. It has become quite a challenge to understand how budgets work. I first thought - this is prior to politics - much of the money coming into the Northern Territory is federal money and therefore you would have to wait until the federal budget comes down before you knew how much money you had to play with each year. Then you could set your own budget, a little like how the average person at home sets a budget. Until you know how much you earn, it is very hard to set your own budget.
I have learnt no, that is not the way it works. The Northern Territory delivers a budget prior to knowing exactly how much money the federal government is going to give the Territory. That is clearly illustrated by today’s announcement of a new hospital for the Palmerston area. Let me tell you, in 2008 the Country Liberals went to the election with a promise to invest in a hospital for Palmerston and the rural area, and it is something I have advocated and pushed for. In recent times we have even had a local alderman, Pete Davies, through his 360 show, bring forward a petition to get a hospital for the Palmerston area.
I was interviewed on ABC radio about the time the federal government announced the 1500-bed asylum seeker facility at Wickham Point. I figured at the time, being a person who tries to look at positives and opportunities, while I certainly agree the federal government has it wrong, wrong, wrong when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers in this country, for goodness sake, we have a front door. People are welcome to use it, but those who come through the back door should be turned away. However, if we were going to have a 1500-bed facility in the Palmerston and Darwin area then, perhaps as a measure of leverage, the Northern Territory government could run off to Canberra and say: ‘We will have that 1500-bed facility, but how about you build us a hospital as a gesture of good faith’. The question asked of me by ABC radio was about how our local infrastructure might be stretched with this new facility. I thought about it for a moment, and I figured it takes long enough to get from Palmerston to the hospital, let alone the rural area. If we are going to have a 1500-bed facility at Wickham Point, and we have a so-called Super Clinic in Palmerston - that still does not operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day as originally promised, where people could be seen by a doctor at any time, which still does not occur - now we are supposed to believe we are getting a hospital. This is just an announcement.
I, as a local member, and as a father of four in Palmerston, absolutely welcome even a sniff that we might get a hospital. I will not rest until this government has delivered on that one. Do not make it up; do not string people along. Deliver on your promises.
The ABC mentioned what it would be like to have a 1500-bed facility. The infrastructure in Palmerston is already stretched with a 24-hour Super Clinic that is not 24 hours. How would our ambulance service cater for this facility? If this facility is over the bridge at Elizabeth River on Wickham Point with 1500 people, there is a likelihood someone might be injured or need some kind of medical attention and, if an ambulance was called it would have to drive from the top of Palmerston, through Palmerston, across the Elizabeth River Bridge, out to the Wickham Point facility then travel all the way out to Tiwi. I figured a rough estimate - I am not an expert - 40 to 45 minutes, maybe closer to an hour. That is just getting them to hospital. For that hour the vehicle is off the road; it is no longer available for residents who may need an ambulance. Therefore, if our infrastructure is already stretched to the limit, how is it going to be stretched even further with this facility? This could be a fantastic opportunity to ask the federal government for a hospital in the Palmerston or rural area that not only catered for Palmerston and rural residents, but also this new facility and be less of a tax on our local infrastructure. In fact, we would be benefiting, from a community perspective, and have a decent health system available for people living in Palmerston and the rural area.
Madam Speaker, to the budget. We welcome certain areas of the budget. It is always welcome when money is going to be invested into our community. However, the budget papers are put on your desk in one day and, all of a sudden, you are supposed to be an expert and understand everything within the budget papers. I am sorry; I am not up to it. I cannot digest everything in the budget papers within a 24-hour period.
The member for Port Darwin said he looks forward to the estimates, so do I. In the next month our heads will be in the budget papers looking for information to help us provide Territorians with the best criticism or critique, if you like, of the Northern Territory budget. It is not easy …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, it is now 5.30 pm. In accordance with Standing Order 93 debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment and Appointment of a Select Committee on Animal Welfare Governance in the Northern Territory
Establishment and Appointment of a Select Committee on Animal Welfare Governance in the Northern Territory
Madam SPEAKER: Is the member for Port Darwin here? It is in his name. He is the only person who can move it. He is not here?
Ms Purick: Madam Speaker, can I not speak to it?
Madam SPEAKER: No, because Mr Elferink has to move the motion. It is his motion. If you wish to, you can move a motion to seek leave to - member for Port Darwin, you can move your motion. We were about to suspend it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I quite missed the time. I apologise to honourable members.
Madam Speaker, I move - That –
- 1. The Assembly appoints a committee known as the Select Committee on Animal Welfare Governance in the Northern Territory, comprising:
- (a) two government members nominated by the Chief Minister, and two opposition members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition;
(b) one Independent member, with the Chair of the committee being appointed from the opposition members; and
(c) a government member being appointed Deputy Chair of the committee, with members being nominated no later than 6 May 2011.
- (a) the appropriateness and effectiveness of the current NT Animal Welfare Act and Regulations and other relevant legislation including provisions in regard to prosecution;
(b) the processes and systems adopted by the Department of Resources and its predecessors, the Department of Local Government, Housing and Regional Services and its predecessors, the Office of the Ombudsman NT and the Charles Darwin University in relation to the recent investigations into animal welfare issues at the Charles Darwin University owned cattle station;
Madam Speaker, there would not be a member in this place who is unaware of the circumstances surrounding the findings of the Ombudsman in relation to the cattle station owned by the Charles Darwin University, namely Mataranka cattle station.
The cattle station essentially is part of the Charles Darwin University’s project, run on a partly commercial basis for the purposes of educating people and supporting the Northern Territory cattle industry. Members will be aware that the Ombudsman has written in her report a whole series of findings in relation to what occurred on the cattle station, but most particularly page 62, if memory serves me, where the Ombudsman makes this observation in relation to an earlier report done by Mr Stockwell. The Ombudsman says:
- Mr Stockwell elaborated (17 September 2010) that his estimation of loss was from 100 head @ $400 and 200 head @ $500. In July 2010 the estimate of dead cattle in addition to this 100-200 ‘probable’ was approximately 800. Mr Stockwell calculates 800 dead would amount to a loss of approximately $320 000 to $400 000.
I pause briefly to point out Charles Darwin University, since receiving this report, has taken unprecedented strides in correcting many of the issues identified in the Ombudsman’s report, to its credit. Barney Glover has taken me through many of the things they have sought to repair, and if you look at Mr Riggs’ diary entries in relation to the matter, it demonstrates someone who has taken a fairly high level of concern to fix many of the things that occurred at the cattle station.
I note from the Murphy report that the last identifiable potential act of suffering on the cattle station beyond what would be normal, natural attrition relates to an event which occurred in April 2010, and we will return to that issue shortly. I reiterate this is not about what the university is doing now; this is about what had occurred in the past. The university has put in an enormous effort to rectify these problems. I acknowledge that. However, the fact that the Ombudsman identified approximately 800 dead head of cattle as a result of neglect still remains a concern.
The university has pointed out, as have other players in this issue, one major problem with the Ombudsman’s comment is that, if 800 cattle had died, where are the skeletal remains? In the not-so-distant past the media has carried reports of 800 dead cattle being placed into an unmarked or mass grave somewhere on the cattle station.
I am concerned about these issues because they remain unresolved. This series of events has caused the Northern Territory government substantial embarrassment. Indeed, from freedom of information documents, it is clear the embarrassment of the Northern Territory government was what it was seeking to avoid as a strong influencing factor in its decision not to pursue prosecutions in relation to this matter. In fact, it is clear from this government’s attitude that its non-prosecutorial philosophy was even in place as late as January 2011 when Ray Murphy, who was looking into some residual events occurring at the cattle station, outlined in his interim report to government that there was still substantial and real evidence available of a potential act of animal cruelty. Rather than the government responding by giving Mr Murphy an investigation team, or running an independent investigation, the government’s instruction to Mr Murphy was quite clear: ‘Go and look at it and report back in April’. That demonstrated Mr Murphy was being asked to investigate something and report back to government at a time government knew, and was absolutely aware it would run into the expiration of the statute of limitations which applies to offences under this act. That simply is not good enough.
My concern is certain issues remain unresolved. Had the government taken upon itself to properly prosecute this matter - perhaps even prosecuted the university through some vehicle or another - it would have, by doing so, given all the players in this issue an opportunity to state their case. The complex issue for the university at the moment, and Mr Ian Gray, the former manager of the station, as well as the DPI staff who visited the cattle station and raised concerns very early in the piece, as well as ministers themselves, none have had an opportunity to clearly explain their role in the matter. Even when I have spoken to Mr Ian Gray he has been extremely circumspect. Not because he does not want to; he has made it abundantly clear to me he wants to speak widely and fulsomely in relation to this issue. However, he finds himself bound by an agreement or a confidentiality clause which he is very reluctant to breach. I note he has made some comments in the media, but clearly a small media article, even a medium-sized media article, is not sufficient for Mr Gray to state his case.
On my reading of the DPI assertion in relation to the conduct of Mr Gray, as well as my reading of the Ombudsman’s report, Mr Gray’s reputation will be difficult to recover. There are clearly serious criticisms of his conduct. However, a prosecution would have at least enabled Mr Gray to have his day in court free of the confines of a confidentiality clause. The only other vehicle available to Mr Gray to tell us what occurred is parliamentary privilege where, once again, his confidentiality clause could not reach him. We can create an opportunity for Mr Gray, who is the central figure in many respects in this matter, to state his case.
Equally so, it is incumbent on this House to enable the Ombudsman to state her case. She has clearly discussed at some length what occurred on that cattle station. I note the Ombudsman, in her report, refers to the figure of 800 only twice and both references come from the quote I made earlier from page 62 of the report. Eight hundred dead cattle through neglect would represent, as far as I am aware, one of the most, if not the most, serious cases of animal cruelty in the history of Australia. To relegate the number of 800 to a footnote tells me the Ombudsman was either not as centrally occupied with that number as many other people have been, or she realised the number was essentially a speculative number. She uses the word ‘approximately’ quite carefully in the report, because that is what it is - an approximation based on some assumptions.
It would be worthwhile to have Mr Stockwell give evidence before a committee of this House so he can tell it what he thinks and what he saw. It would be also important for the Ombudsman to not only justify her assertion of 800 cattle dying as a result of neglect on the cattle station, but also I would seek from the Ombudsman a source of information which could substantiate the assertion there exists a mass grave somewhere on Mataranka Station. This issue now lies at the very core of this whole matter.
I urge the Ombudsman to make available, even in-confidence information she has, which will lead to the discovery of the missing skeletal remains. That is not an unreasonable request. The 800 figure has been universally accepted - and I accepted it - but people are now challenging it. There are many questions surrounding this issue. At the heart is the failure of government to successfully prosecute. That raises another central motivation for my wanting the select committee formed; that is, the government’s actions be investigated so we can report back to this House methods to avoid such calamitous circumstances occurring again.
The Northern Territory government has, to my astonishment, been unable to respond to this case anywhere near as effectively as I hoped it would. Clearly, the systems within government have failed. I acknowledge the government has agreed this outcome has not been good enough. This goes to the reputation of the Northern Territory government and its capacity to protect and police animal cruelty issues in the Northern Territory. This is very important, particularly in this instance, for the cattle industry. The cattle industry in the Northern Territory should be able to say, with great comfort, the regulatory environment that surrounds their industry is robust and, moreover, effectively policed. At the moment, it would be a hard case for any cattleperson, or the cattle industry as a whole, to assert either of those two assumptions. This is such a deplorable failure by government to respond to an awful situation that no satisfactory outcome has been achieved for the cattle industry,
My concern is the cattle industry would be mindful of two things. First, it wants the reputation of the industry protected and nothing of what has occurred on Mataranka Station will give it any comfort the industry is being well protected. Second, it should be able to say not only does it self-regulate in a proper way - and most cattle stations are extremely careful with their herds; it is the reason they exist - but there are external audits systems in place; namely, the regulatory bodies which look at these things.
The DPI, as much as it could, responded to the situation the investigators from DPI found on the cattle station. The Ombudsman’s reports shows DPI inspectors shooting cattle because of the condition of the cows. However, all in all, what we gain from this whole process is insufficient government responses have led to exactly the sort of thing the government was trying to avoid in the first place – embarrassment.
Ministers of this House, former and current - there were three current ministers I am aware of - understood and knew the investigation was afoot. It is also clear the department was fully aware of what was occurring on the cattle station months before any evidence of the first minister being made aware. That strikes me as a failing in the system. If I, as minister, was made aware of something like this, months after initial reports came in, I would be very upset.
Too many questions have been left unanswered. No one has been given an effective platform to state their case. Questions still surround the missing cattle, so I appeal to a government which has said it is prepared to do all that is necessary to ensure these things do not happen again, to support a motion for a select committee which will be primarily driven to establishing two things: what happened and how we can stop it happening again. It is not an unreasonable ask. Even the government will not suggest this has not been a top-of-mind political and community issue locally, interstate and internationally.
It would do this government no good at all to resist this motion and vote it down because of the concern so many people have that government avoided responsibility at the outset for the sake of avoiding further embarrassment. If it does vote against this motion to set up a select committee, it is my understanding - I have already spoken to the member for Nelson - the matter will be investigated by another parliamentary committee which already exists. Whilst it will be a much poorer outcome, it would still be a vehicle by which this will be investigated, so it will be investigated anyhow.
I urge this government not to resist this motion, but rather acknowledge it has a duty to send a signal to the industry, to the people of the Northern Territory, and the people of Australia and overseas, that this government is open to scrutiny, will accept scrutiny, and will vote in support of scrutiny, which is something it has promised. I hope the government takes that point of view, because if not, it will be upon its head and no one else’s heads that the allegations of cover-up will continue to fall.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the motion brought forward by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin. My background, and also my interest in the pastoral industry, is cause for me to support a select committee to get to the root cause of cattle dying on a particular property. I say at the outset that I have more than a passing interest in this and declare that I have a family member who works at the university and also works very closely, or has done, with the Animal Ethics Committee. I place that on the public record.
Four key areas need to be addressed by this committee, and in any future work regarding improving training and research with animals and animal ethic committees in the Territory. One of those is the Animal Welfare Branch and the legislation associated with animal welfare. The other area is the Department of Resources, notably the primary industries people, the stock inspectors and the government vets. Another is the Animal Ethics Committee itself. We have the committee associated with the university, and there are animal ethics committees associated with many universities around Australia, and rightly so. However, what are the obligations of such a committee, and where is its accountability regarding what it does and how and where it does it? The fourth component in this debate is the role of Charles Darwin University as the lessee of this pastoral property.
In any accident that takes place in life, regardless of the industry, there is never one single cause. We know why the cows died - they ran out of water and food; they are not going to come back. We need to understand the contributing factors for those cows dying or getting into such a condition that they died. In my dealings with the university, cattle people, and people on the ground close to this matter, I would ask questions such as: in the committee of relevant people was there a management plan for the pastoral land? Was there a business plan? Did they have specific plans in relation to rotation of paddocks? Did they have a specific breeding program? Did they have a program for when they take weaners away from their mothers? What was their program with NLIS and tagging of their cattle? What was their feeding regime? What was their supplement regime?
This would all be covered in a plan for a pastoral property. If there was one, was it developed by the station people exclusively, or was there involvement by university staff in Darwin? How often was the station visited by the powers to be from the university, even government people for that matter? What was the state of the cattle station? Was it in excellent condition? Did it have broken fences? How many herds did it have? What were the exact numbers? What type of breeding programs were they running? What was the relationship between this pastoral property, given it was not under the control of the Pastoral Lands Board, and the rest of the cattle industry? Did they have a working relationship? What was the working relationship between the pastoral property and the rural college versus university staff in Darwin? There are many questions regarding how the station was run. What were the staffing relationships? What were the staffing ratios?
There are other questions I would like to ask to work out what happened and why, and what we need to put in place to ensure it never happens again on that pastoral property, or any other pastoral property, or any other area where animals are used in training and research.
For example, I have questions about maintenance of equipment. Was there a maintenance schedule? Was there a maintenance program regarding cattle troughs and bores? What was their fire management program? Did they have OHS policies? What were the procedures and policies regarding fatigue management of staff? Did the manager have to travel from the station to Darwin on a regular basis and, if so, why? What was the biosecurity program for the station? There are many questions regarding how it was run which relate to the university and management; I understand that. It also relates back to accountability to the government and the broader community.
I thank the minister for the briefing I received on the Ray Murphy report; it was very enlightening and useful. Regarding human resource policies at the university, my question at the briefing was whether there was an exit interview for staff associated with the property. Of course, there was no answer and that is fine. I know the history of the station manager who has since left - his work previously and his track record, which was very good.
I am also familiar with the meat and livestock research regarding percentage of stock that die on pastoral properties in the Northern Territory as well as elsewhere. I have done much reading and talked to many people regarding this issue because it is a very serious one and, clearly, systems have failed. They have not only failed the animals, more importantly, they have failed people. We have to keep things in perspective here. The cows and horses cannot be brought back; however, we have much collateral damage to people, which is what we need to remain focused on, as well as getting best practice systems, regulation and laws in place.
