2010-06-18
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 5.30 pm.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Port Darwin be granted leave of absence for this day.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the following changes be made to membership of committees:
Privileges Committee – discharge the member for Port Darwin and appoint the member for Drysdale.
Public Accounts Committee - discharge the member for Port Darwin and appoint the member for Goyder.
Council of Territory Cooperation - discharge the member for Port Darwin and appoint the member for Fong Lim.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I advise of the following changes to shadow portfolio responsibilities:
the member for Blain to take responsibility for Treasury;
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of pairing arrangements for today as follows:
the members for Wanguri and Port Darwin for the period 5.30 pm to 7 pm; and
Continued from 9 June 2010.
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 Speaker I am pleased to table the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee in their consideration of the Estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2010-11.
I advise honourable members any outstanding information, including answers to questions taken on notice will be tabled during the August 2010 sittings of the 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 onto the Legislative Assembly website.
The management of the overall workload of the Estimates Committee is always a challenge. This year there were several changes implemented to the terms of reference which had a positive impact on the estimates process. The total number of hours of estimates was increased by five hours from 45 to 50 hours; there was the addition of a fifth day to the estimates timetable; and an increase in time for questioning of the government owned incorporation, Power and Water, from two hours to three hours. The effect of those changes was to provide more time for the examination of proposed expenditure for 2010-11.
There was also greater flexibility provided to the Estimates Committee with respect to the hours a minister could appear, up to a maximum of seven hours. We saw an increase in total questioning hours for several ministers up from previous years. The Chief Minister appeared before the committee for seven hours, minister Burns for six-and-a-half hours, minister Vatskalis for six-and-a-half hours, and minister Gerry McCarthy for six-and-a-half hours.
Changes to the terms of reference for paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 covering questions and answers were also important.
Initial questions still needed to be directed through the minister or Chair, but subsequent questions could be answered by the departmental officials present. I believe this change in the terms of reference reflected the often conversational nature of estimates, where practical, and they worked.
Another change was commencing Estimates Committee hearings with the Treasurer as the first minister to be questioned, rather than the Speaker. This was an important change because it allowed for the overall picture of appropriation for 2010-11 to be examined from the outset.
As in previous years, the substitution of members on the committee was set within certain parameters providing opposition shadows the opportunity to question the appropriate ministers and agency officers and also provided flexibility for members to be present when specific portfolios were being scrutinised.
Additionally, there was an informal time sharing agreement reached amongst members of the Estimates Committee for the opposition and Independents, and an informal roster for agencies. As my Deputy Chair would attest, I am sure this made it easier and harder to chair the estimates this year compared to last year. I thank the ministers and members for their flexibility as we managed that, and it did provide more certainty to agencies when they would appear before the committee, and that they would actually appear before the committee.
Over the last few years, members of the committee, in preparation for estimates, had sought a list of agencies or output groups that were not questioned during the hearings. As an information sharing process, and to assist future committee members, I will provide a summary of agencies or output groups that were not examined or, as a result of timing, were not able to be questioned during the 50 hours.
Of the Treasurer’s portfolios, as the shareholding minister, the financial statements of Power and Water were not questioned. During the questioning of the Chief Minister, under the portfolio of Police, Fire and Emergency Services the areas of investigations, services to the judicial process, road safety services, fire prevention and response management and emergency were not able to be questioned. During the appearance by minister Malarndirri McCarthy, the portfolio areas of Outdoor Areas Protection Authority, the Women’s Policy in the area of Territory Discoveries and Tourism were not questioned.
During the questioning of Dr Burns, the output groups of NT Home Ownership and Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment were not questioned by the committee. During the appearance of Mr Gerald McCarthy, the output group Juvenile Detention under Correctional Services as well as Archives, Herbarium, NT Library, Araluen Arts Centre under Scientific and Cultural Collections, were not examined. During the appearance of Mr Hampton, the portfolio area of Central Australia was not able to be questioned.
This information may be able to assist in the allocation of time for ministers in next year’s estimates now the Estimates Committee has this flexibility.
