2009-06-19
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 4.30 pm.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as many would know, former member of the Legislative Assembly and the first Speaker of this House, Bernie Kilgariff AM, KStJ, JP, is very ill and in the Alice Springs Hospital. I have spoken to his daughter, Fran Kilgariff, today, and she communicates that he has been moved from the Intensive Care Unit into a general ward. We continue to hope for his recovery.
I am sure that all members will join with me in offering Bern, Aileen and his family our best wishes. I know our thoughts and prayers will be with them at this difficult time.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given leave to the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to speak briefly.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, thank you for making us all aware of poor Bernie Kilgariff; he is very sick. We, on this side of the House, on behalf of all Territorians, wish Bernie Kilgariff well, and for Aileen and his family. He is a great Territorian and a true gentleman - a real gentleman. It is sad to hear that he is very unwell.
As you said, he was the first Speaker in this House from 20 November 1974 to 15 July 1975, before taking on a distinguished career representing Territorians in the Senate. I also spoke with Fran yesterday to pass my and our government’s best wishes to Bernie, Aileen and the family. As with you, Madam Speaker, Bernie is in our thoughts and prayers, and also Aileen and the family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals also acknowledge this wonderful man and his family. Our thoughts and prayers are with Bernie and his family at this time. I give the rest of my time to the member for Greatorex, who is the local member.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing us to extend our best wishes and a speedy recovery to Bernie Kilgariff. I am pleased to hear that he is out of intensive care and has been moved into the medical ward at Alice Springs Hospital, after suffering a heart attack and a stroke. While he is not out of the woods, it is encouraging to hear the news that he is being treated in the medical ward now. As we know, he is in his mid-80s, so it is testament to the strength of the man that he has been able to put up such a fight when faced with the adversities he has in the last couple of days.
We all know his role in Territory parliament and politics, and of his family, of course, spread far and wide across the NT and, indeed, Australia. He is a constituent of mine. I respect enormously his experience in all matters relating to Territory politics and the parliament, and Central Australia and the Northern Territory. I often bail him up on the street seeking the benefit of that experience. I place on the public record, as his local member, my very best wishes to Bernie Kilgariff for a speedy and healthy recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I spoke to Fran Kilgariff before I came into the Chamber and suggested to her she might like to listen. I am hoping, Fran, if you are listening through the Internet, that those words help you and your family with his recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 111 petitioners praying that the construction of a new prison in the Noonamah area be reviewed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of the standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2304 petitioners, including 1745 electronic petitions certified by the member for Goyder, praying that the decision to increase power, water and sewerage charges be reviewed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 117 petitioners relating to local Kings Creek rural nurse, Connie Smith.
Madam Speaker, I moved that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the wife of the member for Greatorex, Mrs Elara Conlan and their new baby, Harvey. We extend you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next General Business Day I shall move a motion in regard to the appointment of a Select Committee on Regional Development.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move that the Assembly censures the Treasurer and Minister for Business for their blatant lies and for misleading the House and the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill, and their failure to outline plans in place for the development of Bellamack Gardens.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek your guidance whether a motion that will be before the Assembly that uses words that can only be used in a substantive motion is within standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a censure motion. Is it your intention to try to move that now?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly censures the Treasurer and Minister for Business for their blatant lies and for misleading the House and the people of the Northern Territory in …
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause, member for Fong Lim, I thought that you were giving a notice.
Mr TOLLNER: I was, Madam Speaker, but a point of order was called, so now I am moving the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: All right, so, is the government accepting the motion?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, we will not be accepting this censure motion. What we are here today to do is to pass the appropriation. That is our main focus.
We have had a week of estimates and government will not be accepting this censure motion. We will be getting on with the business of moving the appropriation, which is vital for the Northern Territory.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Assembly from bringing on the motion to censure the Treasurer and Minister for Business forthwith.
The motion is that the Assembly censures the Treasurer and Minister for Business for their blatant lies, and for misleading the House and the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill, and their failure to outline plans in place for the development of Bellamack Gardens.
Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business.
Dr BURNS: We will not be accepting the motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You are not accepting it, so are you putting the question? Is that what you are doing?
Mr Elferink: It is a motion to suspend standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Dr BURNS: I am moving that the question be put.
Mr Elferink: No, it is a motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, last …
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Fong Lim, the minister has moved that the question be put.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Continued from 11 June 2009.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I call upon the Chairman of the Estimates Committee to present the report of the Estimates and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committees.
In committee:
Mr GUNNER: Madam Chair, I have pleasure in tabling the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee in their consideration of the estimates for proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2009-2010.
I advise honourable members that any outstanding information, including answers to questions taken on notice, will be tabled during the August 2009 sittings of this Assembly. Upon receipt of outstanding answers, the committee Secretariat will be updating the questions taken on notice database and, when completed, a composite set of questions and answers will be uploaded on to the Legislative Assembly website.
I believe it is appropriate to reflect on the makeup of the Estimates Committee throughout these proceedings. The management of the overall workload of the committee is always a challenge, and the terms of reference allow for a substitution of members on the committee within certain parameters throughout the four days of hearings. This provides every opposition shadow the opportunity to question the appropriate ministers and agency officers. While providing the flexibility for members to be present while specific portfolios are being scrutinised, this process also imposes a fair degree of management to sustain the intensity of questioning over the 45 hours set aside for estimates, plus two hours for the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. I suggest that this flexibility, coupled with the number of members who have not had previous exposure to the estimates process, may influence the questioning structure and time management over the four days.
There has also been an extensive increase in the total questions on notice taken during the proceedings, which could be seen as reflecting an increase in the level of detail sought through the questioning process. I raise these issues in a genuine attempt to identify areas which can be seen as being a one-off shortcoming and, as such, will naturally improve in the future.
I have been advised that there have been occasions over the last few years where members of the committee, in preparation for estimates, have sought a list of agencies or output groups that were not questioned at a previous public hearing. To assist future committee members and as an information sharing process, I have included in my statement a prcis of the agencies that did not appear before the committee, or as a result of timing issues were not able to be questioned during the four-and-a-half hours allocated to each minister or, in the case of the Treasurer, seven hours.
I provide this information as chairman of the committee not as a criticism of the management of time but to assist in the possible allocation of the order of outputs for ministers in next year’s estimates. There are opportunities, though limited, within each Estimates Committee process, to sometimes consider the progressing of an agency ahead of another.
I am aware the committee did reallocate the priority of agencies, in particular, the Port Authority, in the 2007-08 estimates, and again in the 2008-09. Section 20 of the terms of reference of the committee provides that with the authority to consider such a notion, and it is something I believe the Estimates Committee will consider again prior to next year’s public hearings.
During this year’s schedule of ministers appearance by output groups, I can report that within the portfolios held by the Treasurer, the areas of Darwin Port Corporation, Darwin Bus Services and Construction Division did not get the opportunity to appear before the committee. During the appearance of the Department of Education and Training, they were limited to 25 minutes and, as such, there was no real questioning of the outputs contained within Budget Paper No 3. During the appearance by Dr Burns, the portfolio associated with Asian Relations and Trade was not interrogated. During the appearance of Mr Knight, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment was not called to appear before the committee. During the appearance of Ms Anderson, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority was not called to appear.
The Assembly has recently passed a motion providing for alternate membership of Public Accounts Committee which now sits as a resolution of the Assembly. This did not impact on the composition of the current Estimates Committee, but would have come into effect during these public hearings as a requirement for the core membership of the Public Accounts Committee to adjourn for a deliberative session. The government took the opportunity to utilise this facility throughout the public hearings of the estimates in accordance with the draft guidelines prepared by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
I thank all members for participating in the estimates process. As I mentioned earlier, for many it was their first exposure to these public hearings, with the obvious benefits that by this time next year, all members will have a greater understanding of the role they play in the process.
I thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee, the core membership of the Estimates Committee, for the manner in which these public hearings were conducted. I thought they were conducted with a very good humour throughout. I particularly thank my Deputy Chair, the member for Nhulunbuy - particularly today, which is her birthday - for her conduct through the Estimates Committee. Thank you also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their work behind the scenes to ensure the whole process runs smoothly, with specific mention to Hansard and the Table Office.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of questions on notice taken this year, and I have already provided comment on the possible cause behind this. There were 130 questions this year, an increase of 60 from last year, with 33 being responded to throughout the public hearings. The secretary will follow up on all outstanding responses, with the final date for tabling of all questions and answers within the August sittings.
I also acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee which sat this afternoon to provide valuable insight into the operations of the organisation. I place on the record appreciation for the time and effort put in by Judith King, as Chair of the board, and Andrew Macrides and other agency officers.
I commend the professionalism of all public servants who appeared before the committee, who were very able in the evidence they gave, and the ministers themselves for their performances.
I commend the report and the committee.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 10 June 2009, the committee has before it consideration of the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41), and reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and the resolutions and expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! I may have missed something here with the tabling statement. Was there an opportunity for other members to jump in and respond to that tabling statement?
Madam CHAIR: That is coming, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: That is coming now. Okay, I just want to make sure that we are all on the same song sheet.
Madam CHAIR: … in relation to the proposed expenditure or output with reference to the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41), all the activities, performances, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2009-10 be noted.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: the ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister – 20 minutes; any other member - 10 minutes. The maximum period for consideration and conduct of this debate is five hours. As the time is now 5 pm, if the debate is not completed …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! The time is now 6 pm.
Madam CHAIR: The clock is wrong, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I apologise.
Madam CHAIR: As the time is now 5 pm, if debate is not concluded by 9 pm, I will put the question.
Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports have been concluded and the question put, the following question will then be put forthwith without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. Then, the remaining stages of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40) will be considered and the bills will then be reported to the Assembly. Following this report, the Speaker will then call upon the Treasurer to move the third readings of the bills.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I rise tonight to make a few observations, and I begin in a positive frame of mind. I acknowledge the work of the member for Fannie Bay over the last four days. I have now been witness, in various roles, to several of these estimates processes and, upon reflection, I would place the member for Fannie Bay as probably the best committee Chair we have had for estimates.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: I say that because I sensed flowing through his direction a desire to see the committee flow as well as it possibly could. He achieved that. He did pull up members when he thought it was necessary, but at no time did I form the opinion that he was using his chairmanship for any other reason than the chairmanship was intended. To that degree, I wish to thank him, particularly for his style of chairmanship, for his thoughtfulness and flexibility, I might add, in the chairmanship. I sensed in the Chairman a gentleman who was more guided by the spirit of what we were doing than the rule of what we were doing - not something entirely reflected in all of the ministers.
The shortcomings of this committee process has been once again revealed and, whilst the older members in this parliament will have heard this dirge before, I cannot but revisit it by virtue of the fact that, because of the Chief Minister’s incapacity to bring large amounts of trust to his own Cabinet, half of government essentially resides in three individual ministers; the rest are basically tacked onto the side. What we have finally got ourselves into is a situation where only the briefest of examinations can be conducted into some of the core elements of our administration here in the Northern Territory by virtue of the fact that so many of the output groups that we sought to examine were bundled in with other output groups of equal import. Consequently, a forensic examination, which is implied by a committee of this nature, is not possible.
It is simply not possible to deal with questions of a Treasurer, and then an Attorney-General, and God knows what other portfolios are held. The Chief Minister carries Education and Police as well as major portfolios. Eventually, you come to the point when you realise that a forensic examination of the budget in such circumstances is just not possible.
At the other end of the spectrum, we then find one of the junior ministers, the minister for Sport, being quizzed for some four-and-a-half hours, and members thinking to themselves: ‘What else do we ask this guy, simply to fill in the time?’
Whether we go back to a system by which we sat in this parliament and did what we used to do in the committee stages of the bill needs to be addressed as a matter of some importance. It is a system by which we, as members of the opposition, must be able to have a proportional opportunity to examine the large ticket items held by a handful of ministers, compared to the small ticket items handled by the rest of the Cabinet. To have the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in the chair for four-and-a-half hours, when he also carries Education, and Police, Fire and Emergency Services, is nothing more than a smokescreen.
I remind members there was a time in this House that ministers were on their feet until the questions stopped. I have heard this little furphy about having to give notice of all the questions. Yes, questions were given notice of in the past, but that did not prevent follow-up questions being asked in this House, which meant that any member could climb to their feet in this House, whilst the budget was examined under the old system, and ask the question. How do I know this? Because I did it. I remember doing it when we were in government, and I asked questions of the ministers as a committee member of this House. It was done in this Chamber - and done to the point where no other questions could be found.
The effect was that the Chief Minister may well have been on his feet for 12 or 14 hours, but it allowed for a thorough examination. The only time limit that was imposed was that the examination be shut down after a certain number of days. It was the privilege of the opposition to examine ministers for as long as they liked and, if that meant going until 3 am or 4 am, that is precisely what occurred.
Not any more, Madam Chair. The reason we do not do that any more is, despite the platitudes mouthed by this government, scrutiny is the thing that they seek to avoid the most. No more clear example of that situation could be presented to this House than what just occurred. I find it nothing shy of astonishing that the government would vote down a motion, having no idea what was in the motion. It staggers me that the government members do not want to go down that path.
Or, is it the case that the government is more interested in what is happening in the great hall just out these doors than the good governance of the Northern Territory? Fast cars, hors d’oeuvres, and beers seem to be the order of the day as far as this government is concerned, not the clear and effective review of the conduct of this government and the things that it does.
I also raise an issue which I have raised several times in this House in relation to the motion that we had last week in this place, effectively allowing ministers to sit and preside in the committee. Whilst I acknowledge that the ministers, generally, managed to contain themselves, nevertheless despite the best intents of this government, I heard the Minister for Tourism sitting as a committee member engaging in repeated interjection on questions being asked about Battery Hill in Tennant Creek.
The minister came in here and passionately described how heinous it was for former ministers such as Steve Dunham to be even involved in the PAC and hear evidence. For him to cry foul so passionately on that occasion, then I cry foul on this occasion, where the Minister for Tourism saw fit to interject on questions being asked of a fellow Cabinet minister. Moreover, if my memory serves me well, that same minister was also the Attorney-General and listened in on some of the Corrections questions. Whilst I do not recall any interjections from the minister, nevertheless, that falls outside the parameters that were agreed.
In any instance, the presence of ministers on any committee which looks at budget expenditure, as a result of a decision process in which the ministers were actively involved - namely budget Cabinet - is an anathema. The continued presence of ministers in the Public Accounts Committee will continue to be an anathema. I have placed it on the record, both in this place and in other places, my astonishment about the bloody-mindedness of this government on pursuing this particular approach.
From day one, the moment I realised what the minister was intending to do when he put himself on to the committee - a move so audaciously breathtaking that it actually surprised me for a couple moments before I was galvanised into active debate against it - the government was flagging its desire to keep its weakening hand around the throat of this House. That desire was expressed by this government continuing to rely on the support of a former member of their team, who has publicly stated that she would not support a motion of no confidence against this government. I wonder about her resolve in relation to such matters when, as time passes, she starts to see the world through a lens that is not bending the light of reality in the same way as the Labor Party bends light, or the lens of government bends light. I suspect that as she ponders over time, the fact that this is now a minority government that still insists on using Cabinet ministers to maintain a majority position in committees is also an irreconcilable position. There is any number of other parliaments, where there are even majority governments, that are still represented as minorities in committees. That as an aside, if this House has a minority government then the committee system should have minority presence of governments in the committees.
I was also somewhat astonished about the answers to a number of questions which were not known by certain ministers. These were not only questions of detail; these were questions of policy. If memory serves me, at one stage, I asked a question of a minister about their own policy or their position on something, and they had to ask their CEO exactly what they thought about the issue. This is not comforting to Territorians when it comes to the quality of leadership they have.
I suspect if we did a word count on the department of Health and how many words were uttered by the member for Casuarina, the Health Minister, and how many words were uttered by his CEO, that the ratio would be close to 100 to 1 in favour of the CEO. I quipped at the end of that particular section to the group that I thanked the minister for coming along and bringing Mr Vatskalis with him. There was no little irony intended in that quip. That proposition was replayed again and again.
The minister for Corrections today was basically taken apart, organ by organ, limb by limb, by the member for Araluen, who questioned him to the point where he simply sat there saying nothing more than ‘I will take your point on board’ and ‘that is a good point’.
Surely the Chief Minister should be asking himself at one point or another: ‘How much faith can I place in ministers who seem to be taking most of their information from members from the opposition asking them?’ Equally so, the minister for Sport last night - I was there for a short time asking questions about the Institute of Sport - was rendered to a place where he was, essentially, speechless by a few simple questions about the operation of the Institute of Sport.
Any minister worth their salt would have known some of the very basic questions I was asking, simply because these were questions lifted, essentially, straight out of the output group in the budget paper. The answers the questions required could easily have been sourced from the most obvious document. It is not likely that the minister for Sport is snowed under a mountain of work. He is not the god Atlas carrying the world on his shoulder. Much more, he is probably carrying the weight that Icarus carried as he came closer to the sun: not much at all. I presume that when that happens, when he gets any closer, he will follow Icarus back to the ground.
I also note from this estimates process the Treasurer herself - and I specifically went to a strategy on Tuesday in relation to what this Treasurer understood about the global environment in which she works - and her capacity to answer questions in a more global fashion in relation to particular issues. I was not intending to drill down in little rabbit holes. What I wanted to determine for myself was whether the Treasurer carried in her mind a clear picture of what happens around her in government and in the greater community. When I say the greater community, I mean intrastate, interstate and nationally. I became convinced, during the course of that process, that beyond the usual slogans and the fallback positions to the briefing notes she has read, the actual capacity to see the world in a more complete fashion and our place in it was not entirely present. Not entirely absent, I might add in her defence. However, in asking some simple questions - which should have been flagged to her because of my own budget reply on the issue - I would have expected more comprehensive answers than I got. What she, basically, did was avoid answering the big picture questions. Her incapacity to see the Northern Territory in the light of how it exists in this country, as well as internationally, in our region and globally, is of concern because it demonstrates the Treasurer’s horizons are very close to her, indeed.
There is not a view that carries far into the future. The examination of her knowledge of what budget papers mean and how things project out - or the information you should glean from the budget papers - was limited mostly to slogans and deferral to the old system of chanting a few mantras; saying it was all the CLP’s fault and how wonderful this government was without any consideration of the environment that they exist in now, have existed in the last few years, and the former government existed in the late 1990s. If she sees it, she chooses to ignore it simply for political gain and nothing more.
The borrowings, and the continued borrowings, of the Northern Territory are a concern to me, as they are to many Territorians. There will be a time when this money has to be paid back and, whilst the rivers of gold that the GST represented flowed into the Northern Territory, that opportunity came and went with little regard to achieving the fiscal strategies of the Northern Territory government. Whilst I acknowledge that some nett debt was reduced, what could have been achieved and what was achieved were chasms apart.
This government, as evidenced through its desire to raid the Treasurer’s Advance for all that it is worth, does not plan, does not structure itself, or position itself well at the beginning of the financial year, and perpetually finds itself having to deal with issues that they should have seen coming.
The off-budget spend of this government continues in the current financial year and, if evidence gleaned from the amount of consideration of issues going into the future by me and other shadow ministers is anything to go by, the next financial year will also see the oxyacetylene equipment being taken out of the Treasurer’s Advance safe so that the door can be lopped off and more money, which has not been budgeted for, spent.
This comes down to the capacity of this government to plan, and plan effectively. It requires discipline, forethought, consideration, and effort - mental effort and effort in time, not a very nine-to-five approach to the job at hand. It requires passion and, most of all, it requires a sense of vocation.
Madam Chair, that sense of vocation was painfully absent throughout this whole process, and if I have learned anything from this is, it is that lack of vocation is why we have achieved so little.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to commend the Treasurer and be part of this final debate in terms of the appropriation. I thank the opposition for their publicly stated support for the appropriation. I anticipate they will debate this bill in the committee stage report, and we will join together to pass this Appropriation Bill, as they have indicated publicly ...
Mr Elferink: Are you getting nervous?
Dr BURNS: No, I am just restating what you blokes have said on the public record.
Like the member for Port Darwin, I commend the committee members, and particularly the committee Chair. I agree with the member for Port Darwin: the member for Fannie Bay has been the best Chair of the Estimates Committee. He did a very professional job. He tried to be fair, and tried to give everyone a go and move proceedings along. In general, the spirit of the Estimates Committee was a good spirit. There were a couple of moments, and I might come to one of those a little later.
There were themes. There were the generic questions that the opposition have asked: improper use of computers, credit cards, a whole range of questions asked, and I look forward to the opposition putting forward a reasoned case around the information they have gathered in that regard.
In terms of the improper use of computers, I suppose Facebook featured a little there. In page 43 of the session involving the Treasurer, the shadow said: ‘Out of the department, Treasurer, were there any reports of improper uses of computers other than my Facebook?’. I know the member for Fong Lim also went to Facebook when he spoke as well, so this reference to Facebook is interesting,.
There was some very strange language used in some of the proceedings. I was interested to read the quote of the member for Port Darwin in terms of the GST. He described it, as he was asking the Treasurer: ‘Did you think the GST was a big smelly poo poo thing?’ I suppose you might call that infantile economics.
I know the editorial had a bit to say about the opposition squandering opportunities in this estimate process. In many cases, we did go off on tangents although, in other cases, I thought there was pretty good questioning by some members of the opposition. The member for Port Darwin, as always happens during estimates, pointed to the minister he thought did not perform, had done very badly or been evasive of questions. I am not going to be negative; I am going to be positive.
In my session of estimates, two opposition members did very well. In the sessions I saw, the member for Katherine questioned very well. I also say the member for Brennan was very well prepared in his questioning. He asked some very good questions which were asked in the right spirit, trying to get to the bottom of matters. I am not going to be negative. I am just saying that, for my book regarding opposition members, the questions they asked, and their performance, those two members, particularly given it was their first time in estimates, did very well.
To illustrate the way in which the opposition squandered opportunities during this estimates process, it was interesting that the shadow Treasurer asked both the Chief Minister and I about issues raised in the previous estimates in 2008 in relation to the letting of contracts to particular companies through the Chief Minister’s Department in marketing and communications. That matter was dealt with by the Auditor-General, both in the estimates process last year - and I do have it here; I suppose I could read what the Auditor-General said last year in relation to that matter, talking about these particular companies getting 11 out of 14 contracts. The member for Blain said:
The Auditor-General said last year:
Then there was a direct question from the member for Blain:
The Auditor-General replied:
That was also particularly true of the Leader of the Opposition in his questions to the Chief Minister. One of his higher order questions, once he got through his generic questions, was about fleas in the watch-house. I turn to that. He went from generic questions about marketing and greenhouse and, then, out of nowhere, he said:
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: He went on and asked the question:
Then he put the question on notice. I noted the comment by the Chief Minister:
Mr Bohlin: That is how poor the Chief Minister sees the importance of occupational health and safety ..
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I found that amazing, given the fact that, during Question Time during sittings, the opposition raises a whole range of questions in relation to police and law and order yet, the higher order issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the estimates process was regarding the fumigation of fleas. I can understand it is an important issue at an operational level. I understand fumigation was carried out, and my initial advice has been that fumigation was carried out by a local contractor. Some of the agents that may have been used may have had to be brought up from down south; I am not sure about that. At the end of the day I thought that there were higher order issues in terms of law and order, and policing numbers.
For example, the commissioners-in-exile over here often talk about issues related to - I believe the member for Katherine raised issues in relation to the accident investigation section within the police. I believe the member for Drysdale has raised important issues regarding police numbers and establishments within police stations. I know the member for Sanderson has raised very important issues in relation to community-based and school-based policing. Yet, was there one question from these particular members, through the Chief Minister and Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services to the commissioner? Not one.
I found that astounding, given the questions they ask here. One can draw a number of conclusions as to why these members did not ask questions about the issues they raise here continually. We will leave it up to them. Maybe they would like to explain after all the huff and puff they have had in here, why they did not ask questions of the commissioner when he was at the table and able to answer those questions. I have my own views and conclusions about that, but maybe they are the wrong views and conclusions. We will leave that to the commissioners-in-exile to speak about.
One issue raised by the member for Port Darwin was in relation to the Building the Education Revolution funding and the ability of school councils to undertake work in relation to the funding they may have received. Essentially, the question asked by the member for Port Darwin was about how school councils would carry through and tender out work in relation to some of these matters. The advice we have had - and I am speaking here as minister for procurement - is the Northern Territory government requires schools to observe the principles of the Northern Territory government procurement processes. The Building Education stimulus package requires major activity within very tight time frames, and this is designed to stimulate the economy and get the construction industry on the job very quickly.
The department decided to provide this funding directly to school councils for the National Pride component, which is up to $150 000, where schools have the capacity to manage this process and ensure we could meet the Commonwealth’s requirement. This is not a new experience for many schools which manage their own minor works projects from time to time, as well as building and equipment grants under the former federal government’s Investing in Our Schools program, which were entirely managed by schools. National Pride is approximately $15.5m of the total Building the Education Revolution package which will be in excess of $188m ...
Mr Elferink: Who carries the liability? That was the question.
Dr BURNS: I am coming to that. DET provides support materials and guidelines including specifications and templates for service orders and requesting quotes. Schools have been advised to ensure the number of quotes is relative to the amount of works; for example, under $15 000, one written quote, and over $15 000, three written quotes. Schools have been encouraged to seek quotes widely and to utilise the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to identify suppliers. Schools are well versed in the principles of procurement following governance training provided to school principals, administration, and business managers earlier this year. Advice and support has been provided on a case-by-case basis. To date, $4.1m has been approved for payment.
DET received advice of a supplier’s concern last week in relation to one project which is a school progressed via the Northern Territory government’s quotations online process. In this case, the school chose to use a Northern Territory government quotation online process to call for proposals to design and construct an outdoor dining/eating area. The documentation and methodology used by the school, together with information supplied at a comprehensive on-site briefing to which all existing suppliers were invited, provided sufficient details to allow suppliers to develop proposals and compete fairly and openly for the project work ...
Mr Elferink: Who carried the liablility? What is the answer?
Dr BURNS: What is being said here is that school councils …
Mr Elferink: You do not know.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Dr BURNS: … are being encouraged to use the government procurement process but we know there are some school councils which prefer to manage projects themselves. That has always been the case under this government and the previous government, to give school councils a degree of autonomy. In my electorate, for example, there are school councils …
Mr Elferink: So who carries the liability?
Dr BURNS: … which want to manage projects and will do so. There are other schools that are prepared to put these procurement processes within government hands. So the answer is simple. It is not new ...
Mr Elferink: Who carried the liablility?
Madam CHAIR: Cease interjecting, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: It occurred under the previous federal government and, basically this is a bit of a furphy being rolled out by the opposition in relation to this particular matter ...
Mr Elferink: Then answer it!
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, I have asked you to cease interjecting, please.
Dr BURNS: I was a bit amazed during the Chief Minister’s appearance; the whole theme, apart from fleas, was about the speeding tickets for on-duty policemen and breath testing. I will be very interested to read the responses but I would expect the frequency of those sorts of offences to be very small.
In my own portfolio area, I was glad to take all questions put before me. I thank members for the session I had with them on the other side of the table. During minister Knight’s appearance before the estimates, the member for Nelson expressed some concern that he was not getting a fair shake of the time allotted. In the end, he was able to ask some questions but he expressed the view that he felt the shadow minister had a pretty good run and that he should be able to ask more questions.
Regarding the instance referred to by the member for Port Darwin during the estimates session of my colleague, the Minister for Regional Development, it is spinning it a bit far to say I had a conflict of interest as Tourism Minister. The line of questioning was about the Tennant Creek Foundation; the funding for that comes through the minister’s portfolio. I had no direct conflict of interest. I did not ask any questions in relation to that. I did, however, raise a point of order. I felt it was a valid point of order because the member for Braitling accused the former member of Barkly, Mr Elliot McAdam, of being a Labor mate and benefiting from jobs for the boys through the Tennant Creek Foundation. He also went on to make a similar allegation about the former member for Sanderson, Mr Len Kiely, in his position with the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation.
We all play political games here and everyone is a fair mark; that is the game we are in. But there comes a time when it gets overdone, particularly with people who have left politics. From time to time we have to involve their names and their acts, or whatever they have done and have not done, in our debates. Life is hard enough once you have left politics. I have mentioned Stephen Dunham in here. I wish him no ill. He got a job with a federal government agency. Good luck to him. I wish him all the best in life. I did object to the way in which the member for Braitling raised those two people’s name in his question. I can see where the opposition is going, possibly with other people, and that is all fair enough, but I just felt it was just a bridge too far in terms of the former member for Barkly, whom we know has the interests of the Barkly at heart. That is his area. He wants to contribute, and he is doing that through the Tennant Creek Foundation.
I know the former member for Sanderson is endeavouring to do a good job at Maningrida with the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation. That is a very difficult job as well. I did object; it was through a point of order. I certainly did not ask questions, and I do not believe that it was a conflict of interest for me to do so.
Getting back to my own portfolios, I believe I was able to demonstrate that the department has a whole series of business programs to support business in the Northern Territory. The questions and challenges around apprenticeships, raised by the member for Fong Lim, were legitimate questions and that is something we need to attend to, particularly given the changes to federal funding in that regard. Another good issue raised by the member for Fong Lim was procurement and probity audits, and the Defence hub; and we are going to have continuing debates about Territory Discoveries.
Madam Chair, I was honoured to participate in the committee, and also to give evidence before the committee. I commend the Appropriation Bill to the House.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I acknowledge those hard-working support staff behind the Public Accounts Committee. They start early and continue all the way through and provide support. They should be acknowledged first of all.
I also acknowledge the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Having, until the last election, carried a load of large portfolios, as four members in the opposition did, it is quite taxing to spend that amount of time at the Public Accounts Committee. I recognise the load that was carried by the members of the Public Accounts Committee. It is quite considerable and, when it comes to the end, that is the end of a very large contribution in time and concentration. I commend the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I also commend the Chair; he did a fine job.
I also acknowledge the many public servants. We are a very connected community, and we all know public servants, and public servants have been mentioning the word ‘estimates’ for some time and they have been preparing. I acknowledge the hard work of those public servants who put a great deal of time and effort into ensuring the estimates process functioned as smoothly as it did. I also recognise that it is a thankless task in many respects - waiting all day, perhaps only to have your well-prepared responses not called for because of a lack of time, or because priorities have shifted or a particular output group has been skipped over. I acknowledge the hard work of those public servants, and particularly those who waited and did not have the opportunity to present. That possibility makes the efforts so many make all the more praiseworthy.