I mentioned what I see as four key areas - the Department of Resources and the relationship between government agencies. What was the relationship? Was it good enough in regard to the animal welfare people versus the Department of Resources? Who was doing what and who was responsible? Should one have been the lead agency? The question could be asked: in 2009, when this first occurred, and if the university or the Animal Ethics Committee was not in a position to quickly remedy the problem, why did the Northern Territory government not step in and take charge and control at that time?
There are many questions. Many systems need to be changed. I believe the minister is serious when she says she does not want to see this happen again. Perhaps we need to overhaul the legislation. The government has said it will review the Animal Welfare Act and, if that is true, I welcome it. The question could be asked: should the Animal Welfare Act be with that department? Perhaps it should be somewhere else.
Do we need to look at animal ethics committees interstate to see how they operate? What projects are currently in the Northern Territory regarding working with animal ethics committees? Are they best practice? The work of a select committee would help in ensuring this situation was never repeated. It is a concern to the university as manager and operator of the station, and to the pastoral industry and the community as a whole.
The university has changed its processes and systems and has accountability and things it must do in accordance with the Ombudsman’s report and recommendations. However, I believe it is a bigger picture than just the university and the management of its property; it involves government agencies, animal ethics committees, and research. To some extent it involves the community.
I urge the minister to seriously consider and support this motion because much good can come from this case. I know from my time in the mining industry when tragedies and accidents occurred one single thing was not the cause. There are layers and layers of contributing factors, and sometimes it takes a long time to have things changed and rectified. At the end of the day, we need to put in that work, effort and commitment so it is behind us. Then we can move on and have a pastoral industry, and training and research through the university, of which everyone is justifiably proud.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion put before the House by the member for Port Darwin. It is important this parliament has a good look at what occurred at Mataranka, not purely for the circumstances surrounding Mataranka, but in animal welfare across the Northern Territory.
Whenever there is a breakdown in the system, in the political system, in the bureaucracy, in communication, an obvious disconnect, it is the role of this parliament to examine, scrutinise and question that. One thing I agree with previous speakers in the House is we want to ensure we learn from this experience and that it never happens again.
Let me state at the outset, the death of so many livestock at Mataranka Station and the inadequate animal welfare response, by both the university and government agencies, is not acceptable. What happened at Mataranka Station in late 2009 was an absolute disgrace. The response of government agencies, and the animal welfare authority in particular, was too slow. The response of the relevant government agencies and the university’s administration was disjointed and confused. The Ombudsman’s investigation and 550-page report has highlighted those, and other major deficiencies, that need to be addressed.
Significant action has been taken to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations and there is further work to do, especially in regard to the use of animals in teaching or research, and the monitoring of licences issued for these purposes. There are substantial lessons to be learnt from this major incident to ensure such an event does not occur in the future. It is for these reasons I strongly support the reference of these issues to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
I am concerned about the disconnect that has been very clear throughout this process between agencies, non-government agencies, those who had roles and responsibilities on the day-to-day running of matters across the Northern Territory, I want to see this issue scrutinised by this parliament.
I welcome that scrutiny. I welcome it so much I would appear before the Council of Territory Cooperation to speak about this issue, to ensure this does not happen again in the Northern Territory – to ensure we not only learn from this terrible case at Mataranka Station, but we fix it, improve the system and ensure all those people who should be connected in passing information, and be responsible about the care and welfare of animals across the Northern Territory, know their role and responsibilities.
I am prepared, as a minister of the Crown, to appear before the Council of Territory Cooperation to ensure this is a fair and just process of inquiry, with integrity. I put forward amendments to this motion to reflect that. The terms of reference of the Council of Territory Cooperation provide for additional authority over and above that referred to in the member for Port Darwin’s motion. There is no need to establish another committee to look into these very important issues. The response should not be to establish a committee with less authority than the Council of Territory Cooperation already has.
The Ombudsman’s report highlighted a number of high-priority actions that must be taken, both by the university and government. The university has established a Mataranka Station Advisory Committee which provides advice on the station’s operations. The university has had the operation of its Animal Ethics Committee externally reviewed by experts in this field. The university has also created a new position of Animal Welfare Advisor to provide an internal expert capacity in this area.
I say categorically to this House there is no cover-up. There is no embarrassment to this minister or this government in what has taken place. We want openness and transparency in the scrutiny of this, and the Council of Territory Cooperation will see that. There is no embarrassment about what has happened here; there has been no attempt to want to hide anything. I have been on the public record saying everything must be open on this; it is a disgrace and we must learn from it in a way that provides confidence across the Northern Territory to those who work in the field of animal research or own animals but, also, to have confidence in the systems of government in the Northern Territory to be capable of looking after what they should.
I entirely agree with the members for Port Darwin and Goyder: we have to look at the systems that set up our government, the systems that must be there to work and protect those we serve. In this case, any failure requires this parliament to ensure we address it in a fair and just manner, allowing all parties a fair opportunity to put their case. That is why my amendment will reflect the call for this to be referred to the Council of Territory Cooperation.
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services has undertaken an independent functional assessment of the Animal Welfare Branch. At the time of the Mataranka Station incident, the Animal Welfare Branch had no substantive specialist investigative or regulatory experience or focus. In response to the functional review, two new suitably-qualified persons have been recruited to manage and direct the branch. An enhanced training program for investigation and enforcement is being implemented. The department has also engaged consultants to develop a Certificate IV in investigation specifically for animal welfare focused on the legislation, law, and processes applicable to the Northern Territory Animal Welfare Act.
As clearly identified by the Ombudsman, there was a lack of clarity between the Department of Resources and the Animal Welfare Branch concerning the roles and responsibilities for action under the Animal Welfare Act. An operational protocol has been formally developed and adopted between the Department of Resources and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services to clearly set out the procedure to be followed when investigating matters of livestock welfare.
In response to other matters raised by the Ombudsman’s report, issues relating to teaching and research involving animals in the Northern Territory are being reviewed to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. It has become apparent the role and function of animal ethics committees in the current act have not been well understood. It is an area I have been clearly concerned about, and it is good to hear the member for Goyder’s questions regarding this motion and the practices of animal ethics committees generally. It is a grey area we in this parliament need to ensure we understand, as well as those people whose roles and responsibilities are to function within those committees.
In addition to the Charles Darwin University’s Animal Ethics Committee, there are nine other licence holders who utilise the services of interstate-based animal ethics committees to undertake research in the Northern Territory. There are issues relating to the internal operation of animal ethics committees and their external monitoring under the current legislation which I believe require further detailed assessment and consideration of the adequacy of current legislative arrangements.
As I stated at the beginning and have said consistently, the livestock deaths at Mataranka Station in 2009 were avoidable; it was an absolute disgrace. The response of the university and government agencies at the time was seriously inadequate. It is obvious that, for a range of reasons, the university and government agencies did not act quickly and decisively enough to alleviate the animal welfare issues identified in September 2009.
I am disappointed no prosecution has been made under the Animal Welfare Act in regard to this incident. I welcome any scrutiny of any decisions made throughout that time. There are important lessons to be learnt from this incident and the Ombudsman’s extensive report. The changes made by government agencies in response to the Ombudsman’s report have greatly strengthened the capacity of the animal welfare authority to manage animal welfare issues and prosecute any future incidents of animal neglect or cruelty. Acting on the Ombudsman’s recommendations, any similar incident in the future will be addressed swiftly and decisively.
We are already seeing improved practices in more recent complaints. This is what I want to see change, what this parliament wants to see change, and what I expect to see from the Council of Territory Cooperation in its scrutiny of these things. I also strongly support further scrutiny of the improvements made and consideration of further improvements that may be necessary.
For this reason, I support the reference of these issues to the Council of Territory Cooperation for further reassessment and consideration. As stated from the beginning, I am prepared to address the Council of Territory Cooperation so, in a very strong bipartisan approach of this parliament, we are sending a signal to the people of the Northern Territory that we take animal welfare very, very seriously.
Madam Speaker, I move that all words after ‘that’ be deleted and replaced by the following …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we get a copy of that circulated as quickly as possible, please?
Madam SPEAKER: She has not moved the amendment yet, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the problem. It would have been nice to receive some notice of this.
Madam SPEAKER: This is the way it works in the parliament, member for Port Darwin. Minister, if you could just move the amendment, please.
Mr Elferink: Courtesy would have suggested you would have distributed this first.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, if I may clarify for the member for Port Darwin. This was with the Table Office earlier today. In fact, it …
Mr Elferink: Well, why was it not with me?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: It should have gone to you. I am not too sure why it did not.
Mr Elferink: You could walk across the Chamber and give me a copy.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: I received notice of this in the parliament, so I assume the member for Port Darwin would receive his in the parliament too.
Mr Elferink: I gave you notice yesterday.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Ms McCARTHY: You have it now, member for Port Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I move - That all words after ‘That’ be deleted and replaced by the following:
- 1. The Assembly refer to the Council of Territory Cooperation (CTC) the following matters of public importance for inquiry and report to the Assembly no later than the last sitting day in August 2011.
- 2. As part of its current considerations of the administration and service delivery by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, the CTC inquire into and report on animal welfare governance in the Northern Territory and various government departments that are associated with animal welfare, husbandry or research, with particular reference to:
- (a) the appropriateness and effectiveness of the current NT Animal Welfare Act and regulations and other relevant legislation including provisions in regard to prosecution of instances of animal neglect and cruelty and arrangements for the governance of animal ethics committees; and
- (b) the processes and systems adopted by the Department of Resources and its predecessors, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services and its predecessors, and the Charles Darwin University in relation to the recent investigations into animal welfare issues at the Charles Darwin University owned cattle station.
In closing, I reiterate to the parliament the importance of this issue and the importance, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, to give confidence back to the people of the Northern Territory and Australia, that this government is very much on the road to improving the area of animal welfare and that we are serious about the care and concern of our animals.
I put to all members of this House my amendment to the motion by the member for Port Darwin.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the amended motion and thank the minister for bringing it forward. I also thank the opposition for bringing forward its motion because it is from that motion that, after quite considerable discussions between me and the member for Goyder, me and the minister, and me and the Chief Minister - there was much discussion yesterday.
I believe we have come, to some extent, to something unique in that the government has supported an opposition motion, with amendments. Basically, what has been put forward from this side of the House is something also unique in that a minister has offered to be questioned by that committee. Last night in adjournment I said one thing I heard when I was in Perth recently at the parliamentary accounts committee meeting was, generally speaking, ministers do not turn up for committee meetings.
Here we have something unique, and I am pleased to say the Chief Minister has advised me today that ministers will, or can, attend Council of Territory Cooperation meetings within certain guidelines. I thank the minister for volunteering to come before the Chief Minister made this statement. That shows the government, in this case, is fair dinkum, because it will probably get a fair amount of flack from various sources in relation to this very serious matter. It is a matter that has concerned not only people in this parliament, but also members of the public.
If you take some indication from the newspaper - not always a good indication of popular thought - you would still get a fair idea people were very concerned about what happened to the cattle at Mataranka Station.
I hope other ministers who had responsibility in relation to the particular matters the CTC will investigate will also turn up for the meetings. It is very important. We have two ministers for Local Government and we also have a minister for Resources, because there were two departments dealing with this issue of animal welfare, and also in relation to the pastoral side of the matter we are looking at investigating.
I remember about a year-and-a-half ago there were problems at Mataranka and I went on radio saying I did not think the university should operate agricultural colleges. It is something I still lean to because I went to a horticultural college in Melbourne that was taken over after I left by Melbourne University, as were a number of agricultural colleges in Victoria and other states. Gatton University, an independent agricultural college, was taken over by one of the universities in Queensland. I did not believe that was a good move. To some extent, agricultural colleges are unique. They are not the same as some highfaluting university in the city; they are about developing skills for people who will work on the land. Perhaps that consideration needs to be looked at; although I understand our university in the Northern Territory is small and has to battle to obtain enough funds to exist. The more courses it can run and the more people involved in those courses the more viable the university.
I remember saying that and wondering whether the whole concept of an agricultural college - if anyone remembers, when you drove to Katherine you went past the Katherine Rural College. Now you go past the Charles Darwin University Katherine campus. It does not have the same ring about it to me, so I made that note because Mataranka Station is a very important part of the development of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory. It is very important the pastoral station operates to the highest standard required because we know today the best way to ruin a good industry is to show you do not care about what people out there - the market - think.
If the market discovers there has been some particular issue on a cattle station it is more than likely to boycott the product because word will get around that such and such is not handling the animals well. You know how it works with some of these more radical green animal welfare groups - they can cause much damage to industry. Not only do we need to be careful how we operate our own broader pastoral industry, we also have to be very careful how we operate our educational facilities that deal with agriculture.
I also, at the invitation of the Vice-Chancellor last year, undertook a tour of Mataranka Station with the advisory board and the new manager at the time, Tony Griggs, who runs the station next door and who was the manager some years ago. He pointed out some deficiencies in the way the station facilities had been designed. He said the width of some of the lane ways was not adequate. In some cases there were not enough watering points around the facility, and he had put in processes to overcome some of those difficulties. I was there, from memory, in April/May, and the cattle were in good condition. He explained he was not there to necessarily tell us about all the issues that had occurred previously, but to show us the university, even back then - that is early last year - had put in processes to turn things around because the cattle were in a pretty good state when we saw them.
This inquiry will be, hopefully, investigating, finding out whether government departments, even ministers, had done their job properly and what the failings were. We can highlight all that and, as the member for Goyder, who gave a very good summary of some of the issues we would be looking at said, yes, we can look at that but we cannot bring the cattle back. We know a number of cattle died. We can argue the toss whether it was 200 or 800; however, we know cattle should not have died. We could argue the toss whether it is cruelty or neglect. Neglect is probably closer to the word because, if it happened to be poor management - and that management may not have been the manager’s fault; it may have been someone else’s fault. It could have been the budget was not adequate. We do not know.
However, other things could have caused the problem the Council of Territory Cooperation would be looking at. We also do not want to go over too much old ground. We have two reports now, one from the Ombudsman and one from Ray Murphy. I had a very thorough briefing with Ray Murphy. I now know why he was a policeman, because he was able to bring his skills of detective work to look at the particular issue in relation to some of the matters the Ombudsman had raised but not investigated.
The whole issue of how educational bodies in the Northern Territory deal with animals - not necessarily just cattle, how we deal with animals in educational courses - is an area we should be looking at. Whilst some of the focus will be on Mataranka, the areas the minister just spoke about, such as how the animal ethics committee operates, are extremely important because it will be the central point for seeing how educational bodies use animals in either teaching or scientific research. We use animals, not just for teaching, but also for research in relation to disease or finding out more about the makeup of particular animals. Many of us cut up frogs at school to find out what made them tick. The poor old frog probably was not too rapt, but that is how you found out how a frog worked. I am not saying those type of things will not continue. We have to ensure there are set guidelines so those experiments or research, or that side of teaching, is clearly controlled, and people are checking these educational facilities to ensure they are doing the right job.
We can see how the animal ethics committee operates, what role it had to play in the matters revolving around the animals that starved at Mataranka, and whether there was any relationship between how that operated, the management of the station and, eventually, the poor management of the cattle.
Talking off the top of my head, an advantage of the Council of Territory Cooperation is the ability to bring people on board who are experts in the field. At the moment the CTC has someone who came onto the committee as a member - Lesley Taylor from NAPCAN. If she wishes to be on the committee when we are discussing child protection matters she can give us a bit more expert advice, and also, ask questions. Again, that is one of the differences between the CTC and some of the other committees – we have that ability, if required, to bring on people who might help us dig into some of these matters a little more sharply, because there certainly will be many issues here.
The amendment has two sides to it that we have to ensure we take in context. We can look at what happened, but also, what are we going to do about the positive side. I am very aware the Vice-Chancellor, Barney Glover, is concerned that continual bad publicity will harm the university. That is a fair comment, but that should not stop us looking at the issue, otherwise we would not be doing our job.
If we can get some positives out of what has occurred, if we can set up structures and ensure, through those structures or changes to legislation, this does not happen again, the university will come out better and stronger for it. If we make it part of what is happening, inclusive of the changes and - it has already brought in changes; the department has already brought in changes - we will look at seeing what those changes are. If, from a pretty sad episode we can bring out some positives, then we can say the university has come on board.
We know it has been doing much good work. I say to the public in general, even members of parliament, there is an open day at the university in June or July, so look in the paper for the chance to see what state the station is in. I will certainly be going down - I have an invitation. I would like to compare it with what I saw over a year-and-a-half ago to see what changes have come about since a new manager has been there.
We have to keep a broad mind in relation to this. Obviously, you could turn this into a political bun fight, and there are issues of politics here. I believe the public really want to know why it occurred, why no prosecutions have occurred and, if there are good reasons, let us explain it. One of the worst things is to tell people something cannot happen, but no one gives an explanation for it. Sometimes that can be the fault of the media looking for a headline but not looking for much in the way of guts underneath the headline. We need to clearly explain what has happened, why it has happened, and then move on. That would be what the public wants us to do. Our university is a good university. Yes, it has to struggle because it is a small university, but it is great the Northern Territory has its own university. We should be proud of what it can do.