The reality that so many areas of the budget do not undergo estimates scrutiny should be the catalyst of a rethink on how the process works. This matter has been debated a number of times, and I guess it will continue to be. Perhaps the only and - in fact, it is not perhaps; I am convinced the only way the current government will understand the difficulties the opposition experiences in making use of the estimates process is if the existing process remains exactly as it is for a period of time if the current government forms an opposition. The bed that you describe as being so comfortable, you will sleep in and you will learn how difficult it is, particularly in the more complex areas such as that of the Chief Minister who has so many responsibilities to carry and to be scrutinised on. To have such a range of matters that, in their own right, warranted serious scrutiny, late at night, we developed line of questioning that would allow us to reach a conclusion.
It was simply not possible with 270 minutes for the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commission, the Ombudsman’s Office for starters and, then, there were Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Major Projects, Employment, Economic Development, Education and Training, Climate Change, Territory-Federal Relations, and Multicultural Affairs.
When you add all that together, and divide it up - and each of those, in their own right, warranted serious scrutiny, and 270 minutes could have been used on any one of those - that is just over 20 minutes each. Being late at night, with Education coming at the end, it was very difficult, particularly when you wanted to follow something through. It became a difficult task to make use of that process in the case of the Chief Minister and some of the other portfolios. There was the same time allocation for those later on in the week - exactly the same time allocation for portfolios with a significantly lighter load. That is not right.
The argument has been put that the system in place before, which was not called the estimates process, was a different process but it had the same effect. The questions were pursued until the point of exhaustion, literally, in some cases. However, you followed it all the way through. Globally, the time was about the same. That means you could put your resources and effort into certain portfolios, and not so much in the others. You had that flexibility to move, and there is a way of doing that. However, we can have that discussion at another time, because these same points have been made again and again. Again, it is that same issue.
The intent of this Labor government is to create impressions, but the issues of substance are of little regard. You create the impression that something special and good is occurring, and you pump that message out, but to heck with the substance of it. There are many questions that warrant serious answers, particularly in the nature of the process and its capacity to hold government appropriation to proper scrutiny. That simply is not possible, particularly in the key portfolios and, in this case, the Chief Minister’s. As a consequence, with the breadth and depth of the responsibilities there is very little time to employ in taking a forensic approach.
We had roughly 20 minutes to scrutinise an education system that is going backwards, despite ever-increasing amounts of public money being spent within it. We need to get past that mindset of Labor which constantly asserts that the expenditure of money is the result. That is delusional. It is the spend on projects and programs that produce results that need to be scrutinised for the estimates process. That is what it is about. Roughly 20 minutes of scrutinising the key portfolios for turning around entrenched disadvantage in the Territory is what education is about. It is often referred to in many statements and comments by government; that there is an opportunity – an opportunity not really made available by virtue of the structure of the system. Not satisfied with totally inadequate time of questioning, the Chief Minister even made sure that these matters were dealt with right out of the media cycle and late at night. I hope to see that, in the future, we can bring some of these portfolios into the light of day when he fronts estimates.
The Estimates Committee is very important as it is one of the few times the members of the opposition and Independents get a straight and timely answer to their questions. Knowledge is power, as they say. It improves the opposition’s scrutiny of the government. Increased scrutiny of government is good in itself, and for democracy. It also should improve the quality of government’s performance.
I commend my parliamentary colleagues on the work they have put in, in preparation for estimates, for the first time. They have done exceptionally well for a first time. It has been less than a year since they left their other endeavours and occupations and come into this challenging role. They have acquitted themselves exceptionally well for their first time. I remember my first time and how difficult it was. They have done very well. We also, as an opposition, learn much through the process. We learn how the system works and how we could work better with that system. As the Opposition Leader, previously we had a very small opposition and it was easier to manage our timetable and our structure, and the balance between different portfolios, because there was only a few of us to work with. Now, we have a large team - and I am very grateful for the team that the Territory has given me - and we have prepared well for this process. We have worked well through it and we are going to learn much from it - not just in the way it works, but in the material that has been harvested. It is not just a matter of scoring points on the day - and a number of those were scored - but it is about the information that we are able to gain and digest to better equip us for our role as parliamentarians.
I commend my parliamentary colleagues for the outstanding work that they put in, and I believe a very high standard was achieved; particularly, in this case, I refer to the new members.
The knowledge that direct questions may be asked on a decision to spend public money should inform the quality of that decision-making. It is very important. I acknowledge that is not always the case. The opposition was particularly interested in how much money this government is spending – wasting - on political propaganda. That is a genuine concern, if you do get out there. I know, even in my own community, this very night, there are some serious challenges that are concerning me in one particular area.
We can have all sorts of exciting talks about political strategies, game playing, point scoring and debating points, but there are very real issues out there. There is very serious money being spent on programs and, as members who represent people across the Territory, we are desperate for real change and improvement. There is something occurring in my own electorate tonight which I am concerned about. I want to see improvement and change and that is what this is about. The information harvest is particularly useful, and the scrutiny is critical to ensure that we get past that ludicrous idea that spending money is the result. It is not. The results should be seen in the lives of people who are affected positively by the programs we put in place.
One of the virtues of the estimates system is, being concerned about the amount of political propaganda, we can assert all sorts of things but we get the capacity to test. When tested, the Chief Minister made the ludicrous claim that he did not have anything at all to do with the avalanche of propaganda that flows out of his department - nothing at all; he did not know anything about it. He said that he sees the glossy brochures for the very first time - he said this - when they appear in his letterbox. Astonishing! Or he happens to be watching television and on comes an ad: ‘Well, blow me down. There is me on TV’. He made that claim - incredible! Or when he happens to hear it on the radio; or when it booms out of a car when he is being driven around the place.
The utter nonsense on taxpayer-funded propaganda reached a crescendo when the Chief Minister finally admitted that all decisions regarding advertising were, in fact, made by the Communications Advisory Committee, a committee he claimed he had never heard of. That is despite the fact that his Chief of Staff and Director of Communications sits on this committee. Despite the fact that this committee approves the use of his image on a daily basis and, most telling of all, despite the fact this committee used to report directly to the Cabinet Communications Committee, of which he is the Chair.
The Chief Minister found himself in a position denying the existence of any link between advertising and his knowledge of such advertising. That is an astonishing claim. It was corrected on the floor, and if we did not have that kind of scrutiny, you could say or do whatever you like. Fortunately, we have this capacity, a brief window, with the Chief Minister to bring some of those things to light. The Chief Minister expects us to believe he has never heard of a committee that reported directly to him on the expenditure of millions of dollars designed to boost his re-election chances. Well, pigs might fly.
Estimates uncovered many other important facts. Just a sample: we found out students are being suspended from our school system at a disastrous rate. We saw the Chief Minster attempt - and make a very gallant attempt - to obstruct the questions about how often police are called out to our schools. Anyone who was there saw the extraordinary effort the Chief Minister went to in his attempt to block the acceptance of that question. We discovered that child protection services in Central Australia remain shamefully understaffed. We saw a Health Minister answer so few questions he may as well have not turned up. We heard from the proxy Health Minister about chronic bed block in our hospitals. We found out about dismal efforts in prisoner rehabilitation which results in the Territory having the highest rate of recidivism in the country. We discovered the dismal failure of the alcohol courts and found out paying court fines is optional in the Northern Territory.
When Labor came to office, the Territory government’s nett debt and unfunded superannuation liabilities were less than $3bn. In 2011-12 that figure will be $6bn or $26 000 per man, woman and child in the Northern Territory. It is woeful that this Labor government has managed to allow law and order to disintegrate, school results to go backwards, and thousands of Indigenous kids to drift even further from the rest of society – while doubling debt.
That is a debt that has been hung around the necks of Territorians - not a squeak about debt reduction strategy. Believable or not, at least the federal Labor government has named 2022 as the date it will pay off its accumulated debt. Remember, the federal government’s debt is significantly lower on a per-capita basis than that created by Territory Labor.
I thank all the people who helped out photocopying papers, checking questions were correctly marked; as well as all the officers of the departments, including the ministers, who came along well prepared for these estimates. We need to work through this Estimates Committee a little better than at the moment, not so much because I do not always get a chance to ask certain departments questions, but you have all these departmental staff working for weeks and weeks before estimates, and they come along and they sit there and are never asked a question. Just from that point of view, we need to have some changes, because that is a waste of time. There may be some benefits internally for the department; they might find that they found some things that they did not know existed. If we want people in our public service to work efficiently, then we need to make an opportunity for those people to have a chance to bring forward the information they have gathered for estimates and not be left at 10.55 pm wondering why the heck they turned up.
We did not cover everything we would have liked. I do think we have to weight the department more than we weight the minister. Departments like Lands and Planning, and Health, Education, and Police, Fire and Emergency need a heavier weighting than, perhaps, Sport. I have nothing against Sport, but having sat through most of the estimates, you can tell the difference between stretching the questions out and, when you have a serious subject, how people tend to hone in when they know that there are more important issues than some of the lighter subjects we have to discuss. That is not putting Sport down at all, but anyone who looks at the work that is done in parliament knows that the big issues are about health, education, Indigenous issues, and law and order.
My suggestion, for what it is worth - and I know it is probably not likely to get anywhere - is that we have three extra days put on the parliamentary sitting timetable this year. I actually believe they are a waste of time. We would be better to work to 10 pm or 11 pm and scrap those three days. I would prefer those three days to be days we could use as part of the Estimates Committee. They are three days that already exist for estimates. While it is in the committee stage, it really is still part of parliament, and we are working for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory. We may be different to other states in the hours we put forward in estimates but, when you consider the time, most ministers only have four-and-a-half hours. Well, it is only a morning. I could drive to Katherine and come part way back in that time; it is not the end of the world.
I believe that, once a year, we really put our heart and soul into questioning the government. I put that in a way that is not political, even though there is a reasonable amount of politics raised during the estimates but, simply, because this estimates process is one of the best processes that the Northern Territory government has. We have a unicameral parliament. We do not have a second House that can scrutinise legislation and issues that arise from this House, so those other areas of scrutiny - for instance, the committee stage when we are discussing legislation, and the Estimates Committee - are the most important times for this parliament.
I ask the government to consider moving those three days on Mondays, which again, if we moved our sitting hours to 10 pm or 11 pm, would not be necessary, so we could use those three days, if needed, to debate matters regarding the estimates.
As I said before we started the estimates, I ‘enjoy’ estimates, and I put that in inverted commas - there are various forms of enjoyment in life …
A member: You are a very sad man.
Mr WOOD: I am a very sad man. However, it can be a very interesting time, and a very boring time sometimes on some subjects. I do not want the opposition to have too much in this. I realise many of the opposition people are having their first time on estimates, but you do not want to turn up with 100 questions. I know most of the opposition turned up with a wad of questions - I saw it all there - and away they went. Well, it did not seem to matter about the clock. I believe you have to tighten those questions up to be more specific, and sometimes combine the questions so the minister can give a multiple answer ...
A member: There was a lot of that.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is true. However, time is precious. I know it is precious as I heard people saying: ‘I cannot ask any more questions there because time is of the essence’. Of course it is of the essence. Even on this side we have to hone our questions. We have to be relevant. Also, the public wants questions they can relate to. I know we get tied up with some very technical questions.
The member for Drysdale was talking about the issue of power running through the back - whether I agree or disagree with the people in Marlows Lagoon, that is irrelevant. However, it is an issue people want to hear about. There were other issues. The member for Port Darwin mentioned a couple of local issues, and I did the same thing. Although in estimates there can be a technical side, if you want to keep people’s interest, they want to hear how much that piece of road cost to build and whether it kept within the budget. That is what they want to know; whether the money was spent well. That is what estimates is all about. It is also about policy: ‘Why did he build that road there?’ ‘Why did it fall down?’ ‘Did you put it in the right place?’ That is our job and I believe it is important. Madam Chair, I put that to the House tonight.
Another issue that came up - and I do not know how government is going do this - this is the book which has all the departments in. It does not relate to the ministers. I will give you an example. Regarding the Community Benefit Fund, when it came to the Justice section, they said: ‘It is not in our department’. I might have gone to Business or somewhere. Anyway, when we got to them, they said: ‘It is not our business, it belongs to Justice’. The poor person waiting to talk about Community Benefit Fund got nowhere.
Last night I raised the issue of IT policy …
A member: ICT stuff.
Mr WOOD: Yes, the communication section. The policy section is with Karl Hampton, the Minister for Central Australia. The IT bit, the technical stuff like the mainframe, whether your computers are working, is the responsibility of the member for Johnston. How am I supposed to know that reading this book? In fact, there does not seem to be a budget for the Minister for Central Australia. There is a policy section, the blood and guts section in this book, but I could not tell you there were two different ministers for it. I do not know how to get around it. Why can the minister not have a department and all these departmental things in the budget under his name? The Minister for Central Australia has other things. The Minister for Transport has part of Lands and Planning. He is also part of Justice because he has Correctional Services. It makes it a bit hard when you are trying to work out who is who and what is what, especially when you only have one chance to ask the question because, if you go past that section in the timetable, then you cannot return. That is another area that could do with improvement.
Terry Hanley does a terrific job trying to get that in some form of order, but the real problem is the way we lay out our departments and the way the ministers have various portfolios and, sometimes, sections are not in their portfolio but in someone else’s portfolio, but they are under their name.
Madam Chair, once again, I thank everybody who participated in the Estimates Committee. It raised many issues. The hard part now is to go back and look at the answers to the questions. That will raise more questions in parliament during the year. Thank you, estimates people. That is all I have to say.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, my comments will be brief in regard to estimates. It was an overall interesting exercise. I do not think we got as much information as was wanted or needed for us to take back to our constituents. I was particularly concerned reading the transcript regarding the minister for Planning and her comments on the proposed Noonamah gaol. What concerns me with regard to that project - and I have expressed these concerns previously - was the complete lack of consultation with Litchfield Shire Council and the community in that area. The government and the department have had extensive correspondence and discussions with the Department of Defence on this proposed site for the gaol, but they find it not necessary or needed to consult with the Litchfield Shire Council or the community in regards to the location of this gaol.
It was also concerning to me that the minister for Corrections was not quite sure what the actual capacity of this gaol was - whether it was 800 or 1000 people. Also, the detail in regard to development of an environmental impact statement and assessment for this proposed project was a little wanting. I believe it has been done in haste, and I do not believe it has really been thought through carefully. I have spoken previously about some of the private residents who live near this proposed facility. Some of their issues have been allayed, not by the minister so much, but from the work of the departmental officials.
In regard to the Berrimah Farm area and the relocation of the gaol, the information provided by the government and the minister was sadly lacking. In particular, the current environmental work that is being done - I believe the figure that was stated was $90 000 for the consultancy. I know consultancy work from my previous time in industry, and $90 000, I believe, is a desktop study which is the first step in trying to analyse and work out exactly what the issues are with that site in regards to contamination. I do not want to detract from the work of the consultants, but $90 000 is not much money to work out exactly what any potential problems of contamination are with that site.
I noticed also that the minister could not answer the question of where the 44 gallon drum of arsenic-contaminated material is located. It is not in regard to something dubbed the poison paddock; it is a drum that is buried on the site. The minister, obviously, does not know about that, and did not seem particularly concerned.
I also noted that the issue of the pet crematorium located on Makagon Road was raised by my colleague, the member for Braitling. I believe the ministers’ comments were very concerning; that they know about it and that she would be taking the matter to her Cabinet. That sends alarm bells ringing in my head. I am not sure if it is a conflict of interest, but I do have an interest in this kind of industry as I am a co-owner in a similar type of business venture, a pet cemetery. I know these business people have worked hard to get that business established in that area. I would not like to see some kind of prohibition of conducting that business, because if it is the crematorium today, it could be the pre-cast concrete business, or the welding business, or the sand blasting business, or the panel beating business - which shows that this site the government has chosen as a residential estate is far from satisfactory.
It is located between two major roads. It is adjacent to the flight path, which not only is a busy flight path from a domestic and international point of view, but also military exercises. The minister’s replies in regards to the Berrimah Farm and what has been going on there were sadly lacking.
I was also very concerned regarding a question I put to the minister for Environment about whether the government had started negotiations or any form of discussion on Uluru and Kakadu National Parks, and what would happen to them on the grant of statehood. Her answer was, and I quote: ‘Not on our agenda’. Yes, we know that states have national parks in them. My question to the minister was to inquire as to what consideration has actually been undertaken regarding the management of those parks and the standing of those parks. Quite obviously, the minister for the Environment is not concerned about two rather important recreational parks, and also the management of the parks. The fact that they are substantial land masses, indicates to me that, upon the grant of statehood, the minister is quite happy for the Commonwealth to continue to control large parts of our land mass.
One item the minister did comment on - and I did hear this correctly, and I have checked the Hansard and I believe it is about two weeks to the end of the financial year. I asked questions as to the water tank rebate that was announced for Central Australia, including the Tennant Creek region, which I agree with and applaud. Could the government not consider extending this to all of the Northern Territory, given that the minister had talked about sustainability, the need to conserve waters, and the need to get our consumption levels down? The comment I received was ‘Yes, the water tank rebate program will be offered across the Territory from the new financial year’. The minister did not say it was the 2008-09 financial year. I am assuming it is this financial year she is talking about and not some time in the future. I continue the quote: ‘At the moment we are determining the details of the best and most attractive way to roll out such a scheme’. If the minister is correct, honest and forthright in what she was saying, then, I take from that the government is looking to have a rainwater tank scheme for all of the Northern Territory starting somewhere in the new financial year. If it is true, I will be writing to the minister and having discussions with her office, because it is an important initiative. I did not see any figures in the budget in regard to a potential scheme across all of the Northern Territory.
Madam Chair, I will limit my comments to that. I will take up some of the other comments at another time. I extend my note of appreciation and thanks to the committee, the staff - departmental as well as parliamentary and Legislative Assembly staff - in making the Estimates Committee what it was.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I enjoyed this process. The member for Johnston might consider this funny; that it reminds of the days when I was a police officer. It was very much formulating an interview of a panel and then scrutinising it to find out where the truth and lies or other misdemeanours are hidden. However, I was very surprised by certain parts of it.
I had a great many questions that went unanswered. You can list a whole list of reasons why they were not able to be answered or even asked. I will have to side with people who have said before that this is a very good opportunity for the government to show open and accountable status. It could have expanded the time frames in which questioning was done. That would have allowed a much better scrutiny across the board of government and how they are going. It is a shame that is not done and I would like to see something changed in the future.
I thank all the departmental staff. No matter where they are, they are not of a political persuasion in the sense that they are not sitting before this committee or any other committee as elected members. They put in a lot of hours, put up with ministers and other people screaming: ‘Where is this? We want that. We need that now’, and go through a lot more stress than some of the ministers. I commend them for the fantastic and extremely hard work they have put in over the weeks and months leading up to this. They have, without a doubt, done a fantastic job. Testament to that is when everyone comes to the table and there are massive volumes of folders. You notice there are people behind with the same volume of folders again, with different information. It shows the true dedication of the departmental staff in different agencies. I commend them for their great work.
It is a concern that whilst participating in this process, I was exposed to the lack of knowledge held by certain ministers. The number of times a minister was unable to answer the question and had to pass it off; sometimes it was like a broken record: ‘I refer to, I pass to’. Sometimes, it was constant. Some ministers were far worse off than others. Some people say I had an easy run; Sport and Rec is easy, but there are problems in every area.
Every minister has certain responsibilities. Part of those responsibilities is getting a very solid handle on the information they are responsible for. It is about responsibility. When a minister, paid in that role and elected to do that duty, cannot answer certain questions and consistently has to refer to someone else for something - if you just look at Hansard you can see the number of times questions were referred to advisors or CEOs - it astonished me. I was astonished at the lack of knowledge and understanding of these ministers in their portfolios. I know what I have been doing, and have been given guidance to do in my time since being elected. The hours we work - and I know these guys work as well - and I put in to ensure that I have the best understanding possible without four or five advisors per portfolio, shows an extreme difference to the understanding of these guys.
When I listened to the level of defence put up by the member for Wanguri when questioned on the police responding to incidents at schools, surely, instead of being defensive of this, he should have been concerned. He should have been concerned that police have even been called to schools. He should have wanted to know and, in fact, he should have known, how many times police have been called into schools, and how vitally important it is to ensure that our students in our schools are safe, and our teachers are safe. No, he wanted to defend it; he wanted to defend it like he had not defended any other point until that time. Yet, to his horror, the commissioner had already accepted the question on notice. The commissioner did the right thing. The commissioner said: ‘Yes, no worries, it is not that hard’. The commissioner has an understanding of his system. He knows where to grab the data, and we have discussed that before. He knows how to get it and he knows it is not that hard. Yet, the Chief Minister was saying: ‘I do not want to waste his time; it is going to be a huge amount of time’. The Chief Minister has no understanding of the police department or of the PROMIS system - and that showed. I know members of the Northern Territory Police Force will laugh at the fact that he thought it was going to take ages, because the system is an information database which shows, in very quick time, all this data.
I could have gone in there myself with the appropriate passwords, etcetera, and started pulling data up within minutes, to the point that, within a very short time, we would have had the answers we wanted. When this was pointed out to the Chief Minister, and a few other things, he sat down and shut up, because he knew he was wrong. He knew that he was resisting something that was vitally important to every single parent or carer, every teacher, every student of these schools: that there should be an understanding of what is happening in these schools.
It was very poignant, when we went to the Education section, we found that so many students had been suspended from school this year alone, and there had been such a high level of assaults against teachers. No wonder he was defending so vigorously. No wonder, because he did know something. He was not as blind as I thought he was. He knew that there was something to hide: a failure on his behalf to deal with crime in the Northern Territory, to get serious and rehabilitate offenders so that they do not re-offend; to the best of our ability to rehabilitate a person. That was obvious in the Corrections field, and it just continues.
The lack of knowledge of ministers was amazing. When we went to the Arts sector, I give a bit of grace to the minister for Arts, because she has only just recently taken up the portfolio. I know she has gone through some staff changes, so give a bit of grace there, but she is an artist, so she should have had a feeling of what was going on in and around the industry. She should have had some better understanding. It was probably lucky that I did not have enough time to ask more than about five questions on that, in an area where I had many more.
It was a shame, though, that the sector that has such a high carbon output is not doing more to engage in solar power. I have urged that they do engage in that process; and I hope that they take that on board with the best intent which is, of course, to lower our carbon footprint where it really is achievable. If we can reduce the amount of diesel that is burned to power the Territory, that will make a difference.
It concerned me that the current Sports minister had so many problems answering any question - an absolute failure to even understand his portfolio. You do not have to be an Einstein to shake hands with people, introduce yourself, and have a normal conversation with them, find out what their real problems are and what is going on. Surely, he has had enough events to shake hands with a few people and make the right decision and not wear one code of clothing when going to another peak code such as soccer - not only an embarrassment but an insult.
The minister, in my first 10 questions, was unable to answer six of those questions and had to place them on notice. He tried to wash them away as if they were not important - he could not understand certain things. However, if you do not have any understanding of the outputs of your portfolios, how can you justify what is going on within them? How can you justify your spend? How do you know where to invest that money to ensure that you are getting an output? Quantifiable outputs are easy enough to obtain if you are asking the right questions. They are not hard to achieve. How do you know where to put the next program if you are not asking the right questions?
It comes back to the same thing of asking those questions about schools. Should we be reinvesting in school-based policing in a much greater scale? From some of the results we got in this estimates process – yes, we should because there are some problems we need to look harder. However, if you take the lead of the Chief Minister, you will hide behind a mirror of events.
When I moved to the portfolio of Information, Communications and Technology, the very wording of the portfolio gives you an indication that communications is part of it, technology is part of it, and information is part of it. The minister, quite gladly, accepted part of it to do with broadband, but went so far as to gloat over the federal government’s attempted input into the national broadband plan of which, mind you, there is not much of a plan as yet. It is, perhaps, just another glossy brochure to say: ‘We are going to do it’. But are you going to do it? He was unable to answer the questions on how he intends to join the Northern Territory with the national broadband network.
We already know that it will go to 90% of Australians – that has been said. So, there must be a plan starting to go forward from this government for the future governments of the Territory to join in the rest of Australia with this broadband plan. We must have these linkages; we must be planning and looking ahead. You cannot sit back in your armchair in your little office and say: ‘Sorry, that is not our problem; that is a federal one’. Every person in the Territory will want to have their Internet connection.
Then, when I moved on to the telephone network, some members of the panel could not stop giggling and carrying on. I found it amazing that they did not have the maturity to behave themselves in such a manner and I was quite offended by their lack of maturity.
The Minister for Information, Communications and Technology said: ‘Telephones, that is not my problem. Mobile phone coverage is not my issue’. What does ‘communications’ mean? Does that mean he is responsible for people openly talking and saying: ‘Hello. How are you?’ ‘That is my responsibility?’ No. It means our communication network and the minister failed to take any responsibility for the telecommunications network. Was he even worried when the Northern Territory lost telecommunications a few months back? I know I was. I chased down the responsible carrier and asked: ‘Hey, what is going on?’ I personally knocked on their door and said: ‘Talk to me right now. I want to know what is going on because I know the public will want to know what is going on with their phone network system’. Yet, the Northern Territory minister with responsibility for it, said yesterday: ‘No, that is not my problem. The phone network systems, the mobile phones, that is not my problem. It is federal’.
He was quite happy to take ownership of a joint venture for fibre optic to Nhulunbuy and beyond - a joint venture. Can we not do some other joint ventures? ‘No, sorry. That is not my problem. I do not have that responsibility’. Minister, you are responsible. All the ministers are responsible ...
A member: Not in that government, they are not.
Mr BOHLIN: Not in this government, it would seem. You are responsible. You are to know what is going on. You must work hard at it. That is why you are elected: to work hard for the people of the Northern Territory.
I then moved this minister to the digital roll-out. It does not take you long talking to people or reading a few newspapers to understand that there are problems with digital roll-out. There are problems and our communities will need support from the government, local government, or someone, to take some responsibility because the federal government does not even have a proper plan to complete the roll-out of digital television. I tell you, everyone will sit down and watch the V8 Supercars on television. Everyone will sit down and watch the AFL Grand Final. Everyone will watch their Rugby, their State of Origin. But if it is up to this minister, there will not be television coverage. There will not be digital television anywhere and, in 2013, when the federal government demands that it is turned off because they want to clear up the bandwidth space, there will be no television coverage in any of our communities along any of our highways, because he is not concerned with it. He has not even got himself across the problems.
Minister, you are responsible. The public demand of you to be responsible because they want to be able to have their televisions. They want to be able to have reception come to their televisions. They want to be able to pick up their mobile phone or their landline and know that it will work. They want to have part and parcel of a brilliant broadband network within Australia when it is delivered. You have responsibilities as ministers.
I am ashamed to think that so many have failed to even get themselves across some of their portfolios. When it came hard on one particular sporting arena for this minister, he ducked and weaved and, hidden behind advisors and said: ‘They have it in hand. Yes, no worries’. Well guess what? You are the minister. You are responsible. You are to stand up for Territorians whenever you are called to do so, whenever you need to understand what you are doing as a minister. Guess what? That is every single day that you wake up whilst you are an elected member of this parliament. It is shameful that so many ministers honestly have very little knowledge of their portfolios.
I am extremely proud of our team on this side, the opposition. We have put in so much effort in getting across portfolios so we have an understanding of what is going on. We are out there talking to the Northern Territory public, finding out what the concerns are, talking to the stakeholders, knowing where we need to go for the direction of the future because this Territory needs to have a direction for the future. Under this current government there is no direction – you have no leadership; you have no control. You have ministers who would rather bully then get on with proper leadership.
Madam Chair, I thank you for your time. I thank those who were involved in doing their estimates and all the staff behind them because they have done a great job. They were long nights and I thank everyone involved.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I thank the member for Johnston for his compliments earlier on. It was the first round of estimates for many on this side of the House. I dare say I could easily refer to the member for Johnston as an old sock when it comes to these sorts of things, so that adds a bit of weight to his compliments.
I also thank the senior public servants and all the public servants who assisted during the estimates process. It was heartening to see so many of them really did know what they were talking about and had a great deal of information to hand. They were genuinely engaged in providing the opposition with answers to questions, some of which were quite difficult ones. It highlighted to me that if not for the skills and knowledge of senior public servants who sit beneath the ministers, the ministers would simply have no idea what on earth they are talking about when it comes to their portfolios.
I was extremely surprised to not hear what the ministers had to say. There were so many questions deferred to the senior public servants that it gave me the impression - and I believe it to be true - that the ministers simply do not know what on earth is going on in their own portfolio areas. It beggars belief that people who have been elected by the people of the Northern Territory to positions that ostensibly make decisions about every aspect of life here, are working in those positions and, at best, are not well versed in what they should know about and, at worst, blatantly ignorant. Congratulations to the senior public servants who propped up the ministers on this occasion. I dare say it has happened in the past that ministers have required this type of assistance, but I must stress that I was just blown away by how little ministers were able to answer themselves.
The member for Johnston talked about some issues people on this side of the House raised and, in particular, he referred to the member for Drysdale and me; he is calling us the commissioners-in-exile which, I might add, police officers find offensive. You said it several times and that does not seem to bother you. That is entirely a matter for you. He said he suspected he knew but he would not say what he knew. He was politely asking it through an interjection but he knew why we did not mention some of the issues that were raised publicly in the past. The simple answer to that is there was not enough time.
For my shadow portfolio of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, I had about 20 minutes to get through the questions that I wanted to and, of course, that was never going to be enough time. I do not take away anything from the member for Greatorex, the shadow minister for Health. Health is an enormously important portfolio.
I know the member for Nelson also mentioned that the opposition needs to fine-tune its approach to estimates, but let me say this: if an elected member of the opposition in the Northern Territory believes that a question needs to be asked, then, by crikey, that question does need to be asked. The members who are on this side of the House represent - and I pointed it out before - more than 50% of the actual population of the Northern Territory. I dare say, given the government’s abysmal performance, there are many more than just 50% of the people of the Northern Territory who would like to know the answers to those questions.
If a member of the Legislative Assembly finds that there are 150 or 200 questions within the Health portfolio to ask the Minister for Health, then those questions need to be asked. I take nothing away from any of the members who might be criticised by anyone else for exceeding some phantom time limit. The fact is there just simply was not enough time.
I imagine the time limits and the way the estimates process is set up was concocted by the government. With their weight of numbers on the PAC, it might as well be the government. It is, obviously, designed to limit the amount of time each member on this side of the House has in dealing with the most important portfolios.