If this committee can clear the air in relation to what has happened, what is happening and what the future is, that will be a great outcome for the committee. There will be much work in relation to what the committee has to do. From what I understand, the opposition will support the amendment …
Mr Westra van Holthe: No.
Mr WOOD: It will not support the amendment.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I told you we had this discussion before. We will talk about it in a second.
Mr WOOD: Well, if that is it, I cannot do anything about it. However, my negotiations and discussions today with the Leader of the Opposition did not give me that impression at all. However, if that is the way it is, that is the way it is. I am supporting it. If there is some technical or political reason why the opposition will not support it, so be it. I thought this might have been a historical chance where there has been some give and take. The government could have said there is no way ministers will appear before this committee and, in many ways, it has every right to.
From talking to other members of parliament in Perth, ministers do not turn up at committee meetings and the reason is to keep it apolitical. Here we have a change of mind by government to say ministers will be able to attend the Council of Territory Cooperation meetings. The select committee could have been knocked on the head - even I could have said no.
However, by negotiation and some goodwill, we have exactly the same terms of reference; we have a government committee that is willing to take on the issue; a government willing to take some flack over the matter, especially when you ask ministers to attend the meeting. I would be very disappointed if I find, after all that work, the opposition says it will not support the motion; however, I am not the opposition and I am not the government. Both have every right to run their own agenda but, it would be very disappointing after all that work to find the opposition says no to this matter.
I live in hope, as I always do. People might swallow a little pride and work towards getting a solution for the Territory. We will see what happens.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I speak to the amendments proposed by the member for Arnhem. It is disappointing the opposition is not supporting the amendments and putting this whole matter to the CTC. I believe it was a good solution, a good way forward. The CTC is already established. A major concession was made by the minister and government that the minister appears before the CTC. That was always a complaint of the opposition. There are good reasons under normal practice why government, in the terms of reference of the CTC, did not agree with ministers appearing before the CTC. We believe there is adequate scrutiny of ministers through the estimates process, through Question Time, and through a whole range of processes.
As stated by both the members for Nelson and Port Darwin, this is an important matter for our cattle industry. Even though these terrible events occurred at an educational institution, it still reverberates through the cattle industry.
It is my understanding there is a proposed Four Corners program looking at cattle exports from the Northern Territory into Indonesia. I do not know what sort of frame they are putting that in; what sort of light they are going to paint. Even though it is a completely separate issue, I would say they will pull this whole issue of Mataranka Station into this program. That is bad for our cattle industry.
I am not saying money comes over the suffering of animals. I was also distressed when I heard about cattle starved at Mataranka Station. I know Charles Darwin University, particularly, Vice-Chancellor Barney Glover, feels a great deal of remorse about this and really has worked hard, as the member for Nelson said, to rectify the situation, get the systems in place and try to address this issue.
This committee was another step forward. As the member for Nelson said, let us see what went wrong with the system, let us see in an open and transparent way what the responsibilities were, and let us see how much has been fixed and how much more needs to be fixed.
It is very brave of the minister, in such a controversial and emotive subject, to step forward and say: ‘I am prepared, in a spirit of cooperation, to appear before the CTC, give evidence, and have that discussion with the CTC’. I believe it is obstinate of the opposition to maintain a position against this going to the CTC. There is more than a little politics at play here because, as we all in this Chamber know, the opposition withdrew from the CTC. It put its reasons forward; it believed it was not fruitful and did not want to be engaged in it. That was disappointing and counterproductive because the CTC has achieved a great deal.
Whilst I was not appearing before the CTC, I was more then happy to go to the Tiwi Islands with the Council of Territory Cooperation, and other places it wants to go with SIHIP, and hear what people, and the Council of Territory Cooperation, have to say.
It is a constructive forum and the public service is very attentive, when staff appear before the Council of Territory Cooperation, to ensure they give evidence in a frank and honest way and they take on board the issues the Council of Territory Cooperation raises. As a minister I am not appearing before the Council of Territory Cooperation; however, I advised parliament recently I received a letter from the Council of Territory Cooperation about a whole range of issues related to SIHIP. By gum, I replied to the Council of Territory Cooperation and tried to give the best and most truthful answer I could. As a follow-on from that, I went to the Tiwi Islands to see whether problems were ongoing, and whether issues raised by the Council of Territory Cooperation had been adequately addressed.
I implore the opposition; this important issue goes beyond party politics. It goes to our institution, Charles Darwin University; it goes to our live cattle exports. When I was Primary Industry minister, there was a push in southern states to cut live animal exports altogether. This is all based on what happens out of some of the southern ports with live sheep exports. In the Northern Territory - and I am sure both sides of this Chamber agree - the mortality rate of our live cattle industry is very low. Very few cattle die on the short two- to three-day journey from Darwin to southern Sumatra and Lampung.
As minister, I visited Lampung and saw the facilities for those animals. To be honest with you, member for Port Darwin, what I saw in those animals in Lampung was transformational. The animals are bred in the Northern Territory, but when they go to Indonesia they flourish on the rich feed and attention they are given. It suits Indonesia to have the cattle initially bred and raised in the Northern Territory, and the final stages are for them to feed those animals and have them slaughtered for the local markets in Indonesia. It is also a very important part of their economy, so it is an important relationship. I am sure the minister for Primary Industries could tell you the value of that market. My recollection is well over 200 000 beasts a year are exported from the Northern Territory into Asia, Indonesia in particular. We are looking to open up further markets in Vietnam - an important step forward for us also.
I implore the opposition to consider its position in this instance. Everyone has moved on this issue. I have risen to ask the opposition to reconsider its position and agree to this very sensible amendment put forward by the member for Arnhem, to really engage with the Council of Territory Cooperation, to become part of the Council of Territory Cooperation for this particular inquiry - not the ongoing CTC - and really achieve what we all want: better outcomes in animal welfare, protecting our live cattle export, and ensuring the public knows everything is okay there and with Charles Darwin University.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak to the amendment to the motion which only reached my desk at the end of the minister’s contribution. If this minister was really genuine about the decision to approach this matter with a bipartisan attitude, she would have spoken to me about this amendment beforehand.
I spoke to the member for Nelson prior to this and made it clear to him I did not like the idea of changing this motion and having the matter referred to the CTC. I will get back to that reason shortly.
Having made that observation, I can give the government this much comfort: whilst I do not want this to be referred to the CTC - because the CTC has proven itself to be an utterly toothless tiger and a vehicle to do nothing other than keep this Chief Minister in his job and away from his own parliamentary colleagues - it is a better vehicle than nothing. I can signal at this stage I will not be supporting this amendment. If this amendment passes and the amended motion is put to this House, so be it. We will join the CTC for the purposes of this investigation. However, the CTC has become an oubliette into which information flows and is never seen again. We get to see reports in this House from time to time where the government says to most of the answers: ‘No, we are not doing it’, or ‘Noted’. It really puts the ‘no’ into noted, I have to say. That is what happens. That is the full extent of what happens when something goes to the CTC.
Small wonder this government is prepared and determined to have the matter flicked off to the CTC because it is an empty place on which much money is spent and not many results are generated ...
Mr Wood: You would not know; you are not on it.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on that interjection. The reason I am not on it is because it is a waste of taxpayers’ money for the outcomes it receives, which is what I am worried about. You must remember this member’s idea of a Council of Territory Cooperation is something he had no idea would look like when he suggested the idea and signed up for this bit of paper. They pulled another shifty on him. We are going to get a minister before the Council of Territory Cooperation. Why do we not get three? Why do we not get the Minister for Central Australia and the member for Daly, who was the former minister with carriage of these areas, giving evidence before this committee as well? Are they interested in doing so? Are they going to commit to doing so? They have all had an involvement, at one point or another, in this process.
I can well imagine why government wants to do this. However, it ill behoves them to say: ‘We will support any measure’ - and the minister said any measure - ‘to investigate these matters’. Here is a measure: the motion as it currently stands. That is not any measure the government is prepared to support so, once again, it is about platitudes and avoiding responsibility.
I do not accept these amendments; they are not good. In fact, ultimately, the CTC will, I am afraid, become a black hole into which evidence falls and not much appears …
A member: I hope you join it when it is a black hole.
Mr ELFERINK: That is part of the problem with this government. There was a very good reason why I suggested - and even the member for Nelson acknowledged this in conversation - there should be an opposition member in charge. At least the public would have some confidence with the chairmanship of the committee that there is real scrutiny. The member for Nelson acknowledged that was not necessarily a bad idea; it happens in other jurisdictions. However, he has suddenly realised the flagging legitimacy of his committee can be bolstered by looking into this issue. The member for Nelson, who wants to rise above politics, has his own political motive for pursuing this matter being referred to the CTC.
There is no greater power in the CTC than was described in the original motion as asserted by the minister. This is just another attempt to avoid scrutiny by this government …
Mr Wood: You are making it up.
Mr ELFERINK: … and trying to give the appearance of availing itself of scrutiny.
Mr Wood: For a lawyer, you are just making it up.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson is clearly out of control.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: He is clearly out of control and I ask that he restrain himself.
The member for Nelson, whether he likes it or not, is motivated by politics. He has something to prove with his CTC and has not been able to prove it. Now, he seeks to make this particular issue a vehicle by which he can breathe life back into a dying organisation.
Madam Speaker, the …
Mr Knight:Why are you joining it then?
Mr ELFERINK: I have to because you guys are mucking about with this particular issue. You are not prepared to have a select committee. We are joining it reluctantly because we have to; because you blokes are too interested in playing politics with this issue. The people of the Northern Territory certainly want a much better performance than we are seeing out of this government at the moment. You sought to avoid embarrassment in the first place. You have your hands all over this. I want the member for Daly to stand in this House and say he will give evidence as far as his involvement was concerned. Will the member for Daly do so?
Mr Knight: You are infatuated with me, John.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Will the member for Daly do so? No, Madam Speaker, he will not.
He may feel I am infatuated with him, but I think he is simply the worst minister this government has - the worst minister. The $200m minister, because that is the value of the mistakes he has inflicted on the people of the Northern Territory. That is why I am concerned about the quality of this minister’s performance, and his failure to ensure things were being properly looked after when he was initially advised of this demonstrates his lack of capacity. Will we hear from him in the CTC? No, we will hear from the minister who has received the handball pass. Flog it off to the member for Arnhem; she will have to sort it out; she can give evidence in front of the committee.
The people of the Northern Territory do not want this issue farmed out to a committee with an agenda for a bunch of other issues on it. They want a single committee whose sole purpose to exist is to investigate this one issue alone. That is what the people of the Northern Territory expect. The fact is this government wants to flick it off to a committee which exists only because of an arrangement it has with the member for Nelson, and the member for Nelson has known it for some time …
Mr Wood: I have heard it once, I have heard it twice; it will never stop.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I know the member for Nelson finds my comments objectionable …
Mr Wood: No, I do not.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, everyone else …
Ms Scrymgour: You just do not - twist and turn.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I know the member for Nelson finds my comments objectionable …
Mr Wood: No, boring.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members!
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson finds my comments objectionable because this is an area he is truly sensitive about - he needs this to work. He has come out of the last crisis this government found itself in - nearly back at an election or nearly tossed out as a decision from the member for Nelson.
He made an arrangement, the only thing he has been truly responsible for, and it has not really produced sufficient outcomes. It has not. What is the wonderful change we have seen as a result of the CTC? A few ‘noted’, many ‘noes’ and ‘we disagrees’ from government. That is not what the member for Nelson promised.
Referring this matter to the CTC is to cast it aside as far as the government is concerned, and it is a disappointment the people of the Northern Territory will not have a select committee whose sole reason for existence is to look into this important issue. It is going to become an agenda item on another committee, and that is a disappointment.
Madam Speaker, the opposition will not support this amendment. However, if the amended motion passes, then we will have to take second best.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have an amendment before the Chair as moved by the Minister for Local Government, which I will now put. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 10
- Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mrs Lambley
Ms Lawrie Mr Mills
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, do you wish to make a concluding speech before I put the question?
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): No, Madam Speaker, we will comply with the guarantee given.
I am disappointed in this House for not establishing a specific committee for these purposes. However, the people of the Territory will simply have to, now the government has involved itself in the way is has, accept second best. Shame on this government for not allowing a select committee to advance this issue.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Establishment of Innovation, Development
and Trade Committee
Establishment of Innovation, Development
and Trade Committee
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, before I start I would like to put forward an amendment to the motion. I have made a few slight changes. Can I move that amendment now? Is that how you would like me to proceed?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr GILES: It will be distributed. I seek leave to move that amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: You just move the amendment because it is your motion.
Mr GILES: I move –
1. That this parliament establish a permanent committee titled the Innovation, Development and Trade Committee to investigate trade and industrial development opportunities for the Territory future.
2. The Innovation, Development and Trade Committee is to:
(a) be made up of six members, three government, two opposition and one independent, with the Chairperson being appointed from the Committee;
(b) meet six times a year and will have made available briefings from the department of Business and from major projects;
(c) engage with business, governments and individuals to investigate economic investment opportunities for the Territory;
(d) be provided a budget as negotiated with Territory government; and
(e) report to parliament twice a year on activities, expenditure and results and make recommendations to parliament providing direction on business opportunities.
Madam Speaker, the motion is pretty much the same as before; I have just taken out a couple of sentences and a paragraph for grammatical purposes.
During that privately-funded visit - we went for three days of intensive work around how to progress opportunity; how to identify an opportunity and bring it forward to fruition - we visited many sites, including petrochemical plants, looked at some biomedical research work, some solar research work and saw how some greenfield sites had been developed into vibrant economies, creating many jobs and servicing many countries from that small country, Singapore.
Part of our deliberations were how to advance the logic behind the development in Singapore by identifying how they have moved forward and how we can relate that into the Northern Territory; take some of that learning and move forward.
Many people know I am a strong advocate of economic development and, in this position, not just in the bush, but more broadly. It is very important the Northern Territory, in particular Darwin, establishes itself into the future as being Australia’s capital of Southeast Asia. We need to establish ourselves as the capital of Southeast Asia by building relationships and partnerships with our Asian neighbours. The Northern Territory government does a little work in that area; however, we have to identify opportunities for economic advancement and industry creation, and that involves innovative ways of looking at things and undertaking practices.
I see this committee as being a fluid committee not bound by strong or restrictive terms of reference, but by flexibilities in the sense that members of the committee will have the ability to meet with business and industry leaders, to undertake research and analysis, to identify best practice and seek emerging opportunities on an international and national basis to see how we can bring those to fruition in the Northern Territory.
I am a passionate advocate of increasing the population in the Northern Territory so long as the infrastructure meets that population need so Territorians do not have to put up with any negative side effects of a greater population. The sooner we can accelerate our population the better, and the infrastructure needed to go with it. As we develop a greater captaincy of Australia and Southeast Asia, we need to take on a redefining of our societal structures in the Northern Territory to be more of a migrant jurisdiction, particularly with some of our closer neighbours and trading partners in the region.
What people expect of parliamentarians is a knowledge base. They expect us to be, in certain ways, the be-all and end-all, and would like to put faith in the fact we are setting the right direction for them into the future. We often see ideas from people who are consummate in this Chamber. Often, things are referred to as thought bubbles and, sometimes, they are really good ideas and there is no opportunity to take things forward.
I have spoken before about special taxation zones and how they might work in the Northern Territory. I know the Chief Minister has similar ideas, with good merit, but how can you take them forward, especially on a partisan approach? I see this committee as having an opportunity to bring those ideas together, researching them and lobbying from a committee perspective, which allows you to lose some of the political baggage from your party.
We often speak in this Chamber - the member the Nelson is an advocate - of uranium mining and nuclear power. The Araluen by-election did significant damage to our sovereign risk. We are not as well looked upon as we once were, and we need to restore some confidence in that debate. The opportunity for a committee to take a bipartisan approach to industry development, trade, and innovation would go some way to rebuilding that confidence regarding sovereign risk.
We are over our silliness on this side of the Chamber and now have our uranium position quite clear - a fantastic thing. However, when we look at the whole uranium mining debate in the Northern Territory, people are still very scared to speak about it. People may be scared, but we need to look further and start talking about the relationship the Northern Territory needs to have with India into the future. What are the impacts of international agreements? How can we lower some of the restraints of those agreements to start selling uranium to India? What pressure do we have to put on the foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, to say we want open up negotiations? How can we jointly apply pressure?
Currently, it is one government and an opposition. The opportunity for this trade committee to look into international treaties and restraints which stop the sale of uranium to India is something we could really get our teeth into - have a good understanding and educate the backbenchers on the government side, some people on our side, and Independents, to ensure we fully understand these issues rather than what we know in a piecemeal fashion, and debate them out further.
Nuclear power is the same. There are many new technological advances and devices that can provide nuclear power in small capacity. There would be too many people in this Chamber afraid to talk about it, but there would be an opportunity to research it, find out what it is all about, leave some of that political baggage behind - or not - and drive forward some reforms. I am not saying this committee is about uranium and nuclear power; however, they are two issues that can thoroughly be investigated through such a committee.