The member for Johnston criticised the Leader of the Opposition a short time ago, too, for talking about fleas in the watch-house. He can be as flippant as he likes about it, but it is an important issue, and so are all the issues that members of this House raise. It shows the people of the Northern Territory that we are thinking about all of the issues that affect them. The Labor government is failing in its duty to the people of the Northern Territory in so many areas.
Madam Chair, I did not get much time to talk about Primary Industry and Fisheries. There were many questions I wanted to raise, and I will probably raise them through questions on notice.
One of the things I have noticed about this government is the lack of emphasis they place on the very important primary industry sector in the Northern Territory. In the budget, Primary Industry rates a standard mention, I suppose, but there is nothing exceptional in there - nothing that indicates to people of the Northern Territory, or people who might come to the Northern Territory and bring their investment dollars with them, that this government is supporting primary industries.
I cannot find one word of the Ord Stage 2. I would like to know from the government - and I daresay I will put it on as a question on notice - what this government is doing, or what has this government done, to further Ord Stage 2? I can tell you that they have done just a shade shy of nothing, as evidenced by people I spoke to in Kununurra a little while ago, who said to me: ‘What is the NT government doing?’ Those people should have known if the government was doing anything, because I imagine they would have been contacted. I know that one of the Director of Regional Development went there and spoke with an Aboriginal organisation, but that is as much as I can glean as far as what is being done for Ord Stage 2.
I would like to know what time lines this government has in preparing the Northern Territory to tack on to the enormous efforts being put in by the Western Australian government in furthering Ord Stage 2. The Western Australian government will further the irrigation main channel up to the Northern Territory border. It will put in roads, and it will put in power. It will facilitate the planning of Ord Stage 2 to capitalise on the enormous potential of that area. Yet, we hear absolutely zip from this Northern Territory government in relation to it.
I wanted to raise the issue of the closure of Fog Bay with the minister. It is a shame that the Northern Territory government, the current Labor government, has not pushed the process of legislative reform of the Fisheries Act. This has been on the agenda for years, and still sits on the backburner. I have been advised that the rewrite of the act is still some time away because there is just too much other work to do. Yet, the minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries decided to, in my humble opinion, errantly use his powers under section 26 of that act to close Fog Bay. In effect, because there was no other option available to punish the commercial fisherman who was caught with a by-catch of sawfish, he decided to punish that person and everyone else who fished in that area by closing Fog Bay.
I do not agree with what that the commercial fisherman did. That was an unfortunate by-catch of sawfish. I would like to know whether sawfish are endangered in Fog Bay. To have an emergency, as the act says, there should be information on the number of sawfish before you could figure that there was an emergency. Anyway, what it comes back to is that this government’s lack of foresight and planning in having the Fisheries Act rewrite has meant that the minister had no alternative but to, as I say in my opinion, errantly use those powers.
Madam Chair, I thank the Minister for Local Government for some of his candid responses to questions on local government. I remember the context of it was that I was talking about business activity statements for the shires, and whether any had been late. I was heading towards whether any of the shires had been fined for late submissions of their business activity statements. I can put my hand on my heart and say that I did not actually know - I knew that at least one had. I did not know which shire had been fined. However, I thank the minister for hanging his Roper Gulf Shire out to dry by saying that they had been fined $3000 for late submission of their business activity statement.
The other part of the discussion on local government in estimates was about the implementation of the new shire process. The legislation, the new Local Government Act, was rushed through parliament so that, basically, nothing was ready for the implementation of the new shires, including the IT systems. I asked the minister whether the IT systems had been tested under any operational conditions prior to 1 July 2008. Dr David Ritchie said they had not because operational conditions had not existed. However, I can advise that there are ways of doing dummy tests on IT systems such as that, and particularly if those IT systems support finances and payroll. The nett result of that was that there were a number of shire employees who, after 1 July 2008 as a result of the IT systems not working properly, did not get paid. I thought having your employees paid properly and on time would be the highest of the highest priorities for this government, to ensure the smooth transition from the old system to the new system. They failed dismally.
I also canvassed what was happening as far as inputting - I might stand corrected on that. Perhaps I did not get to those questions. I was going to canvass where the shires were up to as far as getting ready for the end of financial year. I have been told over many months now, since August last year, that there were no systems put in place to facilitate inputting of data from the old community government councils and progress associations. Metaphorically, I suppose you could say, there was a shoebox full of receipts dumped in each shire and the shires then had to take responsibility for data input of all the prior expenditure of the community government councils. They had to take care of acquittals for grants for the previous community government councils. Basically, they were left with a great box of ‘do-do’ that they had to fix up.
I take my hat off to all the shire staff. They have been given a dog, basically. They were given a sick dog and told to make it work …
A member: With fleas.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … and what they have done - with fleas, and probably got them from the Darwin watch-house. They were delivered a dog on 1 July 2008 and were told to fix it. They had to go and do it and that is what they have done. Slowly, but surely, they are getting there, so good on them. Shame on the Labor government of the Northern Territory for putting those people in that position. They should never have been given that work to do which was, no doubt, outside the scope of what they had expected. Then, their first or second pays were not even paid to them because of glitches in an IT system which had never been tested under operational conditions because the whole thing was rushed through.
I was disappointed with the overall estimates process. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned before that this government has pretty well made its own bed as far as that goes. I dare say that they can expect to feel the same pressure when the tide is turned and the shoe is on the other foot.
That is about all I need to say in relation to this budget. It is a shallow document. It goes into quite a lot of detail but it really does not go to addressing the many issues that this Northern Territory faces. Much of it is window dressing, and repeating all the same mistakes that have been made before. Recently, I used this quote, and I will use it again. Albert Einstein said: ‘One of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result each time’. That is what this government is doing. It lacks any depth, vision, and a strategic approach. Everything it seems to do is a knee-jerk reaction. I believe Northern Territorians deserves a whole lot better than they are getting out of the current government.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the estimates process. Being involved in something for the first time ever is always a bit daunting, but there were many lessons to be learned through the process. Those lessons will benefit me next year in preparation for the estimates process. Life is about a journey, so you better enjoy the journey because the end is not that good.
In starting off, I thank the Chair, and those who sat in when the Chair ducked out for a wee walk. He did a fabulous job. It is a long process and to sit all day and listen intently must have been a difficult thing. The other people I thank are the government staff who go to a great deal of trouble in preparing for this process. On this side of the House, I know how much time each of the members put in, talking to stakeholders, and spending time researching. The same must go for government, albeit on a much larger scale. When you break that down to the hourly cost of employees, it must cost Territorians tens and tens of thousands of dollars, if not a lot more.
That is where you could question how effective the process is in delivering a decent outcome for Territorians. I do not say that lightly because it is very important how people prepare. However, when the process breaks down and you are not given the opportunity to explore further or delve deeper into each of these departments, then we are not getting a good return for the money expended. I have learned it is a frustrating process. You can have hundreds of questions but some of those questions often, as the member for Nelson said earlier, can cover different ministries, and different government departments. You are sometimes left in limbo in where to focus that question. Sometimes, you go to ask a question and are told no, that is a different department or a different minister’s responsibility. It goes against some of the headings.
I will pick one: sustainable environment. That should cover everything including planning for the future energy needs and, yet, it does not. Parks and reserves: I would have expected that the actual reserve part of Manton Dam where people ski and use their wake boards would come under parks and reserves but, apparently, it comes under Power and Water. It makes it very difficult to find where certain questions should be slotted. The process is also frustrating from the point of view that there are a number of output groups to get through in a very short time, given the information you are trying to cover. That will change the way I will be preparing next year.
I offer a solution, and it is one I hope that the government seriously considers. This is taking account of the money it must cost government to prepare for estimates. Perhaps each of the opposition and Independent members are able to provide questions, similar to on notice, three months before estimates. Any questions the government is not prepared to answer or cannot answer, they are the ones that we then focus on during estimates. So, instead of having hundreds of people working in government departments researching information, in the hope that particular question will be asked - I would say, in 99.9% of the cases when you look at the reams of folders and sheets of information the government had on their side, every question they found answers to certainly did not get asked during the process. I suppose I am thinking logically here. It is a better way to focus the money that this must cost government while, at the same time, answer some of the questions that come from this side of the House, including the Independents.
On that subject of the questions that are asked, I often found in my time I worked for different government departments, not just as an opposition member or a member of the Legislative Assembly, that you can break complaints down to two main streams. The first, you have the person who comes in and they have an issue, they have a problem. When you drill down, you actually find that they have created the problem themselves, or they have done something wrong. I suppose they have come to you to get a little protection. As I said, when you drill down, you are often left telling these people that they are, in this case, their own worst enemy and, perhaps, they need to sort this out themselves.
The other thing that comes to light, which is clear in opposition, is the fact that people, including from businesses, will come to an electorate office about a government process they have been involved in that, perhaps, is tainted somewhat. They are the important ones. They are the questions the estimates process really should be used to drill down, to be able to find whether everything that has occurred has been above board.
I am not saying that in all cases things have gone wrong. It may be that a business has lost out on a tender, for instance, and they think that the process was tainted. Through an estimates process, we could drill down and find out that, no, in fact, the process was correct, but this particular business lost out on some technicality, and that is fine. However, it is the ones that you do find that things have not gone quite the way they should, or a decision was made on information that was not quite right. To me, that is where an estimates process would be invaluable; to drill down to that level to ensure that everyone in this House is doing the right thing for Territorians.
Getting back to a process that I believe would be a solution is where you can imagine - and I will use some easy numbers here - if each of us had 100 questions on each of the departments that we put through to government three months before the estimates process, like questions on notice. The government then provides those answers, and the ones they do not want to provide, or cannot provide for whatever reason, then narrows it down to, say, 20%. That is what we would be spending the time in estimates on - those areas where it is our job to prosecute the government and drill down to the levels that are required to get the answers.
That would save so much money from the government’s point of view – in the preparation in that process that goes on behind the scenes. There are many hours put in by many people, all working for the government and on the government payroll. If their time was spent focusing on finding the answer to the questions that were asked, there must be some time saving there - real time saving - and then the estimates process, as I said, could be used to deal with more important issues, or issues that are a little more contentious. That would then prove, once and for all, what we are here for. Our job is to prosecute the government, and the government is there to do the right thing by Territorians.
My frustration with the process focuses on many different areas, but one is that you often find yourself rolling towards the end of the day running out of time. I know that the government allocates times for certain portfolios towards the end of the day, knowing that the process is a bit like an aircraft that started late in the morning - by the end of the day, it is so far behind it is not funny. That means that this side of the House, including the Independents, have little time to prosecute. I was really disappointed the other night to get to where it was 15 minutes before stumps, and we were only just starting on Education.
Education is one area that is vitally important to Territorians. I thank the honourable member for allowing us to go an extra five minutes, which was fantastic. However, if we could have the time to focus on these areas far more than we do now, we could really find out some of the answers that are important to Territorians. That is part of that process. I felt that, even when you are leading debate as the shadow minister responsible for that particular area, you really do not have any control other than to pass over questions to, hopefully, move over to another output group. Then, what really dictates when we get the to next output group - and I do not like using the word hijack - but it offers the Independent the last say, depending on how long that is going to take and how many questions the Independent may have.
As I said, your only way of moving things forward when you are running behind the time is to skip over questions - vital questions that Territorians have asked; that key stakeholders have asked you to take forward on their behalf. As I said, you find yourself left with more in the bag than you have answers for.
There are also some interesting things that come up through the process that I want to highlight. One was the $3.3m reduction that NRETAS has this year in their staff allocation. The answer was: ‘Well, there is more money coming’. I appreciate the grants that are offered at different times of the year. However, you are putting out a budget and then asking the opposition to respond on a budget which is not really the figures we are going to be working with. It is that level of ‘trust me, we will get right’ that you can have difficulty with; the fact that money is coming, but is not guaranteed.
Education is one area that we had to deal with in 15 minutes. We had to step over the EPA, which was something I wanted to target. NT Parks, the Territory Wildlife Park, the Alice Springs Desert Park – there were many questions on those output groups. I had some interesting questions on crocodile management which would have raised debate at a later stage. Many of these questions can become questions on notice at a later stage, and ministers will get the chance to respond. Hence, my solution earlier, that if we have that option of putting questions on notice at any time, then why cannot a similar process happen for the estimates, where we could put questions on notice prior to the estimates to give more time for the government to save money by having their staff focus on the questions we have actually asked, leaving the estimates process to focus on some of the bigger issues?
One of the other things that came home to me is the information that has come back through the estimates. I am truly thankful for getting that information back. One good one for me was that the Chief Minister, basically, said that the Northern Territory was well ahead of the game when it came to sustainable and renewable energy, given that we are actually using the power station today which is gas fired, and that other states are using coal - I appreciate all that - and we have a gas-fired power station. What he failed to mention though, is the fact that that gas-fired power station was inherited from the previous government but, under the current government’s watch, is now running on diesel every day. I do not know how that is good for our environment. This is something that has happened under the current management. It shows very poor form to brag about the fact that we are ahead of the game when it comes to renewable energies and protecting our environment because we have a gas-fired power station – that just happens to run on diesel.
When were talking about power costs - and I heard tonight the petition in regard to power - and the impact that the increased power cost is going to have on each of the departments - my goodness. When you see the Health budget has increased by $1m just to cover the increased power costs, it is quite astounding. On the back of a 25% power hike over the next couple of years, Territorians will not only be paying through their hip pocket directly for the power they use at home, but indirectly through the taxes they pay this government because each of the departments now cost much more to run.
Let us amplify that a little more. If it is going to cost the average government department all this money, in addition to what it costs them now, what happens to businesses out there? How much more money has to be put aside to pay for electricity and water? How much is this going to impact on businesses? What risk does that put on jobs for Territorians? If an average business, even a petrol station, for instance, that relies on electricity to get the fuel out of the ground, that has a number of fridges inside, and air-conditioning and every other thing that goes with running a business, 25% on top of the cost today is going to have an impact on those businesses. They either close down because they cannot afford to run or the staff who work for them will be demanding higher pays to cover their living expenses. It is going to have flow-on effect across the Northern Territory and make this place, on top of the most expensive rent in the country, the most expensive place to live by far.
One thing that came home to me was the statement about the new gaol being built so far down the track. The opposition raised a point in regard to the gaol, and the fact that the time involved in moving these people, if they have been sentenced to gaol, to and from the prison to the Magistrates Courts or the Supreme Court every day will triple or quadruple, given the road structures that we have today. Every time a point was raised on the inefficiency of having a gaol down the track, right down to people trying to visit people who are in the gaols and the further they have to go, we were told that the building itself provides so many efficiencies that all those other little things were factored in and it was still more efficient, because of the efficiency of their building, to have it down the track. Well, just think if that building was put where the current gaol is, how efficient would it be then?
We need to enjoy the journey of life, and I worry that we spend much time on debates in this House. We are always going to have a differing of opinions. I thank the minister for providing candid answers to questions. Our job is to prosecute them even further. I believe we need to focus on what we are here for. What are we all here for? We have a lot of argy-bargy that happens in this place, and we will attack each other, and then go and have dinner together, which is quite cute - it is nice that we can leave things in the Chamber and act like civilised people outside the Chamber - but we really should focus on what we are here for.
I would like to finish up with a little piece that was sent to me by a person by the name of Mr Gabriel Garcia Marquez. He has now passed away. This is a saying that I believe is very important and we all should listen to it.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I thank everyone involved in estimates: the parliamentary staff who put in endless hours of work; Mr Chair - congratulations on chairing your first estimates, for all intents and purposes you did a good job and were quite fair - and of course, the whole committee involved.
I will just focus briefly on Health. There were a number of areas that stood out for me. We were allocated four-and-a-half hours for the minister, the member for Casuarina, who holds a number of portfolios - three, in fact - and Health took up a sizeable chunk of that. It did not leave a lot of time for my colleagues to question the minister on Fisheries and Racing. I know these were very important parts of what they wanted to do. Apologies for that, but Health is very important and complex, and so required a lot of time.
One of the areas that stood out for me was the collection of data. As I was asking the minister about how we collect population forecasts in the Northern Territory, it was met with stunned silence from the CEO who was not sure why I was asking the question. He suggested that we rely on ABS figures. I indicated to him that ABS is, essentially, a snapshot of the current populations with not many projections. If we are going to be serious about proper health care delivery across the Northern Territory, we need to know who is living where and when, particularly with our large Indigenous population in the Territory; with the trends of people from communities moving in to the large centres and putting a lot of strain on our hospitals in our major centres. That was surprising. There was not really any information that the minister or the CEO could give me on that. However, they have commissioned a report which I believe was to collect some sort of data. I am still a little confused about that. That was very early on in the health process.
The idea for this collection of data and these population trends was to ascertain proper funding for our hospitals and how we allocate proper funds to particular hospitals if we are unsure of population trends. I am suggesting it is block funding, similar to last year’s: last year’s funding, plus new initiatives, plus inflation, minus any efficiencies indicated by the Treasurer.
We discussed Casemix funding. The CEO, once again, was a bit bamboozled. The minister spoke a bit about Casemix funding. It has been used very effectively and successfully in other jurisdictions despite the arguments against it by the minister and the CEO. Victoria uses a very successful model of Casemix funding. I am yet to be convinced that block funding for our hospitals is the most efficient way to fund our hospitals to cope with the demand. How do we know what that demand will be, or what that future demand will be, if we have no real data as to who is using those hospitals?
The Hospital Management Boards Act review was another one. I had to ask the minister a few times, but he did say that the new act will be introduced into parliament by the end of the year. I hope he stays true to his word and actually introduces that act, and it can be passed and put into law as soon as possible. Every day that we go without that new act there are, essentially, three hospitals in the Northern Territory that are operating outside that act because they are unable to have functioning boards. It is very clear in the act: section 25 of the Hospital Management Boards Act states that every hospital in the Northern Territory must have a functioning board. To have a quorum, you must have at least five people. The interim reports that have been presented and tabled by the minister have, in one of the hospitals - I think it is the Katherine Hospital actually - only four people. That is not a quorum, so it cannot be called an official hospital report; therefore, they are working outside the act.
I hope the minister stays true to his word and is able to introduce this so we can fix this problem that has been a bit of an issue over the last couple of years, with the failure by ministers to table hospital management board reports. How do we know of the issues with these hospitals if they are not putting it into black and white, or are able to do so, in their report?
The disease control budget was cut by a little over $3m. I mentioned this is my budget reply speech regarding the high incidence of child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory and, indeed, the other end of the scale, mosquito-borne diseases and such. We are cutting the budget when we should be investing in this type of problem. I did not get much of a chance to flesh that out because there was so much to get through.
The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme needs to be constantly reviewed. There are issues about patients not receiving PATS in time. There are incidents where patients are forced to use their own money for follow-up treatment because the PATS has not been processed quickly enough. In some cases, those people cannot afford to pay for their own airfares, or their own treatment; therefore, they are missing that follow-up treatment which can be potentially life threatening.
There is also the issue of those people who have been allocated PATS and have been allocated an appointment with a specialist, or whatever the case may be, and are just not turning up for their appointments for whatever reason. Some people are travelling from the Barkly to use the Alice Springs Hospital and the specialist services that are available when and where they are available. They get there and the appointment has to be either postponed or rescheduled. If they travel back to Tennant Creek, back out to their communities, and then they say: ‘Well, it is all a bit too hard. I turned up, I went there, they did not see me, so I am not going to do it again’. Something is falling through the cracks there. I asked whether there was some process in place to acquit that money. Are we looking at trying to get that money back from those people, or what efforts are being made to ensure those people follow up on their appointments?
That was clearly something that the government does not have in place. Perhaps it is something that they can look at: ways to recuperate some of that money that is being allocated to people who simply fail to show up for their appointments - some for very good reasons but, again, some who just simply do not turn up.
The choice for cancer patients in Central Australia - I bang on about this all the time …
Ms Carney: Do not stop!
Mr CONLAN: I will not stop. I did bring to the attention of the minister and the CEO the two reports. One was in July, one in August - identical reports except the August one, which came out a month later, has omitted the line: ‘Northern Territory cancer patients living in Central Australia should retain the choice of travelling to Adelaide rather than Darwin for radiotherapy’. That is conspicuously missing - or suspiciously missing - from the August report. The CEO could not quite confirm whether the original June report was a draft report. He said he was pretty confident but, yet again, he was not 100% and he was not also the CEO at the time, but felt that he wanted to weigh in on the debate.
The reports are exactly the same. There is nowhere in the July report that says it is a draft. So, this is a report commissioned by the government of the Northern Territory of Australia titled Options For Radiation Oncology Services in the Northern Territory. We feel there are other models available for the oncology unit to go ahead and to be viable and provide an important service to the Northern Territory. We support the oncology unit, of course. It should be supported. It should be completed by now, by the way. Nevertheless, if we give the government the benefit of the doubt that this unit will be built, then we thoroughly and wholeheartedly support it.
We also support those in Central Australia to have the option. Not everyone in Central Australia will want to go to Adelaide. We are talking about a small number of people, but enough to prosecute a case that they should be able to maintain that choice and travel to Adelaide to get their treatment.
The minister has engaged with people in Central Australia. I know they do not accept his reasoning, or the previous minister’s reasoning. In fact, it seemed like the previous, previous Health minister, Dr Peter Toyne, was one of the few who actually understood the concerns of Central Australians. As soon as the member for Johnston became Health Minister, this whole concept was completely ruled out, and all those requiring oncology services - new patients that is - once the unit is built, will be required under the public health system to travel to Darwin. We do not think that is good enough. We think there is, in that catchment of Central Australia, many people who require treatment and are not getting treatment because they are on remote communities or whatever it might be, and if the government was able to catch those people in that area, then we feel that the unit could be viable and it would still allow those people who want to travel to Adelaide to continue to have their treatment. As I said, that is a bit of an ideological difference between us and the government. We will continue to support that option and have promised that if elected to government.
Regarding mental health services and hospital security, it was rather alarming that the CEO mentioned that - and I can quote from what he said about hospital breaches of security:
This is in response to a question of whether the general manager informs the CEO and the Health Minister of hospital security breaches. He said: ‘No, the onus is essentially on the General Manager to allocate whether he feels that it is a serious breach or not’. He did say that: ‘If there was a major breach of security the exception is I would be informed of that’.
We have seen a couple of instances, and one, of course, as I did mention in estimates, was a serious breach of security with a sexual assault of a five-month-old baby at Royal Darwin Hospital. It was highlighted by the Health Complaints Commissioner that the General Manager failed to take that to the next level; that is, report it to his CEO. Indeed, the Health Minister at the time was unaware of this. I do not know what constitutes a serious breach of security for the CEO, but I thought that was a serious breach of security and should have been immediately reported to the CEO; the CEO should have immediately taken it to the minister; and the minister should have immediately done something about it. Instead, we saw the minister, again, in a very emotional state in this parliament when he learned about this.
Clearly, that is not good enough. Hospital security breaches should be reported up the chain, and the minister and the CEO should be aware of these breaches, whether they are serious or minimal. He did say that there might be five breaches a day, but I do not think that is excessive. I do not think five breaches of security a day is excessive for a CEO to be across, and you would hope that the CEO would pass that on to his minister. But that was not the case.
They are the issues which really stood out for me in the output groups for Health in estimates. It was a long time and there was much discussed. Hospital efficiency was another one which we did not really get to the bottom of, and the CEO and the minister were not convincing in their argument when asked about hospital efficiencies. We did get the information provided to us of the occupancy rates for each Territory hospital. The Royal Darwin Hospital operates at 102%; in fact 102.89% capacity. That is bursting at the seams. The Alice Springs Hospital is 107.59%, and the Gove District Hospital is 102%. Those rates are way too high. Hospitals should be operating at 80% to 85%. The Australian Medical Association recommends 80% to 85% and so does the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine, where they say there is clear evidence that occupancy rates in most urban public hospitals are greater than 85%:
We are seeing clear evidence to suggest that for a hospital to run efficiently, to put people through the ED and into beds, access block is defined as people waiting in the Emergency Department – not to be seen, but once they have been seen - for eight hours or more. We are seeing these serious bottlenecks at Royal Darwin, Alice Springs and Gove Hospitals, with those figures at well over 100%, when all the evidence suggests that they need to be around about 80% to 85%.
That is very concerning. The minister said he will put more beds in, but more beds will not fix the problem. Minister, I believe that is what you said: ‘more beds, we have allocated more beds over the years’ and that was the answer. But more beds are not the answer. There has to be much more, such as private facilities and investment into private facilities, or encouraging private facilities throughout the Northern Territory, particularly in Alice Springs, where we have that figure at 107%.
A RAPU unit in Alice Springs Hospital is favoured by medical professionals in the Northern Territory. That would go a long way to ease the access block and improve the efficiency rate. We have to get on with a new ED in Alice Springs; that would improve that figure. We also need dedicated mental health facilities across the Northern Territory when you consider that 35 of our beds in our major hospitals are allocated to mental health patients. If we had a dedicated mental facility, then that is an extra 35 beds. There are some efficiencies to be made here, to address some of those bed occupancy rates in our Northern Territory hospitals.
Overall, I appreciated the estimates process and thank the committee, the Chairman and all those involved in the Legislative Assembly.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, like many other people here, it was my first estimates process. I have to say I greatly enjoyed myself throughout the time. It was a lot of fun to grill the ministers, or ask them questions and, on the odd occasion, even get an answer, I have to say. Some ministers, I found, were very adept at filibustering and using time - wasting time. The Treasurer could teach a lot of her colleagues a thing or two about how to use up the time; she excels in that regard. No offence to the Treasurer, but it is like talking to a wall. Getting responses is very difficult.
Some of the questions I had for her in relation to WorkSafe were quite good and reasonable questions, but she did a very good job of stonewalling, giving nothing away whatsoever. Some of the things happening at WorkSafe are very concerning. The Work Health legislation came into effect 1 July last year. We still do not have health and safety officers out there. We only just have a couple of training organisations for training those people. It is ridiculous that almost 12 months down the track after government passed legislation, they cannot get their act together to ensure that their own legislation is policed and looked after.
I am concerned about the way the WorkSafe office is run; the fact they do not have a receptionist I find quite alarming. This is an organisation dealing with many people with disabilities, injuries and illnesses. It should be acutely aware of problems people have - health problems and the like - and be going out of its way to ensure those people can be assisted. Having an intercom system, or a telephone or a receptionist is not good enough, particularly when it comes to deaf and mute people. I noticed in today’s NT News a writer had a slug at me for referring to somebody as ‘deaf and dumb’. It was not meant with any malice. That is the way we have referred to those people. Having read that letter, I can understand how a person who cannot speak may well be offended these days by somebody referring to them as dumb, given the other connotations of that word.
Nevertheless, you would think an organisation like WorkSafe would be the first organisation to identify there may well be problems with no receptionist or system out the front to help someone who is a deaf and mute person in the reception area trying to get attention with only an intercom system. Eventually this man, of course, was seen by someone who just happened to be returning from lunch. He managed to scribble out a quick note and explain what his concerns were and be dealt with, but not until after a very long time waiting, trying to get some assistance in a vacant reception area.
The minister does not seem to be alarmed that there is nepotism within the WorkSafe office, when you see so many people employed there from union backgrounds, Labor Party political apparatchik backgrounds, and so many people personally related to each other. I find it quite amazing that the minister does not see that there is any sort of conflict there. The minister is not even aware of how many unions have used the right of entry laws under that legislation. She says that is something that is of no concern to her whatsoever. I find that quite amazing. What shocked me the most was the lack of oversight the minister has in that department; the fact that, clearly, she was not prepared for questioning in relation to WorkSafe. Maybe her advisors were prepared for questioning on WorkSafe, but there was very little, if anything, she could answer, or her advisors answer for her, in relation to that particular agency.
I enjoyed immensely listening to my colleagues asking questions. Some of them were very decisive. There were some answers that, I have to say, the opposition was not expecting at all. We go on a bit of a fishing exercise, and every now and again, we catch a 1.5 m long barra, just a fantastic thing to think well, as much as these guys say we would say not much at all, every now and again, there is seemingly a fluke or an oversight where a minister tends to really drop themselves into it.
I enjoyed, as I always do, the banter that I have with the Leader of Government Business. I find him a hugely entertaining man. I have to say it was a pleasure to have him on the other side of the PAC committee table and answering questions at the PAC. I still believe it is not proper that a minister should be sitting on the PAC - not proper at all - but sitting across the table, he is a delightful person to deal with. We have our differences, I am sure, on a whole range of policy areas, and I will get to a bit of that in a minute - but quite good fun to question.
I am just looking at the member for Barkly, the Minister for Transport. I know he is a well-intentioned man. I am a bit concerned, however, about the lack of regard that he has for our - well, it is not even a lack of regard, I suppose, I think he highly regards our live cattle haulage industry. I am concerned about his lack of information on how national fatigue management laws will impact on that industry. The information we received today was that the whole industry seem to be happy with national fatigue management laws, which really flew in the face of reality.
I was very keen to get involved in this estimates process this week in a particular area the Minister for Business discussed last week, which was the area of the Land Development Corporation Act. Madam Chair, you were in that position last week, in the committee stage, when we had discussions about the Land Development Corporation and its ability to do residential developments. We came to this committee and started probing into some of the things that had to occur with the Land Development Corporation and, I have to say, all goodwill aside, I did not realise at that particular time the enormity of the legislation that we were passing.
In actual fact, before the debate, I thought the whole lot was quite inconsequential, and I could really see no reason why this side of the Chamber would not be supporting that legislation. As things developed, I became concerned that things were not just quite right. That was the reason we took it to the committee stage. I asked several times about the Bellamack development and I will just go through some of that debate.
I asked a question of the Minister for Business:
The minister’s response was:
I had a little more discussion and went on to another question, and towards the end of that question I said:
To which the minister for Planning replied: ‘You will be advised in due course’. I then asked: ‘When is the first block expected to be constructed in Bellamack, minister?’ The Minister for Business replied: ‘It has been delayed by about four hours this afternoon’. The Minister for Planning responded: ‘Bellamack A is already under construction’. I then said: ‘Yes, and no plans yet for Bellamack C?’ The minister said: ‘No, a lot of plans for Bellamack C, particularly passing this legislation’. I then said: ‘Can you outline plans you have in place for Bellamack C?’ ‘You will be advised in due course’, said the Planning minister. ‘So you have no plans for Bellamack C, is that correct?’ At which point the minister then called me names, and we went through a little of ‘she flung the mud, I flung the mud, the Chair intervened’, and then we got back to some questions.