The carbon tax is another concept. The federal government is moving into the area of a carbon tax. People on either side of the Chamber support or do not support the carbon tax; however, it is important we know what the carbon tax really means to the Territory, and what it is going to mean into the future. Will it be beneficial to remote or urban locations, or is it just going to be the high inflationary tax we think, with a devastating effect on the cost of living no matter where we go?
In preparing for this motion, I looked around Australia and the world for examples of similar committees. When I was in England two years ago as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association tour, we spent a fair amount of time in the English parliament and I learnt of committees there. One committee had politicians and business people on the same committee looking at opportunities. They had greater partnerships together and learnt from one another.
I will quickly run through some economic parliamentary committees courtesy of research by the Northern Territory Library: in New South Wales, the Legislative Council Standing Committee on State Development; in Queensland, the Economic Development Committee; in Victoria, the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee; in Western Australia, the Economics and Industry Committee; Tasmania, the House of Assembly Select Committee on Scottsdale Sawmills was a particular select committee; South Australia has the Budget and Finance Committee, the Economic and Finance Committee and the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. The House of Representatives has a Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and a Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts; one on Economics; one on Education and Employment; one on Infrastructure and Communications; and one on Regional Australia. The Senate also has a Standing Committee on Economics; one on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; one on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; one on Rural Affairs and Transport; and joint committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and one on Treaties.
The Canadian Senate has one on Foreign Affairs and International Trade; and Banking, Trade and Commerce. The House of Commons in Canada has a Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; a Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; and one on International Trade. New Zealand has select committees. The House of Lords has a Science and Technology Committee. Scotland has an Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. The European Union has a number of committees, including International Trade, and one on Economic and Monetary Affairs. South Africa has a committee on Trade and International Relations.
This is not a new thing. The Northern Territory is attempting to mature by seeking statehood and moving forward in a number of areas. As part of that maturity, we need to improve our parliamentary process and the way we look at things, the way we try to develop our economy, and the way we try to develop business. The proposal for such a committee would give us the allowance and flexibility to investigate some opportunities.
I refer to Singapore and how, at Jurong, the Singapore government moved to reclaim land and built all the islands up together so it was one hardstand area. They are building petrochemical plants, with the upstream and downstream opportunities that come with it. How can we embed those things into the Northern Territory? There is a real opportunity. We can look at the opportunities that present to us now and things we have lost; for example, Arafura Resources, a $780m project lost to Whyalla, South Australia. That is a significant disappointment - significant jobs have been lost.
Regarding upstream and downstream, what opportunities can we see with Dow Chemicals and Majellan? These are probably more from a government point of view. From an early point, a committee such as this would have the opportunity to investigate and put forward ideas, concepts and plans about how we can bring that industry and those opportunities, in an embryonic stage, to the Northern Territory.
One opportunity present right now which probably is not widely known is plenty of oil in Central Australia. Some has been found and unused, and plenty more exploration is commencing. If oil and gas is found in some of those exploration areas, there is an opportunity for us to add value to the product identified or found, if and when it is mined. We should be moving to a state where we can investigate what some of those possibilities are into the future. Should we be building a petrochemical plant in Alice Springs or Central Australia? That is an opportunity we should be taking.
In trying to advance economic development we need to understand what it is. I understand economic development as something that holds - it is about four pillars: economic, social, cultural and environmental. It is about understanding those four things and massaging them as we try to build the economy across the Northern Territory, with this committee in mind, and taking on board the notion of making Darwin Australia’s capital of Southeast Asia. We have to keep those four things in mind when we build better relations overseas. How can we build better relations with Southeast Asia? The member for Casuarina has been spending time overseas trying to develop trade links. There is a fair amount of live cattle export, and he also is involved in his Resources portfolio.
We have to do much more of that. He has to do much more of that from a ministerial perspective; however, we, as a parliament, have to do much more to build those relations. It is important to understand those countries and find opportunities. One opportunity now is the study of Asian languages in school; the opportunity for cultural exchange programs where classes visit some of these countries. We are building economic ties; however, much more needs to be done and this is where we could do it.
I have looked at the profiles of many of our neighbours in Southeast Asia - population, land mass, GDP and some of the import/export specialities. What I call our closest neighbour, Indonesia, has 240-odd million people sitting on nearly 2 million square kilometres. It is roughly the same size as the Northern Territory, although it is made up of a number of islands. In 2006, it had a GDP per capita of $US1636. In 2011, it is estimated to have a GDP per capita of $US3270. In a six-year period, it has doubled its GDP per capita. Although it is starting from a low base, that is a significant increase in an economy that is starting to move along.
I have had a quick look at some of the major Australian exports to Indonesia - I am using DFAT figures from a DFAT website. In 2009-10: wheat, $726m; live animals, $442m excluding seafood; aluminium, $269m; and crude petroleum, $179m. The major Australian imports from Indonesia totalled $2294m: gold, $326m; monitors, projectors and televisions, $144m; and $140m for wood, simply worked It is interesting when looking at Indonesia’s principle export destinations that Australia comes in at No 8, on 2.8%. We are also No 8 as an importer, at 3.5%.
Singapore is another good country to look at with a GDP per capita for approximately 5 million population of $US31 600 in 2006. It is now forecasting $US44 960 for 2011, roughly speaking. We are No 8 in Singapore’s principle export destinations but No 17 in imports, at 1.6%. Singapore is in the petroleum area, generally.
Malaysia has Australia sitting at No 8 as an export destination and No 11 as a principle import destination of 2.2%. Australia’s major exports to Malaysia focus around crude petroleum, and it also imports crude petroleum at $2939m.
I could go through all these countries; however, it tends to show most of the trading partners in Southeast Asia have places like China, Japan and Singapore as their major trading partners. Some, such as Cambodia and Laos, have the United States and Thailand.
If we look at the Philippines - we now have direct flights to Manila - Australia ranks at No 17 in its principal export destination, with the United States, Japan and the Netherlands coming in first, second and third. The Philippines’ principle import sources ranks Australia at No 15 with Japan, United States and China coming in at first, second and third.
It is very interesting to look at some of those figures. When you look at how the Northern Territory information reads with our population of about 230 000 people, the Northern Territory’s trade in 2009-10 had goods exports of $4980m and services exports of $901m, and imports of $3051m and services of $471m. In relation to the percentage share of Australian trade, the exports were at 2.5% in goods and 1.7% in services; and imports 1.5% of goods and 0.9% in services.
Our major exports in 2009-10 were natural gas, manganese ores and concentrates and live animals, excluding seafood. Our major imports were natural gas, refined petroleum and non-electric engines and motors. Our principal export destinations are Japan at 39%; China at 24%; United States at 9%; and Indonesia at $339m, with a 6.8% share. Of that $339m, the majority is live animals. Our nearest trading partner, with 240 million people approximately - we are exporting $339m. That is not a significant contribution the Territory is making in export value. Our principal import sources come from Singapore, Kuwait, Japan, United States and Thailand.
I hope that brief explanation of some of the economic factors of several Asian neighbours and the Northern Territory shows how there are severe economies on our doorstep. We are not fully utilising access to those economies from an Australian perspective, particularly a Territory perspective. The raw figures of 240-odd million people in Indonesia, right next door, and we only export in the 2009-10 financial year $339m worth of goods is a real concern. That information comes from DFAT and ABS.
As we move forward debating this committee we need to reflect on what we can do. Some of the things we can consider in this committee - and I have said it is a fluid committee; it is flexible - it is important we bed down the exact terms of reference – we can look at what industry opportunities there are. For example, what do we see the future of Central Australia being? At the moment, Central Australia is a welfare state. We have to come up with an industry to move that forward. That could be petrochemical; it could be a transport hub. We could look at building the outback highway, becoming a transport hub and linking us properly. In economic development, what role can sister cities play in harnessing the four pillars, in a cultural sense, and bridging some gaps between Alice Springs and Jakarta for example, or Tennant Creek and somewhere in China that appreciates phosphate because of the new phosphate mine at Wonarah? Some real economic dimensions could be explored here.
As a part of my research I read about the organisation called ANDEV, Australians for Northern Development, which came about as a result of Kevin Rudd’s proposed mining resources rent tax before he was evicted. It has taken on a broader lobbying role and is looking at what it can do to lobby the federal government for better opportunities for economic development in the northern parts of Australia. One of the things it is very interested in is strategic economic zones. This is used in other parts of the world, particularly China, and is something I have been advocating for, for a number of years; something I first stumbled on in the Murdi Paaki region of west New South Wales probably 15 or more years ago. Sam Jeffries - if anyone knows Sam - was very active in pushing for an economic zone out there. They are now more commonly referred to as strategic economic zones. It is very important and could help the current government achieve some of its broader economic goals, and is something the Northern Territory can more generally achieve into the future.
I have spoken a little about what this investigation can do. I am really keen to hear what the Minister for Business and Employment will say, and what the member for Nelson will say in relation to this. I do not want to keep talking, I prefer to sit down. I reiterate that this body can look into the future, build networks and create relationships with people, and bring that information back to parliament and recommend a way forward in areas we may not have considered before, such as enhancing marine supply bases or Defence zones in the Northern Territory, or possible expansion of Pine Gap.
As part of the future of the Northern Territory we need to increase our migration. We need to incorporate more Southeast Asian migrants into the Northern Territory on a permanent basis, and on a temporary basis with 457 Visas, to increase the ability of our small and large businesses to get the job done. It is very important. I will take a seat and hear from the Minister for Business and Employment. We will see what he has to say.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak on behalf of the government in relation to this motion. I will recap the motion: it proposes to establish a permanent standing committee of the parliament consisting of six members - three government, two opposition, one Independent; meet six times per year, receive briefings from government departments on major projects and, basically, do all activities required to complete its work.
From the outset, the government’s position is not to support the motion for this standing committee, and I will list the reasons.
First, I comment how refreshing it is to hear the other side talking about development. Everyone would realise this side of the House is probably the most proactive, pro-business, pro-development government ever in the Northern Territory. Under the leadership of the Chief Minister, who was formerly the Business minister and the minister for Asian Relations, it has a strong position on economic development - a position of boosting the economic potential of the Northern Territory and building its capacity.
I come from the right side of the Labor Party. We are in unison with the views of the Chief Minister. Under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, the Country Liberals - Terry sits very closely to a colleague of ours, Jamie Robertson - he almost sits that far left of us. He certainly sits on the left of the Labor Party on many things. It is so refreshing to hear someone …
Dr Burns: Why not put him in the same camp as Curly?
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, Terry Mills would probably be snuggled in between Curly Nixon and Jamie Robertson in relation to philosophical points of view on the economy and economic development. It is refreshing to hear the old-style conservative viewpoint about boosting the economy and chasing economic development and trade opportunities.
The reason I support economic development is because it raises the standard of living for everyone - not just people who are able to get those jobs. Money from that increased economic development flows into government coffers and the government is able to spend more money on social programs and those more vulnerable and needy in our society. It affects everyone. It lifts the standard of living, the lifestyle and the quality of life of everyone in our community.
That is why this last 10 years of the Labor government - under the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin and through the current leadership of Paul Henderson - has seen the economic performance of the Northern Territory significantly grow. We are on the cusp of even greater economic development, increased potential and capability of Territory businesses, and putting the Northern Territory and Darwin on the map within Asia and as a gateway to Asia.
The reason the government would not support this committee is much work is going on in this area. Within my own department, we have responsibilities around the Northern Territory Research and Innovation Board. This is made up of business people, professionals who really look at research and innovation proposals and projects, and steer and guide the position of the Northern Territory with respect to research and innovation. The government provided $1.12m over three years for research and innovation, and Proof-of-Concept and scholarship grants as well. Through the recipients of those grants, the board has been able to leverage some $12m in grants and funding into the Northern Territory, so it is certainly a worthwhile project.
We also have the Research and Innovation Awards which are held annually. I have been to those since becoming minister, and it is inspiring to see all those projects coming online and the ideas Territorians are putting together.
There is a great deal of strategy around investment and trade, which includes the China Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy and the minister for Resources. The Department of Resources is actively involved in attracting investment from China into our resources sector and it has certainly borne fruit.
Recently, the minister launched the Japan Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy. Japanese interests have been concentrated on the gas industry. I will talk about INPEX later, but Japan is also interested in rare earths and other minerals, and that strategy certainly will help.
Around the Defence industry, we have the Defence Support Industry Development Strategy. We also have the manufacturing strategy. We have given the Manufacturers Council, which is a subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce, some money to actively work on their own strategy and that is coming forward.
The minister for Resources has the Agribusiness Strategy, and the Minister for Local Government and Tourism has the Aviation Futures Strategy, the Tourism Strategic Plan and the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy as well.
All these strategies have had involvement and cooperation between government, industry and non-government organisations in their development. One of the key references I have as the Minister for Trade and Asian Relations is the Growing International Trade strategy which was released in 2009 by a very young member for Johnston. This took quite a considerable amount of time to come together. It was done, not ostensibly by the government, but by industry. There is a great deal of ownership within this document. It runs through the details of our economy and where our strategy is going forward in the different sectors, and also looks at our key markets of China, Indonesia and Japan. We are also looking at the emerging markets of the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia for opportunities.
Only recently, we had a governor from the Philippines visit. I met the Governor of Negros Occidental in the Philippines on the inaugural Jetstar flight. He was very interested in cattle, and followed that up with a trip to the Northern Territory. He met with the Cattlemen’s Association, and I have met with him again and we are putting things in train. Those markets can be a little fickle; however, we are providing resources from the Department of Resources and my department to make all that happen for him.
The member for Braitling touched on sovereign risk. I concur with the member for Braitling with respect to this. Working with the Manufacturers Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the International Business Council, there is a very consistent theme about bipartisanship in the area of investment and trade. We have to be very cautious in the politics of trade and investment. We had some recent incidents of involvement so there is a very strong push from key leaders within those areas to achieve bipartisanship. However, we are a very small place. We have access to these groups on a regular basis. We have strategies, done in collaboration with industry and wider groups, as far as their development goes. That has borne fruit.
Not only is my department involved in trade and investment attraction. There is interest from time to time in major projects with the Department of the Chief Minister. Those bigger, more significant projects are elevated in status to the Department of the Chief Minister where they can bring together all agencies, not just the department of Business, to open doors.
It may be the department of Lands looking at industrial land or whatever it might be, or getting the Land Development Corporation, and other departments, under the tent to make the process of those projects as seamless as possible and attractive enough. It has been the case where businesses have said we are very small; we are a very small population, a small parliament; a small government in some ways. They see that as an advantage. It is very nimble. Try turning some of the bigger jurisdictions around these projects. They do not move as fast; they do not move as nimbly as we can to make things happen.
The Chief Minister’s Department - creating an oil and gas task force - has been looking at the marine supply base as a major project. This came from the Chief Minister recognising there was potential for other marine supply bases and the need for INPEX to have some launching facilities for their rock offloading. Those projects are coming. We are at the stage of short listing three international consortiums and have not required a parliamentary committee to do that.
Last year I launched the InvestNT - a portal for investors. When we go to Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, or even when we were in Shanghai for the World Expo, we were talking to various Chambers of Commerce about visiting the Northern Territory and doing some business. Their initial investigations can now be done through the portal of InvestNT, and can be done in Mandarin or some other languages. They can see what is happening economically in the Northern Territory; what the trade routes are like, what the transport systems are like. They can make a decision and when they express an interest my department, and the department of Asian Relations, is able to engage with these people and test their interest in projects we have.
Although we will not be supporting this permanent committee of the parliament, it is something industry has been calling for - a bipartisan approach to these projects. Government has those key areas covered around our task forces and strategies, and it is something I will continue to pursue.
I congratulate the member for Braitling for his interest. It seems he is alone over there in this real drive into raising the economic potential of the Northern Territory. He has reeled off a series of numbers, and certainly our trade has ebbed and flowed with certain countries. Some of those things are beyond our control, but it is something we need to keep beavering away at. We need to boost our live cattle potential in the Philippines market. The Australian dollar is not helping at the moment and has caused problems in the past. Some of the quarantine issues have also been a problem. He highlighted other jurisdictions with similar committees and that is something to look at. However, we will not be supporting the motion today. I commend the member for bringing the motion to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot allow my comments to commence without reference to what I was trying to gather from the member’s comments. I am certainly not going to be drawn on his read of the politics of the Opposition Leader. He has been reading comic books, poor fellow, and would not understand the matters he is describing or trying to discern anyway by way of some kind of sledge.
What I picked up listening to the argument from the minister is it appears he supports the motion but is unable to garner the support of his colleagues, which is an indication perhaps of sentiment and wishful thinking, but the inability to convince and persuade. A minister who is to be taken seriously in his leadership ambitions needs to strengthen these attributes - if I may provide you with some advice, minister.
You used, as a central plank to your argument, trade matters and the like needed to be regarded and approached in a bipartisan manner. Therefore, that argument accepted and understood has strength and merit. It has always been generally understood, in my time in this parliament, that is the way to proceed with international matters, particularly around trade and the strategic advantage we have in the Top End and the Territory generally.