I said:
The Minister for Business said:
That is pretty clear. We were not going to be told last week what was happening with Bellamack Area C. No way known, were either the Minister for Business or the minister for Planning going to tell us whether they had any plans in place at all for Bellamack Area C. I thought we would head up to estimates this week and hear a few things. Well goodness me, Tuesday lunchtime there is an announcement by none other than the Chief Minister, who lobs out and not only did he announce Bellamack Gardens as part of the Land Development Corporation, but he also had 3D drawings and very detailed maps – and he even had pictures of exactly what the houses would look like.
All this has occurred within three working days of when we had that discussion, in this Chamber. We are being told that all that has occurred in three working days. I find this hard to believe. I was sitting scratching my head last night and I was wondering why would we be told these stories, that there are no plans on the books, on Thursday afternoon and, then, find out on Tuesday lunchtime that Bellamack Gardens is going ahead and we are going to have 150 m2 blocks of land. Then it dawned on me. Because had the government ministers come in and been up-front and bared their souls, told this parliament exactly what they were planning, maybe instead of us being so indifferent about the legislation, we might have taken a firmer stand. Maybe the members for Nelson and Arafura might not have supported the legislation. Maybe that was their concern. I put it to you: that is the case.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Chair, I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the committee from reporting progress forthwith for the purpose of censuring the Chief Minister and the Cabinet for being party to the lies of the Treasurer and the Minister for Business in misleading the Assembly and the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill and its failure to outline plans for the development of Bellamack Gardens.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam Chair, as I say there is no doubt that they are a lying mob ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Please pause, member for Fong Lim. Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: He has moved suspension of standing orders, so you have to put that question first.
Madam CHAIR: In accordance with Standing Order 225, a motion may be moved during the proceedings of the committee that the committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Dr Burns: Could you just repeat that please, Madam Chair?
Madam CHAIR: Standing Order 225: a motion may be moved during the proceedings of the committee that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again. That question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.
The question is that the committee do report progress.
The committee divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, the antics of this government are beyond the pale. To sit there and hear that sort of evidence shows one thing and one thing only: they are prepared to paper over any of their - what shall we say? - slips of the tongue; anything they can do to make sure that their – well, how do you say this in a parliamentary term, Madam Chair? I mean, they are beyond the pale. There is no doubt about it; they are beyond the pale.
They will do and say anything they have to do to ensure their legislation is passed. Not telling Territorians what they were intending to do last Thursday is disgraceful and shameful - absolutely disgraceful and shameful. I can tell you right now, had the government said in this place that they were preparing to allow 150 m2 blocks of land to be developed, that legislation would not have passed, and they knew it - absolutely knew it. Now, allowing no debate on this issue, flies in the face of good democracy and good governance. I note somewhere in here that the minister turned up and, in one of his responses, he said: ‘There is a big call for this sector of the market, as I have said a number of times, which no one really has got involved in, in a significant way in the Northern Territory’. Really! Then he went on to say: ‘There will be a process of transfer of land in the LDC. There will be transparency around the process’. Well, where is the transparency, minister? Where is the transparency?
You have deceived Territorians, you have deceived this Chamber and you are a disgrace. You are an absolute disgrace …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: … if you can sit in this joint and tell people with all honesty in your face …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: … that you had no plans for Bellamack Gardens, then you are a disgrace.
Madam CHAIR: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Chair? Why?
Madam CHAIR: A point of order because I was calling it to your attention, to ask you to address your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I move a 10 minute extension.
Madam CHAIR: An extension is not available in committee. Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, I would like to comment on the estimates process. Like a number of people in this House at this time, it was my first attendance at estimates as well. I was fascinated to make quite a number of observations. The first observation I made over the period was how well prepared the public servants were. Having been on the other side of the fence and been part of the teams that have had to present and prepare possible answers for estimates, I have now seen how well and what a great job they do.
Mr Deputy Chair, the public servants put in long days. Day after day, I saw quite a number of them turn up. They would cart in their boxes full of information and, no doubt, they have spent weeks, if not a number of months and, over that period of time, many hours working hard with lots of other public servants incurring lots of overtime, expense, and going to a lot of personal effort and trouble to ensure that ministers have ample answers to provide to the myriad of questions that are likely to come from the opposition.
From my time in this House, I have learned that constituents expect and want us, as an opposition, to keep the government accountable for their actions and for the expenditure of public monies. It is quite difficult, at times, when you only get a couple of minutes per portfolio. I noticed with the time constraints in this process that, at one stage, I only had a very small number of minutes to do one complete portfolio. Like the public servants, I too spend a lot of time preparing - interviewing people, going to meetings, spending weekends, after hours, evenings at meetings with people - all in the interest of benefiting those organisations and those people who form the community, the taxpayers out there. They are just trying to get on with the job of making the Territory a great place to live, work and also to stay which, unfortunately, through the number of questions I had to ask and the answers given, demonstrated that there is ample reason for some to leave; that is, housing and things like that.
For instance, the portfolio responsibilities I have in relation to community support services for aged people and people with disability, went down to a couple of minutes. I had an enormous number of questions. There are many different people out there with a whole range of disabilities that you cannot just answer with one or two questions. These are people who have spent time getting to my office, and I have spent considerable time going to meetings with these particular groups – organisations, interest groups and even individuals - trying to work out how we might get the message to government to help these people who find themselves in difficult circumstances. So, with all of that time spent and all those ideas, one goes to the estimates and you get a couple of minutes to ask three or four questions – if that. I was thinking I had to go through these pages and try to find which might be the best question to ask.
I support the senior Territorian and pensioner concessions. I spent an enormous amount of time talking to pensioners, going to meetings, looking at what options are available, and I will get to that when I actually open that particular folder. These people invest an enormous part of their life - and they have hope that what they say, the actions they take, the effort that they put in, might make a difference.
I have to tell you, I am a little disappointed. Quite frankly, I am going to be embarrassed when I have to go back to these people and say: ‘Well, we went in there and this minister has seven responsibilities and I only had two or three minutes on this particular portfolio. I asked about four questions and I had to ask them to keep their answers brief, so that I could get an extra question or so in’. When I report to these people, they will say: ‘That is great. What did you find out in estimates? I will say: ‘Not very much’. ‘Why?’ ‘Because of the time constraints put on’.
A particular area of my interest was Racing, Gaming and Licensing. When I had time at the end of the minister’s Health portfolio, I moved to Racing, Gaming and Licensing and only asked a small number of questions. In particular, I asked the minister about smoking and the definition of smoking in licensed premises. The minister said: ‘You are asking the wrong minister; that is a Health question’. I asked the minister what he meant by that and he clarified it, and said I was in the wrong output group and that I should have asked that of the Minister for Health which, of course he is, but we were in the different output group. Being new, I accepted that and we moved on.
I now find out that it is under the area of Racing and Gaming, and the smoking bans are clearly indicated in a media release put out by the then minister, on 18 July 2008, which said:
Great, I do not have a problem with that. It went on to say:
That was on 18 July 2008, and it is not that far off being one year. When you talk to people, they would be very interested to know that the AHA have worked closely with the Territory government in reaching the decision because they still do not have a definition of what a smoking indoor area or a smoking outdoor area is.
These people are trying to run businesses, and some of them are struggling to get their heads around what they are required to do. They employ people, pay taxes and give us, as legislators, and the government, the money to provide services. On this one particular question, I had quite a few answers because these people out there, quite frankly, are quite frustrated. They are getting quite concerned, for a number of reasons. First, the alterations in the building they may have to do. If you have a lean-to on the side of a building with a couple of poles and a couple of sheets of tin, because it has a roof on it, is that an indoor area or an outdoor area? They do not know. Is a beer garden an indoor area or an outdoor area? If it has a roof of any kind over it, if it is a canvas sail, is that an indoor area or an outdoor area? There is no definition at this point in time. The uncertainty within all licensed premises in the Northern Territory is quite concerning to those people who have to run them and are responsible for meeting the target date of 2 January 2010, which is only a short six months away.
You try to get through estimates and ask the government, ‘What about this and what about that’, hopefully, so that they might say: ‘Gee, maybe they have a point’. I do not necessarily expect them to leap around and agree with everything we say, but they might take note. Those listening after this might take note and say: ‘Gee, we probably should do something for these poor people’. It is about time because the government issued this media release on 18 July that this is going to happen in 18 months time. That is great. These people are going to be expected to comply with the government regulations and legislation on time when they actually put a date there. But the government does not have to worry about anything. When are they going to put it out? October? November? Maybe even a week or two before? Then there is going to be absolute chaos as people try to get these things in order.
The first thing they have to do, in relation to major alterations and new buildings, is to submit an application to the Development Consent Authority; that that can take quite some time. Because it is licensed premises, the Licensing Commission is going to have a go, as well. So they have to submit things to the Licensing Commission. Then there is time for public consultation. In relation to clubs, clubs have to go to voluntary boards to get approval to spend money, once they know and have some idea of what they might have to do.
Pubs and casinos also have boards, albeit that they are profit organisations; they have to go to, to get approval for funding. They have to go to banks or other financial institutions to seek approval to borrow money. Money is tighter out there. It might be difficult for them to get in a very short time frame. Given time, I suspect most of the premises would be able to get it. But, it is a time issue. These people then have to go to architects, engineers, and building certifiers. They have to find a building contractor – all at a time when all these licensed premises are getting their work done by 2 January 2010. That is just six months away.
These processes are going to take time. The government has been dragging its feet. What is going to happen when we get to that date and these people cannot get a builder? What are we going to do? Shut them down and take their licences off them? I sincerely hope the government looks at giving an extension. I ask the government to consider giving that extension very soon because these people are getting extremely concerned. I thought government was there to facilitate business to occur, and look after people and make it easier for people to operate and make money so that they can pay taxes, so government can spend those taxes wisely, of course, and help the community. It does not seem that is the case.
Gaming Machine Transfer Schemes: we have had a cap put on a number of gaming machines. We have clubs where nobody knows whether they can have cross transfers. Where is the scheme? We asked last November, at a briefing, where the scheme was. The advisors from the minister’s office said: ‘We do not know what that scheme is’. But you said that it will based on the Queensland scheme. What is it? ‘Well, we do not quite know that’. We still do not have anything, and that was six months ago now. It seems to take a long time to get anything done.
I wanted to find out what amount of revenue is expected to be raised from racing and gaming taxation. Where is it going to be spent? I have racing clubs who are trying to find out from government what amount of money they are getting in grants. Some of them have been told there is less money. They are now struggling to find how they are going to survive; what they are going to do; what jobs are going to have to go. We hear all sorts of things about where the cuts are. I have some guarantees that there are going to be no cuts in certain portfolios but, if they are struggling to survive now without any increases in these issued dollars to these race clubs, then they are going to find it hard.
I asked a couple of questions of the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing in relation to some inequities that existed in relation to unsuccessful applicants for takeaway licences in the Tiwi and Driver Supermarkets. I was told and I quote from Hansard:
Then I said to the minister:
The minister said:
I asked what day it came in, and to quote the minister:
Madam Chair, I have been unable to find out in relation to the Tiwi supermarket, the exact date, but it was some years ago. In relation to the Driver supermarket application - the second actually, because they withdrew the first -- was lodged in August/September 2003 and the notice for this was published in the Northern Territory News on 26 November 2003 - clearly three years before this moratorium was put in place. There was a fire in a particular supermarket. The people rebuilt it and they simply asked for what was there before. They went to an enormous amount of trouble to make sure that surveys are done, and yet it is not happening. That Driver supermarket still does not have a licence to be able to supply responsibly to the good citizens of Driver, so at their convenience they can go there and buy alcohol products. It is not necessarily that one has an argument for or against alcohol, it is about equity. The supermarket around the corner has a licence, and this one does not. People who are trying to provide a service and a convenience to people in the area of Palmerston simply just cannot get a licence. And, then, in 2006, three years after, and while this argument is going on, they say: ‘Well, we will just put a moratorium on it’.
Madam Chair, I would now like to move on to the area of seniors. My colleague, the member for Fong Lim, talked about Bellamack and seniors villages and things. It seems to me that the government is going into the caravan park business, with Bellamack caravan park and these small blocks. I have seen blocks in caravan parks bigger than they are proposing for some of these villages down there. I hardly had any time at all to ask some of these questions regarding the land for new retirement accommodation. What land is available? Has there been any work done on ascertaining the most suitable land? You try to ask these questions and you do not get any answers, because they tell you: ‘We will tell you when we are good and ready’.
When I go to meetings of seniors, people from the Council of the Ageing, National Seniors, are struggling to understand why they cannot get any answers from government. I hear, time and time again, these poor people say: ‘We wrote to the government. We phoned them up. We sent a letter in. The peak body sent a letter in, asked questions, did all sorts of things, and we still do not get an answer’. I sit in this House and hear other members saying, ‘Well, my constituents are doing this. My people in the portfolio areas I am responsible for are doing this. We are doing this’, and you cannot seem to get too many answers at all from the government, right across the board. It just seems to be bogged down and they do not have an answer. Is it because they do not want to write to anyone, or they do not want do it, or is it because they do not have the answers?
I could probably go on all night about these issues, but I note that I am now fighting the clock again, and I cannot get an opportunity to raise things for youth. I have a whole file full of questions here that the youth of the Northern Territory would like me to ask, and also those with disabilities. There is a situation in Alice Springs, Riding for the Disabled, where people are desperately trying to seek some government support and provide a service for the people of Alice Springs who are missing out in so many different areas. But there we go, 10 seconds on the clock. Time just goes so fast.
Madam Chair, I ask the government to try to get their act together and get some decent answers out for the good people of the Territory.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I will be brief and I will not add to, in any significant way, what my colleagues have said about some of the themes that have emerged during the week. In relation to my portfolios, my view is that the issues, the questions, the answers, and the abysmal performance of the ministers, speak for themselves.
There is however, an additional matter that needs to be raised as a result of a media release issued this afternoon by the member for Barkly. It was, obviously, after estimates and his time there had concluded. About halfway down in the media release, it says:
I have gone through the Hansard of the questions and answers in the Corrections area this morning. I cannot see any reference to the minister - as is asserted in the media release - telling the parliamentary estimates hearing that Corrections ‘have’ seen an increase to services through additional staff. The closest, on my reading, that the minister got – indeed, it really was not him - was on page 50 and 51, where Mr Ken Middlebrook, Superintendent of Correctional Services, mentioned that educational staff will be added to Darwin and Alice Springs. That is significantly different from what is asserted in the minister’s media release. The media release also said that:
That is not, on my reading of Hansard, what Mr Middlebrook or, indeed, the minister said in his evidence to the committee this morning.
It is a serious offence, in political terms - something of a hanging offence - to mislead the parliament or a parliamentary committee. I ask the minister to correct the record. If he is not prepared to accept that he has a political obligation to do so, I ask that he accept he has a moral obligation to do so. I have trawled the Hansard. If I am in any way wrong, I look forward to being corrected but, on my reading, I just cannot see what the minister asserts he said in the media release. To mislead the parliament is a serious offence, but the greater offence is to mislead Territorians. On the basis of the media release and my reading of Hansard, Territorians have been misled, and that is a worse offence.
However, in the estimates hearing - and this should be noticed because it is relevant - the day before, the Minister for Children and Families, somewhat amazingly in my view, could not answer a question as to why it was that in the budget papers there was an allocation of $300 000, I think it was, to the Child Abuse Task Force - or it might have been for additional child protection workers; one or the other. I think it was the Child Abuse Task Force - $300 000. I asked her why it was that in the media release she issued on budget day, she included a figure of $6.2m for an increase to the Child Abuse Task Force. What was astounding was that she could not answer that question. In addition to the themes of slipperiness, the rubbery way this government conducts itself - not enough time, huff and puff by ministers, and the shameful lack of knowledge they had - I would like to add the disgraceful way in which, in the two instances that I have cited, that ministers are prepared to issue media releases that do not resemble reality.
I am used to that. I have seen you guys do it for years. You all say: ‘It is in the budget papers, it is rock solid, do not attack the budget papers’, but when you have the audacity to rely on the budget papers and then do media releases that bear no correlation to the budget papers, you should be ashamed of yourselves and you should be sanctioned. Given the numbers in this parliament there is no sanction for you. However, the ultimate sanction is the next election and if you continue to conduct yourselves, if I may say so, in this appalling and dishonest manner, you will be made accountable.
Minister, I look forward to hearing from you at some stage. I believe you regard yourself as a fairly decent bloke and, if you are, I ask you to correct the record.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I join with the members who have contributed today, to thank the people who have put in so much time and effort into the Estimates Committee process over the past week. I particularly thank the Assembly staff, especially the Hansard staff, who work through all hours, day and night, through the week.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the Committee Secretariat, the leadership of Terry Hanley and the support of the Clerk. I thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Fannie Bay, who maintained a very fair and professional process. We have heard that from both sides of the Chamber tonight. I also thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Nhulunbuy, who is sitting in here still chairing, for her many hours of work on the committee and on all the occasions that she stepped up to Chair the Estimates Committee when the member for Fannie Bay briefly took a break during the very long week.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: Importantly, I thank the departmental officers and the Power and Water Corporation Chair, Judith King, and the Power and Water officers who appeared before the committee, and those who assisted by preparing the many estimates briefings and folders. To all those departmental officers right across the Northern Territory Public Service, a sincere thank you on behalf of members of government.
Estimates hearings are a comprehensive opportunity for members to question all aspects of our government’s operation. Given the current economic turbulence around the world, this process is perhaps more important now than ever. It is chance for the public to get a clear view of how our government is spending their money and what we are delivering for Territorians. Governance in the Territory is very well served by the estimates process and this government recognises how important the process is. I know that all ministers and the Speaker take their appearance before the committee very seriously. There are always concerns raised by members regarding certain aspects of the process, but the overall aims of the estimates hearings were well served this year, as they have been since this government introduced these hearings; that is, to scrutinise the budget.
I know ministers and the Speaker were very keen to set out during the estimates process the record budgets, particularly those record budgets in Health, Education, Police and Emergency Services. The Speaker and the ministers appeared before the committee for nearly 47 hours. I appeared for seven hours. It is estimated that I received approximately 600 questions. Of course, I do not have any say over the direction or calibre of the questioning. I very much enjoyed being able to explain to the member for Port Darwin the Territory’s debt levels now compared to 2001; how we have managed to slash debt; and why we are clearly in a better position than in the dying days of the previous CLP government. Under Labor, we have reduced the debt we inherited from the CLP …
Mr Bohlin: With GST.
Ms LAWRIE: … by some $502m since 2001 …
Mr Bohlin: With GST.
Ms LAWRIE: … and we inherited a budget in deficit and spiralling debt …
Mr Bohlin: With GST, GST, GST revenue for those upstairs, that did not occur prior to 2001.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Drysdale …
Ms LAWRIE: I can hear the mumblings of the member for Drysdale …
Madam CHAIR: …I ask you to cease interjecting, please.
Ms LAWRIE: … GST, GST, GST. It shows his complete ignorance because the Territory, throughout the years of the GST - and we are losing some $211m in GST revenue in the 2009-10 budget - in the years where the GST was coming in strength, it was averaging around $40m to $100m tops, $120m above the guaranteed minimum amount we would have got if the GST had not existed. It is a joke to think that slashing debt and increasing services, building the roads, schools, health clinics, and taking services to the bush for the first time in many instances, was a GST windfall. There was no such thing. We received what was our fair share of revenue from the Commonwealth.
We make no apology for also going hard for increased Special Purpose Payments and national partnership agreements from the Commonwealth because the true measure of a strong, good Territory government is being able to get every single cent you can get from the Commonwealth. Why? We have a very small jurisdiction. We have a population of 200 000. We have a very narrow own source revenue base. For the fool opposite to sit there and mumble ‘GST’ means he has absolutely no understanding of Territory government budgets.
Not only have we slashed the debt by $502m since 2001 when we inherited a budget in deficit and spiralling debt, we have, through good management, reduced the debt from $1.389bn to $887m in 2007-08. We have done this through strict discipline, efficiency measures across government, and delivering six cash surpluses in a row. All of this was done at the same time that we have produced significant increases in services across all those major priority areas of Health, Education, Police and Justice. There have also been substantial increases in infrastructure spending in the period. From Budget 2009-10, the Henderson Labor government has taken a deliberate decision to increase infrastructure spending to even further protect Territory jobs and stimulate growth in our economy.
I was pleased to be asked about this in estimates because I could lay out the government’s clear dedication to protecting our Territory jobs and supporting our economic base. With collapsing GST revenues to the Territory, this will take us into a temporary deficit after six consecutive budget surpluses. We have shown our economic management credentials. We will continue our stringent fiscal and economic management over the forward years with a clear strategy to return to surplus. The forward projections have been prepared on a worst case scenario in the setting of a global financial crisis, but even as you compare the nett debt to revenue ratio in the outer year of 2012-13 which - with worst case scenario – would be 33% of nett debt to revenue, that is only half of what we inherited in 2001 at 61% nett debt as a percentage of revenue.
As I clearly explained during the estimates hearing, during the preparation of the budget the prevailing bond rate used at the time to value the Territory superannuation liability was at 4%. As members would be aware, there has been significant volatility in the bond rate market over the past 12 months due to the downturn in the financial markets. Between April and June, the bond rate has significantly increased to 5.5% resulting in a $500m reduction to our superannuation liabilities. As a rule of thumb, a 1% movement in the bond rate equates to about $330m movement in the Territories liabilities. This goes to show these forward projections are strictly notional. They can only be based on the best information at that snapshot in time. For the benefit of the shadow Treasurer, it is worth pointing out that the Territory budget will remain in nett operating surplus across all our forward projections.
We will manage the budget through the tough times by ensuring we stimulate growth, protect jobs to support Territory families, and maintain infrastructure investments to develop our Territory. In the Justice portfolio I was very pleased to discuss the efficacy of the alcohol courts as one part of the government’s comprehensive alcohol strategy; a strategy that Menzies School of Health Research has found has reduced alcohol consumption in Alice Springs to some 18%, and with it, alcohol-related harm and violence.
I made it very clear to the member for Araluen that the alcohol court provides a completely new way to deal with offenders who are alcohol dependent. The program commenced in July 2006; it was planned to have a workload …
Ms Carney: It is a mess and you know it is a mess.
Ms LAWRIE: … it was planned to have a workload of …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: She cannot help herself, can she? Come in, spinner.
It was planned to have a workload of 80 clients per year. Since commencement, there have been 308 referrals to the alcohol court, much more than that anticipated workload. This is hardly a failure. The program initially operated in Darwin and Alice Springs, before being extended to Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek in early 2008. As part of our commitment to reviewing new legislation, the alcohol court scheme is currently undergoing a comprehensive review, with the aim to create a more flexible system that will engage with a large number of alcohol-dependent people engaged in antisocial behaviour.
I also spoke at some length in estimates about the Fine Recovery Unit’s success in starting fine payers on time-to-pay arrangements to make sure that they are able to pay back their debt. There was another wilful misunderstanding on the member for Araluen’s part to take the outstanding fine figures over the past three years and assume that they will never be repaid. Under the Fine Recovery Unit’s debt recovery system, the figures show that the total percentage of outstanding fines and penalties reduces over time. Why? Because people are paying off their fines bit by bit. It is a time …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting. Please pause.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! Standing Order 51, the member continually interjects.
Ms LAWRIE: The government considers it much more sensible that people who have incurred fines are able to pay them off over a period of time rather than default, which just incurs more cost for government.
I was also pleased to again debate the issues related to planning with the member for Nelson. I know he is very knowledgeable and passionate in this area. Sometimes we agree to disagree, but again, I was pleased to have the member test our assumptions and question me on our planning decisions.
Madam Chair, the Northern Territory is in a very strong economic position, absolutely relative to the rest of Australia and, indeed, the world. Our key indicators and forecasts show that the Territory economy will grow an estimated 4.1% this financial year, and continue to remain positive over the coming years, in contrast to declines elsewhere. Our Labor government wants to keep us out in front. In Budget 2009-10, we are acting decisively to protect jobs now and to build the Territory into the future. We have taken this clear position to the Territory people over the past few weeks. We were happy to outline it in the estimates process.
I thank all members for their perseverance over the past week. I thank again the committee, the Table Office and Hansard staff, who ensured that the week ran smoothly, and all agency personnel who appeared before the committee and assisted in preparation. I also again thank the hard-working and dedicated officers of the Northern Territory Treasury, without them I would not have been able to deliver Budget 2009-10.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committee in relation to the proposed expenditure or output with reference to the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41), the activities, performances, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2009-10 be noted.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill (Serial 40):
Madam CHAIR: In accordance with the resolution of the Assembly of 10 June 2009, I will now put the following question for the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill (Serial 40). The question now is that the remaining stages of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40) be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bills reported; reports adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bills now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my congratulations to the staff and students involved in the musical put on at Taminmin High School last weekend. This is the third year the school has presented a musical. This year’s musical, Cruise Control, was written by Megan Rigoni and was directed by a very talented local person, Ms Tanya Ham.
It portrayed an ordinary family called the Flumleys, who had not been on holiday for a very long time because the man of the house worked as an accountant with very long hours at the Barrington Sachs Financial Office under an obnoxious boss. His wife, Marion Flumley, wins a cruise and, of course, they just have to go. Little did they know that there was going to be a conference on board which the boss and his family were attending and hoping to land an account with the very important client, Jock Grundy.
Each scene showed the families avoiding each other until the very end where, of course, they did see each other and, because the holiday made Mr Flumley realise that there was more to life, finally he had enough courage to quit his job with Barrington Sachs and accept a very rewarding job with Jock Grundy, whom he had befriended during the course of the cruise.
The individual singers, dancers, the band that was playing on the night, and the lead acts, put on a fantastic show to a packed house over several nights of some 500 people. I congratulate everyone involved in the event. The young people, the students, both the boys and girls, do a great job and they have grown from year to year.
I also congratulate the principal, Tony Considine, who has been creating an environment at Taminmin where these activities flourish. It is great to see young adolescent boys getting involved in these events. It opens them up, makes them show their emotions a little more, and they learn to work together. It was another great time at Taminmin High School, and congratulations to everyone.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the names of the cast and crew of the event.
Leave granted.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also seek leave to table the program from the evening as well.
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Mr Bern Kilgariff AM, KStJ, JP – Ill Health
Mr Bern Kilgariff AM, KStJ, JP – Ill Health
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, as many would know, former member of the Legislative Assembly and the first Speaker of this House, Bernie Kilgariff AM, KStJ, JP, is very ill and in the Alice Springs Hospital. I have spoken to his daughter, Fran Kilgariff, today, and she communicates that he has been moved from the Intensive Care Unit into a general ward. We continue to hope for his recovery.
I am sure that all members will join with me in offering Bern, Aileen and his family our best wishes. I know our thoughts and prayers will be with them at this difficult time.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given leave to the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to speak briefly.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, thank you for making us all aware of poor Bernie Kilgariff; he is very sick. We, on this side of the House, on behalf of all Territorians, wish Bernie Kilgariff well, and for Aileen and his family. He is a great Territorian and a true gentleman - a real gentleman. It is sad to hear that he is very unwell.
As you said, he was the first Speaker in this House from 20 November 1974 to 15 July 1975, before taking on a distinguished career representing Territorians in the Senate. I also spoke with Fran yesterday to pass my and our government’s best wishes to Bernie, Aileen and the family. As with you, Madam Speaker, Bernie is in our thoughts and prayers, and also Aileen and the family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals also acknowledge this wonderful man and his family. Our thoughts and prayers are with Bernie and his family at this time. I give the rest of my time to the member for Greatorex, who is the local member.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing us to extend our best wishes and a speedy recovery to Bernie Kilgariff. I am pleased to hear that he is out of intensive care and has been moved into the medical ward at Alice Springs Hospital, after suffering a heart attack and a stroke. While he is not out of the woods, it is encouraging to hear the news that he is being treated in the medical ward now. As we know, he is in his mid-80s, so it is testament to the strength of the man that he has been able to put up such a fight when faced with the adversities he has in the last couple of days.
We all know his role in Territory parliament and politics, and of his family, of course, spread far and wide across the NT and, indeed, Australia. He is a constituent of mine. I respect enormously his experience in all matters relating to Territory politics and the parliament, and Central Australia and the Northern Territory. I often bail him up on the street seeking the benefit of that experience. I place on the public record, as his local member, my very best wishes to Bernie Kilgariff for a speedy and healthy recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. I spoke to Fran Kilgariff before I came into the Chamber and suggested to her she might like to listen. I am hoping, Fran, if you are listening through the Internet, that those words help you and your family with his recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITIONS
Construction of New Prison in the Noonamah Area
Construction of New Prison in the Noonamah Area
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 111 petitioners praying that the construction of a new prison in the Noonamah area be reviewed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of the standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that we are extremely concerned and upset by the lack of consultation with rural residents on the construction of a prison in the Noonamah area.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government immediately review their decision to construct a new prison and upgrade the existing prison.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Increase in Power and Water Charges
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 2304 petitioners, including 1745 electronic petitions certified by the member for Goyder, praying that the decision to increase power, water and sewerage charges be reviewed. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth that we are extremely concerned and upset by the Northern Territory government proposal to increase to increase power charges by 25.5% within three years, and 60% for water and sewerage within three years, as these increases will have a detrimental impact on all Territory families and small businesses.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Northern Territory government immediately review their decision to increase charges and to work on finding alternative solutions that will not impact so harshly on Territorians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Connie Smith - Reinstatement
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 117 petitioners relating to local Kings Creek rural nurse, Connie Smith.
Madam Speaker, I moved that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Kon Vatskalis, Minister for Health, the following petition is a show of support for the return of our local nurse, Connie Smith. Since this most dedicated and efficient nurse has been missing from our community, permanent residents have found that her usual diligent monitoring of various health situations has been sadly lacking. We know that there is a policy of the Northern Territory government to provide ongoing professional services. We need to look at the fact we are constituents to whom Connie Smith has given outstanding service to. Please give consideration to her reinstatement.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the wife of the member for Greatorex, Mrs Elara Conlan and their new baby, Harvey. We extend you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Select Committee on Regional Development
Proposed Select Committee on Regional Development
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next General Business Day I shall move a motion in regard to the appointment of a Select Committee on Regional Development.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Treasurer and Minister for Business
Proposed Censure of Treasurer and Minister for Business
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I give notice that on the next sitting day I will move that the Assembly censures the Treasurer and Minister for Business for their blatant lies and for misleading the House and the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill, and their failure to outline plans in place for the development of Bellamack Gardens.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek your guidance whether a motion that will be before the Assembly that uses words that can only be used in a substantive motion is within standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a censure motion. Is it your intention to try to move that now?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly censures the Treasurer and Minister for Business for their blatant lies and for misleading the House and the people of the Northern Territory in …
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause, member for Fong Lim, I thought that you were giving a notice.