Although that is the argument and a strong point, you cannot bring yourself to support this. You say it is because we are already doing these things. You have a pretty weak position which betrays the fact that although you say something, you are not able to carry that argument through.
Why would this motion come forward if all the things you just said, minister, were the case; that you are doing a grand job and are probably the most pro-development government in the history of the Northern Territory? You need to show some evidence of that rather than further empty words.
A motion like this comes forward from a very good argument put by the member for Braitling: to strengthen the capacity of members of the parliament to engage in important matters. There is a whole network of people across the Territory with experience in the region. I have had a long interest in the region, have studied and worked in the region, and am able to speak to people all over who understand and are trained in these matters. There is a sense of disappointment in the social capital already established and the infrastructure in relationships built within the region that have fallen into decay under this Labor government.
We only have to look at the formation of the first ministry under a Country Liberals’ government and the Asian Relations and Trades minister. That led the way to this nation recognising our strategic positioning, and leading the nation in recognising we are part of Asia. That showed itself in all manner from our exchanges - sporting, through our education curriculum, and all manner of engagement across our region. It bore fruit. Out of that came the Trade Development Zone. We had a leading and unique position in BIMP-EAGA – the Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, East Asian Growth Area. We had a special place on that, earned as special respect for the way in which previous Country Liberal administrations had represented and pushed the interest of this region into our immediate region. I hear from the BIMP-EAGA network that has dropped off. The things the minister is asserting and alleging by way of platitudes do not bear the test of evidence.
There is significant disappointment that the work already put in to establish the interest has not been maintained. Regarding Asian relations, first, in the relationship which leads to trade, we need to build our capacity to understand how we engage and relate to our neighbours and understand them. Talking about bipartisanship, if you genuinely believed in that you would have mounted a stronger argument than the one you did, and you would also have backed up your claim of not needing such a committee because of the great efforts you are doing.
The Chief Minister thought of having a marine supply base - so there you go, what a great man is he. That is an obvious thing which has been talked about for a very long time. We will see whether it happens or not.
Further evidence: Korea is an interesting country with a similar profile to Australia. The Territory could form a strategic connection to Korea. The Prime Minister’s recent visit was commented on as being a very successful trip. Having met the Koreans, that is a country we should spend a bit more time with. Many students from Korea come here. I would like to hear government respond to this at some stage.
There is a very extraordinary link between a Territory business and Korea through Norman and Cindy Millington, who have developed a modular housing concept which has been taken up by the Koreans and spread across Europe and Asia. It started in Darwin. They are bringing the product back to Darwin to meet need within Australia. However, it is an idea that started here, with a special connection that has been extended from Korea right across the region. Those sorts of people need to be brought into these committees to ensure the endeavour of private citizens is properly strategised and supported, and maximum benefit gained.
The minister, in response to this motion, also said we need to be nimble and we have that advantage. Nimbleness will come with knowledge and increased understanding, and the capacity to make decisions that are effective. Therefore, a committee such as this would provide that capacity to build knowledge and understanding, and be able to make more strategic decisions. It was a surprise, listening to the speech of the minister, when he indicated, on one hand, support and, then, fell into line with his colleagues. That is disappointing. You need to be consistent in your argument, hold a firm view, run it all the way through and, if you genuinely believe you have done a fantastic job, let us see some evidence. Let us see whether you can make some value out of what the Millingtons are doing with the connection into Korea. What sort of benefits could that run into SIHIP? What sort of benefits could that run into spin-offs into our own local economy? They are doing it tough, but they are applauded in Korea.
The opportunities we have for BIMP-EAGA and our engagement there, if we created this committee it could enhance that engagement and bring value to it. Tell us more about your plans with BIMP-EAGA. Tell us about our representation within the region – Surabaya and Jakarta. Tell us how you are going to increase the uptake of knowledge within our education profession regarding cross-cultural training and language tuition so we have the capacity to understand and engage from young people to old people and ensure we have the capacity to build on the opportunities. Tell us more about your strategic plan because, if you are not going to be part of something such as this, which builds in capacity within the members of parliament in a genuinely bipartisan way, you have to provide much evidence to substantiate the arguments you ran to explain your opposition to such a motion.
Madam Speaker, I believe this motion deserves support. It is put forward in good faith and only because of the absence of any coherent vision and plan from this Labor government. I suspect, if there has been much movement in the place, if what the minister had to say was true - all these great things are happening, this is the best thing and the best government ever in the history of the Northern Territory - there would be no need for such a motion. Obviously, that is a fallacy; therefore, a motion like this is required and should be supported.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by the member for Braitling is a good motion. I am not willing to support or knock it on the head at the moment. There needs to be more detail on how this committee would get up and running. I prefer, if it was possible - and at this stage it is difficult to do - to look at the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee to see if it has run its term and ask whether the government would look at giving it new terms of reference, and this would be a good terms of reference.
I do not know if the existing Environment committee has finished the job it has been given by this parliament, so the other option is to write to the Council of Territory Cooperation to see if there could be a subcommittee of the CTC. That would get this off the ground for the time being. Knowing the Environment committee has pretty well run its course, there is an opportunity there. I am happy to write to the Chair of that committee, and minister Knight, who, from what he said, seemed to indicate that the government is doing something about it and he supports it. Perhaps at the present time he cannot get full government support. I ask the minister to put to the government that this motion goes through the existing Environment committee. It is something that has not been discussed very often in this parliament. We need to put more emphasis on business.
The member for Blain mentioned the connection with one of our companies, and building in Korea. This is much smaller than what he was talking about, but is innovative thinking. A lady in Howard Springs has produced a Benat Cap, which I have a photo of here. This cap can be used in soccer. You might say, so what? This cap has a neoprene front to it. One of the problems wearing a cap in soccer is you can injure the person when going for the ball, or you can injure yourself. This lady has invented a cap with a neoprene front which has been approved by the Football Federation Australia for use in football games, as far as I know, throughout Australia. It is very important for the Northern Territory, where you want young people to cover up from the sun. It is a simple invention I believe will go a long way. I have promoted it in my newsletter because it is one example of small business we must encourage in the Northern Territory.
I was on radio this morning saying we can talk about statehood all we like. The Commonwealth government funds the Territory to about 80%. You might support statehood but would it really be statehood or just statehood in name because most of our income does not come from us? We have to develop an economy, business and trade. We need to do all those things. We have to get people off welfare. While we continue on welfare and continue relying on the GST, even if we became a state, I would have trouble regarding it as a real state because we need to stand on our own two feet.
I support the member for Braitling’s motion. I will not be voting on it but I am not opposing it. I am happy to write to the chairman, and I will even write to the Chief Minister. I would be happy to take a letter to the Council of Territory Cooperation to see if that is an alternative; maybe we can work a way around this. It may need a little working through, but this is well worth the government’s consideration. The minister for Business and Employment, whilst he may say one thing, believes another - he believes this would be a good idea. I am hoping he can influence his party to get this off the ground because it is a motion well worth supporting.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for bringing this motion forward. I want to clarify a couple of things the Leader of the Opposition said in relation to this. Of course government would like to support this motion, and we have had discussion within government on this matter. We recognise our Asian relations and trade connection is very important; however, we also recognise this Assembly has 25 members and, on the government’s side, we have a limited number of members. There are already a large number of committees, and another one has come into being today in relation to the important issue of Mataranka Station. It comes down to trying to allocate the resources and members on our side.
Backbenchers on this side spread themselves between a number of committees and also have parliamentary secretary duties, so I agree with the member for Nelson. The government is not opposed to it. We would like to engage in this way but need to find a less formal way of doing so.
It is a good idea to have a bipartisan approach to this; however, I need to highlight a couple of parameters, particularly picking up on what the Leader of the Opposition said. He talked about the absence of a plan on the government’s side. When we came into government, and when the Chief Minister, who was then Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, asked the relevant department where the plan of engagement was, there was not one. There was no written plan regarding Asian relations and trade. There had been much activity the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, particularly BIMP-EAGA and areas like that. There were many memoranda of understanding hanging around the walls, but I do not think, objectively, there had been much benefit to the Northern Territory from that.
We were talking earlier about the cattle industry. The live cattle trade is probably the shining example of an export trade that has flourished over the last 10 to 15 years but, beyond that, I know of many businesses that were part of the Shane Stone push into Asia, the whole BIMP-EAGA edifice, and many of those businesses were literally skinned alive. They had goods on wharves, they had to pay money to certain entities to move their goods or even get their goods back again. It was a nightmare for them.
None of these business people will say this publicly; however, I am sure members of the opposition are aware of what people say about that time – basically, it was great. Shane Stone, give him his credit, had an entre to the President of Indonesia, and this government’s relationship with Indonesia is very close. Clare Martin met with the President of Indonesia also, which shows the importance of that relationship. As a government, we have endeavoured to look to other regions than BIMP-EAGA for our trade. The member for Casuarina has been very active in China, particularly in the minerals area. There has been much interest from Chinese entities in exploring and developing, in a cooperative and collaborative way, the mineral wealth of the Northern Territory, which is a very positive thing. He could point to quite a number of examples of development and there is much interest there.
Clare Martin and her bid to get INPEX was very important - thinking outside the square. She and Mr Tyrrell talked about the issue and said: ‘Why not? Why not have a go? Why not go over there and put our case? Why do we have to let Western Australia take INPEX from underneath our nose?’ They went over and argued a case, gave a presentation, and it excited interest from INPEX and, as a parliament, we are very hopeful of a final investment decision in the last quarter of this year. I was very heartened to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s bipartisan remarks about support for INPEX, particularly during the process of the environmental assessment in Darwin Harbour. INPEX is taking massive strides. It is very important to the Northern Territory.
What I want to express to this Assembly, though, is this government might not necessarily hold the same views as the previous government in our economic and trade engagement with Asia and may be looking to other areas to develop our markets. I may be mistaken, but I believe the member for Blain might speak Bahasa Indonesian. He is a great advocate of Indonesian language in our schools - a fantastic thing. One of the tragedies with Indonesia in recent years is because of the trouble and calamity in Indonesia, many of our students and teachers have not been able to visit because of travel warnings, which has shut a door that was a very exciting part of school life for many Territory kids - go to Indonesia, be immersed in the language and learn about the culture and places on our doorstep. To some degree, unfortunately, we have lost that very important link.
In the current context, there has been much talk in the last few days about the death of Osama Bin Laden. I even heard some apologists on the television tonight, the Geoffrey Robertsons of the world, saying maybe this was an assassination or an execution. I do not really share that view. However, I digress. The terrorists of the world have certainly set a question mark over Indonesia, and I really hope those travel warnings to Indonesia can be lifted when the threat of terrorism abates. Indonesian authorities are doing the best they can to address this issue.
The member for Blain is very attached; he is focused on Indonesia, but that does not mean to say as a government we are not. I visited when I was Tourism minister. It was at the time Garuda had ceased flights to the Northern Territory. It was almost a race between the member for Blain and me to see who could get there first, and who was accompanying who. I had arranged meetings with senior Garuda officials and senior government officials to put the Northern Territory’s case to Garuda. I was a little bemused to hear at the time Terry Mills said: ‘It was really good that minister Chris Burns accompanied me. We went together to show a united face in Jakarta’. I did not travel with the member for Blain to Jakarta. When I heard the member for Blain was also in Jakarta I invited him, and his party, to an official dinner I was hosting. I invited him to speak at that dinner. There were quite a few people from the Indonesia Australia Business Council, and some quite senior people in the Indonesian government. It was good that we showed a united and bipartisan front to the Indonesians.
I want to place on the record, and I have not spoken about it before, that I did not accompany the member for Blain to Jakarta. I was on the same plane as the member for Blain on the way home. It was a Garuda flight from Jakarta to Bali. The member for Blain, obviously, had some very serious business in Bali. We came back to Darwin on the Jetstar flight. I was not able to accompany the member for Blain on his very important business trip to Bali. I place on the record that I did not accompany him to Jakarta. There needs to be real bipartisanship, if that is what we are talking about, not political point scoring about who accompanied who, who did this, who did that. It was a bit of a shock to read that.
There is value if we can find other ways to achieve this idea the member for Braitling has. Obviously, he has had discussions with the member for Daly. We need to cooperate; we are a small parliament. I am aware a number of members on the other side have been travelling overseas and addressing various conferences, and that is good. I am with the member for Braitling when the media criticise us for travelling overseas on legitimate purposes. The member for Sanderson recently addressed a transport conference in Singapore, and I say good on the member for doing that. I am aware the member for Katherine recently attended a conference in Cairns. He submitted his RTD report the other day. I commend members for travelling, for engaging with business and various conferences, because it can only benefit this parliament.
Madam Speaker, on that basis, I really want to support the member for Braitling. Hopefully, I have elucidated the reasons why government cannot support it. Government would like to support it, but it comes down to people and resources. It comes down to physical and dollar resources in the number of committees existing at present. As the member for Nelson said, we need to negotiate a way forward on this. I am not opposed to it outright. As the member for Daly said, he is certainly a great advocate for it but, when you are involved in these discussions as a government, you have to look at resource and priority issues in what you do. Obviously, something like Mataranka is of extreme importance to this government, and I hope the opposition also. Let us use our resources wisely. Let us see if we can have a more informal arrangement, or something other than a committee. Reluctantly, member for Braitling, I am unable to support your motion.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it must be getting late in the day; I had a bit of a chuckle, and that was good. I thank the members for Daly, Blain, Nelson and Johnston for speaking. Five of us agreed on the same thing, but have all taken different paths on how we go forward. There was some good debate.
I want to say, categorically, putting forward this motion is no negative reflection of anyone working in the area of Asian relations and trade. However, the section worked much better when it was with the Department of Business rather than the Chief Minister’s Department, because it takes more of a political role rather than an outcome-based role, even though they are working for the same type of issues. In no way am I denigrating officers in that area, but trying to bolster what is done there and looking for a greater future. I said at the outset this is fluid, it is flexible. Trying to find a way forward in developing a committee will take some time. I have not established a committee before, as people would understand, and I am also in opposition.
The member for Nelson spoke about the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. We spoke about that before coming into the Chamber. The member for Arafura, if I am correct, has tabled a report of that committee and is in the middle of debate about that report. I anticipate that committee will be finalised soon. The member for Nelson expressed he will be writing to the Chairman of Committees seeking the possibility of an innovation development and trade committee taking over from that committee once it is finished. We can work to develop the terms of reference. I will also write to the Chairman of Committees, and the Chief Minister, as you said, along with the minister for Business. It is a good suggestion and I will take it up.
In the meantime, how to work this through? The member for Nelson talked about flicking it to the CTC. Our side is not on the CTC; however, that would be good. I support that concept. I am unsure, logistically, if anything has to happen or if it is just happens. Perhaps I will write to him as chair and ask him to look at it. I might also talk to my colleagues about whether I, and the member for Fong Lim, can become involved in developing the terms of reference with the CTC with a view to the establishment of that committee post the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee. That is a good way of doing business.
I like to get things done, and if we can find a way to make that happen - me, the member for Daly as the minister, perhaps the Resources minister, the member for Fong Lim, and anyone else who wants to talk about this and start driving forward some economic approach in trade and development innovation will be a good way to go.
The member for Johnston said it is important to travel and I thank him for recognising that. I am not aware what the member for Katherine did in Cairns, but this is what it is all about. The same as the member for Sanderson in Singapore - Dave and I have done that. We all travel for different reasons. It is important to take some clean eyes to learn new ideas and bring valuable information back to the Territory for our growth.
In summation, I will write to the chair of the CTC to see if he can start working on this concept. I will see if the member for Fong Lim and I can be involved in that, and I will write to have the committee established once the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee finishes.
Madam Speaker, let us put the motion and see what happens.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Withdrawal of General Business
Withdrawal of General Business
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move to withdraw General Business Notices Nos 3 and 4.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Withdrawal of General Business
Withdrawal of General Business
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I was to move that the following matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report: the member for Casuarina, Mr Vatskalis, in relation to statements made by him in this House during the February sittings 2011, in which the minister asserted during Question Time that the Ombudsman supported the government’s proposed changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act; and further, that the committee be empowered by this motion to examine relevant witnesses and call for the production of relevant documents.
Madam Speaker, upon reflection and being mindful of some of the comments made in earlier debates in this House, whilst I still believe the minister himself had endeavoured to reflect a conversation disingenuously, it is not sufficient, in hindsight, to sustain a motion to the Privileges Committee. Therefore, I seek to withdraw this motion.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Carbon Emissions Taxes Proposal – Exempt Northern Territory
Carbon Emissions Taxes Proposal – Exempt Northern Territory
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move - That this Assembly –
1. call on the Australian government to exempt the Northern Territory from the proposed carbon emissions taxes for at least 50 years or until such time as global consensus has been reached on a worldwide carbon emissions reduction plan; and
2. through the Speaker, forward the terms of this motion to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
Madam Speaker, this motion is pretty self-explanatory. Anyone in this Chamber who has been following some of the media I have in the last couple of weeks, and following what I said in the Alice Springs sittings, will know it is my view the carbon tax proposed by the Gillard government in Canberra is a great big, new tax on everything. It will tax us; it will cost us for everything we use – the services we buy, products we use and the like.
It will hit Territorians harder than anywhere else in the country. This debate is not about whether we do or do not believe in climate change. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that whether we agree or disagree with that concept, the Northern Territory and Territorians are among the lowest emitters of carbon dioxide anywhere in the world on a relative-to-land-mass basis. According to the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index, Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions relative to land mass are just 51.52 tonnes per square kilometre; that is the whole Australian land mass. The Northern Territory is one-sixth of that land mass and has just over 1% of the Australian population. On Australian terms, we do not contribute very much to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Compare Australia’s emissions to countries like China - it has 681 tonnes per square kilometre; the United States has 632 tonnes per square kilometre; Japan has 3500 tonnes per square kilometre; and the United Kingdom has 2249 tonnes per square kilometre. It becomes apparent the Northern Territory and Territorians are not great contributors to global warming.
I have been on the record with media releases, debates in Alice Springs, and was very fortunate the Northern Territory News saw fit to publish, on 16 April, an article I wrote headlined: ‘Carbon Tax Will Hit Us Hard’. I proposed three reasons why the Northern Territory should be exempt from carbon taxes.
First, the Northern Territory is a fledgling economy. We have not had long to develop. In fact, it is fair to say we are probably 200 years behind the rest of Australia. The rest of Australia has been able to develop and create industries and economies for the last 200 years without the imposition of a carbon tax. There should be a recognition that the Northern Territory be given the same leg up to develop its economy. Based on the way the Australian government has negotiated at various international forums, this falls in line with its views as well because the Australian government attends these international forums and, in order to gain consensus for a global emissions trading system, says places like China, India and other developing countries need to be given a leg up in order to develop their economies.
We are asking for nothing different in this motion. There needs to be recognition that the Northern Territory is a developing economy - we need to develop. If we are ever going to shrug the tag of being a mendicant state - always on the government tit in Canberra - we need to get away from that …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr Tollner: Sorry, the government breast.
Ms WALKER: I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: It is a saying. I did not mean to offend, member for Nhulunbuy. If we are ever to get off the government breast we need to be given the same opportunity to develop as other parts of the country have been given over the last 200 years.
The second thing is in a carbon-constrained global economy, the Northern Territory actually holds some of the keys to developing a carbon-constrained economy. I am talking about our natural gas resources and our vast uranium resources. If the rest of the world is to be weaned off coal and other fossil fuel burning activities, gas is certainly a solution.
We hear the Chief Minister talking all the time about our clean, green gas. Whilst it might not be completely clean, it is certainly a much cleaner fuel than other alternatives like oil and coal. Similarly, uranium is probably considered the cleanest fuel to provide base load power into the future. The last thing our uranium miners or our gas industry needs is an impediment that makes their product - our product from the Northern Territory - more expensive on the global market. That does nothing to encourage other countries to use greener methods of generating electricity, and does much to discourage development of those industries in the Northern Territory.
The third reason the Northern Territory will be hit hardest is because we are a small population spread over vast distances. We have huge issues with distance and isolation. We have just over 200 000 people living on a land mass that is one-sixth of the Australian continent. Forty percent of Northern Territory households rely on petrol or diesel for their own power generation - an incredible amount of our people.
We often debate in this House Indigenous issues about closing the gap; about finding economic development opportunities for Indigenous people, predominantly in remote and far-flung areas. The last thing people in those areas need placed on them is a further impost. We can talk about health, education, and all those things and, whilst they are important, a job gives dignity and hope in the future. We need to be developing jobs opportunities in the bush, in regional and remote Northern Territory areas. When those areas rely so heavily on petrol and diesel to get from A to B - all products in these areas are trucked or flown in, power generation is largely diesel, gas or petrol, and to place a carbon tax in those areas is completely detrimental and inhibiting to their future aspirations.
In a nutshell, I am very keen for this debate to proceed so I will not talk for long. I urge this Assembly to take this motion seriously because it will send a powerful message to Canberra that it can do what it likes around the rest of the country, but we need to be given a bit of a leg up. We have not had 200 years to develop our economy like other parts of the country. We hold some of the keys to a carbon-constrained global economy; that is, our gas and uranium resources.
Finally, some of our poorest and downtrodden citizens will be among the hardest hit by far. I urge people in this House to support this motion so we can start lobbying Canberra for those things we deserve.
Quickly before I finish, having spent some time in Canberra I know how it works. Right now there are lobbyists from all over the country from industries, governments, NGOs, and big businesses, all lobbying as hard as they can to ensure they get there fair shake under the new legislation. The Territory needs to send a very strong message to Canberra that this is not on; we are a developing economy and we need a fair go.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, broadly the government shares the sentiment of the Territory not being disadvantaged or it costing Territorians and businesses in our community. However, we will not be supporting putting a position to Canberra around this, mainly because there is still very little detail on the proposed carbon tax. It is a space we are actively analysing and gauging to see where it all goes. Treasury is working to analyse what details are available of the impact on different sectors of our economy. We are very cognisant of the ripple effect through our economy.
However, it is interesting to see the member for Fong Lim is now a climate change believer …
Mr Tollner: No.
Mr KNIGHT: Well, you accepted there was a need to address carbon, so I am interpreting you are now a believer in climate change. That is a good move to make.
The Chief Minister has reiterated our position of there being no adverse effects to our economy, our small businesses, our vital pastoral sectors, and our manufacturing sectors. The member for Fong Lim highlighted, in some creative calculations on carbon emissions per square metre in the Northern Territory …
Mr Tollner: It came from the United Nations International Greenhouse Gas Emissions Index.
Mr KNIGHT: No, you extrapolated it to the Northern Territory, which was quite creative.
The Chief Minister has made it very clear the government will not be supporting something which has adverse effects on our community.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the Northern Territory being a fledging economy - and it is. It is a small but advanced economy. Whilst other states, through circumstances, have started off with old technologies, we have leapt forward through a quirk of fate where we ended up with gas. The Channel Island Power Station was going to be a coal-fired power station. It moved from Stokes Hill Wharf and was going to be coal-fired, and is why it was located on Channel Island. Around that time they found gas, and it switched to gas. Although it is not completely clean, it is certainly much cleaner than coal-fired and certainly is …
Mr Wood: D I R T Y.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Wood: It is dirty.
Mr KNIGHT: Dirty?
Mr Wood: Read the emissions of all your gas producers.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: All right. Well, it is much cleaner than coal.
It was a quirk of fate. We ended up with a cleaner fuel and were able to move fairly quickly to an energy source where we could use new technologies. Those other states, through a quirk of fate, have localised sources of cheap coal and will certainly use those. That will be the position of the southern states, because they have coal in the ground and will persist with that. They will look at the alternatives of geosequestration as a mitigating alternative to those emissions.
The member for Fong Lim also talked about a carbon-constrained economy and the use of gas and nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the lowest polluter of carbon dioxide; however, I wonder if Australia is ready for it. That debate is still to happen. We are not ready for it here because we do not have the generation capacity of even the smallest nuclear power plant. I still have trouble figuring out how to cost a kilowatt of power out of a nuclear power station against the centuries of cost of storage of those nuclear fuel rods after they have been used. How do you factor into today’s prices the cost of centuries of storage? Yes, it is probably greener in some ways, but it is certainly extremely costly.
Gas is something the Northern Territory will be using for a very long time, with new fields being discovered. We have a gas sales agreement with Blacktip for 25 years. There are other fields beyond that which could supply Darwin and the greater Darwin area, all the way down to Alice Springs as it does now.
The member for Fong Lim talked about the small population and large land mass, and about various communities and small towns throughout the Northern Territory which run off diesel. We have a universal tariff in the Northern Territory so whether you are in Borroloola or Nakara you pay the same for your power. It is balanced out across the Territory. Yes, if and when we have a carbon tax, places using diesel would have a higher cost, but that would be balanced out across the Northern Territory and would ease that burden.
Much discussion has yet to occur. I thank you for bringing this forward. You are the only one on that side interested in this area and can see the potential for …
Mr Wood: I spoke about it in Alice Springs!
Mr KNIGHT: You talk about nuclear power all the time.
Mr Wood: Do not be scared.
Mr KNIGHT: It is a space we are eagerly observing and analysing. People in Treasury and other areas of government are actively keeping an eye on this. Strong representations will be made to the government. The government has a good relationship with the federal Labor government and, hopefully, that relationship will see concessions with this scheme. With all the arguments about the gas industry, we should be given the same level of, if not more, exemptions than any other energy sector or industry down south. It is something the government will actively pursue, actively lobby, as you will through your colleagues interstate. I am sure the Chamber of Commerce, the Cattlemen’s Association, and all the various stakeholder groups will be actively analysing what this means.
I am keen to see how those benefits occur. There has to be some articulation of the benefits of the carbon tax. There has to be leadership in Australia to prepare our economy for a low carbon economy where, ultimately, I believe the world will go. If we are ahead of the game our economy will change sooner; it will be ready sooner for low carbon industries and have a competitive advantage. I thank the member for Fong Lim for bringing this proposal forward. This is a rerun of Alice Springs. For those who did not make it to Alice Springs, this is a bit of a Groundhog Day. We will not be supporting this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am surprised the government would not give some concessions in relation to supporting this motion because we will be affected by a carbon tax. We rely nearly entirely on fossil fuels to supply energy for the Northern Territory. The amount of energy we produce by solar and wind is very small, even though the government might jump up and down every now and then saying: ‘Look at this, look at this’ …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: If you look at the amount of energy produced in the Northern Territory, about 95% is produced by diesel or gas. That is the reality we are not facing up to.
It is good sometimes hopping on an aeroplane because it gives me a chance to read when I would not otherwise have the opportunity to do so. There was an article in the business section of The Australian last Thursday - I was hoping to dig up a copy in time, but that does not matter - in relation to both sides of parliament not being willing to look at the reality of life when it comes to nuclear power. I know people knock nuclear power, and that is fine …
A member: Do not say both sides.
Mr WOOD: It was referring to the federal side of politics because what you have, in this case, is people who are not facing up to the facts. I have that article now, thank you. The heading is that nuclear power should be an option in any carbon debate. Regardless of the issues in Japan - I have asked before, because there is an accident somewhere does technology stop dead? The space shuttle blew up twice going into outer space - did we stop running that? No, we improved it. When the first car crashed into a tree and everyone went through the windscreen, what did we do? We put seatbelts in and installed airbags. We did not sit around and say: ‘Oh, too hard, too dangerous’.
When the Fukushima nuclear power plant fell apart because of a tsunami people said: ‘Oh, no, we cannot have that’. I listened to an interesting debate on Lateline one night where a person who was not pro-nuclear power was interviewed and said if we are now scared of nuclear power we will go back into coal-fired power stations, which will make matters worse. He said he might not like nuclear power but, at least at the present time, it is reducing the amount of carbon into the atmosphere. He also said not one person has died from the Fukushima power plant, yet about 2800 people die in China per year just from coal mining, let alone the emissions from coal. Coal produces radioactive material and dumps on people in those communities; it dumps on people in Australia …
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: For some reason, that is okay, but when it comes to one person perhaps receiving radiation from a nuclear power plant, all hell breaks loose. Sometimes we lose sight of reality when it comes to these matters. I am not a fan of nuclear power in the sense that I accept there are dangers with it, but there are dangers with conventional power. If you look at the effect the tsunami had on the oil refinery in Japan - it blew up in a neighbourhood. There was not much mention of that; however, the nuclear power plant was mentioned day in, day out. Of course, we should be cautious with all forms of power.
When I ask people why we are introducing a carbon tax the answer is we are trying to reduce the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by coal, gas and oil power stations, and by motor cars. That is the main form of carbon into our atmosphere. How are we going to stop it? Some people think you can shove it into the ground - carbon sequestration.
It is not proven technology. In some cases where it is being used it is very expensive technology; you have to find the right subsoils to put it in, and there is no guarantee it will not come out later on. It may work in some areas, it may not. Look how many cars travel down the main street of Darwin, every one with a petrol tank full of fuel. Darwin is just a drop in the bucket. If you are talking Beijing, London, New York and the rest of the world, how many petrol tanks are there per day burning up oil? Can you tell me how we are going to replace that at this present time because that is burning carbon?
Has someone worked out how to run the motor car in the future without burning carbon? Can someone tell me how we are going to get rid of oil-fired, gas-fired and coal-fired power stations and have the energy to produce what this building is made out of - concrete, steel and aluminium? They are massive users of energy which cannot be made, under our present technology, by solar or wind power. From the basis solar is not 24-hour and wind is generally not 24-hour, the only way you can store power is through batteries which have to be made using rare earths like lithium, and they, in themselves, produce carbon.
The reality is no one wants to take up the argument or explain to me - those people who are against nuclear, but dislike coal, gas and oil power stations - how to produce the very things our cities and our wealth is built on …
A member: Moonshine.
Mr WOOD: Moonshine might not get you too far.
Mr Elferink: What are you going to run the still with?
Mr WOOD: The cement, the steel. I recently heard one of our big industrialists realised if we are to produce the amount of steel China needs we will have to increase energy in Australia by an enormous amount. That was one of the reasons they went to South Africa, or one of the African countries, to get more uranium reserves. We can stand here as, in my case, rank amateurs, but I am sure if people in the business of industrial development know about population growth in the world, and match that with the amount of materials required to service that increase in population, where are we going to get the energy if we are saying oil, gas and coal are on the nose? If we put great carbon taxes on this form of energy without having replacement energy, where are we really heading?
People do not realise this is not a simple debate. I am glad the member for Fong Lim has brought it on. I know he is talking specifically about carbon tax, but it is bigger than that.
When I was in Perth, Bernard Salt, who writes for The Australian and is a demographer, spoke about the 10 fastest growing suburbs in Australia. Believe it or not, the way Melbourne is growing at the moment it will pass Sydney in population in a few more years. One of the suburbs was Wyndham, which is not in north Western Australia, it is in the western suburbs of Melbourne, and requires 7500 houses to be built per year.
Look at the energy required to provide the materials for a house: aluminium windows, concrete floors and glass. If we decide to put a carbon tax on things will we start importing those materials from overseas because they will become too expensive, otherwise the price of a house goes up? If we do not want to do that, why are we not willing to debate whether we should have another form of energy?
This document says there are too few politicians willing to debate the issue because, obviously, it is not a popular debate in many parts of Australia, especially after the Fukushima accident. It does not help when you have headlines in our local paper mentioning Japanese air pollution and you read page 2 and find there is nothing wrong; it is about 1000 times below the applicable limit. Nuclear power is sensationalised. People are scared of it because no one is willing to say: ‘It needs to be looked at as an alternative form of energy’. If we are to reduce carbon we need to look at it.
Millions of cars are burning carbon and no one has come up with any solution, at least from a political point of view, of how to turn that around. I went to a conference in Perth a couple of years ago to look at alternative forms of energy for vehicles, and hydrogen is still the one. Hydrogen is a clean form of energy, not like the gas the minister talked about. It produces water. It is a clean form of energy to run cars quite well. Existing cars can be converted to hydrogen.
The problem is, to produce hydrogen you require heat and, to produce heat, you require some sort of energy, and that form of energy presently has to come from coal, gas or fire. You might try to produce hydrogen, but you are still producing carbon because the source of the hydrogen comes from a carbon source of energy. The one way to produce hydrogen without producing carbon is to use nuclear power. Again, we should be careful with nuclear power. However, it has been used in the world for the last 50 years.
Technology has moved on; we no longer drive T-Model Fords. We drive modern cars with electronic equipment to ensure it is safe. Society learns from its mistakes and, hopefully, improves technology. That is what we need to be saying: yes, there are issues about nuclear power; however, can we not look at it in a less emotive but real way? Is it an alternative for Australia to maintain a carbon-free energy society that would lead the world? We would not have to find ways to have a carbon tax or put carbon in the ground; we would be able to produce a clean energy source.
It is hoped one day we can produce nuclear power through fission - the ongoing method - however, that seems some time away. In the meantime, do we wash our hands of the hard questions and continue, as we do in the Northern Territory, diesel power stations in the remote areas, gas in the areas closer to the gas pipeline, and oil – that is where diesel comes from in the first place? I put, as one side of the debate, we are being forced into a carbon debate because we are not willing to look at an alternative form of energy which will not produce carbon.
I thought the debate on ABC Lateline was a balanced approach to the whole argument - nuclear power, love it or hate it, at the moment is keeping carbon emission down. Hopefully, we can find better sources. If renewable energy can do the job, by all means. However, no one has convinced me sunlight and wind will produce this floor, cement, all the aluminium in the windows, or all the steel that holds up this building. When you ask people who are opposed to nuclear power how to do it from sustainable energy like wind and solar, they do not have any answers because, unfortunately, there is no answer at the moment. I am all for solar and wind, it has its place; however, if you want to sustain a modern manufacturing industry you have to look elsewhere.