Mr TOLLNER: I was, Madam Speaker, but a point of order was called, so now I am moving the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: All right, so, is the government accepting the motion?
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, we will not be accepting this censure motion. What we are here today to do is to pass the appropriation. That is our main focus.
We have had a week of estimates and government will not be accepting this censure motion. We will be getting on with the business of moving the appropriation, which is vital for the Northern Territory.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Proposed Censure of Treasurer and Minister for Business
Move Proposed Censure of Treasurer and Minister for Business
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Assembly from bringing on the motion to censure the Treasurer and Minister for Business forthwith.
The motion is that the Assembly censures the Treasurer and Minister for Business for their blatant lies, and for misleading the House and the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill, and their failure to outline plans in place for the development of Bellamack Gardens.
Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business.
Dr BURNS: We will not be accepting the motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You are not accepting it, so are you putting the question? Is that what you are doing?
Mr Elferink: It is a motion to suspend standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Dr BURNS: I am moving that the question be put.
Mr Elferink: No, it is a motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker, last …
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Fong Lim, the minister has moved that the question be put.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 13 Noes 12
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis Mr Wood
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
APPROPRIATION (2009-2010) BILL
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from 11 June 2009.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I call upon the Chairman of the Estimates Committee to present the report of the Estimates and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committees.
In committee:
Mr GUNNER: Madam Chair, I have pleasure in tabling the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee in their consideration of the estimates for proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2009-2010.
I advise honourable members that any outstanding information, including answers to questions taken on notice, will be tabled during the August 2009 sittings of this Assembly. Upon receipt of outstanding answers, the committee Secretariat will be updating the questions taken on notice database and, when completed, a composite set of questions and answers will be uploaded on to the Legislative Assembly website.
I believe it is appropriate to reflect on the makeup of the Estimates Committee throughout these proceedings. The management of the overall workload of the committee is always a challenge, and the terms of reference allow for a substitution of members on the committee within certain parameters throughout the four days of hearings. This provides every opposition shadow the opportunity to question the appropriate ministers and agency officers. While providing the flexibility for members to be present while specific portfolios are being scrutinised, this process also imposes a fair degree of management to sustain the intensity of questioning over the 45 hours set aside for estimates, plus two hours for the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee. I suggest that this flexibility, coupled with the number of members who have not had previous exposure to the estimates process, may influence the questioning structure and time management over the four days.
There has also been an extensive increase in the total questions on notice taken during the proceedings, which could be seen as reflecting an increase in the level of detail sought through the questioning process. I raise these issues in a genuine attempt to identify areas which can be seen as being a one-off shortcoming and, as such, will naturally improve in the future.
I have been advised that there have been occasions over the last few years where members of the committee, in preparation for estimates, have sought a list of agencies or output groups that were not questioned at a previous public hearing. To assist future committee members and as an information sharing process, I have included in my statement a prcis of the agencies that did not appear before the committee, or as a result of timing issues were not able to be questioned during the four-and-a-half hours allocated to each minister or, in the case of the Treasurer, seven hours.
I provide this information as chairman of the committee not as a criticism of the management of time but to assist in the possible allocation of the order of outputs for ministers in next year’s estimates. There are opportunities, though limited, within each Estimates Committee process, to sometimes consider the progressing of an agency ahead of another.
I am aware the committee did reallocate the priority of agencies, in particular, the Port Authority, in the 2007-08 estimates, and again in the 2008-09. Section 20 of the terms of reference of the committee provides that with the authority to consider such a notion, and it is something I believe the Estimates Committee will consider again prior to next year’s public hearings.
During this year’s schedule of ministers appearance by output groups, I can report that within the portfolios held by the Treasurer, the areas of Darwin Port Corporation, Darwin Bus Services and Construction Division did not get the opportunity to appear before the committee. During the appearance of the Department of Education and Training, they were limited to 25 minutes and, as such, there was no real questioning of the outputs contained within Budget Paper No 3. During the appearance by Dr Burns, the portfolio associated with Asian Relations and Trade was not interrogated. During the appearance of Mr Knight, the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment was not called to appear before the committee. During the appearance of Ms Anderson, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority was not called to appear.
The Assembly has recently passed a motion providing for alternate membership of Public Accounts Committee which now sits as a resolution of the Assembly. This did not impact on the composition of the current Estimates Committee, but would have come into effect during these public hearings as a requirement for the core membership of the Public Accounts Committee to adjourn for a deliberative session. The government took the opportunity to utilise this facility throughout the public hearings of the estimates in accordance with the draft guidelines prepared by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
I thank all members for participating in the estimates process. As I mentioned earlier, for many it was their first exposure to these public hearings, with the obvious benefits that by this time next year, all members will have a greater understanding of the role they play in the process.
I thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee, the core membership of the Estimates Committee, for the manner in which these public hearings were conducted. I thought they were conducted with a very good humour throughout. I particularly thank my Deputy Chair, the member for Nhulunbuy - particularly today, which is her birthday - for her conduct through the Estimates Committee. Thank you also to the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their work behind the scenes to ensure the whole process runs smoothly, with specific mention to Hansard and the Table Office.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of questions on notice taken this year, and I have already provided comment on the possible cause behind this. There were 130 questions this year, an increase of 60 from last year, with 33 being responded to throughout the public hearings. The secretary will follow up on all outstanding responses, with the final date for tabling of all questions and answers within the August sittings.
I also acknowledge the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee which sat this afternoon to provide valuable insight into the operations of the organisation. I place on the record appreciation for the time and effort put in by Judith King, as Chair of the board, and Andrew Macrides and other agency officers.
I commend the professionalism of all public servants who appeared before the committee, who were very able in the evidence they gave, and the ministers themselves for their performances.
I commend the report and the committee.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 10 June 2009, the committee has before it consideration of the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41), and reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee.
The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and the resolutions and expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! I may have missed something here with the tabling statement. Was there an opportunity for other members to jump in and respond to that tabling statement?
Madam CHAIR: That is coming, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: That is coming now. Okay, I just want to make sure that we are all on the same song sheet.
Madam CHAIR: … in relation to the proposed expenditure or output with reference to the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41), all the activities, performances, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2009-10 be noted.
I remind members that speech time limits for this debate are as follows: the ministers, Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister – 20 minutes; any other member - 10 minutes. The maximum period for consideration and conduct of this debate is five hours. As the time is now 5 pm, if the debate is not completed …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! The time is now 6 pm.
Madam CHAIR: The clock is wrong, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I apologise.
Madam CHAIR: As the time is now 5 pm, if debate is not concluded by 9 pm, I will put the question.
Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports have been concluded and the question put, the following question will then be put forthwith without debate: that the remainder of the bill be agreed to. Then, the remaining stages of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40) will be considered and the bills will then be reported to the Assembly. Following this report, the Speaker will then call upon the Treasurer to move the third readings of the bills.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I rise tonight to make a few observations, and I begin in a positive frame of mind. I acknowledge the work of the member for Fannie Bay over the last four days. I have now been witness, in various roles, to several of these estimates processes and, upon reflection, I would place the member for Fannie Bay as probably the best committee Chair we have had for estimates.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: I say that because I sensed flowing through his direction a desire to see the committee flow as well as it possibly could. He achieved that. He did pull up members when he thought it was necessary, but at no time did I form the opinion that he was using his chairmanship for any other reason than the chairmanship was intended. To that degree, I wish to thank him, particularly for his style of chairmanship, for his thoughtfulness and flexibility, I might add, in the chairmanship. I sensed in the Chairman a gentleman who was more guided by the spirit of what we were doing than the rule of what we were doing - not something entirely reflected in all of the ministers.
The shortcomings of this committee process has been once again revealed and, whilst the older members in this parliament will have heard this dirge before, I cannot but revisit it by virtue of the fact that, because of the Chief Minister’s incapacity to bring large amounts of trust to his own Cabinet, half of government essentially resides in three individual ministers; the rest are basically tacked onto the side. What we have finally got ourselves into is a situation where only the briefest of examinations can be conducted into some of the core elements of our administration here in the Northern Territory by virtue of the fact that so many of the output groups that we sought to examine were bundled in with other output groups of equal import. Consequently, a forensic examination, which is implied by a committee of this nature, is not possible.
It is simply not possible to deal with questions of a Treasurer, and then an Attorney-General, and God knows what other portfolios are held. The Chief Minister carries Education and Police as well as major portfolios. Eventually, you come to the point when you realise that a forensic examination of the budget in such circumstances is just not possible.
At the other end of the spectrum, we then find one of the junior ministers, the minister for Sport, being quizzed for some four-and-a-half hours, and members thinking to themselves: ‘What else do we ask this guy, simply to fill in the time?’
Whether we go back to a system by which we sat in this parliament and did what we used to do in the committee stages of the bill needs to be addressed as a matter of some importance. It is a system by which we, as members of the opposition, must be able to have a proportional opportunity to examine the large ticket items held by a handful of ministers, compared to the small ticket items handled by the rest of the Cabinet. To have the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in the chair for four-and-a-half hours, when he also carries Education, and Police, Fire and Emergency Services, is nothing more than a smokescreen.
I remind members there was a time in this House that ministers were on their feet until the questions stopped. I have heard this little furphy about having to give notice of all the questions. Yes, questions were given notice of in the past, but that did not prevent follow-up questions being asked in this House, which meant that any member could climb to their feet in this House, whilst the budget was examined under the old system, and ask the question. How do I know this? Because I did it. I remember doing it when we were in government, and I asked questions of the ministers as a committee member of this House. It was done in this Chamber - and done to the point where no other questions could be found.
The effect was that the Chief Minister may well have been on his feet for 12 or 14 hours, but it allowed for a thorough examination. The only time limit that was imposed was that the examination be shut down after a certain number of days. It was the privilege of the opposition to examine ministers for as long as they liked and, if that meant going until 3 am or 4 am, that is precisely what occurred.
Not any more, Madam Chair. The reason we do not do that any more is, despite the platitudes mouthed by this government, scrutiny is the thing that they seek to avoid the most. No more clear example of that situation could be presented to this House than what just occurred. I find it nothing shy of astonishing that the government would vote down a motion, having no idea what was in the motion. It staggers me that the government members do not want to go down that path.
Or, is it the case that the government is more interested in what is happening in the great hall just out these doors than the good governance of the Northern Territory? Fast cars, hors d’oeuvres, and beers seem to be the order of the day as far as this government is concerned, not the clear and effective review of the conduct of this government and the things that it does.
I also raise an issue which I have raised several times in this House in relation to the motion that we had last week in this place, effectively allowing ministers to sit and preside in the committee. Whilst I acknowledge that the ministers, generally, managed to contain themselves, nevertheless despite the best intents of this government, I heard the Minister for Tourism sitting as a committee member engaging in repeated interjection on questions being asked about Battery Hill in Tennant Creek.
The minister came in here and passionately described how heinous it was for former ministers such as Steve Dunham to be even involved in the PAC and hear evidence. For him to cry foul so passionately on that occasion, then I cry foul on this occasion, where the Minister for Tourism saw fit to interject on questions being asked of a fellow Cabinet minister. Moreover, if my memory serves me well, that same minister was also the Attorney-General and listened in on some of the Corrections questions. Whilst I do not recall any interjections from the minister, nevertheless, that falls outside the parameters that were agreed.
In any instance, the presence of ministers on any committee which looks at budget expenditure, as a result of a decision process in which the ministers were actively involved - namely budget Cabinet - is an anathema. The continued presence of ministers in the Public Accounts Committee will continue to be an anathema. I have placed it on the record, both in this place and in other places, my astonishment about the bloody-mindedness of this government on pursuing this particular approach.
From day one, the moment I realised what the minister was intending to do when he put himself on to the committee - a move so audaciously breathtaking that it actually surprised me for a couple moments before I was galvanised into active debate against it - the government was flagging its desire to keep its weakening hand around the throat of this House. That desire was expressed by this government continuing to rely on the support of a former member of their team, who has publicly stated that she would not support a motion of no confidence against this government. I wonder about her resolve in relation to such matters when, as time passes, she starts to see the world through a lens that is not bending the light of reality in the same way as the Labor Party bends light, or the lens of government bends light. I suspect that as she ponders over time, the fact that this is now a minority government that still insists on using Cabinet ministers to maintain a majority position in committees is also an irreconcilable position. There is any number of other parliaments, where there are even majority governments, that are still represented as minorities in committees. That as an aside, if this House has a minority government then the committee system should have minority presence of governments in the committees.
I was also somewhat astonished about the answers to a number of questions which were not known by certain ministers. These were not only questions of detail; these were questions of policy. If memory serves me, at one stage, I asked a question of a minister about their own policy or their position on something, and they had to ask their CEO exactly what they thought about the issue. This is not comforting to Territorians when it comes to the quality of leadership they have.
I suspect if we did a word count on the department of Health and how many words were uttered by the member for Casuarina, the Health Minister, and how many words were uttered by his CEO, that the ratio would be close to 100 to 1 in favour of the CEO. I quipped at the end of that particular section to the group that I thanked the minister for coming along and bringing Mr Vatskalis with him. There was no little irony intended in that quip. That proposition was replayed again and again.
The minister for Corrections today was basically taken apart, organ by organ, limb by limb, by the member for Araluen, who questioned him to the point where he simply sat there saying nothing more than ‘I will take your point on board’ and ‘that is a good point’.
Surely the Chief Minister should be asking himself at one point or another: ‘How much faith can I place in ministers who seem to be taking most of their information from members from the opposition asking them?’ Equally so, the minister for Sport last night - I was there for a short time asking questions about the Institute of Sport - was rendered to a place where he was, essentially, speechless by a few simple questions about the operation of the Institute of Sport.
Any minister worth their salt would have known some of the very basic questions I was asking, simply because these were questions lifted, essentially, straight out of the output group in the budget paper. The answers the questions required could easily have been sourced from the most obvious document. It is not likely that the minister for Sport is snowed under a mountain of work. He is not the god Atlas carrying the world on his shoulder. Much more, he is probably carrying the weight that Icarus carried as he came closer to the sun: not much at all. I presume that when that happens, when he gets any closer, he will follow Icarus back to the ground.
I also note from this estimates process the Treasurer herself - and I specifically went to a strategy on Tuesday in relation to what this Treasurer understood about the global environment in which she works - and her capacity to answer questions in a more global fashion in relation to particular issues. I was not intending to drill down in little rabbit holes. What I wanted to determine for myself was whether the Treasurer carried in her mind a clear picture of what happens around her in government and in the greater community. When I say the greater community, I mean intrastate, interstate and nationally. I became convinced, during the course of that process, that beyond the usual slogans and the fallback positions to the briefing notes she has read, the actual capacity to see the world in a more complete fashion and our place in it was not entirely present. Not entirely absent, I might add in her defence. However, in asking some simple questions - which should have been flagged to her because of my own budget reply on the issue - I would have expected more comprehensive answers than I got. What she, basically, did was avoid answering the big picture questions. Her incapacity to see the Northern Territory in the light of how it exists in this country, as well as internationally, in our region and globally, is of concern because it demonstrates the Treasurer’s horizons are very close to her, indeed.
There is not a view that carries far into the future. The examination of her knowledge of what budget papers mean and how things project out - or the information you should glean from the budget papers - was limited mostly to slogans and deferral to the old system of chanting a few mantras; saying it was all the CLP’s fault and how wonderful this government was without any consideration of the environment that they exist in now, have existed in the last few years, and the former government existed in the late 1990s. If she sees it, she chooses to ignore it simply for political gain and nothing more.
The borrowings, and the continued borrowings, of the Northern Territory are a concern to me, as they are to many Territorians. There will be a time when this money has to be paid back and, whilst the rivers of gold that the GST represented flowed into the Northern Territory, that opportunity came and went with little regard to achieving the fiscal strategies of the Northern Territory government. Whilst I acknowledge that some nett debt was reduced, what could have been achieved and what was achieved were chasms apart.
This government, as evidenced through its desire to raid the Treasurer’s Advance for all that it is worth, does not plan, does not structure itself, or position itself well at the beginning of the financial year, and perpetually finds itself having to deal with issues that they should have seen coming.
The off-budget spend of this government continues in the current financial year and, if evidence gleaned from the amount of consideration of issues going into the future by me and other shadow ministers is anything to go by, the next financial year will also see the oxyacetylene equipment being taken out of the Treasurer’s Advance safe so that the door can be lopped off and more money, which has not been budgeted for, spent.
This comes down to the capacity of this government to plan, and plan effectively. It requires discipline, forethought, consideration, and effort - mental effort and effort in time, not a very nine-to-five approach to the job at hand. It requires passion and, most of all, it requires a sense of vocation.
Madam Chair, that sense of vocation was painfully absent throughout this whole process, and if I have learned anything from this is, it is that lack of vocation is why we have achieved so little.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to commend the Treasurer and be part of this final debate in terms of the appropriation. I thank the opposition for their publicly stated support for the appropriation. I anticipate they will debate this bill in the committee stage report, and we will join together to pass this Appropriation Bill, as they have indicated publicly ...
Mr Elferink: Are you getting nervous?
Dr BURNS: No, I am just restating what you blokes have said on the public record.
Like the member for Port Darwin, I commend the committee members, and particularly the committee Chair. I agree with the member for Port Darwin: the member for Fannie Bay has been the best Chair of the Estimates Committee. He did a very professional job. He tried to be fair, and tried to give everyone a go and move proceedings along. In general, the spirit of the Estimates Committee was a good spirit. There were a couple of moments, and I might come to one of those a little later.
There were themes. There were the generic questions that the opposition have asked: improper use of computers, credit cards, a whole range of questions asked, and I look forward to the opposition putting forward a reasoned case around the information they have gathered in that regard.
In terms of the improper use of computers, I suppose Facebook featured a little there. In page 43 of the session involving the Treasurer, the shadow said: ‘Out of the department, Treasurer, were there any reports of improper uses of computers other than my Facebook?’. I know the member for Fong Lim also went to Facebook when he spoke as well, so this reference to Facebook is interesting,.
There was some very strange language used in some of the proceedings. I was interested to read the quote of the member for Port Darwin in terms of the GST. He described it, as he was asking the Treasurer: ‘Did you think the GST was a big smelly poo poo thing?’ I suppose you might call that infantile economics.
I know the editorial had a bit to say about the opposition squandering opportunities in this estimate process. In many cases, we did go off on tangents although, in other cases, I thought there was pretty good questioning by some members of the opposition. The member for Port Darwin, as always happens during estimates, pointed to the minister he thought did not perform, had done very badly or been evasive of questions. I am not going to be negative; I am going to be positive.
In my session of estimates, two opposition members did very well. In the sessions I saw, the member for Katherine questioned very well. I also say the member for Brennan was very well prepared in his questioning. He asked some very good questions which were asked in the right spirit, trying to get to the bottom of matters. I am not going to be negative. I am just saying that, for my book regarding opposition members, the questions they asked, and their performance, those two members, particularly given it was their first time in estimates, did very well.
To illustrate the way in which the opposition squandered opportunities during this estimates process, it was interesting that the shadow Treasurer asked both the Chief Minister and I about issues raised in the previous estimates in 2008 in relation to the letting of contracts to particular companies through the Chief Minister’s Department in marketing and communications. That matter was dealt with by the Auditor-General, both in the estimates process last year - and I do have it here; I suppose I could read what the Auditor-General said last year in relation to that matter, talking about these particular companies getting 11 out of 14 contracts. The member for Blain said:
- It would not be hard to form a view, Auditor-General, that as a result of what you described, and through your audit, that one firm was given favourable treatment. Would that be a fair assessment?
The Auditor-General said last year:
- One firm received a large part of the work, Mr Chairman. But, as I have already said, that firm is regarded as being a firm having firstly, a good mix of skills and, secondly, the will to put in whatever effort was required to meet the department’s deadline.
Then there was a direct question from the member for Blain:
- Thank you, Auditor-General. During your audit, did you become aware of any paperwork being submitted that reflected any conflicts of interest in this matter?
The Auditor-General replied:
- None that I am aware, Mr Chairman.
That was also particularly true of the Leader of the Opposition in his questions to the Chief Minister. One of his higher order questions, once he got through his generic questions, was about fleas in the watch-house. I turn to that. He went from generic questions about marketing and greenhouse and, then, out of nowhere, he said:
- Thank you. I accept that as the answer. A further general question - the flea infestation of the Darwin city watch-house. How much would it cost to fix that?
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, member for Greatorex!
Dr BURNS: He went on and asked the question:
- Was the fumigation delivered by a local contractor?
Then he put the question on notice. I noted the comment by the Chief Minister:
- Do we want the number of police who were fumigated as well, and the cost per flea?
Mr Bohlin: That is how poor the Chief Minister sees the importance of occupational health and safety ..
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Drysdale, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I found that amazing, given the fact that, during Question Time during sittings, the opposition raises a whole range of questions in relation to police and law and order yet, the higher order issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the estimates process was regarding the fumigation of fleas. I can understand it is an important issue at an operational level. I understand fumigation was carried out, and my initial advice has been that fumigation was carried out by a local contractor. Some of the agents that may have been used may have had to be brought up from down south; I am not sure about that. At the end of the day I thought that there were higher order issues in terms of law and order, and policing numbers.
For example, the commissioners-in-exile over here often talk about issues related to - I believe the member for Katherine raised issues in relation to the accident investigation section within the police. I believe the member for Drysdale has raised important issues regarding police numbers and establishments within police stations. I know the member for Sanderson has raised very important issues in relation to community-based and school-based policing. Yet, was there one question from these particular members, through the Chief Minister and Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services to the commissioner? Not one.
I found that astounding, given the questions they ask here. One can draw a number of conclusions as to why these members did not ask questions about the issues they raise here continually. We will leave it up to them. Maybe they would like to explain after all the huff and puff they have had in here, why they did not ask questions of the commissioner when he was at the table and able to answer those questions. I have my own views and conclusions about that, but maybe they are the wrong views and conclusions. We will leave that to the commissioners-in-exile to speak about.
One issue raised by the member for Port Darwin was in relation to the Building the Education Revolution funding and the ability of school councils to undertake work in relation to the funding they may have received. Essentially, the question asked by the member for Port Darwin was about how school councils would carry through and tender out work in relation to some of these matters. The advice we have had - and I am speaking here as minister for procurement - is the Northern Territory government requires schools to observe the principles of the Northern Territory government procurement processes. The Building Education stimulus package requires major activity within very tight time frames, and this is designed to stimulate the economy and get the construction industry on the job very quickly.
The department decided to provide this funding directly to school councils for the National Pride component, which is up to $150 000, where schools have the capacity to manage this process and ensure we could meet the Commonwealth’s requirement. This is not a new experience for many schools which manage their own minor works projects from time to time, as well as building and equipment grants under the former federal government’s Investing in Our Schools program, which were entirely managed by schools. National Pride is approximately $15.5m of the total Building the Education Revolution package which will be in excess of $188m ...
Mr Elferink: Who carries the liability? That was the question.
Dr BURNS: I am coming to that. DET provides support materials and guidelines including specifications and templates for service orders and requesting quotes. Schools have been advised to ensure the number of quotes is relative to the amount of works; for example, under $15 000, one written quote, and over $15 000, three written quotes. Schools have been encouraged to seek quotes widely and to utilise the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to identify suppliers. Schools are well versed in the principles of procurement following governance training provided to school principals, administration, and business managers earlier this year. Advice and support has been provided on a case-by-case basis. To date, $4.1m has been approved for payment.
DET received advice of a supplier’s concern last week in relation to one project which is a school progressed via the Northern Territory government’s quotations online process. In this case, the school chose to use a Northern Territory government quotation online process to call for proposals to design and construct an outdoor dining/eating area. The documentation and methodology used by the school, together with information supplied at a comprehensive on-site briefing to which all existing suppliers were invited, provided sufficient details to allow suppliers to develop proposals and compete fairly and openly for the project work ...
Mr Elferink: Who carried the liablility? What is the answer?
Dr BURNS: What is being said here is that school councils …
Mr Elferink: You do not know.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Dr BURNS: … are being encouraged to use the government procurement process but we know there are some school councils which prefer to manage projects themselves. That has always been the case under this government and the previous government, to give school councils a degree of autonomy. In my electorate, for example, there are school councils …
Mr Elferink: So who carries the liability?
Dr BURNS: … which want to manage projects and will do so. There are other schools that are prepared to put these procurement processes within government hands. So the answer is simple. It is not new ...
Mr Elferink: Who carried the liablility?
Madam CHAIR: Cease interjecting, member for Port Darwin.
Dr BURNS: It occurred under the previous federal government and, basically this is a bit of a furphy being rolled out by the opposition in relation to this particular matter ...
Mr Elferink: Then answer it!
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, I have asked you to cease interjecting, please.
Dr BURNS: I was a bit amazed during the Chief Minister’s appearance; the whole theme, apart from fleas, was about the speeding tickets for on-duty policemen and breath testing. I will be very interested to read the responses but I would expect the frequency of those sorts of offences to be very small.
In my own portfolio area, I was glad to take all questions put before me. I thank members for the session I had with them on the other side of the table. During minister Knight’s appearance before the estimates, the member for Nelson expressed some concern that he was not getting a fair shake of the time allotted. In the end, he was able to ask some questions but he expressed the view that he felt the shadow minister had a pretty good run and that he should be able to ask more questions.
Regarding the instance referred to by the member for Port Darwin during the estimates session of my colleague, the Minister for Regional Development, it is spinning it a bit far to say I had a conflict of interest as Tourism Minister. The line of questioning was about the Tennant Creek Foundation; the funding for that comes through the minister’s portfolio. I had no direct conflict of interest. I did not ask any questions in relation to that. I did, however, raise a point of order. I felt it was a valid point of order because the member for Braitling accused the former member of Barkly, Mr Elliot McAdam, of being a Labor mate and benefiting from jobs for the boys through the Tennant Creek Foundation. He also went on to make a similar allegation about the former member for Sanderson, Mr Len Kiely, in his position with the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation.
We all play political games here and everyone is a fair mark; that is the game we are in. But there comes a time when it gets overdone, particularly with people who have left politics. From time to time we have to involve their names and their acts, or whatever they have done and have not done, in our debates. Life is hard enough once you have left politics. I have mentioned Stephen Dunham in here. I wish him no ill. He got a job with a federal government agency. Good luck to him. I wish him all the best in life. I did object to the way in which the member for Braitling raised those two people’s name in his question. I can see where the opposition is going, possibly with other people, and that is all fair enough, but I just felt it was just a bridge too far in terms of the former member for Barkly, whom we know has the interests of the Barkly at heart. That is his area. He wants to contribute, and he is doing that through the Tennant Creek Foundation.
I know the former member for Sanderson is endeavouring to do a good job at Maningrida with the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation. That is a very difficult job as well. I did object; it was through a point of order. I certainly did not ask questions, and I do not believe that it was a conflict of interest for me to do so.
Getting back to my own portfolios, I believe I was able to demonstrate that the department has a whole series of business programs to support business in the Northern Territory. The questions and challenges around apprenticeships, raised by the member for Fong Lim, were legitimate questions and that is something we need to attend to, particularly given the changes to federal funding in that regard. Another good issue raised by the member for Fong Lim was procurement and probity audits, and the Defence hub; and we are going to have continuing debates about Territory Discoveries.
Madam Chair, I was honoured to participate in the committee, and also to give evidence before the committee. I commend the Appropriation Bill to the House.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I acknowledge those hard-working support staff behind the Public Accounts Committee. They start early and continue all the way through and provide support. They should be acknowledged first of all.
I also acknowledge the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Having, until the last election, carried a load of large portfolios, as four members in the opposition did, it is quite taxing to spend that amount of time at the Public Accounts Committee. I recognise the load that was carried by the members of the Public Accounts Committee. It is quite considerable and, when it comes to the end, that is the end of a very large contribution in time and concentration. I commend the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I also commend the Chair; he did a fine job.
I also acknowledge the many public servants. We are a very connected community, and we all know public servants, and public servants have been mentioning the word ‘estimates’ for some time and they have been preparing. I acknowledge the hard work of those public servants who put a great deal of time and effort into ensuring the estimates process functioned as smoothly as it did. I also recognise that it is a thankless task in many respects - waiting all day, perhaps only to have your well-prepared responses not called for because of a lack of time, or because priorities have shifted or a particular output group has been skipped over. I acknowledge the hard work of those public servants, and particularly those who waited and did not have the opportunity to present. That possibility makes the efforts so many make all the more praiseworthy.
The reality that so many areas of the budget do not undergo estimates scrutiny should be the catalyst of a rethink on how the process works. This matter has been debated a number of times, and I guess it will continue to be. Perhaps the only and - in fact, it is not perhaps; I am convinced the only way the current government will understand the difficulties the opposition experiences in making use of the estimates process is if the existing process remains exactly as it is for a period of time if the current government forms an opposition. The bed that you describe as being so comfortable, you will sleep in and you will learn how difficult it is, particularly in the more complex areas such as that of the Chief Minister who has so many responsibilities to carry and to be scrutinised on. To have such a range of matters that, in their own right, warranted serious scrutiny, late at night, we developed line of questioning that would allow us to reach a conclusion.
It was simply not possible with 270 minutes for the Auditor-General, the Electoral Commission, the Ombudsman’s Office for starters and, then, there were Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Major Projects, Employment, Economic Development, Education and Training, Climate Change, Territory-Federal Relations, and Multicultural Affairs.
When you add all that together, and divide it up - and each of those, in their own right, warranted serious scrutiny, and 270 minutes could have been used on any one of those - that is just over 20 minutes each. Being late at night, with Education coming at the end, it was very difficult, particularly when you wanted to follow something through. It became a difficult task to make use of that process in the case of the Chief Minister and some of the other portfolios. There was the same time allocation for those later on in the week - exactly the same time allocation for portfolios with a significantly lighter load. That is not right.
The argument has been put that the system in place before, which was not called the estimates process, was a different process but it had the same effect. The questions were pursued until the point of exhaustion, literally, in some cases. However, you followed it all the way through. Globally, the time was about the same. That means you could put your resources and effort into certain portfolios, and not so much in the others. You had that flexibility to move, and there is a way of doing that. However, we can have that discussion at another time, because these same points have been made again and again. Again, it is that same issue.
The intent of this Labor government is to create impressions, but the issues of substance are of little regard. You create the impression that something special and good is occurring, and you pump that message out, but to heck with the substance of it. There are many questions that warrant serious answers, particularly in the nature of the process and its capacity to hold government appropriation to proper scrutiny. That simply is not possible, particularly in the key portfolios and, in this case, the Chief Minister’s. As a consequence, with the breadth and depth of the responsibilities there is very little time to employ in taking a forensic approach.