In relation to the carbon tax, my concern is similar to that of the member for Fong Lim - we are a developing economy in the Northern Territory. One reason you can argue - I do not want to get too much into debate about the budget – is governments in the Northern Territory have gone into deficit quite a number of times. Who built the Crowne Plaza? Who built Yulara Resort? Government went into debt. Why did it go into debt? Because it said we had to develop the economy because it was a growing economy and there is no doubt it is still a growing economy. That is why I do not mind the government putting money into infrastructure because we are a small population, we cover a big area, and we are developing. It is going to take quite a bit of time. Yes, governments will go into debt. As long as they can pay that debt I am not going to be overly concerned because that is the way the Northern Territory will develop. I have said if you want to develop parts of the Northern Territory, put in bitumen roads and electricity and it will develop automatically. You see it in country parts of Australia where infrastructure has been built.
In the Northern Territory in years gone by, before Power and Water became what it is today, infrastructure was placed around the rural areas of Darwin. I owned a block of land in Adelaide River and power was put on there. You had a covenant on your block and paid $5000 for your power. It does not seem to happen anymore. Unless you have the money for the power, the lines, the poles and the transformers it is very difficult to get infrastructure where it is needed.
We are a developing economy. The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association has said this will be disastrous for it, and it will be. We eat meat and we need to grow food. If we are being penalised for growing food because we have long distances to our markets, that is certainly a backward step.
Transport is by diesel; diesel will be taxed. Materials will come to a farm in the form of chemicals, cartons, materials such as fencing material, all that sort of stuff. It will be transported using a carbon energy source. Is that going to be taxed? If it is, farming will be more expensive, and people at the shop will pay when they buy their rump steak.
Madam Speaker, the member for Fong Lim brought this on and we have to give him time to sum up. We do not tackle the hard questions and are too afraid of some of the radical greenies. I would like to know from the radical greenies - it does not have to be a radical greenie – but someone who does not believe in nuclear power, who is opposed to the dirty forms of energy we have through gas, oil and diesel: how are you going to produce cement? It is a very basic part of what our society is. If someone can tell me how we produce cement without a solid base of energy, if it is solar and wind, well, I will go he.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I say thank you to the members in this Chamber, those who spoke on this motion, also those who did not speak on this motion. Members from both sides of the Chamber were chafing at the bit to talk. I wanted this to come to a head tonight, and am grateful for the support I received from all members.
Very quickly, member for Daly, thank you for your contribution, I am grateful. We now have a member of the Labor Party in Australia talking openly about a carbon tax. Previously, the Labor line has always been it is about a price on carbon. It has never talked about it being a carbon tax so, member for Daly, good on you, mate, you have belled the cat. It is a carbon tax. We all know it, and it is great you do too.
Member for Daly, good on you for raising the issue of nuclear power. But, as you so often tell us, get a briefing, mate. I say the same to you in relation to nuclear power. Go to ANSTO, get yourself a briefing.
My good friend on my left, the little bald man from Nelson, has been to Lucas Heights. He has had a briefing. Other members of this Chamber have also done this, and I have done it a couple of times. The reason I am imploring members to do it is because we have a world-class research centre in Australia with some incredible information on all things nuclear. Member for Daly, a helpful suggestion: go to Sydney and visit ANSTO at Lucas Heights before you start waxing lyrical about the pros and cons of nuclear power.
I never suggested nuclear power for the Northern Territory. I have said in this debate nuclear power is one of the keys to the solutions for dealing with carbon emissions into the future. We need to have a debate somewhere down the track when we have a larger transmission system or new technologies arrive with nuclear power. I am not suggesting it for the here and now. The rest of the world needs our uranium and we should be trying to supply our uranium to the rest of the world at the most economical cost possible. People will not buy our uranium if they can get it cheaper somewhere else. We need to keep costs down for uranium mining, and also for gas production.
Finally, my colleague on my right, our fantastic shadow Environment minister, has drawn my attention to the National Pollutant Inventory. This is the federal government’s own organisation run through the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and it issues substance fact sheets. The NPI contains data on 93 substances that are emitted into the environment. The substances included in the NPI have been identified as important because of their possible health and environmental effects. Interestingly, out of those 93 substances identified as dangerous, carbon dioxide is not on the list at all. That is an aside.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chamber and all the people in this House. I am now very keen to see it put to the vote, and I hope people support this motion.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
In speaking to this adjournment debate, I take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank one of our school leaders, Denise Wilkowski, on her retirement.
In 1975, Denise and Lech Wilkowski, a young married couple, set off on a trip around the world from the United Kingdom. After arriving in Australia they ran short of money, as young people do and, since they were both teachers, Denise and Lech approached the Commonwealth Teaching Service in Perth. They were offered jobs on the spot and, within 24 hours, were given a visa to work and were on a plane bound for Darwin. At the farewell last week for Denise in Mitchell Street she talked about that being one of the best things in their lives and one of the best things to ever happen because it opened up a wonderful adventure for Denise and Lech.
Upon their arrival in Darwin, Denise and Lech lived on a passenger ship in the harbour for a few months as there was no other suitable accommodation left standing following the destruction of Cyclone Tracy. In the first week of April 1975, Denise began working at Casuarina High School. She was employed as a geography, history and social education teacher, but Denise started teaching English, home economics and typing. In December 1976, Denise and Lech resigned from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to continue their around the world adventure and spent a couple of months touring Australia before heading to New Zealand.
They settled in Auckland and, after scraping the ice off the windscreen of their car for a third time in one day, Lech let it be known in no uncertain terms he wished he was back in Darwin. Denise agreed, and within a week they arrived back here.
Throughout Denise’s long and varied 36-year career within the education system in the Northern Territory she has held such positions as: classroom teacher; senior teacher; assistant principal; acting principal; Director of Curriculum Studies; President of the Association of NT School Educational Leaders, ANTSEL; and Senior Director, Centre for School Leadership, Learning and Development. Throughout Denise’s career she has experienced many career firsts, including becoming the first substantiative female principal at Taminmin and Sanderson high schools. Denise has always taken an active interest in the professional development of her colleagues and is known for always being willing to take the time to act as a mentor and coach for aspiring leaders.
In recognition of her ongoing commitment to education Denise has received a considerable number of awards, including the 2010 ANTSEL Meritorious Service Award as well as life membership, and the 2010 Principals Australia NT John Laing Award.
Denise emphatically says she is retiring from full-time employment and is looking forward to spending quality time with Lech. Denise advises she needs to practice and hone her fishing and boat launching skills, plans on travelling, and building her business and interest as a marriage celebrant. Denise is renowned for her caring nature and willingness to offer assistance and lend a hand and will be greatly missed by all.
Denise, I thank you for your dedication to education in the Northern Territory over the past 36 years. You have helped to shape the Northern Territory through educating and supporting our future leaders. I attended Denise’s farewell, where there was a slide show of her life before she came to the Territory and in the Territory. What a wonderful adventure it has been for Denise and Lech.
One picture I was very envious of was a giant barramundi, and in those days they did not measure them by metres - whether it was 1m-plus - it was a 20 pounder, which is the old Territory term for a really big barramundi. The only time I can remember barramundi being measured in those days is if the tail flapped over the end of the HJ Toyota - that was a very big barramundi.
She had pictures of her life in the Territory, her teaching life, and some of the overseas exchanges she had been on to Canada. What a wonderful adventure it has been for Denise and how much she has supported others in her professional work. It was interesting to see ex-students had now become school leaders. In other words, she taught people at school, they have taken up the profession of teaching themselves, and now are her colleagues and still look to her for advice and support. It was very good to hear some of her colleagues talk about the times Denise supported them. They said: ‘Sometimes when I needed a kick up the backside Denise gave it to me surely and sharply. When I needed a shoulder to cry on Denise was there to listen to my concerns, and when I needed encouragement, when I needed a debate about an issue, I could enter into a lively debate with Denise’. Denise will be sadly missed.
Denise and her husband will be staying in the Northern Territory and I hope she will continue her involvement with education in the years to come. I do not think she will be able to resist the temptation, and I know all her colleagues wish her well in her retirement. I am sure all members in this Assembly do likewise.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, tonight I talk about two sad issues - the passing of two Central Australians.
William Benjamin Hayes was born on 19 November 1943 at Alice Springs Hospital. He lived on Undoolya Station and attended the Hartley Street School. He was fourth generation of the well-known Hayes pastoral family. The original William Hayes came to Central Australia in 1884 replacing the old wooden telegraph poles with steel poles, and then went on to dam sinking in the area. The first station owned and operated by the Hayes family was Maryvale, or Mount Burrell.
Bill was a devoted husband of Jan, loving father of Jenny, Billy and Matthew, and the proud grandfather of Jessica, Hannah and Laura, Jenny’s children; William, Tom, Sam and Harry, Billy’s children; and Rebecca and Ella, Matthew’s children.
Jan and Bill were married in 1966 and lived on Deep Well Station bringing up their three children. In 1993, young Billy took over Deep Well and Jan and Bill moved to the upper end of the property and established Ooraminna Homestead. Ooraminna has been integral to the Alice Springs tourism industry, allowing thousands of visitors from Australia and overseas the opportunity to experience rural outback with real people who live and work the land.
Bill was a well-known horseman excelling at all equine sports, from being a jockey and winning three Alice Spring Cups, rodeo riding, campdrafting and always supported the Alice Springs Show. This year will be the first year he will miss. Bill was the Australian Champ of Campdrafting in the early 1980s, and was inducted into the Australian Stockman’s Hall of Fame in 2010.
Bill’s life and love was the land, cattle, horses and his beloved family. He was a wonderful caring husband, father and grandfather, and a long-term true friend of many who will be sorely missed in Australia and Central Australia.
Bill could see good in everyone - a gentleman, a real bushman, and a true Alice Springs identify. Bill tragically lost his life in a mustering accident on his beloved Deep Well Station on 30 April 2011 at the age of 67. His death has shocked everyone, and tributes have come from far and wide. Many people in Alice Springs will miss Bill.
I knew Bill. Many of my close friends were very good friends with Jan and Bill Hayes, and still are with Jan. My condolences go to Jan and the whole Hayes family. I understand the funeral will be this Friday at 2 pm.
Madam Speaker, I also wish to briefly talk about the passing of another friend of mine, Mr Shaun - Shaun Rothwell. It is believed Shaun passed away in a tragic accident in the driveway of his home in Larapinta in the Braitling electorate on 11 or 12 April 2011. I have known Shaun for a few years and considered him a friend. He was a bloke who was larger than life. I understand the member for Araluen was a friend of the family as well. It is funny, he always reminded me of Krusty the Clown the way he looked with his long hair. I always thought he should not have a funny name like Mister; he should have been called Krusty. He was born on Australia Day which seems so fitting.
He was the 1999 Central Australian of the year. He was a passionate advocate for everything, always willing to help out anyone. He is going to be sorely missed by the Rothwell family and, in particular, his wife Chantelle, and little Zachy. He was known to many people around Australia, but particularly in Alice Springs. He was involved in many different organisations, such as Rotary, Apex, and on the Hamilton Downs Youth Camp, which I am now on. On the night of the tragic accident there was a Hamilton Downs meeting. He did not attend and, when that finished, there was an Apex meeting which he attended and I did not. The accident happened just after that.
He was a CDEP Manager for Ngaanyatjarra Council in Western Australia. He worked, from time to time, with my wife in a similar role in a different area. He was a member of the Country Liberal Party Branch in Alice Springs, and would often turn up with one of his mates, Mick Gallagher. He spoke to me about becoming involved in politics down the track. We had a few chats about how that might happen, and we even discussed the transition of me leaving and him taking over. I helped him out with his council campaign when he ran for the recent council election by giving him some advice, not managing things.
There is a funny story. He designed the sign for his election campaign. He had a big picture of Alice Springs, a big picture of himself, but forgot to make his name really big. I said: ‘Mate, people need to know your name so they can vote for you’. You learn these lessons along the way. I thought that was quite funny.
He will be missed because people like him do not come along too often. Seeing him go makes you realise you need to step up to the plate a little more and have more community involvement. I will do much more and I hope other people will. It really affected me; he was a good friend and I am sorry to see him go.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to talk on three areas of interest in my electorate. I have written to the Minister for Lands and Planning and roads on two of them. One is in regard to bus shelters in the rural area - or should I say lack of bus shelters.
I wrote to the minister about getting a bus shelter in Humpty Doo, not far from Humpty Doo Primary School near the tavern. That bus stop is used by many elderly people who live nearby and, of course, children from Humpty Doo Primary School and St Francis of Assisi Primary School. I have noticed a number of bus shelters along the Stuart Highway, notably the Knuckeys Lagoon area, where a nice, fancy bus shelter has been erected and I noticed a nice, fancy bus shelter on the Stuart Highway outside the Palmerston Indigenous Village. They are probably justified insofar as people use the bus shelter. I put it to the minister, and the government, that there is a dire need for a bus shelter to service elderly people and children in the Humpty Doo area.
Coincidentally, I was travelling around Palmerston looking at some of the new areas and in the new suburb of Johnston, which has only just had the roadworks and headworks put in, and although it is unlikely that anyone will be living there for two to three years, there is a nice, fancy bus shelter. That will be standing there empty, not used for upwards of three years, when that money could have been better spent putting a bus shelter in Humpty Doo.
I accept the park and ride is being developed nearby; however, it is not going to assist people who use this bus shelter. I will be writing to the minister again to see if government can see its way clear to providing a much-needed shelter for the elderly, the pensioners and the young children in that area.
I extend my thanks to the Minister for Lands and Planning in regard to an application to rezone two blocks on the west end of Gulnare Road. They have been, and will always be, incredibly waterlogged blocks; they are only about 10 m above sea level. The rezoning application has been withdrawn after sustained pressure by residents. I have been working with residents and other stakeholders who have a very strong interest in these two blocks. There is a very good reason they are still undeveloped, and that is the nature of the land. I have received advice from the department that the government is going to undertake land capability studies in regard to those two blocks, which is appropriate and should have been done before the rezoning application was submitted.
There is no doubt all the prime pieces of land available for subdivision, whether it be the rural area or elsewhere, have gone. Now, perhaps in some move I have not quite worked out, they are looking at where there is empty space to chop it up into smaller blocks. That is not good enough. I acknowledge and thank the minister for the common sense which has prevailed. Let us do some land capability studies; let us get a good look at these blocks because we do not want a repeat of what happened at Herbert. We have seen only too clearly the problems with those blocks. Development should not have taken place in the way it has. There have been reports recently from the EPA. The member for Nelson has been working with some of the residents in that area, and it has been acknowledged there are, and have been, problems with how they were approved for development - not all of them, but some should not have been approved.
I have also written to the minister and have listened to the member for Johnston say that the government tries to get responses to opposition members’ letters within 30 days --a month - which is good news. Sometimes replies to my letters take upwards of six weeks and they are not particularly complicated letters.
My letter to the minister was regarding clarification of the road reserve outside the Noonamah hotel and shops. The hotel proprietors have planted and maintain various shrubs and plants on the road reserve. They are more than happy to do so because it adds to the quality of their establishment and looks attractive. They are good flowering plants. They also maintain the rubbish, but it is the road reserve. We have tried to get some answers from government, perhaps even some assistance as to responsibility. It is a main stop for tourists and travellers coming in and out of Darwin and, with the development of Weddell taking place over the next five to 10 or 20 years, more people will be going past that establishment.
It is important to establish in this planning stage who is responsible for this large area of land that currently looks attractive, but is not legally the responsibility of the nearby shop or business people. I ask the minister if, when those letters hit his desk, he could look very carefully at the one in regard to the road reserve outside the Noonamah Tavern and shops - and if I could have a reply. I am happy to set up meetings between departmental staff and the businesses to see if there can be some kind of compromise.
I thank the minister also in regard to his commonsense decision about Gulnare Road. It is inappropriate for those blocks to be developed in the way proposed. Perhaps they should be looking at turning them into open space or recreational space, like Freds Pass.
I ask the minister, and will be writing again, regarding a bus shelter for those elderly people, pensioners and young children near the Humpty Doo school and St Francis of Assisi school.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I talk once again on the subject of child protection in the Northern Territory.
Today we were told through the media a person charged in the Northern Territory with not reporting suspected sexual abuse of a child had their case dismissed. The youth worker involved, Jodi Hunt, a 33-year-old, apparently fronted the Alice Springs Magistrates Court yesterday for a hearing on one count of failing to comply with mandatory reporting conditions. The magistrate involved was David Bamber.
This is a very important case in the history of child protection in the Northern Territory and it is for this reason I raise this case. This case is, as I said, the first of its kind since the Care and Protection of Children Act was passed by parliament in 2007. No one has ever been charged with failing to mandatorily report a child suspected of abuse or neglect. This woman, Jodi Hunt, was apparently charged late in 2010 and it has taken some months for it to come to court.
We need to know the circumstances around this particular case. It is very important because it has implications for children in the Northern Territory, and all adults in the Northern Territory have a responsibility to report suspected child abuse or neglect. It also has implications for people working with children, specifically child protection workers.