We had roughly 20 minutes to scrutinise an education system that is going backwards, despite ever-increasing amounts of public money being spent within it. We need to get past that mindset of Labor which constantly asserts that the expenditure of money is the result. That is delusional. It is the spend on projects and programs that produce results that need to be scrutinised for the estimates process. That is what it is about. Roughly 20 minutes of scrutinising the key portfolios for turning around entrenched disadvantage in the Territory is what education is about. It is often referred to in many statements and comments by government; that there is an opportunity – an opportunity not really made available by virtue of the structure of the system. Not satisfied with totally inadequate time of questioning, the Chief Minister even made sure that these matters were dealt with right out of the media cycle and late at night. I hope to see that, in the future, we can bring some of these portfolios into the light of day when he fronts estimates.
The Estimates Committee is very important as it is one of the few times the members of the opposition and Independents get a straight and timely answer to their questions. Knowledge is power, as they say. It improves the opposition’s scrutiny of the government. Increased scrutiny of government is good in itself, and for democracy. It also should improve the quality of government’s performance.
I commend my parliamentary colleagues on the work they have put in, in preparation for estimates, for the first time. They have done exceptionally well for a first time. It has been less than a year since they left their other endeavours and occupations and come into this challenging role. They have acquitted themselves exceptionally well for their first time. I remember my first time and how difficult it was. They have done very well. We also, as an opposition, learn much through the process. We learn how the system works and how we could work better with that system. As the Opposition Leader, previously we had a very small opposition and it was easier to manage our timetable and our structure, and the balance between different portfolios, because there was only a few of us to work with. Now, we have a large team - and I am very grateful for the team that the Territory has given me - and we have prepared well for this process. We have worked well through it and we are going to learn much from it - not just in the way it works, but in the material that has been harvested. It is not just a matter of scoring points on the day - and a number of those were scored - but it is about the information that we are able to gain and digest to better equip us for our role as parliamentarians.
I commend my parliamentary colleagues for the outstanding work that they put in, and I believe a very high standard was achieved; particularly, in this case, I refer to the new members.
The knowledge that direct questions may be asked on a decision to spend public money should inform the quality of that decision-making. It is very important. I acknowledge that is not always the case. The opposition was particularly interested in how much money this government is spending – wasting - on political propaganda. That is a genuine concern, if you do get out there. I know, even in my own community, this very night, there are some serious challenges that are concerning me in one particular area.
We can have all sorts of exciting talks about political strategies, game playing, point scoring and debating points, but there are very real issues out there. There is very serious money being spent on programs and, as members who represent people across the Territory, we are desperate for real change and improvement. There is something occurring in my own electorate tonight which I am concerned about. I want to see improvement and change and that is what this is about. The information harvest is particularly useful, and the scrutiny is critical to ensure that we get past that ludicrous idea that spending money is the result. It is not. The results should be seen in the lives of people who are affected positively by the programs we put in place.
One of the virtues of the estimates system is, being concerned about the amount of political propaganda, we can assert all sorts of things but we get the capacity to test. When tested, the Chief Minister made the ludicrous claim that he did not have anything at all to do with the avalanche of propaganda that flows out of his department - nothing at all; he did not know anything about it. He said that he sees the glossy brochures for the very first time - he said this - when they appear in his letterbox. Astonishing! Or he happens to be watching television and on comes an ad: ‘Well, blow me down. There is me on TV’. He made that claim - incredible! Or when he happens to hear it on the radio; or when it booms out of a car when he is being driven around the place.
The utter nonsense on taxpayer-funded propaganda reached a crescendo when the Chief Minister finally admitted that all decisions regarding advertising were, in fact, made by the Communications Advisory Committee, a committee he claimed he had never heard of. That is despite the fact that his Chief of Staff and Director of Communications sits on this committee. Despite the fact that this committee approves the use of his image on a daily basis and, most telling of all, despite the fact this committee used to report directly to the Cabinet Communications Committee, of which he is the Chair.
The Chief Minister found himself in a position denying the existence of any link between advertising and his knowledge of such advertising. That is an astonishing claim. It was corrected on the floor, and if we did not have that kind of scrutiny, you could say or do whatever you like. Fortunately, we have this capacity, a brief window, with the Chief Minister to bring some of those things to light. The Chief Minister expects us to believe he has never heard of a committee that reported directly to him on the expenditure of millions of dollars designed to boost his re-election chances. Well, pigs might fly.
Estimates uncovered many other important facts. Just a sample: we found out students are being suspended from our school system at a disastrous rate. We saw the Chief Minster attempt - and make a very gallant attempt - to obstruct the questions about how often police are called out to our schools. Anyone who was there saw the extraordinary effort the Chief Minister went to in his attempt to block the acceptance of that question. We discovered that child protection services in Central Australia remain shamefully understaffed. We saw a Health Minister answer so few questions he may as well have not turned up. We heard from the proxy Health Minister about chronic bed block in our hospitals. We found out about dismal efforts in prisoner rehabilitation which results in the Territory having the highest rate of recidivism in the country. We discovered the dismal failure of the alcohol courts and found out paying court fines is optional in the Northern Territory.
When Labor came to office, the Territory government’s nett debt and unfunded superannuation liabilities were less than $3bn. In 2011-12 that figure will be $6bn or $26 000 per man, woman and child in the Northern Territory. It is woeful that this Labor government has managed to allow law and order to disintegrate, school results to go backwards, and thousands of Indigenous kids to drift even further from the rest of society – while doubling debt.
That is a debt that has been hung around the necks of Territorians - not a squeak about debt reduction strategy. Believable or not, at least the federal Labor government has named 2022 as the date it will pay off its accumulated debt. Remember, the federal government’s debt is significantly lower on a per-capita basis than that created by Territory Labor.
I thank all the people who helped out photocopying papers, checking questions were correctly marked; as well as all the officers of the departments, including the ministers, who came along well prepared for these estimates. We need to work through this Estimates Committee a little better than at the moment, not so much because I do not always get a chance to ask certain departments questions, but you have all these departmental staff working for weeks and weeks before estimates, and they come along and they sit there and are never asked a question. Just from that point of view, we need to have some changes, because that is a waste of time. There may be some benefits internally for the department; they might find that they found some things that they did not know existed. If we want people in our public service to work efficiently, then we need to make an opportunity for those people to have a chance to bring forward the information they have gathered for estimates and not be left at 10.55 pm wondering why the heck they turned up.
We did not cover everything we would have liked. I do think we have to weight the department more than we weight the minister. Departments like Lands and Planning, and Health, Education, and Police, Fire and Emergency need a heavier weighting than, perhaps, Sport. I have nothing against Sport, but having sat through most of the estimates, you can tell the difference between stretching the questions out and, when you have a serious subject, how people tend to hone in when they know that there are more important issues than some of the lighter subjects we have to discuss. That is not putting Sport down at all, but anyone who looks at the work that is done in parliament knows that the big issues are about health, education, Indigenous issues, and law and order.
My suggestion, for what it is worth - and I know it is probably not likely to get anywhere - is that we have three extra days put on the parliamentary sitting timetable this year. I actually believe they are a waste of time. We would be better to work to 10 pm or 11 pm and scrap those three days. I would prefer those three days to be days we could use as part of the Estimates Committee. They are three days that already exist for estimates. While it is in the committee stage, it really is still part of parliament, and we are working for the benefit of the people of the Northern Territory. We may be different to other states in the hours we put forward in estimates but, when you consider the time, most ministers only have four-and-a-half hours. Well, it is only a morning. I could drive to Katherine and come part way back in that time; it is not the end of the world.
I believe that, once a year, we really put our heart and soul into questioning the government. I put that in a way that is not political, even though there is a reasonable amount of politics raised during the estimates but, simply, because this estimates process is one of the best processes that the Northern Territory government has. We have a unicameral parliament. We do not have a second House that can scrutinise legislation and issues that arise from this House, so those other areas of scrutiny - for instance, the committee stage when we are discussing legislation, and the Estimates Committee - are the most important times for this parliament.
I ask the government to consider moving those three days on Mondays, which again, if we moved our sitting hours to 10 pm or 11 pm, would not be necessary, so we could use those three days, if needed, to debate matters regarding the estimates.
As I said before we started the estimates, I ‘enjoy’ estimates, and I put that in inverted commas - there are various forms of enjoyment in life …
A member: You are a very sad man.
Mr WOOD: I am a very sad man. However, it can be a very interesting time, and a very boring time sometimes on some subjects. I do not want the opposition to have too much in this. I realise many of the opposition people are having their first time on estimates, but you do not want to turn up with 100 questions. I know most of the opposition turned up with a wad of questions - I saw it all there - and away they went. Well, it did not seem to matter about the clock. I believe you have to tighten those questions up to be more specific, and sometimes combine the questions so the minister can give a multiple answer ...
A member: There was a lot of that.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is true. However, time is precious. I know it is precious as I heard people saying: ‘I cannot ask any more questions there because time is of the essence’. Of course it is of the essence. Even on this side we have to hone our questions. We have to be relevant. Also, the public wants questions they can relate to. I know we get tied up with some very technical questions.
The member for Drysdale was talking about the issue of power running through the back - whether I agree or disagree with the people in Marlows Lagoon, that is irrelevant. However, it is an issue people want to hear about. There were other issues. The member for Port Darwin mentioned a couple of local issues, and I did the same thing. Although in estimates there can be a technical side, if you want to keep people’s interest, they want to hear how much that piece of road cost to build and whether it kept within the budget. That is what they want to know; whether the money was spent well. That is what estimates is all about. It is also about policy: ‘Why did he build that road there?’ ‘Why did it fall down?’ ‘Did you put it in the right place?’ That is our job and I believe it is important. Madam Chair, I put that to the House tonight.
Another issue that came up - and I do not know how government is going do this - this is the book which has all the departments in. It does not relate to the ministers. I will give you an example. Regarding the Community Benefit Fund, when it came to the Justice section, they said: ‘It is not in our department’. I might have gone to Business or somewhere. Anyway, when we got to them, they said: ‘It is not our business, it belongs to Justice’. The poor person waiting to talk about Community Benefit Fund got nowhere.
Last night I raised the issue of IT policy …
A member: ICT stuff.
Mr WOOD: Yes, the communication section. The policy section is with Karl Hampton, the Minister for Central Australia. The IT bit, the technical stuff like the mainframe, whether your computers are working, is the responsibility of the member for Johnston. How am I supposed to know that reading this book? In fact, there does not seem to be a budget for the Minister for Central Australia. There is a policy section, the blood and guts section in this book, but I could not tell you there were two different ministers for it. I do not know how to get around it. Why can the minister not have a department and all these departmental things in the budget under his name? The Minister for Central Australia has other things. The Minister for Transport has part of Lands and Planning. He is also part of Justice because he has Correctional Services. It makes it a bit hard when you are trying to work out who is who and what is what, especially when you only have one chance to ask the question because, if you go past that section in the timetable, then you cannot return. That is another area that could do with improvement.
Terry Hanley does a terrific job trying to get that in some form of order, but the real problem is the way we lay out our departments and the way the ministers have various portfolios and, sometimes, sections are not in their portfolio but in someone else’s portfolio, but they are under their name.
Madam Chair, once again, I thank everybody who participated in the Estimates Committee. It raised many issues. The hard part now is to go back and look at the answers to the questions. That will raise more questions in parliament during the year. Thank you, estimates people. That is all I have to say.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, my comments will be brief in regard to estimates. It was an overall interesting exercise. I do not think we got as much information as was wanted or needed for us to take back to our constituents. I was particularly concerned reading the transcript regarding the minister for Planning and her comments on the proposed Noonamah gaol. What concerns me with regard to that project - and I have expressed these concerns previously - was the complete lack of consultation with Litchfield Shire Council and the community in that area. The government and the department have had extensive correspondence and discussions with the Department of Defence on this proposed site for the gaol, but they find it not necessary or needed to consult with the Litchfield Shire Council or the community in regards to the location of this gaol.
It was also concerning to me that the minister for Corrections was not quite sure what the actual capacity of this gaol was - whether it was 800 or 1000 people. Also, the detail in regard to development of an environmental impact statement and assessment for this proposed project was a little wanting. I believe it has been done in haste, and I do not believe it has really been thought through carefully. I have spoken previously about some of the private residents who live near this proposed facility. Some of their issues have been allayed, not by the minister so much, but from the work of the departmental officials.
In regard to the Berrimah Farm area and the relocation of the gaol, the information provided by the government and the minister was sadly lacking. In particular, the current environmental work that is being done - I believe the figure that was stated was $90 000 for the consultancy. I know consultancy work from my previous time in industry, and $90 000, I believe, is a desktop study which is the first step in trying to analyse and work out exactly what the issues are with that site in regards to contamination. I do not want to detract from the work of the consultants, but $90 000 is not much money to work out exactly what any potential problems of contamination are with that site.
I noticed also that the minister could not answer the question of where the 44 gallon drum of arsenic-contaminated material is located. It is not in regard to something dubbed the poison paddock; it is a drum that is buried on the site. The minister, obviously, does not know about that, and did not seem particularly concerned.
I also noted that the issue of the pet crematorium located on Makagon Road was raised by my colleague, the member for Braitling. I believe the ministers’ comments were very concerning; that they know about it and that she would be taking the matter to her Cabinet. That sends alarm bells ringing in my head. I am not sure if it is a conflict of interest, but I do have an interest in this kind of industry as I am a co-owner in a similar type of business venture, a pet cemetery. I know these business people have worked hard to get that business established in that area. I would not like to see some kind of prohibition of conducting that business, because if it is the crematorium today, it could be the pre-cast concrete business, or the welding business, or the sand blasting business, or the panel beating business - which shows that this site the government has chosen as a residential estate is far from satisfactory.
It is located between two major roads. It is adjacent to the flight path, which not only is a busy flight path from a domestic and international point of view, but also military exercises. The minister’s replies in regards to the Berrimah Farm and what has been going on there were sadly lacking.
I was also very concerned regarding a question I put to the minister for Environment about whether the government had started negotiations or any form of discussion on Uluru and Kakadu National Parks, and what would happen to them on the grant of statehood. Her answer was, and I quote: ‘Not on our agenda’. Yes, we know that states have national parks in them. My question to the minister was to inquire as to what consideration has actually been undertaken regarding the management of those parks and the standing of those parks. Quite obviously, the minister for the Environment is not concerned about two rather important recreational parks, and also the management of the parks. The fact that they are substantial land masses, indicates to me that, upon the grant of statehood, the minister is quite happy for the Commonwealth to continue to control large parts of our land mass.
One item the minister did comment on - and I did hear this correctly, and I have checked the Hansard and I believe it is about two weeks to the end of the financial year. I asked questions as to the water tank rebate that was announced for Central Australia, including the Tennant Creek region, which I agree with and applaud. Could the government not consider extending this to all of the Northern Territory, given that the minister had talked about sustainability, the need to conserve waters, and the need to get our consumption levels down? The comment I received was ‘Yes, the water tank rebate program will be offered across the Territory from the new financial year’. The minister did not say it was the 2008-09 financial year. I am assuming it is this financial year she is talking about and not some time in the future. I continue the quote: ‘At the moment we are determining the details of the best and most attractive way to roll out such a scheme’. If the minister is correct, honest and forthright in what she was saying, then, I take from that the government is looking to have a rainwater tank scheme for all of the Northern Territory starting somewhere in the new financial year. If it is true, I will be writing to the minister and having discussions with her office, because it is an important initiative. I did not see any figures in the budget in regard to a potential scheme across all of the Northern Territory.
Madam Chair, I will limit my comments to that. I will take up some of the other comments at another time. I extend my note of appreciation and thanks to the committee, the staff - departmental as well as parliamentary and Legislative Assembly staff - in making the Estimates Committee what it was.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I enjoyed this process. The member for Johnston might consider this funny; that it reminds of the days when I was a police officer. It was very much formulating an interview of a panel and then scrutinising it to find out where the truth and lies or other misdemeanours are hidden. However, I was very surprised by certain parts of it.
I had a great many questions that went unanswered. You can list a whole list of reasons why they were not able to be answered or even asked. I will have to side with people who have said before that this is a very good opportunity for the government to show open and accountable status. It could have expanded the time frames in which questioning was done. That would have allowed a much better scrutiny across the board of government and how they are going. It is a shame that is not done and I would like to see something changed in the future.
I thank all the departmental staff. No matter where they are, they are not of a political persuasion in the sense that they are not sitting before this committee or any other committee as elected members. They put in a lot of hours, put up with ministers and other people screaming: ‘Where is this? We want that. We need that now’, and go through a lot more stress than some of the ministers. I commend them for the fantastic and extremely hard work they have put in over the weeks and months leading up to this. They have, without a doubt, done a fantastic job. Testament to that is when everyone comes to the table and there are massive volumes of folders. You notice there are people behind with the same volume of folders again, with different information. It shows the true dedication of the departmental staff in different agencies. I commend them for their great work.
It is a concern that whilst participating in this process, I was exposed to the lack of knowledge held by certain ministers. The number of times a minister was unable to answer the question and had to pass it off; sometimes it was like a broken record: ‘I refer to, I pass to’. Sometimes, it was constant. Some ministers were far worse off than others. Some people say I had an easy run; Sport and Rec is easy, but there are problems in every area.
Every minister has certain responsibilities. Part of those responsibilities is getting a very solid handle on the information they are responsible for. It is about responsibility. When a minister, paid in that role and elected to do that duty, cannot answer certain questions and consistently has to refer to someone else for something - if you just look at Hansard you can see the number of times questions were referred to advisors or CEOs - it astonished me. I was astonished at the lack of knowledge and understanding of these ministers in their portfolios. I know what I have been doing, and have been given guidance to do in my time since being elected. The hours we work - and I know these guys work as well - and I put in to ensure that I have the best understanding possible without four or five advisors per portfolio, shows an extreme difference to the understanding of these guys.
When I listened to the level of defence put up by the member for Wanguri when questioned on the police responding to incidents at schools, surely, instead of being defensive of this, he should have been concerned. He should have been concerned that police have even been called to schools. He should have wanted to know and, in fact, he should have known, how many times police have been called into schools, and how vitally important it is to ensure that our students in our schools are safe, and our teachers are safe. No, he wanted to defend it; he wanted to defend it like he had not defended any other point until that time. Yet, to his horror, the commissioner had already accepted the question on notice. The commissioner did the right thing. The commissioner said: ‘Yes, no worries, it is not that hard’. The commissioner has an understanding of his system. He knows where to grab the data, and we have discussed that before. He knows how to get it and he knows it is not that hard. Yet, the Chief Minister was saying: ‘I do not want to waste his time; it is going to be a huge amount of time’. The Chief Minister has no understanding of the police department or of the PROMIS system - and that showed. I know members of the Northern Territory Police Force will laugh at the fact that he thought it was going to take ages, because the system is an information database which shows, in very quick time, all this data.
I could have gone in there myself with the appropriate passwords, etcetera, and started pulling data up within minutes, to the point that, within a very short time, we would have had the answers we wanted. When this was pointed out to the Chief Minister, and a few other things, he sat down and shut up, because he knew he was wrong. He knew that he was resisting something that was vitally important to every single parent or carer, every teacher, every student of these schools: that there should be an understanding of what is happening in these schools.
It was very poignant, when we went to the Education section, we found that so many students had been suspended from school this year alone, and there had been such a high level of assaults against teachers. No wonder he was defending so vigorously. No wonder, because he did know something. He was not as blind as I thought he was. He knew that there was something to hide: a failure on his behalf to deal with crime in the Northern Territory, to get serious and rehabilitate offenders so that they do not re-offend; to the best of our ability to rehabilitate a person. That was obvious in the Corrections field, and it just continues.
The lack of knowledge of ministers was amazing. When we went to the Arts sector, I give a bit of grace to the minister for Arts, because she has only just recently taken up the portfolio. I know she has gone through some staff changes, so give a bit of grace there, but she is an artist, so she should have had a feeling of what was going on in and around the industry. She should have had some better understanding. It was probably lucky that I did not have enough time to ask more than about five questions on that, in an area where I had many more.
It was a shame, though, that the sector that has such a high carbon output is not doing more to engage in solar power. I have urged that they do engage in that process; and I hope that they take that on board with the best intent which is, of course, to lower our carbon footprint where it really is achievable. If we can reduce the amount of diesel that is burned to power the Territory, that will make a difference.
It concerned me that the current Sports minister had so many problems answering any question - an absolute failure to even understand his portfolio. You do not have to be an Einstein to shake hands with people, introduce yourself, and have a normal conversation with them, find out what their real problems are and what is going on. Surely, he has had enough events to shake hands with a few people and make the right decision and not wear one code of clothing when going to another peak code such as soccer - not only an embarrassment but an insult.
The minister, in my first 10 questions, was unable to answer six of those questions and had to place them on notice. He tried to wash them away as if they were not important - he could not understand certain things. However, if you do not have any understanding of the outputs of your portfolios, how can you justify what is going on within them? How can you justify your spend? How do you know where to invest that money to ensure that you are getting an output? Quantifiable outputs are easy enough to obtain if you are asking the right questions. They are not hard to achieve. How do you know where to put the next program if you are not asking the right questions?
It comes back to the same thing of asking those questions about schools. Should we be reinvesting in school-based policing in a much greater scale? From some of the results we got in this estimates process – yes, we should because there are some problems we need to look harder. However, if you take the lead of the Chief Minister, you will hide behind a mirror of events.
When I moved to the portfolio of Information, Communications and Technology, the very wording of the portfolio gives you an indication that communications is part of it, technology is part of it, and information is part of it. The minister, quite gladly, accepted part of it to do with broadband, but went so far as to gloat over the federal government’s attempted input into the national broadband plan of which, mind you, there is not much of a plan as yet. It is, perhaps, just another glossy brochure to say: ‘We are going to do it’. But are you going to do it? He was unable to answer the questions on how he intends to join the Northern Territory with the national broadband network.
We already know that it will go to 90% of Australians – that has been said. So, there must be a plan starting to go forward from this government for the future governments of the Territory to join in the rest of Australia with this broadband plan. We must have these linkages; we must be planning and looking ahead. You cannot sit back in your armchair in your little office and say: ‘Sorry, that is not our problem; that is a federal one’. Every person in the Territory will want to have their Internet connection.
Then, when I moved on to the telephone network, some members of the panel could not stop giggling and carrying on. I found it amazing that they did not have the maturity to behave themselves in such a manner and I was quite offended by their lack of maturity.
The Minister for Information, Communications and Technology said: ‘Telephones, that is not my problem. Mobile phone coverage is not my issue’. What does ‘communications’ mean? Does that mean he is responsible for people openly talking and saying: ‘Hello. How are you?’ ‘That is my responsibility?’ No. It means our communication network and the minister failed to take any responsibility for the telecommunications network. Was he even worried when the Northern Territory lost telecommunications a few months back? I know I was. I chased down the responsible carrier and asked: ‘Hey, what is going on?’ I personally knocked on their door and said: ‘Talk to me right now. I want to know what is going on because I know the public will want to know what is going on with their phone network system’. Yet, the Northern Territory minister with responsibility for it, said yesterday: ‘No, that is not my problem. The phone network systems, the mobile phones, that is not my problem. It is federal’.
He was quite happy to take ownership of a joint venture for fibre optic to Nhulunbuy and beyond - a joint venture. Can we not do some other joint ventures? ‘No, sorry. That is not my problem. I do not have that responsibility’. Minister, you are responsible. All the ministers are responsible ...
A member: Not in that government, they are not.
Mr BOHLIN: Not in this government, it would seem. You are responsible. You are to know what is going on. You must work hard at it. That is why you are elected: to work hard for the people of the Northern Territory.
I then moved this minister to the digital roll-out. It does not take you long talking to people or reading a few newspapers to understand that there are problems with digital roll-out. There are problems and our communities will need support from the government, local government, or someone, to take some responsibility because the federal government does not even have a proper plan to complete the roll-out of digital television. I tell you, everyone will sit down and watch the V8 Supercars on television. Everyone will sit down and watch the AFL Grand Final. Everyone will watch their Rugby, their State of Origin. But if it is up to this minister, there will not be television coverage. There will not be digital television anywhere and, in 2013, when the federal government demands that it is turned off because they want to clear up the bandwidth space, there will be no television coverage in any of our communities along any of our highways, because he is not concerned with it. He has not even got himself across the problems.
Minister, you are responsible. The public demand of you to be responsible because they want to be able to have their televisions. They want to be able to have reception come to their televisions. They want to be able to pick up their mobile phone or their landline and know that it will work. They want to have part and parcel of a brilliant broadband network within Australia when it is delivered. You have responsibilities as ministers.
I am ashamed to think that so many have failed to even get themselves across some of their portfolios. When it came hard on one particular sporting arena for this minister, he ducked and weaved and, hidden behind advisors and said: ‘They have it in hand. Yes, no worries’. Well guess what? You are the minister. You are responsible. You are to stand up for Territorians whenever you are called to do so, whenever you need to understand what you are doing as a minister. Guess what? That is every single day that you wake up whilst you are an elected member of this parliament. It is shameful that so many ministers honestly have very little knowledge of their portfolios.
I am extremely proud of our team on this side, the opposition. We have put in so much effort in getting across portfolios so we have an understanding of what is going on. We are out there talking to the Northern Territory public, finding out what the concerns are, talking to the stakeholders, knowing where we need to go for the direction of the future because this Territory needs to have a direction for the future. Under this current government there is no direction – you have no leadership; you have no control. You have ministers who would rather bully then get on with proper leadership.
Madam Chair, I thank you for your time. I thank those who were involved in doing their estimates and all the staff behind them because they have done a great job. They were long nights and I thank everyone involved.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I thank the member for Johnston for his compliments earlier on. It was the first round of estimates for many on this side of the House. I dare say I could easily refer to the member for Johnston as an old sock when it comes to these sorts of things, so that adds a bit of weight to his compliments.
I also thank the senior public servants and all the public servants who assisted during the estimates process. It was heartening to see so many of them really did know what they were talking about and had a great deal of information to hand. They were genuinely engaged in providing the opposition with answers to questions, some of which were quite difficult ones. It highlighted to me that if not for the skills and knowledge of senior public servants who sit beneath the ministers, the ministers would simply have no idea what on earth they are talking about when it comes to their portfolios.
I was extremely surprised to not hear what the ministers had to say. There were so many questions deferred to the senior public servants that it gave me the impression - and I believe it to be true - that the ministers simply do not know what on earth is going on in their own portfolio areas. It beggars belief that people who have been elected by the people of the Northern Territory to positions that ostensibly make decisions about every aspect of life here, are working in those positions and, at best, are not well versed in what they should know about and, at worst, blatantly ignorant. Congratulations to the senior public servants who propped up the ministers on this occasion. I dare say it has happened in the past that ministers have required this type of assistance, but I must stress that I was just blown away by how little ministers were able to answer themselves.
The member for Johnston talked about some issues people on this side of the House raised and, in particular, he referred to the member for Drysdale and me; he is calling us the commissioners-in-exile which, I might add, police officers find offensive. You said it several times and that does not seem to bother you. That is entirely a matter for you. He said he suspected he knew but he would not say what he knew. He was politely asking it through an interjection but he knew why we did not mention some of the issues that were raised publicly in the past. The simple answer to that is there was not enough time.
For my shadow portfolio of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, I had about 20 minutes to get through the questions that I wanted to and, of course, that was never going to be enough time. I do not take away anything from the member for Greatorex, the shadow minister for Health. Health is an enormously important portfolio.
I know the member for Nelson also mentioned that the opposition needs to fine-tune its approach to estimates, but let me say this: if an elected member of the opposition in the Northern Territory believes that a question needs to be asked, then, by crikey, that question does need to be asked. The members who are on this side of the House represent - and I pointed it out before - more than 50% of the actual population of the Northern Territory. I dare say, given the government’s abysmal performance, there are many more than just 50% of the people of the Northern Territory who would like to know the answers to those questions.
If a member of the Legislative Assembly finds that there are 150 or 200 questions within the Health portfolio to ask the Minister for Health, then those questions need to be asked. I take nothing away from any of the members who might be criticised by anyone else for exceeding some phantom time limit. The fact is there just simply was not enough time.
I imagine the time limits and the way the estimates process is set up was concocted by the government. With their weight of numbers on the PAC, it might as well be the government. It is, obviously, designed to limit the amount of time each member on this side of the House has in dealing with the most important portfolios.
The member for Johnston criticised the Leader of the Opposition a short time ago, too, for talking about fleas in the watch-house. He can be as flippant as he likes about it, but it is an important issue, and so are all the issues that members of this House raise. It shows the people of the Northern Territory that we are thinking about all of the issues that affect them. The Labor government is failing in its duty to the people of the Northern Territory in so many areas.
Madam Chair, I did not get much time to talk about Primary Industry and Fisheries. There were many questions I wanted to raise, and I will probably raise them through questions on notice.
One of the things I have noticed about this government is the lack of emphasis they place on the very important primary industry sector in the Northern Territory. In the budget, Primary Industry rates a standard mention, I suppose, but there is nothing exceptional in there - nothing that indicates to people of the Northern Territory, or people who might come to the Northern Territory and bring their investment dollars with them, that this government is supporting primary industries.
I cannot find one word of the Ord Stage 2. I would like to know from the government - and I daresay I will put it on as a question on notice - what this government is doing, or what has this government done, to further Ord Stage 2? I can tell you that they have done just a shade shy of nothing, as evidenced by people I spoke to in Kununurra a little while ago, who said to me: ‘What is the NT government doing?’ Those people should have known if the government was doing anything, because I imagine they would have been contacted. I know that one of the Director of Regional Development went there and spoke with an Aboriginal organisation, but that is as much as I can glean as far as what is being done for Ord Stage 2.
I would like to know what time lines this government has in preparing the Northern Territory to tack on to the enormous efforts being put in by the Western Australian government in furthering Ord Stage 2. The Western Australian government will further the irrigation main channel up to the Northern Territory border. It will put in roads, and it will put in power. It will facilitate the planning of Ord Stage 2 to capitalise on the enormous potential of that area. Yet, we hear absolutely zip from this Northern Territory government in relation to it.
I wanted to raise the issue of the closure of Fog Bay with the minister. It is a shame that the Northern Territory government, the current Labor government, has not pushed the process of legislative reform of the Fisheries Act. This has been on the agenda for years, and still sits on the backburner. I have been advised that the rewrite of the act is still some time away because there is just too much other work to do. Yet, the minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries decided to, in my humble opinion, errantly use his powers under section 26 of that act to close Fog Bay. In effect, because there was no other option available to punish the commercial fisherman who was caught with a by-catch of sawfish, he decided to punish that person and everyone else who fished in that area by closing Fog Bay.
I do not agree with what that the commercial fisherman did. That was an unfortunate by-catch of sawfish. I would like to know whether sawfish are endangered in Fog Bay. To have an emergency, as the act says, there should be information on the number of sawfish before you could figure that there was an emergency. Anyway, what it comes back to is that this government’s lack of foresight and planning in having the Fisheries Act rewrite has meant that the minister had no alternative but to, as I say in my opinion, errantly use those powers.
Madam Chair, I thank the Minister for Local Government for some of his candid responses to questions on local government. I remember the context of it was that I was talking about business activity statements for the shires, and whether any had been late. I was heading towards whether any of the shires had been fined for late submissions of their business activity statements. I can put my hand on my heart and say that I did not actually know - I knew that at least one had. I did not know which shire had been fined. However, I thank the minister for hanging his Roper Gulf Shire out to dry by saying that they had been fined $3000 for late submission of their business activity statement.
The other part of the discussion on local government in estimates was about the implementation of the new shire process. The legislation, the new Local Government Act, was rushed through parliament so that, basically, nothing was ready for the implementation of the new shires, including the IT systems. I asked the minister whether the IT systems had been tested under any operational conditions prior to 1 July 2008. Dr David Ritchie said they had not because operational conditions had not existed. However, I can advise that there are ways of doing dummy tests on IT systems such as that, and particularly if those IT systems support finances and payroll. The nett result of that was that there were a number of shire employees who, after 1 July 2008 as a result of the IT systems not working properly, did not get paid. I thought having your employees paid properly and on time would be the highest of the highest priorities for this government, to ensure the smooth transition from the old system to the new system. They failed dismally.
I also canvassed what was happening as far as inputting - I might stand corrected on that. Perhaps I did not get to those questions. I was going to canvass where the shires were up to as far as getting ready for the end of financial year. I have been told over many months now, since August last year, that there were no systems put in place to facilitate inputting of data from the old community government councils and progress associations. Metaphorically, I suppose you could say, there was a shoebox full of receipts dumped in each shire and the shires then had to take responsibility for data input of all the prior expenditure of the community government councils. They had to take care of acquittals for grants for the previous community government councils. Basically, they were left with a great box of ‘do-do’ that they had to fix up.
I take my hat off to all the shire staff. They have been given a dog, basically. They were given a sick dog and told to make it work …
A member: With fleas.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … and what they have done - with fleas, and probably got them from the Darwin watch-house. They were delivered a dog on 1 July 2008 and were told to fix it. They had to go and do it and that is what they have done. Slowly, but surely, they are getting there, so good on them. Shame on the Labor government of the Northern Territory for putting those people in that position. They should never have been given that work to do which was, no doubt, outside the scope of what they had expected. Then, their first or second pays were not even paid to them because of glitches in an IT system which had never been tested under operational conditions because the whole thing was rushed through.
I was disappointed with the overall estimates process. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned before that this government has pretty well made its own bed as far as that goes. I dare say that they can expect to feel the same pressure when the tide is turned and the shoe is on the other foot.
That is about all I need to say in relation to this budget. It is a shallow document. It goes into quite a lot of detail but it really does not go to addressing the many issues that this Northern Territory faces. Much of it is window dressing, and repeating all the same mistakes that have been made before. Recently, I used this quote, and I will use it again. Albert Einstein said: ‘One of the definitions of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result each time’. That is what this government is doing. It lacks any depth, vision, and a strategic approach. Everything it seems to do is a knee-jerk reaction. I believe Northern Territorians deserves a whole lot better than they are getting out of the current government.
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the estimates process. Being involved in something for the first time ever is always a bit daunting, but there were many lessons to be learned through the process. Those lessons will benefit me next year in preparation for the estimates process. Life is about a journey, so you better enjoy the journey because the end is not that good.
In starting off, I thank the Chair, and those who sat in when the Chair ducked out for a wee walk. He did a fabulous job. It is a long process and to sit all day and listen intently must have been a difficult thing. The other people I thank are the government staff who go to a great deal of trouble in preparing for this process. On this side of the House, I know how much time each of the members put in, talking to stakeholders, and spending time researching. The same must go for government, albeit on a much larger scale. When you break that down to the hourly cost of employees, it must cost Territorians tens and tens of thousands of dollars, if not a lot more.
That is where you could question how effective the process is in delivering a decent outcome for Territorians. I do not say that lightly because it is very important how people prepare. However, when the process breaks down and you are not given the opportunity to explore further or delve deeper into each of these departments, then we are not getting a good return for the money expended. I have learned it is a frustrating process. You can have hundreds of questions but some of those questions often, as the member for Nelson said earlier, can cover different ministries, and different government departments. You are sometimes left in limbo in where to focus that question. Sometimes, you go to ask a question and are told no, that is a different department or a different minister’s responsibility. It goes against some of the headings.
I will pick one: sustainable environment. That should cover everything including planning for the future energy needs and, yet, it does not. Parks and reserves: I would have expected that the actual reserve part of Manton Dam where people ski and use their wake boards would come under parks and reserves but, apparently, it comes under Power and Water. It makes it very difficult to find where certain questions should be slotted. The process is also frustrating from the point of view that there are a number of output groups to get through in a very short time, given the information you are trying to cover. That will change the way I will be preparing next year.
I offer a solution, and it is one I hope that the government seriously considers. This is taking account of the money it must cost government to prepare for estimates. Perhaps each of the opposition and Independent members are able to provide questions, similar to on notice, three months before estimates. Any questions the government is not prepared to answer or cannot answer, they are the ones that we then focus on during estimates. So, instead of having hundreds of people working in government departments researching information, in the hope that particular question will be asked - I would say, in 99.9% of the cases when you look at the reams of folders and sheets of information the government had on their side, every question they found answers to certainly did not get asked during the process. I suppose I am thinking logically here. It is a better way to focus the money that this must cost government while, at the same time, answer some of the questions that come from this side of the House, including the Independents.
On that subject of the questions that are asked, I often found in my time I worked for different government departments, not just as an opposition member or a member of the Legislative Assembly, that you can break complaints down to two main streams. The first, you have the person who comes in and they have an issue, they have a problem. When you drill down, you actually find that they have created the problem themselves, or they have done something wrong. I suppose they have come to you to get a little protection. As I said, when you drill down, you are often left telling these people that they are, in this case, their own worst enemy and, perhaps, they need to sort this out themselves.
The other thing that comes to light, which is clear in opposition, is the fact that people, including from businesses, will come to an electorate office about a government process they have been involved in that, perhaps, is tainted somewhat. They are the important ones. They are the questions the estimates process really should be used to drill down, to be able to find whether everything that has occurred has been above board.
I am not saying that in all cases things have gone wrong. It may be that a business has lost out on a tender, for instance, and they think that the process was tainted. Through an estimates process, we could drill down and find out that, no, in fact, the process was correct, but this particular business lost out on some technicality, and that is fine. However, it is the ones that you do find that things have not gone quite the way they should, or a decision was made on information that was not quite right. To me, that is where an estimates process would be invaluable; to drill down to that level to ensure that everyone in this House is doing the right thing for Territorians.
Getting back to a process that I believe would be a solution is where you can imagine - and I will use some easy numbers here - if each of us had 100 questions on each of the departments that we put through to government three months before the estimates process, like questions on notice. The government then provides those answers, and the ones they do not want to provide, or cannot provide for whatever reason, then narrows it down to, say, 20%. That is what we would be spending the time in estimates on - those areas where it is our job to prosecute the government and drill down to the levels that are required to get the answers.
That would save so much money from the government’s point of view – in the preparation in that process that goes on behind the scenes. There are many hours put in by many people, all working for the government and on the government payroll. If their time was spent focusing on finding the answer to the questions that were asked, there must be some time saving there - real time saving - and then the estimates process, as I said, could be used to deal with more important issues, or issues that are a little more contentious. That would then prove, once and for all, what we are here for. Our job is to prosecute the government, and the government is there to do the right thing by Territorians.
My frustration with the process focuses on many different areas, but one is that you often find yourself rolling towards the end of the day running out of time. I know that the government allocates times for certain portfolios towards the end of the day, knowing that the process is a bit like an aircraft that started late in the morning - by the end of the day, it is so far behind it is not funny. That means that this side of the House, including the Independents, have little time to prosecute. I was really disappointed the other night to get to where it was 15 minutes before stumps, and we were only just starting on Education.
Education is one area that is vitally important to Territorians. I thank the honourable member for allowing us to go an extra five minutes, which was fantastic. However, if we could have the time to focus on these areas far more than we do now, we could really find out some of the answers that are important to Territorians. That is part of that process. I felt that, even when you are leading debate as the shadow minister responsible for that particular area, you really do not have any control other than to pass over questions to, hopefully, move over to another output group. Then, what really dictates when we get the to next output group - and I do not like using the word hijack - but it offers the Independent the last say, depending on how long that is going to take and how many questions the Independent may have.
As I said, your only way of moving things forward when you are running behind the time is to skip over questions - vital questions that Territorians have asked; that key stakeholders have asked you to take forward on their behalf. As I said, you find yourself left with more in the bag than you have answers for.
There are also some interesting things that come up through the process that I want to highlight. One was the $3.3m reduction that NRETAS has this year in their staff allocation. The answer was: ‘Well, there is more money coming’. I appreciate the grants that are offered at different times of the year. However, you are putting out a budget and then asking the opposition to respond on a budget which is not really the figures we are going to be working with. It is that level of ‘trust me, we will get right’ that you can have difficulty with; the fact that money is coming, but is not guaranteed.
Education is one area that we had to deal with in 15 minutes. We had to step over the EPA, which was something I wanted to target. NT Parks, the Territory Wildlife Park, the Alice Springs Desert Park – there were many questions on those output groups. I had some interesting questions on crocodile management which would have raised debate at a later stage. Many of these questions can become questions on notice at a later stage, and ministers will get the chance to respond. Hence, my solution earlier, that if we have that option of putting questions on notice at any time, then why cannot a similar process happen for the estimates, where we could put questions on notice prior to the estimates to give more time for the government to save money by having their staff focus on the questions we have actually asked, leaving the estimates process to focus on some of the bigger issues?
One of the other things that came home to me is the information that has come back through the estimates. I am truly thankful for getting that information back. One good one for me was that the Chief Minister, basically, said that the Northern Territory was well ahead of the game when it came to sustainable and renewable energy, given that we are actually using the power station today which is gas fired, and that other states are using coal - I appreciate all that - and we have a gas-fired power station. What he failed to mention though, is the fact that that gas-fired power station was inherited from the previous government but, under the current government’s watch, is now running on diesel every day. I do not know how that is good for our environment. This is something that has happened under the current management. It shows very poor form to brag about the fact that we are ahead of the game when it comes to renewable energies and protecting our environment because we have a gas-fired power station – that just happens to run on diesel.
When were talking about power costs - and I heard tonight the petition in regard to power - and the impact that the increased power cost is going to have on each of the departments - my goodness. When you see the Health budget has increased by $1m just to cover the increased power costs, it is quite astounding. On the back of a 25% power hike over the next couple of years, Territorians will not only be paying through their hip pocket directly for the power they use at home, but indirectly through the taxes they pay this government because each of the departments now cost much more to run.
Let us amplify that a little more. If it is going to cost the average government department all this money, in addition to what it costs them now, what happens to businesses out there? How much more money has to be put aside to pay for electricity and water? How much is this going to impact on businesses? What risk does that put on jobs for Territorians? If an average business, even a petrol station, for instance, that relies on electricity to get the fuel out of the ground, that has a number of fridges inside, and air-conditioning and every other thing that goes with running a business, 25% on top of the cost today is going to have an impact on those businesses. They either close down because they cannot afford to run or the staff who work for them will be demanding higher pays to cover their living expenses. It is going to have flow-on effect across the Northern Territory and make this place, on top of the most expensive rent in the country, the most expensive place to live by far.
One thing that came home to me was the statement about the new gaol being built so far down the track. The opposition raised a point in regard to the gaol, and the fact that the time involved in moving these people, if they have been sentenced to gaol, to and from the prison to the Magistrates Courts or the Supreme Court every day will triple or quadruple, given the road structures that we have today. Every time a point was raised on the inefficiency of having a gaol down the track, right down to people trying to visit people who are in the gaols and the further they have to go, we were told that the building itself provides so many efficiencies that all those other little things were factored in and it was still more efficient, because of the efficiency of their building, to have it down the track. Well, just think if that building was put where the current gaol is, how efficient would it be then?
We need to enjoy the journey of life, and I worry that we spend much time on debates in this House. We are always going to have a differing of opinions. I thank the minister for providing candid answers to questions. Our job is to prosecute them even further. I believe we need to focus on what we are here for. What are we all here for? We have a lot of argy-bargy that happens in this place, and we will attack each other, and then go and have dinner together, which is quite cute - it is nice that we can leave things in the Chamber and act like civilised people outside the Chamber - but we really should focus on what we are here for.
I would like to finish up with a little piece that was sent to me by a person by the name of Mr Gabriel Garcia Marquez. He has now passed away. This is a saying that I believe is very important and we all should listen to it.
- If, for an instant, God forgot that I am just a puppet, and he gave me one more piece of life, I would take advantage of that time, the best I could. I would probably not say everything I think but definitely think all I say. I would not value things for what they are worth, but for what they represent. I would sleep less and dream more, for every minute we close our eyes, we lose 60 seconds of light. I would continue where others have stopped and I would rise where others sleep.
If God allowed me one more piece of life I would dress simpler, would wallow in the sunlight leaving uncovered not only my body but also my soul. I would prove to men just how wrong they are. And the only time that a man should ever stand over somebody else is when they are trying to pick them up.
I would give wings to the children but I would leave the child alone so that he could learn how to fly on his own. To the old I would show them how death comes not with the ageing process but with forgetting so many things I have learned from you. I have learned that everybody wants to live at the top of the mountain, forgetting that it is how we climb that matters. I have learned that when a newborn grabs his father’s thumb, he takes a hold of him forever.
I have learned that a man has the right to look down on somebody only when he is helping him to get up.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I thank everyone involved in estimates: the parliamentary staff who put in endless hours of work; Mr Chair - congratulations on chairing your first estimates, for all intents and purposes you did a good job and were quite fair - and of course, the whole committee involved.
I will just focus briefly on Health. There were a number of areas that stood out for me. We were allocated four-and-a-half hours for the minister, the member for Casuarina, who holds a number of portfolios - three, in fact - and Health took up a sizeable chunk of that. It did not leave a lot of time for my colleagues to question the minister on Fisheries and Racing. I know these were very important parts of what they wanted to do. Apologies for that, but Health is very important and complex, and so required a lot of time.
One of the areas that stood out for me was the collection of data. As I was asking the minister about how we collect population forecasts in the Northern Territory, it was met with stunned silence from the CEO who was not sure why I was asking the question. He suggested that we rely on ABS figures. I indicated to him that ABS is, essentially, a snapshot of the current populations with not many projections. If we are going to be serious about proper health care delivery across the Northern Territory, we need to know who is living where and when, particularly with our large Indigenous population in the Territory; with the trends of people from communities moving in to the large centres and putting a lot of strain on our hospitals in our major centres. That was surprising. There was not really any information that the minister or the CEO could give me on that. However, they have commissioned a report which I believe was to collect some sort of data. I am still a little confused about that. That was very early on in the health process.
The idea for this collection of data and these population trends was to ascertain proper funding for our hospitals and how we allocate proper funds to particular hospitals if we are unsure of population trends. I am suggesting it is block funding, similar to last year’s: last year’s funding, plus new initiatives, plus inflation, minus any efficiencies indicated by the Treasurer.
We discussed Casemix funding. The CEO, once again, was a bit bamboozled. The minister spoke a bit about Casemix funding. It has been used very effectively and successfully in other jurisdictions despite the arguments against it by the minister and the CEO. Victoria uses a very successful model of Casemix funding. I am yet to be convinced that block funding for our hospitals is the most efficient way to fund our hospitals to cope with the demand. How do we know what that demand will be, or what that future demand will be, if we have no real data as to who is using those hospitals?
The Hospital Management Boards Act review was another one. I had to ask the minister a few times, but he did say that the new act will be introduced into parliament by the end of the year. I hope he stays true to his word and actually introduces that act, and it can be passed and put into law as soon as possible. Every day that we go without that new act there are, essentially, three hospitals in the Northern Territory that are operating outside that act because they are unable to have functioning boards. It is very clear in the act: section 25 of the Hospital Management Boards Act states that every hospital in the Northern Territory must have a functioning board. To have a quorum, you must have at least five people. The interim reports that have been presented and tabled by the minister have, in one of the hospitals - I think it is the Katherine Hospital actually - only four people. That is not a quorum, so it cannot be called an official hospital report; therefore, they are working outside the act.
I hope the minister stays true to his word and is able to introduce this so we can fix this problem that has been a bit of an issue over the last couple of years, with the failure by ministers to table hospital management board reports. How do we know of the issues with these hospitals if they are not putting it into black and white, or are able to do so, in their report?
The disease control budget was cut by a little over $3m. I mentioned this is my budget reply speech regarding the high incidence of child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory and, indeed, the other end of the scale, mosquito-borne diseases and such. We are cutting the budget when we should be investing in this type of problem. I did not get much of a chance to flesh that out because there was so much to get through.
The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme needs to be constantly reviewed. There are issues about patients not receiving PATS in time. There are incidents where patients are forced to use their own money for follow-up treatment because the PATS has not been processed quickly enough. In some cases, those people cannot afford to pay for their own airfares, or their own treatment; therefore, they are missing that follow-up treatment which can be potentially life threatening.
There is also the issue of those people who have been allocated PATS and have been allocated an appointment with a specialist, or whatever the case may be, and are just not turning up for their appointments for whatever reason. Some people are travelling from the Barkly to use the Alice Springs Hospital and the specialist services that are available when and where they are available. They get there and the appointment has to be either postponed or rescheduled. If they travel back to Tennant Creek, back out to their communities, and then they say: ‘Well, it is all a bit too hard. I turned up, I went there, they did not see me, so I am not going to do it again’. Something is falling through the cracks there. I asked whether there was some process in place to acquit that money. Are we looking at trying to get that money back from those people, or what efforts are being made to ensure those people follow up on their appointments?
That was clearly something that the government does not have in place. Perhaps it is something that they can look at: ways to recuperate some of that money that is being allocated to people who simply fail to show up for their appointments - some for very good reasons but, again, some who just simply do not turn up.
The choice for cancer patients in Central Australia - I bang on about this all the time …
Ms Carney: Do not stop!
Mr CONLAN: I will not stop. I did bring to the attention of the minister and the CEO the two reports. One was in July, one in August - identical reports except the August one, which came out a month later, has omitted the line: ‘Northern Territory cancer patients living in Central Australia should retain the choice of travelling to Adelaide rather than Darwin for radiotherapy’. That is conspicuously missing - or suspiciously missing - from the August report. The CEO could not quite confirm whether the original June report was a draft report. He said he was pretty confident but, yet again, he was not 100% and he was not also the CEO at the time, but felt that he wanted to weigh in on the debate.
The reports are exactly the same. There is nowhere in the July report that says it is a draft. So, this is a report commissioned by the government of the Northern Territory of Australia titled Options For Radiation Oncology Services in the Northern Territory. We feel there are other models available for the oncology unit to go ahead and to be viable and provide an important service to the Northern Territory. We support the oncology unit, of course. It should be supported. It should be completed by now, by the way. Nevertheless, if we give the government the benefit of the doubt that this unit will be built, then we thoroughly and wholeheartedly support it.
We also support those in Central Australia to have the option. Not everyone in Central Australia will want to go to Adelaide. We are talking about a small number of people, but enough to prosecute a case that they should be able to maintain that choice and travel to Adelaide to get their treatment.
The minister has engaged with people in Central Australia. I know they do not accept his reasoning, or the previous minister’s reasoning. In fact, it seemed like the previous, previous Health minister, Dr Peter Toyne, was one of the few who actually understood the concerns of Central Australians. As soon as the member for Johnston became Health Minister, this whole concept was completely ruled out, and all those requiring oncology services - new patients that is - once the unit is built, will be required under the public health system to travel to Darwin. We do not think that is good enough. We think there is, in that catchment of Central Australia, many people who require treatment and are not getting treatment because they are on remote communities or whatever it might be, and if the government was able to catch those people in that area, then we feel that the unit could be viable and it would still allow those people who want to travel to Adelaide to continue to have their treatment. As I said, that is a bit of an ideological difference between us and the government. We will continue to support that option and have promised that if elected to government.
Regarding mental health services and hospital security, it was rather alarming that the CEO mentioned that - and I can quote from what he said about hospital breaches of security:
- There is a delegated authority within the act regarding what roles and responsibilities of general managers of hospitals are, and it is quite clear that under that act they have a wide-ranging authority to make decisions about security of all aspects.
This is in response to a question of whether the general manager informs the CEO and the Health Minister of hospital security breaches. He said: ‘No, the onus is essentially on the General Manager to allocate whether he feels that it is a serious breach or not’. He did say that: ‘If there was a major breach of security the exception is I would be informed of that’.
We have seen a couple of instances, and one, of course, as I did mention in estimates, was a serious breach of security with a sexual assault of a five-month-old baby at Royal Darwin Hospital. It was highlighted by the Health Complaints Commissioner that the General Manager failed to take that to the next level; that is, report it to his CEO. Indeed, the Health Minister at the time was unaware of this. I do not know what constitutes a serious breach of security for the CEO, but I thought that was a serious breach of security and should have been immediately reported to the CEO; the CEO should have immediately taken it to the minister; and the minister should have immediately done something about it. Instead, we saw the minister, again, in a very emotional state in this parliament when he learned about this.
Clearly, that is not good enough. Hospital security breaches should be reported up the chain, and the minister and the CEO should be aware of these breaches, whether they are serious or minimal. He did say that there might be five breaches a day, but I do not think that is excessive. I do not think five breaches of security a day is excessive for a CEO to be across, and you would hope that the CEO would pass that on to his minister. But that was not the case.
They are the issues which really stood out for me in the output groups for Health in estimates. It was a long time and there was much discussed. Hospital efficiency was another one which we did not really get to the bottom of, and the CEO and the minister were not convincing in their argument when asked about hospital efficiencies. We did get the information provided to us of the occupancy rates for each Territory hospital. The Royal Darwin Hospital operates at 102%; in fact 102.89% capacity. That is bursting at the seams. The Alice Springs Hospital is 107.59%, and the Gove District Hospital is 102%. Those rates are way too high. Hospitals should be operating at 80% to 85%. The Australian Medical Association recommends 80% to 85% and so does the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine, where they say there is clear evidence that occupancy rates in most urban public hospitals are greater than 85%:
- So when occupancy rates exceed 85% regular bed shortages and periodic bed crises are expected. If average bed occupancy rises above 90% or more, access blocks are routinely expected. Spare bed capacity is essential for the effective management of emergency admissions and to have surge capacity.
We are seeing clear evidence to suggest that for a hospital to run efficiently, to put people through the ED and into beds, access block is defined as people waiting in the Emergency Department – not to be seen, but once they have been seen - for eight hours or more. We are seeing these serious bottlenecks at Royal Darwin, Alice Springs and Gove Hospitals, with those figures at well over 100%, when all the evidence suggests that they need to be around about 80% to 85%.
That is very concerning. The minister said he will put more beds in, but more beds will not fix the problem. Minister, I believe that is what you said: ‘more beds, we have allocated more beds over the years’ and that was the answer. But more beds are not the answer. There has to be much more, such as private facilities and investment into private facilities, or encouraging private facilities throughout the Northern Territory, particularly in Alice Springs, where we have that figure at 107%.
A RAPU unit in Alice Springs Hospital is favoured by medical professionals in the Northern Territory. That would go a long way to ease the access block and improve the efficiency rate. We have to get on with a new ED in Alice Springs; that would improve that figure. We also need dedicated mental health facilities across the Northern Territory when you consider that 35 of our beds in our major hospitals are allocated to mental health patients. If we had a dedicated mental facility, then that is an extra 35 beds. There are some efficiencies to be made here, to address some of those bed occupancy rates in our Northern Territory hospitals.
Overall, I appreciated the estimates process and thank the committee, the Chairman and all those involved in the Legislative Assembly.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, like many other people here, it was my first estimates process. I have to say I greatly enjoyed myself throughout the time. It was a lot of fun to grill the ministers, or ask them questions and, on the odd occasion, even get an answer, I have to say. Some ministers, I found, were very adept at filibustering and using time - wasting time. The Treasurer could teach a lot of her colleagues a thing or two about how to use up the time; she excels in that regard. No offence to the Treasurer, but it is like talking to a wall. Getting responses is very difficult.
Some of the questions I had for her in relation to WorkSafe were quite good and reasonable questions, but she did a very good job of stonewalling, giving nothing away whatsoever. Some of the things happening at WorkSafe are very concerning. The Work Health legislation came into effect 1 July last year. We still do not have health and safety officers out there. We only just have a couple of training organisations for training those people. It is ridiculous that almost 12 months down the track after government passed legislation, they cannot get their act together to ensure that their own legislation is policed and looked after.
I am concerned about the way the WorkSafe office is run; the fact they do not have a receptionist I find quite alarming. This is an organisation dealing with many people with disabilities, injuries and illnesses. It should be acutely aware of problems people have - health problems and the like - and be going out of its way to ensure those people can be assisted. Having an intercom system, or a telephone or a receptionist is not good enough, particularly when it comes to deaf and mute people. I noticed in today’s NT News a writer had a slug at me for referring to somebody as ‘deaf and dumb’. It was not meant with any malice. That is the way we have referred to those people. Having read that letter, I can understand how a person who cannot speak may well be offended these days by somebody referring to them as dumb, given the other connotations of that word.
Nevertheless, you would think an organisation like WorkSafe would be the first organisation to identify there may well be problems with no receptionist or system out the front to help someone who is a deaf and mute person in the reception area trying to get attention with only an intercom system. Eventually this man, of course, was seen by someone who just happened to be returning from lunch. He managed to scribble out a quick note and explain what his concerns were and be dealt with, but not until after a very long time waiting, trying to get some assistance in a vacant reception area.
The minister does not seem to be alarmed that there is nepotism within the WorkSafe office, when you see so many people employed there from union backgrounds, Labor Party political apparatchik backgrounds, and so many people personally related to each other. I find it quite amazing that the minister does not see that there is any sort of conflict there. The minister is not even aware of how many unions have used the right of entry laws under that legislation. She says that is something that is of no concern to her whatsoever. I find that quite amazing. What shocked me the most was the lack of oversight the minister has in that department; the fact that, clearly, she was not prepared for questioning in relation to WorkSafe. Maybe her advisors were prepared for questioning on WorkSafe, but there was very little, if anything, she could answer, or her advisors answer for her, in relation to that particular agency.
I enjoyed immensely listening to my colleagues asking questions. Some of them were very decisive. There were some answers that, I have to say, the opposition was not expecting at all. We go on a bit of a fishing exercise, and every now and again, we catch a 1.5 m long barra, just a fantastic thing to think well, as much as these guys say we would say not much at all, every now and again, there is seemingly a fluke or an oversight where a minister tends to really drop themselves into it.
I enjoyed, as I always do, the banter that I have with the Leader of Government Business. I find him a hugely entertaining man. I have to say it was a pleasure to have him on the other side of the PAC committee table and answering questions at the PAC. I still believe it is not proper that a minister should be sitting on the PAC - not proper at all - but sitting across the table, he is a delightful person to deal with. We have our differences, I am sure, on a whole range of policy areas, and I will get to a bit of that in a minute - but quite good fun to question.
I am just looking at the member for Barkly, the Minister for Transport. I know he is a well-intentioned man. I am a bit concerned, however, about the lack of regard that he has for our - well, it is not even a lack of regard, I suppose, I think he highly regards our live cattle haulage industry. I am concerned about his lack of information on how national fatigue management laws will impact on that industry. The information we received today was that the whole industry seem to be happy with national fatigue management laws, which really flew in the face of reality.
I was very keen to get involved in this estimates process this week in a particular area the Minister for Business discussed last week, which was the area of the Land Development Corporation Act. Madam Chair, you were in that position last week, in the committee stage, when we had discussions about the Land Development Corporation and its ability to do residential developments. We came to this committee and started probing into some of the things that had to occur with the Land Development Corporation and, I have to say, all goodwill aside, I did not realise at that particular time the enormity of the legislation that we were passing.
In actual fact, before the debate, I thought the whole lot was quite inconsequential, and I could really see no reason why this side of the Chamber would not be supporting that legislation. As things developed, I became concerned that things were not just quite right. That was the reason we took it to the committee stage. I asked several times about the Bellamack development and I will just go through some of that debate.
I asked a question of the Minister for Business:
- ‘Just going back to Bellamack Area C. Can you tell me how many blocks of land in Bellamack Area C will the LDC be taking on?’
The minister’s response was:
- Member for Fong Lim, that is still being determined. As I said, it is very elemental work that needs to occur, and government should be in a position in a number of weeks to make some basic announcements regarding that. The first step - you seem to be standing in the doorway a little here, member for Fong Lim – for us to get out of the doorway is to pass this legislation to allow the LDC to continue those very important discussions with DPI and other agencies to put more details to it and take those first steps.
I have not said this is a major development that is stretching from Palmerston down to Adelaide River; it is a first step within Bellamack Area C. The number of lots is yet to be identified …’.
I had a little more discussion and went on to another question, and towards the end of that question I said:
- You are not reluctant to tell us how much you forward plan if there is, in fact, a Bellamack Area A, a Bellamack Area B, and a Bellamack Area C. Surely, at this stage, the Planning minister should be able to give some indication of how many blocks of land will be available in Bellamack Area C? That is a planning issue.
To which the minister for Planning replied: ‘You will be advised in due course’. I then asked: ‘When is the first block expected to be constructed in Bellamack, minister?’ The Minister for Business replied: ‘It has been delayed by about four hours this afternoon’. The Minister for Planning responded: ‘Bellamack A is already under construction’. I then said: ‘Yes, and no plans yet for Bellamack C?’ The minister said: ‘No, a lot of plans for Bellamack C, particularly passing this legislation’. I then said: ‘Can you outline plans you have in place for Bellamack C?’ ‘You will be advised in due course’, said the Planning minister. ‘So you have no plans for Bellamack C, is that correct?’ At which point the minister then called me names, and we went through a little of ‘she flung the mud, I flung the mud, the Chair intervened’, and then we got back to some questions.