It raises the question of safety for workers. Workers who are working with children need to know exactly what the requirements are for them to mandatorily report cases. It also highlights the need for workers to know exactly what the legal system means by that. The woman involved in this case, Jodi Hunt, was interviewed on ABC radio tonight on the PM program. She explained a little of the circumstances around her case. She said she worked in a remote Aboriginal community with children and described herself as a youth worker. She said she had a very demanding job which involved working with many children. She said she had some minor concerns about a child she was working with, and it was not until a second incident occurred that it became obvious to her there was an issue around suspected child abuse and neglect of a sexual nature. It took some time to cement in her mind that what she was seeing was sexualised behaviour in a child.
After a process of investigation, she was charged with failing to mandatorily report a suspected case of child sexual abuse. She described the experience as ‘mortifying’. She said: ‘Being charged with this was extremely difficult to deal with’. She was clearly shocked by what had happened to her, and felt it was probably unfair by the comments she made. That is my interpretation of what I heard on ABC radio tonight.
For workers such as Jodi Hunt, having this case brought before court - I am not saying it is a good or bad thing - shows that the Northern Territory government is serious about this issue. Every adult throughout the Northern Territory has eyes and ears and should be looking and assessing the possibility that children are being abused and neglected, which is an extremely positive thing. However, what it could do, I fear, is scare some people. Obviously this has been quite a traumatic experience for Jodi Hunt, the first person to ever be charged with this offence.
People working with children may feel a sense of fear around reporting child abuse and neglect - fear of prosecution, fear of doing the wrong thing, fear of not notifying child abuse and neglect or suspicions of it, or fear or notifying suspicions of child abuse and neglect. It raises many issues. I am raising this tonight because the people of the Northern Territory need to be informed about this case. It is an historical case, and will give much more insight to the public of the Northern Territory about exactly what this government needs and what the legal people in the Northern Territory mean when they expect people to report cases of suspected child abuse and neglect because it is mandatory. There is also a need for certainty within the public around the definitions and expectations of the care and protection of children.
Hearing Jodi Hunt speak on radio tonight raised issues for me about the need for youth workers to be trained in this area, to assess, to see, and to be able to identify suspected child abuse and neglect. It is a matter of experience and maturity, education, and exposure and perception. All those things are not necessarily something we are born with. We have to develop over time as youth workers, as people who have given their lives to working with children in any capacity.
It also raises the issue for anyone, regardless of their background and chosen profession, to be educated on the expectations around these things and what we should be looking at - the signs of sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and physical abuse in children. With this sort of case on the table it means anyone could be facing these types of charges - anyone who comes into contact with children who might not know what they are seeing is actually a sign or symptom of abuse.
I raise this tonight because it is a very important case for the Northern Territory government in its history in managing child protection services in the Northern Territory. It is an interesting case, given the failure of this government to adequately provide child protection services in the Northern Territory. It is interesting and somewhat ironic that through poor performance - particularly of the various Labor ministers over the years - this 33-year-old youth worker working in a remote part of the Northern Territory should be targeted as failing to meet the child protection requirements of the Care and Protection of Children Act.
Madam Speaker, I put this on public notice. I ask the Northern Territory government to provide the people of the Northern Territory information about this case as soon as possible to ease anxiety, fear and misunderstandings that this issue might create.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I raise a couple of issues. The first I want to deal with is a communication I have received from Fay Miller, the former member for Katherine. It arises from a debate in the House earlier today. I will read the letter into the Parliamentary Record:
- I have asked for this letter to be read into Hansard to correct a statement made by the member for Johnston about me in parliament today.
Yours sincerely
Fay Miller
Madam Speaker, that is to correct the record, and I table the document.
On another matter, in my electorate I have the Darwin Performing Arts Centre. I had the great pleasure of seeing the Back to Bacharach concert put on by the Darwin Chorale in the Cabaret Room at the Darwin Performing Arts Centre.
I knew they were looking for a name for the concert; they settled on Back to Bacharach. I would have preferred Bacharach Attack, and I suggested it to them but it was, unfortunately, rejected. I am pleased to say I thoroughly and completely enjoyed the show. I had my foot tapping the whole way through.
I thought it was an exceptional performance, particularly by Vanessa Sundstrup, a harpist who performed a couple of numbers. I was blown away. I was truly astonished, and I know everyone else at the table with me was truly astonished about what she achieved with the harp. She has enormous credentials, both here and overseas, in her harping, so to speak. I recommend if anybody gets an opportunity to listen to Vanessa Sundstrup’s efforts, make the time because it is really worthwhile.
I was so impressed I would like to enter into the Parliamentary Record and congratulate each of the following people: the band - Yoris Wilson, Tony Joyce, James Teh, Greg Jansen and Nora Lewis; the singers - Jenny Ashton, Jenny Atkinson, Julie Domanski, Liz Gammon, Peg Gellert, Annette Gore, Pam Hibberd, Valerie Hristova, Liz Keith, Anne Lilley, Louise Michie, Josie Roberts, Kathryn Parle, Jennie Russell, Pam Smith, Janine Sutter, Lindsay Amner, Mike Ashton, Echel Edens, Philip Gerber, Martin Gore, Lyn Bond, Siobhan Casey, Appol Craufurd, Rebecca Dearden, Charisse Gallagher, Renae Mulligan, Karin Mulligan, Jenny Scott, Pam Tibbits, Bev Turnbull, Mary Verus, Fiona Wake, Jill Williams, Divino Fernandez, David Hibbert, Paul Lassemillante, Reg Prasad, Bob Scheer, Andrew Telfer and Darwin Youth Choir.
I also thank the extras who helped put on the show: Des Gellert, technical support from Darwin Entertainment Centre, Darryel Binns, Janine Sutter, Mary Verus, Charisse Gallagher, Cavenagh Trust, Martin and Annette Gore, Jenny Atkinson, Pam Smith, Fiona Wake, Jenny Scott and Anne Lilley.
The performance of Back to Bacharach was extraordinary. They not only did Bacharach, but a couple of others just to round it out from the same era, including a Godspell medley. I have to say, that ear worm has been with me since the day I heard it back in April until today; I found myself still humming it in the shower this morning. If I was feeling inclined, I would give folks a good rendition from what I could remember, but I am mindful of the sensitivity of the ears of many parliamentarians and would not torture them with my voice.
I congratulate the cast, the crew, the band and the performance as a whole. It demonstrates how good local talent is in the Northern Territory, particularly in Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I also pass on my condolences to Jan Hayes at Deep Well Station and Ooraminna Homestead. I was the member for Macdonnell for eight years and they were my constituents. I met Billy on many occasions. I would often go to Ooraminna Homestead, where Jan would be in the kitchen and Billy would occasionally be there, and I was always welcomed with open arms. Jan’s welcome was always effusive, warm and heartfelt.
To hear of her loss filled me with deep sadness. The Hayes family is not an insubstantial presence in Central Australia; nevertheless Billy’s loss will be deeply felt. I have not been there in a while, but I presume Billy Junior and Tracey are still on the station at Deep Well at the homestead, and they too will be feeling the loss, as would the rest of the family. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the family. I am deeply saddened. They are part of a pioneering family that opened up Central Australia. They have been friends of both Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people alike.
I enjoyed their company and liked the Ooraminna Homestead environment so much that I spent the turn of the millennium at midnight at Ooraminna Homestead where Jan and Billy Hayes made us welcome. I cannot begin to express my shock at what I heard. Suffice to say I am sure it is nothing like the shock Jan Hayes had when she was told. My heartfelt condolences go out to her. I know her family will rally around her as the Hayes family always does to support each other through these difficult times. They are difficult times nonetheless. God rest Billy’s soul.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also express my condolences for Billy Hayes. I knew Bill quite well, and Jan; they were friends of Elara and me. We have been to Ooraminna on a number of occasions and spent many a good night there, as did the member for Port Darwin, and in much the same environment - Bill always at the bar keen to have a beer, and Jan is just such a lovely person. I can only begin to understand how she must be feeling because the whole Central Australian community was in deep shock on Saturday afternoon when the word started to filter through that Bill had passed away. He had so much more to offer and so much more to give us all. He was certainly one of the pioneering cattlemen of the Northern Territory and a wonderful Centralian.
There will be many more words said about Bill. I intend to say a few more about Bill on other occasions. I would like to recite the poem the member for Stuart began yesterday. He only mentioned the first couple of lines. I would like, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and members of this House, to read the poem by Murray Hartin in its entirety.
It was written by Murray Hartin, also a great friend of Bill and Jan’s. I was at Ooraminna on my birthday a few years ago - we had a party there. Murray was there and recited the poem. Bill and Jan were so proud Murray had written this poem about Billy Hayes.
I would like to read that now and, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is some very mild language in this poem. I hope you will allow me to complete it in the spirit of the Territory, in the spirit it was written and, indeed, the spirit of Bill and Central Australia. It is called Turbulence by Murray Hartin:
- Here’s a tale of Billy Hayes from out near Alice Springs,
A wild young ringer in ‘is day done some crazy things.
He’d jumped bulls over fences, raced a colt up Ayers Rock,
See his legs weren’t built for walking they were made for riding stock.
A legend round the rodeos from Aileron to Broome,
An untried horse at 6 am was saddle-broke by noon.
No form of equine foolery Bill wasn’t game to try,
Only one thing really spooked him - he was way too scared to fly.
‘If I was meant to do it I’d have feathers and a beak,
You take the plane in a day, I’ll drive and waste a week.
I’ve been told they’re safe as houses and mechanically they’re sound,
I don’t see no rope or bridle so I’m sticking on the ground!’
But one day Billy got a phone call from his mate in Adelaide,
He’d got his girl in trouble so the wedding cards were played.
‘Ahh, Bill, I don’t care how ya do it, ya can beg or steal or borra,
But mate you’ve gotta take the plane ‘cause the big day’s on tomorra’.
Well, Billy cursed and spat it, said, ‘That dopey flamin’ coot,
He knows I’d jump on anything that’s coming out a chute.
I’ve caught stallions that’d kill ya, I’ve caught bulls gone off their brain,
I never thought there’d come the day I’d hafta catch a plane!’
He legged it to the airport, he thought, ‘This is it’,
The lady at the counter asked, ‘Where would you like to sit?’
‘Geez’ he said, ‘You know that black box thing they always seem to find,
Well you can stick me right inside it if you wouldn’t bloody mind’.
The lady smiled politely and said, ‘I’ll just take your bag’,
He said, ‘I don’t bloody think so and by the way she’s called a swag’.
Bill was sweating buckets when they finally cleared the strip,
He had his seatbelt on that tight he was bleeding from the hip.
But when they levelled out he stopped shaking at the knees,
Looking around, relaxed and thought, ‘This flyin’ game’s a breeze’.
He clipped his belt undone, stretched out in his seat,
Well, he couldn’t stretch that far ‘cause his swag was at his feet.
The captain crackled something, Bill asked a hostess what was said,
‘Sir, you’d better buckle up, there’s some turbulence ahead’.
‘Turbulence, what’s that?’ ‘Sir, it’s pockets caused by heat,
And when it gets severe it can throw you from your seat’.
‘Throw me, I’ll be buggered’, he pushed his seat right back,
He wrapped his legs around his swag and stuck his left hand through the strap.
He jammed down his Akubra, he was ready now to ride,
Then things got pretty bumpy and Billy yelled ‘OUTSIDE!’
Well, the plane she dropped 1000 feet rose up 500 more,
When his head near hit the ceiling he gave a mighty roar.
‘I’ve rode all through the Territory and never come unstuck,
So give me all you’ve got big bird and buck, you bastard, buck!’
And while the passengers were screaming in fear of certain death,
Billy whooped and hollered ‘til he near ran out of breath.
You would’ve thought that canvas swag was welded to his arse,
And before the ringer knew it he’d bucked up to business class.
There seemed no way to tame this creature, it had ten gears and reverse,
It didn’t worry Billy, he just bucked on through to first!
He’d done somersaults with twists from that mongrel mount from hell,
He yelled out to the pilot, ‘For Christ’s sake, ring the bell!’
Bill was bleeding from the bugle, he had cuts above both eyes,
If you weren’t there on the spot you’d probably think I’m telling lies.
He’d been upside down, inside out, done flips and triple spins.
You might’ve seen some great rides in your time but hands down Billy wins.
The fight returned to normal, Bill was flat out on the deck,
Still stuck to his swag but geez, he looked a bloody wreck.
He pulled himself together, stood up and raised his hat,
He said, ‘I’ve had some tough trips in my time but never one like that’.
‘An eight second spin in Alice proves you are made of sturdy stuff,
I was on there near a minute and I reckon that’s enough’.
Well, the first class folk were dumbstruck at this crazy ringer’s feat,
But Bill just grabbed a Crownie and walked back to his seat.
Now years have passed and Bill’s long give the bucking game away,
Too many breaks and dusty miles for far too little pay.
Now planes are not a problem, in fact he’d rather fly than ride,
And when you talk about his maiden voyage his chest puffs out with pride.
‘You can talk about your Rocky Neds and that old Chainsaw bloke,
I’d ride ‘em both without a rope and roll a bloody smoke.
There’s cowboys round who think they’re hot, they ain’t tasted heat,
Till they have ridden time on Turbulence at 30 000 feet.
That was a poem by Murray Hartin - not delivered the way Murray does it; he does it to perfection, as you could imagine. It was written about the wonderful Bill Hayes. I am not sure how much is true. You asked Bill and he said: ‘I was never afraid to fly. It was all right’. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful tribute. They were very proud of it, and we are all very proud of Bill Hayes. There will be plenty more said about the great man. To Jan and all the Hayes family, vale Billy Hayes, he will be sadly missed.
Mr MILLS (Blain): I should have let you go last, mate. That was fantastic. I heard that years ago; I did not know that was Billy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I will talk about two very exciting and important developments in the Northern Territory, the first one being the Larrakia Trade Training Centre. With other members of the Chamber, I was fortunate to attend the recent opening in the port area, and the dinner celebrating the commencement of this important project.
It is a very important project because the opportunities we have within the region present us with the need for a response that is going to add value to the opportunity; that is, training. I place on the Parliamentary Record congratulations to the Larrakia Development Corporation and to INPEX for coming together to provide a very important response to the opportunities we have, which are not underestimated. The Larrakia Development Corporation has shown extraordinary leadership, a very good insight, and a generous offer of support in partnership with INPEX.
This is the issue that has been responded to, and if one talks to those in business which are seeking to ply their trade, to create wealth, to be productive, this is a description of the problem that was recognised by the Larrakia Development Corporation. Along came INPEX to assist it in providing a solution to this well-known problem. I quote from Building a Pipeline of Skilled Territorians:
- The Corporation saw the frustrations from both sides - unqualified job seekers motivated to gain meaningful employment and employers not being able to access sufficient numbers of skilled workers.
I went to the opening of the centre and I learnt that is where my son is doing, one day a month, some of his trade training. I was not aware that he is doing it there, and he speaks well of it. It is going to fill a very important niche and will be a building block for success.
Another very important building block that needs to be established if we are going to have young people, or older people, equipped to be participants in the opportunities the oil and gas industry provide, is the need for skilled workers. The Larrakia Trade Training Centre can provide that. However, we need it at the higher level as well. To that end, I will speak now of Charles Darwin University and Vice-Chancellor, Professor Barney Glover.
In this Chamber many years ago I heard described the need for an oil and gas institute. I was struck at the time, with all the sensible things said at that time, that that had not occurred. Now, we have the opportunity. We have a drain of skilled labour; the Larrakia Trade Training Centre has been established, but we still need to capitalise. We do not have that oil and gas institute. I commend Professor Glover and the initiative of those who have supported a proposal from Charles Darwin University. I understand the Chief Minister is aware and supportive of this proposal. It is a significant proposal I will happily work on with the Chief Minister to ensure it has maximum opportunity for success.
We have trained workers from the Larrakia Development Corporation but we need the higher order skills that would come through the university and the proposed North Australian Hydrocarbon Centre of Excellence.
The Hydrocarbon Centre of Excellence at Charles Darwin University will offer cutting-edge specialist research services and accredited education and training to the developing oil and gas industry in northern Australia and Southeast Asia. This vision will be realised in 2011-12 through the appointment to CDU of a research team comprising researchers in gas processing, separation and capture, and corrosion, with leadership provided by Professor Robert Amin, former Chair of the Woodside Foundation and Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Curtin University in Western Australia.
This is an important response, and one that will add another building block to a response to capitalise on the opportunities we have been presented with. When we talk of INPEX we cannot just say INPEX is going to come and it will do this. INPEX has stepped into the space, in partnership with the Larrakia Development Corporation, and provided investment.
The university has put forward a proposal and is seeking support from opposition. I pledge my support to this proposal and will do all I can. I understand the Chief Minister is similarly supportive. I am happy to combine our efforts to ensure this important proposal is successful.
At this stage there will be engagement of industry so it can recognise this kind of investment is going to ensure the capital that is built - which is social capital through education - will have as many local people as possible equipped, capable and able to be participants in this opportunity. It is unfortunate this proposal is being discussed now when Clare Martin spoke of it some time ago. Nevertheless, Charles Darwin University has stepped into that space.
I look forward to reporting further on this important proposal, which will add the other parts to the response already provided by the Larrakia Development Corporation, to whom I pay my special respects for the leadership it has shown in this field.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016