I said:
- The only thing that we are told is the Land Development Corporation will be getting Bellamack C. However, now we find from the Planning minister that there are no plans available and nothing that the Planning minister is prepared to discuss about Bellamack C. What sort of charade is this?
The Minister for Business said:
- Madam Chair, I will take this question. I thank the member for his question. Obviously, there has been discussion within government, and plans drawn up around progressing this particular issue. I would have thought the member for Fong Lim would have realised that, in the current environment, if government was in a position to make an announcement, we would have done it yesterday.
However, as I said before, there are details to be firmed up yet; details at a very elemental level - I will repeat myself - around the surveying, the transfer of land, the headworks, the numbers of blocks - the number of blocks have been discussed by government - and the financial model. Obviously, Treasury, the Land Development Corporation, and other entities need to nail down that detail so that government can make its announcement and answer the very questions that you are asking.
To some degree, things are at a stage now where there are commercial and logistic issues; there is a whole range of issues. However, government today is simply saying to this House that this legislation enables government to move forward and empower the public servants and those in the Land Development Corporation to actually say: ‘Okay, there is legislation in place that legally enables us to move into this particular area. We are now in that position and we will come back to government with our final proposals’ - about all the things that I talked about. It is premature of you, at this stage - and it would be premature of us - to be making announcements.
That is pretty clear. We were not going to be told last week what was happening with Bellamack Area C. No way known, were either the Minister for Business or the minister for Planning going to tell us whether they had any plans in place at all for Bellamack Area C. I thought we would head up to estimates this week and hear a few things. Well goodness me, Tuesday lunchtime there is an announcement by none other than the Chief Minister, who lobs out and not only did he announce Bellamack Gardens as part of the Land Development Corporation, but he also had 3D drawings and very detailed maps – and he even had pictures of exactly what the houses would look like.
All this has occurred within three working days of when we had that discussion, in this Chamber. We are being told that all that has occurred in three working days. I find this hard to believe. I was sitting scratching my head last night and I was wondering why would we be told these stories, that there are no plans on the books, on Thursday afternoon and, then, find out on Tuesday lunchtime that Bellamack Gardens is going ahead and we are going to have 150 m2 blocks of land. Then it dawned on me. Because had the government ministers come in and been up-front and bared their souls, told this parliament exactly what they were planning, maybe instead of us being so indifferent about the legislation, we might have taken a firmer stand. Maybe the members for Nelson and Arafura might not have supported the legislation. Maybe that was their concern. I put it to you: that is the case.
________________________
Motion
Chair to Report Progress
Chair to Report Progress
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Chair, I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the committee from reporting progress forthwith for the purpose of censuring the Chief Minister and the Cabinet for being party to the lies of the Treasurer and the Minister for Business in misleading the Assembly and the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill and its failure to outline plans for the development of Bellamack Gardens.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam Chair, as I say there is no doubt that they are a lying mob ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Please pause, member for Fong Lim. Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: He has moved suspension of standing orders, so you have to put that question first.
Madam CHAIR: In accordance with Standing Order 225, a motion may be moved during the proceedings of the committee that the committee do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Dr Burns: Could you just repeat that please, Madam Chair?
Madam CHAIR: Standing Order 225: a motion may be moved during the proceedings of the committee that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again. That question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.
The question is that the committee do report progress.
The committee divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Scrymgour
Mr Wood Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
_________________
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, the antics of this government are beyond the pale. To sit there and hear that sort of evidence shows one thing and one thing only: they are prepared to paper over any of their - what shall we say? - slips of the tongue; anything they can do to make sure that their – well, how do you say this in a parliamentary term, Madam Chair? I mean, they are beyond the pale. There is no doubt about it; they are beyond the pale.
They will do and say anything they have to do to ensure their legislation is passed. Not telling Territorians what they were intending to do last Thursday is disgraceful and shameful - absolutely disgraceful and shameful. I can tell you right now, had the government said in this place that they were preparing to allow 150 m2 blocks of land to be developed, that legislation would not have passed, and they knew it - absolutely knew it. Now, allowing no debate on this issue, flies in the face of good democracy and good governance. I note somewhere in here that the minister turned up and, in one of his responses, he said: ‘There is a big call for this sector of the market, as I have said a number of times, which no one really has got involved in, in a significant way in the Northern Territory’. Really! Then he went on to say: ‘There will be a process of transfer of land in the LDC. There will be transparency around the process’. Well, where is the transparency, minister? Where is the transparency?
You have deceived Territorians, you have deceived this Chamber and you are a disgrace. You are an absolute disgrace …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: … if you can sit in this joint and tell people with all honesty in your face …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr TOLLNER: … that you had no plans for Bellamack Gardens, then you are a disgrace.
Madam CHAIR: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Chair? Why?
Madam CHAIR: A point of order because I was calling it to your attention, to ask you to address your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I move a 10 minute extension.
Madam CHAIR: An extension is not available in committee. Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mr STYLES: Madam Chair, I would like to comment on the estimates process. Like a number of people in this House at this time, it was my first attendance at estimates as well. I was fascinated to make quite a number of observations. The first observation I made over the period was how well prepared the public servants were. Having been on the other side of the fence and been part of the teams that have had to present and prepare possible answers for estimates, I have now seen how well and what a great job they do.
Mr Deputy Chair, the public servants put in long days. Day after day, I saw quite a number of them turn up. They would cart in their boxes full of information and, no doubt, they have spent weeks, if not a number of months and, over that period of time, many hours working hard with lots of other public servants incurring lots of overtime, expense, and going to a lot of personal effort and trouble to ensure that ministers have ample answers to provide to the myriad of questions that are likely to come from the opposition.
From my time in this House, I have learned that constituents expect and want us, as an opposition, to keep the government accountable for their actions and for the expenditure of public monies. It is quite difficult, at times, when you only get a couple of minutes per portfolio. I noticed with the time constraints in this process that, at one stage, I only had a very small number of minutes to do one complete portfolio. Like the public servants, I too spend a lot of time preparing - interviewing people, going to meetings, spending weekends, after hours, evenings at meetings with people - all in the interest of benefiting those organisations and those people who form the community, the taxpayers out there. They are just trying to get on with the job of making the Territory a great place to live, work and also to stay which, unfortunately, through the number of questions I had to ask and the answers given, demonstrated that there is ample reason for some to leave; that is, housing and things like that.
For instance, the portfolio responsibilities I have in relation to community support services for aged people and people with disability, went down to a couple of minutes. I had an enormous number of questions. There are many different people out there with a whole range of disabilities that you cannot just answer with one or two questions. These are people who have spent time getting to my office, and I have spent considerable time going to meetings with these particular groups – organisations, interest groups and even individuals - trying to work out how we might get the message to government to help these people who find themselves in difficult circumstances. So, with all of that time spent and all those ideas, one goes to the estimates and you get a couple of minutes to ask three or four questions – if that. I was thinking I had to go through these pages and try to find which might be the best question to ask.
I support the senior Territorian and pensioner concessions. I spent an enormous amount of time talking to pensioners, going to meetings, looking at what options are available, and I will get to that when I actually open that particular folder. These people invest an enormous part of their life - and they have hope that what they say, the actions they take, the effort that they put in, might make a difference.
I have to tell you, I am a little disappointed. Quite frankly, I am going to be embarrassed when I have to go back to these people and say: ‘Well, we went in there and this minister has seven responsibilities and I only had two or three minutes on this particular portfolio. I asked about four questions and I had to ask them to keep their answers brief, so that I could get an extra question or so in’. When I report to these people, they will say: ‘That is great. What did you find out in estimates? I will say: ‘Not very much’. ‘Why?’ ‘Because of the time constraints put on’.
A particular area of my interest was Racing, Gaming and Licensing. When I had time at the end of the minister’s Health portfolio, I moved to Racing, Gaming and Licensing and only asked a small number of questions. In particular, I asked the minister about smoking and the definition of smoking in licensed premises. The minister said: ‘You are asking the wrong minister; that is a Health question’. I asked the minister what he meant by that and he clarified it, and said I was in the wrong output group and that I should have asked that of the Minister for Health which, of course he is, but we were in the different output group. Being new, I accepted that and we moved on.
I now find out that it is under the area of Racing and Gaming, and the smoking bans are clearly indicated in a media release put out by the then minister, on 18 July 2008, which said:
- Smoking will be banned in pubs and clubs throughout the Northern Territory from 2 January 2010.
Banning smoking in pubs and clubs will make it more enjoyable for everyone to have a night out with friends …
Great, I do not have a problem with that. It went on to say:
- The Territory government has worked closely with the AHA in reaching this decision, and we will continue to support businesses as they prepare to become smoke-free.
That was on 18 July 2008, and it is not that far off being one year. When you talk to people, they would be very interested to know that the AHA have worked closely with the Territory government in reaching the decision because they still do not have a definition of what a smoking indoor area or a smoking outdoor area is.
These people are trying to run businesses, and some of them are struggling to get their heads around what they are required to do. They employ people, pay taxes and give us, as legislators, and the government, the money to provide services. On this one particular question, I had quite a few answers because these people out there, quite frankly, are quite frustrated. They are getting quite concerned, for a number of reasons. First, the alterations in the building they may have to do. If you have a lean-to on the side of a building with a couple of poles and a couple of sheets of tin, because it has a roof on it, is that an indoor area or an outdoor area? They do not know. Is a beer garden an indoor area or an outdoor area? If it has a roof of any kind over it, if it is a canvas sail, is that an indoor area or an outdoor area? There is no definition at this point in time. The uncertainty within all licensed premises in the Northern Territory is quite concerning to those people who have to run them and are responsible for meeting the target date of 2 January 2010, which is only a short six months away.
You try to get through estimates and ask the government, ‘What about this and what about that’, hopefully, so that they might say: ‘Gee, maybe they have a point’. I do not necessarily expect them to leap around and agree with everything we say, but they might take note. Those listening after this might take note and say: ‘Gee, we probably should do something for these poor people’. It is about time because the government issued this media release on 18 July that this is going to happen in 18 months time. That is great. These people are going to be expected to comply with the government regulations and legislation on time when they actually put a date there. But the government does not have to worry about anything. When are they going to put it out? October? November? Maybe even a week or two before? Then there is going to be absolute chaos as people try to get these things in order.
The first thing they have to do, in relation to major alterations and new buildings, is to submit an application to the Development Consent Authority; that that can take quite some time. Because it is licensed premises, the Licensing Commission is going to have a go, as well. So they have to submit things to the Licensing Commission. Then there is time for public consultation. In relation to clubs, clubs have to go to voluntary boards to get approval to spend money, once they know and have some idea of what they might have to do.
Pubs and casinos also have boards, albeit that they are profit organisations; they have to go to, to get approval for funding. They have to go to banks or other financial institutions to seek approval to borrow money. Money is tighter out there. It might be difficult for them to get in a very short time frame. Given time, I suspect most of the premises would be able to get it. But, it is a time issue. These people then have to go to architects, engineers, and building certifiers. They have to find a building contractor – all at a time when all these licensed premises are getting their work done by 2 January 2010. That is just six months away.
These processes are going to take time. The government has been dragging its feet. What is going to happen when we get to that date and these people cannot get a builder? What are we going to do? Shut them down and take their licences off them? I sincerely hope the government looks at giving an extension. I ask the government to consider giving that extension very soon because these people are getting extremely concerned. I thought government was there to facilitate business to occur, and look after people and make it easier for people to operate and make money so that they can pay taxes, so government can spend those taxes wisely, of course, and help the community. It does not seem that is the case.
Gaming Machine Transfer Schemes: we have had a cap put on a number of gaming machines. We have clubs where nobody knows whether they can have cross transfers. Where is the scheme? We asked last November, at a briefing, where the scheme was. The advisors from the minister’s office said: ‘We do not know what that scheme is’. But you said that it will based on the Queensland scheme. What is it? ‘Well, we do not quite know that’. We still do not have anything, and that was six months ago now. It seems to take a long time to get anything done.
I wanted to find out what amount of revenue is expected to be raised from racing and gaming taxation. Where is it going to be spent? I have racing clubs who are trying to find out from government what amount of money they are getting in grants. Some of them have been told there is less money. They are now struggling to find how they are going to survive; what they are going to do; what jobs are going to have to go. We hear all sorts of things about where the cuts are. I have some guarantees that there are going to be no cuts in certain portfolios but, if they are struggling to survive now without any increases in these issued dollars to these race clubs, then they are going to find it hard.
I asked a couple of questions of the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing in relation to some inequities that existed in relation to unsuccessful applicants for takeaway licences in the Tiwi and Driver Supermarkets. I was told and I quote from Hansard:
- It depends on what you are referring to as inadequacies or differences.
Then I said to the minister:
- These people have applied for liquor licences and have been knocked back.
The minister said:
- They have not been knocked back. The government has a moratorium in place for the issue of licences. They applied for licences after the moratorium was put in place, and until we review the Liquor Act, the moratorium stays in place. Both these supermarkets will not get a licence because there is a moratorium in place. This has been publicly known since …
I asked what day it came in, and to quote the minister:
- It has been three years now, in 2006.
Madam Chair, I have been unable to find out in relation to the Tiwi supermarket, the exact date, but it was some years ago. In relation to the Driver supermarket application - the second actually, because they withdrew the first -- was lodged in August/September 2003 and the notice for this was published in the Northern Territory News on 26 November 2003 - clearly three years before this moratorium was put in place. There was a fire in a particular supermarket. The people rebuilt it and they simply asked for what was there before. They went to an enormous amount of trouble to make sure that surveys are done, and yet it is not happening. That Driver supermarket still does not have a licence to be able to supply responsibly to the good citizens of Driver, so at their convenience they can go there and buy alcohol products. It is not necessarily that one has an argument for or against alcohol, it is about equity. The supermarket around the corner has a licence, and this one does not. People who are trying to provide a service and a convenience to people in the area of Palmerston simply just cannot get a licence. And, then, in 2006, three years after, and while this argument is going on, they say: ‘Well, we will just put a moratorium on it’.
Madam Chair, I would now like to move on to the area of seniors. My colleague, the member for Fong Lim, talked about Bellamack and seniors villages and things. It seems to me that the government is going into the caravan park business, with Bellamack caravan park and these small blocks. I have seen blocks in caravan parks bigger than they are proposing for some of these villages down there. I hardly had any time at all to ask some of these questions regarding the land for new retirement accommodation. What land is available? Has there been any work done on ascertaining the most suitable land? You try to ask these questions and you do not get any answers, because they tell you: ‘We will tell you when we are good and ready’.
When I go to meetings of seniors, people from the Council of the Ageing, National Seniors, are struggling to understand why they cannot get any answers from government. I hear, time and time again, these poor people say: ‘We wrote to the government. We phoned them up. We sent a letter in. The peak body sent a letter in, asked questions, did all sorts of things, and we still do not get an answer’. I sit in this House and hear other members saying, ‘Well, my constituents are doing this. My people in the portfolio areas I am responsible for are doing this. We are doing this’, and you cannot seem to get too many answers at all from the government, right across the board. It just seems to be bogged down and they do not have an answer. Is it because they do not want to write to anyone, or they do not want do it, or is it because they do not have the answers?
I could probably go on all night about these issues, but I note that I am now fighting the clock again, and I cannot get an opportunity to raise things for youth. I have a whole file full of questions here that the youth of the Northern Territory would like me to ask, and also those with disabilities. There is a situation in Alice Springs, Riding for the Disabled, where people are desperately trying to seek some government support and provide a service for the people of Alice Springs who are missing out in so many different areas. But there we go, 10 seconds on the clock. Time just goes so fast.
Madam Chair, I ask the government to try to get their act together and get some decent answers out for the good people of the Territory.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I will be brief and I will not add to, in any significant way, what my colleagues have said about some of the themes that have emerged during the week. In relation to my portfolios, my view is that the issues, the questions, the answers, and the abysmal performance of the ministers, speak for themselves.
There is however, an additional matter that needs to be raised as a result of a media release issued this afternoon by the member for Barkly. It was, obviously, after estimates and his time there had concluded. About halfway down in the media release, it says:
- The minister this morning told the parliamentary estimates hearing that Corrections have seen an increase to services through additional staff.
I have gone through the Hansard of the questions and answers in the Corrections area this morning. I cannot see any reference to the minister - as is asserted in the media release - telling the parliamentary estimates hearing that Corrections ‘have’ seen an increase to services through additional staff. The closest, on my reading, that the minister got – indeed, it really was not him - was on page 50 and 51, where Mr Ken Middlebrook, Superintendent of Correctional Services, mentioned that educational staff will be added to Darwin and Alice Springs. That is significantly different from what is asserted in the minister’s media release. The media release also said that:
- To date an additional 21 staff for the Alice Springs Correctional Centre and 30 staff for the Darwin Correctional Centre have completed training.
That is not, on my reading of Hansard, what Mr Middlebrook or, indeed, the minister said in his evidence to the committee this morning.
It is a serious offence, in political terms - something of a hanging offence - to mislead the parliament or a parliamentary committee. I ask the minister to correct the record. If he is not prepared to accept that he has a political obligation to do so, I ask that he accept he has a moral obligation to do so. I have trawled the Hansard. If I am in any way wrong, I look forward to being corrected but, on my reading, I just cannot see what the minister asserts he said in the media release. To mislead the parliament is a serious offence, but the greater offence is to mislead Territorians. On the basis of the media release and my reading of Hansard, Territorians have been misled, and that is a worse offence.
However, in the estimates hearing - and this should be noticed because it is relevant - the day before, the Minister for Children and Families, somewhat amazingly in my view, could not answer a question as to why it was that in the budget papers there was an allocation of $300 000, I think it was, to the Child Abuse Task Force - or it might have been for additional child protection workers; one or the other. I think it was the Child Abuse Task Force - $300 000. I asked her why it was that in the media release she issued on budget day, she included a figure of $6.2m for an increase to the Child Abuse Task Force. What was astounding was that she could not answer that question. In addition to the themes of slipperiness, the rubbery way this government conducts itself - not enough time, huff and puff by ministers, and the shameful lack of knowledge they had - I would like to add the disgraceful way in which, in the two instances that I have cited, that ministers are prepared to issue media releases that do not resemble reality.
I am used to that. I have seen you guys do it for years. You all say: ‘It is in the budget papers, it is rock solid, do not attack the budget papers’, but when you have the audacity to rely on the budget papers and then do media releases that bear no correlation to the budget papers, you should be ashamed of yourselves and you should be sanctioned. Given the numbers in this parliament there is no sanction for you. However, the ultimate sanction is the next election and if you continue to conduct yourselves, if I may say so, in this appalling and dishonest manner, you will be made accountable.
Minister, I look forward to hearing from you at some stage. I believe you regard yourself as a fairly decent bloke and, if you are, I ask you to correct the record.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I join with the members who have contributed today, to thank the people who have put in so much time and effort into the Estimates Committee process over the past week. I particularly thank the Assembly staff, especially the Hansard staff, who work through all hours, day and night, through the week.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the Committee Secretariat, the leadership of Terry Hanley and the support of the Clerk. I thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the member for Fannie Bay, who maintained a very fair and professional process. We have heard that from both sides of the Chamber tonight. I also thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Nhulunbuy, who is sitting in here still chairing, for her many hours of work on the committee and on all the occasions that she stepped up to Chair the Estimates Committee when the member for Fannie Bay briefly took a break during the very long week.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: Importantly, I thank the departmental officers and the Power and Water Corporation Chair, Judith King, and the Power and Water officers who appeared before the committee, and those who assisted by preparing the many estimates briefings and folders. To all those departmental officers right across the Northern Territory Public Service, a sincere thank you on behalf of members of government.
Estimates hearings are a comprehensive opportunity for members to question all aspects of our government’s operation. Given the current economic turbulence around the world, this process is perhaps more important now than ever. It is chance for the public to get a clear view of how our government is spending their money and what we are delivering for Territorians. Governance in the Territory is very well served by the estimates process and this government recognises how important the process is. I know that all ministers and the Speaker take their appearance before the committee very seriously. There are always concerns raised by members regarding certain aspects of the process, but the overall aims of the estimates hearings were well served this year, as they have been since this government introduced these hearings; that is, to scrutinise the budget.
I know ministers and the Speaker were very keen to set out during the estimates process the record budgets, particularly those record budgets in Health, Education, Police and Emergency Services. The Speaker and the ministers appeared before the committee for nearly 47 hours. I appeared for seven hours. It is estimated that I received approximately 600 questions. Of course, I do not have any say over the direction or calibre of the questioning. I very much enjoyed being able to explain to the member for Port Darwin the Territory’s debt levels now compared to 2001; how we have managed to slash debt; and why we are clearly in a better position than in the dying days of the previous CLP government. Under Labor, we have reduced the debt we inherited from the CLP …
Mr Bohlin: With GST.
Ms LAWRIE: … by some $502m since 2001 …
Mr Bohlin: With GST.
Ms LAWRIE: … and we inherited a budget in deficit and spiralling debt …
Mr Bohlin: With GST, GST, GST revenue for those upstairs, that did not occur prior to 2001.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Drysdale …
Ms LAWRIE: I can hear the mumblings of the member for Drysdale …
Madam CHAIR: …I ask you to cease interjecting, please.
Ms LAWRIE: … GST, GST, GST. It shows his complete ignorance because the Territory, throughout the years of the GST - and we are losing some $211m in GST revenue in the 2009-10 budget - in the years where the GST was coming in strength, it was averaging around $40m to $100m tops, $120m above the guaranteed minimum amount we would have got if the GST had not existed. It is a joke to think that slashing debt and increasing services, building the roads, schools, health clinics, and taking services to the bush for the first time in many instances, was a GST windfall. There was no such thing. We received what was our fair share of revenue from the Commonwealth.
We make no apology for also going hard for increased Special Purpose Payments and national partnership agreements from the Commonwealth because the true measure of a strong, good Territory government is being able to get every single cent you can get from the Commonwealth. Why? We have a very small jurisdiction. We have a population of 200 000. We have a very narrow own source revenue base. For the fool opposite to sit there and mumble ‘GST’ means he has absolutely no understanding of Territory government budgets.
Not only have we slashed the debt by $502m since 2001 when we inherited a budget in deficit and spiralling debt, we have, through good management, reduced the debt from $1.389bn to $887m in 2007-08. We have done this through strict discipline, efficiency measures across government, and delivering six cash surpluses in a row. All of this was done at the same time that we have produced significant increases in services across all those major priority areas of Health, Education, Police and Justice. There have also been substantial increases in infrastructure spending in the period. From Budget 2009-10, the Henderson Labor government has taken a deliberate decision to increase infrastructure spending to even further protect Territory jobs and stimulate growth in our economy.
I was pleased to be asked about this in estimates because I could lay out the government’s clear dedication to protecting our Territory jobs and supporting our economic base. With collapsing GST revenues to the Territory, this will take us into a temporary deficit after six consecutive budget surpluses. We have shown our economic management credentials. We will continue our stringent fiscal and economic management over the forward years with a clear strategy to return to surplus. The forward projections have been prepared on a worst case scenario in the setting of a global financial crisis, but even as you compare the nett debt to revenue ratio in the outer year of 2012-13 which - with worst case scenario – would be 33% of nett debt to revenue, that is only half of what we inherited in 2001 at 61% nett debt as a percentage of revenue.
As I clearly explained during the estimates hearing, during the preparation of the budget the prevailing bond rate used at the time to value the Territory superannuation liability was at 4%. As members would be aware, there has been significant volatility in the bond rate market over the past 12 months due to the downturn in the financial markets. Between April and June, the bond rate has significantly increased to 5.5% resulting in a $500m reduction to our superannuation liabilities. As a rule of thumb, a 1% movement in the bond rate equates to about $330m movement in the Territories liabilities. This goes to show these forward projections are strictly notional. They can only be based on the best information at that snapshot in time. For the benefit of the shadow Treasurer, it is worth pointing out that the Territory budget will remain in nett operating surplus across all our forward projections.
We will manage the budget through the tough times by ensuring we stimulate growth, protect jobs to support Territory families, and maintain infrastructure investments to develop our Territory. In the Justice portfolio I was very pleased to discuss the efficacy of the alcohol courts as one part of the government’s comprehensive alcohol strategy; a strategy that Menzies School of Health Research has found has reduced alcohol consumption in Alice Springs to some 18%, and with it, alcohol-related harm and violence.
I made it very clear to the member for Araluen that the alcohol court provides a completely new way to deal with offenders who are alcohol dependent. The program commenced in July 2006; it was planned to have a workload …
Ms Carney: It is a mess and you know it is a mess.
Ms LAWRIE: … it was planned to have a workload of …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: She cannot help herself, can she? Come in, spinner.
It was planned to have a workload of 80 clients per year. Since commencement, there have been 308 referrals to the alcohol court, much more than that anticipated workload. This is hardly a failure. The program initially operated in Darwin and Alice Springs, before being extended to Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek in early 2008. As part of our commitment to reviewing new legislation, the alcohol court scheme is currently undergoing a comprehensive review, with the aim to create a more flexible system that will engage with a large number of alcohol-dependent people engaged in antisocial behaviour.
I also spoke at some length in estimates about the Fine Recovery Unit’s success in starting fine payers on time-to-pay arrangements to make sure that they are able to pay back their debt. There was another wilful misunderstanding on the member for Araluen’s part to take the outstanding fine figures over the past three years and assume that they will never be repaid. Under the Fine Recovery Unit’s debt recovery system, the figures show that the total percentage of outstanding fines and penalties reduces over time. Why? Because people are paying off their fines bit by bit. It is a time …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, order! Member for Araluen, cease interjecting. Please pause.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! Standing Order 51, the member continually interjects.
Ms LAWRIE: The government considers it much more sensible that people who have incurred fines are able to pay them off over a period of time rather than default, which just incurs more cost for government.
I was also pleased to again debate the issues related to planning with the member for Nelson. I know he is very knowledgeable and passionate in this area. Sometimes we agree to disagree, but again, I was pleased to have the member test our assumptions and question me on our planning decisions.
Madam Chair, the Northern Territory is in a very strong economic position, absolutely relative to the rest of Australia and, indeed, the world. Our key indicators and forecasts show that the Territory economy will grow an estimated 4.1% this financial year, and continue to remain positive over the coming years, in contrast to declines elsewhere. Our Labor government wants to keep us out in front. In Budget 2009-10, we are acting decisively to protect jobs now and to build the Territory into the future. We have taken this clear position to the Territory people over the past few weeks. We were happy to outline it in the estimates process.
I thank all members for their perseverance over the past week. I thank again the committee, the Table Office and Hansard staff, who ensured that the week ran smoothly, and all agency personnel who appeared before the committee and assisted in preparation. I also again thank the hard-working and dedicated officers of the Northern Territory Treasury, without them I would not have been able to deliver Budget 2009-10.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committee in relation to the proposed expenditure or output with reference to the Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009 (Serial 41), the activities, performances, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2009-10 be noted.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of bill agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill (Serial 40):
Madam CHAIR: In accordance with the resolution of the Assembly of 10 June 2009, I will now put the following question for the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill (Serial 40). The question now is that the remaining stages of the Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40) be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bills reported; reports adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the bills now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my congratulations to the staff and students involved in the musical put on at Taminmin High School last weekend. This is the third year the school has presented a musical. This year’s musical, Cruise Control, was written by Megan Rigoni and was directed by a very talented local person, Ms Tanya Ham.
It portrayed an ordinary family called the Flumleys, who had not been on holiday for a very long time because the man of the house worked as an accountant with very long hours at the Barrington Sachs Financial Office under an obnoxious boss. His wife, Marion Flumley, wins a cruise and, of course, they just have to go. Little did they know that there was going to be a conference on board which the boss and his family were attending and hoping to land an account with the very important client, Jock Grundy.
Each scene showed the families avoiding each other until the very end where, of course, they did see each other and, because the holiday made Mr Flumley realise that there was more to life, finally he had enough courage to quit his job with Barrington Sachs and accept a very rewarding job with Jock Grundy, whom he had befriended during the course of the cruise.
The individual singers, dancers, the band that was playing on the night, and the lead acts, put on a fantastic show to a packed house over several nights of some 500 people. I congratulate everyone involved in the event. The young people, the students, both the boys and girls, do a great job and they have grown from year to year.
I also congratulate the principal, Tony Considine, who has been creating an environment at Taminmin where these activities flourish. It is great to see young adolescent boys getting involved in these events. It opens them up, makes them show their emotions a little more, and they learn to work together. It was another great time at Taminmin High School, and congratulations to everyone.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the names of the cast and crew of the event.
Leave granted.
- Director – Tanya Ham
Producer – Taryna Deslandes
Choreographer – Shauna Ricardo
Music Director – Ilona Retallack
Sound and Lighting – Jesse Muller
Costumes – Jenny Unwin
Playwright – Megan Rigoni
The Flumley Family – Sam Tolomei, Yazmina Lipinski, Billy Scott, Josie Short
Cruise Boat Staff and Guests – Coreena Reeves, John Burt, Dennis Collins-Sing, Sam Whelan, Roxy Woolley, Katie Meehan, Chris Pearce, Theresa Nelson, Leanne Eltagonde, Jo Pickering, Tash Morrow, Ellen Fink, Ellen Robinson
The Barrington Sachs Family – Jesse Milne, Dimity Jessup, Luke Richardson
- The Cruise Boat’s Posh Party – Aimee Williams, Shelly Kenning, Rebecca Williams, Ashlee Inglis, Tristen Vo, Jarrah Coe, Theresa Nelson, Roland Van Eigen
The Band Members – Ilona Retallack, Kaitlin Power, Melanie Totten, Assunta Tag, Aleasha Blight, Jaxon de Santis, Emily Parker, Conrad Cockman, Colin Ellsworth, Michael Duke, Jessica Westlund
Lead Dancers – Leanne Eltagonde, Kayla Leafe, Josie Blake, Ellen Robinson, Zoe Inglis, Hayley Simpkins, Emily Sharp, Molly Bliss, Roland Van Eigen, Tamyikah Anderson, Shannon Hubert
Dancers – Helen Baily, Jaimee Boorer, Brooke Broughton, Jess Castle, Sheryl-Anne Dalhelm, Ellen Fink, Amber Howard, Zoe McIntosh, Casey Richardson, Tegan Kennerley, Stevie Winter, Leonie Biddle
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also seek leave to table the program from the evening as well.
Leave granted.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016