For questions taken on notice, I can report there has been an increase in the total number of questions taken on notice during the proceedings. There are 169 questions on notice this year, four of which were for Power and Water; the number of questions is an increase of 39 questions on last year. Twenty-four questions have already been responded to in writing during the hearings and, on behalf of the committee, I thank the ministers and agencies for the promptness of their responses so far. However, I do ask any outstanding answers be provided to the Secretariat as soon as possible in order to meet the intended August 2010 sittings tabling of questions and answers.
I thank all members who participated in the estimates process, in particular, members of the Public Accounts Committee who form the core membership of the Estimates Committee deciding the manner in which these public hearings were conducted.
This is the Legislative Assembly’s ninth year of Estimates Committee hearings. Each year the Assembly has learnt and improved its estimates process and has become very efficient at conducting this very important scrutiny role in our parliamentary democracy.
On behalf of the whole committee, I thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their work …
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr GUNNER: … to ensure the process runs smoothly.
Special mention must be made of Hansard, the Table Office, Building Services and Committee staff. It is always a risk to mention names but I do thank Maria Viegas, Lauren Copley, Steve Stokes, Annette Brown and Kim Cowcher and, of course, the redoubtable Mr Gadd …
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr GUNNER: … for their work during the last two weeks. We do realise having to move from sittings in the Chamber one day, last Thursday, to the Estimates Committee hearing the next morning takes much work and is a huge effort, and we appreciate your role in making this committee a reality.
I also acknowledge the Government Owned Scrutiny Committee which sat earlier this afternoon to provide a valuable insight into the operations of Power and Water.
I place on the record my appreciation to staff of all agencies, and Power and Water, who were involved in the estimates process. We all know how much time and effort staff put into preparing for estimates; and I am sure all ministers have thanked their staff as well. I know preparation for estimates commences months in advance, and staff put in long hours in preparation for and during estimates.
I commend the reports to the House.
Madam CHAIR Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 9 June 2010, the committee has before it consideration of the Appropriation 2010-2011 Bill (Serial 99) and reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation’s Scrutiny Committee. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions and expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure, or output, with reference to the Appropriation 2010-2011 Bill 2010 (Serial 99), all the activities, performances, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2010-2011, be noted.
I remind members speech time limits for this debate are as follows: 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 5.42 pm, if the debate is not completed by 10 42 pm I will put the question.
Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports has 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; the bill will then be reported to the Assembly. Following this report, the Speaker will then call upon the Treasurer to move the third reading of the bill.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I commence with echoing the member for Fannie Bay’s comments in reference to those that assisted in this process, the Hansard staff, the Table Office staff, and those who worked around us to ensure we were able to do that in the time we did. The Territory opposition also places on the record its genuine appreciation of the good work of the people around us.
I also acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Estimates Committee; it is a difficult job.
We acknowledge the process we have just been through, and moving to the purpose of that process, having been through a number of estimate processes, we always look forward to estimates as an opportunity to get some vital answers to questions which can be hidden from view and sometimes very difficult to get a grasp on certain aspects of a problem. It is not a simple matter of going to a library and getting out a book, because there are those who stand in the way and prevent you from getting that information. Why? Because it would expose, and that is why we look forward to estimates, because it provides us with that opportunity to get that information.
In fact, I have a quote that comes to mind; the member for Arnhem once said: ‘The estimates process is about unpacking the budget’. That is what we look forward to, like Christmas time, come along, look at that budget, and unpack it to see the story behind the story. The trouble is we are often blocked in our capacity to unpack, sometimes we are given boxes to unpack and there is nothing in them, and too many times there has been a barrage of distracting or obstructionist lines.
In many cases it was grossly unsatisfactory for Territorians who expressed concerns about all manner of things that affect them, and when the straight, plain question is asked, there is no danger that question will be answered - perhaps there is danger if the question was answered. I found it astonishing some members were able to hide behind process and deny access to the information sought. I found that astonishing, and it occurred a number of times.
Worse than that was another aspect; ministers thought a description of the process itself was the answer, and hid behind the process: ‘No, it is not my responsibility, you should be talking to this person. You have missed your chance, you should have spoken to that person’; or ‘Wrong output group, sport, you should have done it here, there, or over there’. Those tactics seem to have been skilfully employed on a number of occasions. Of course, they come back and say: ‘You have to understand how the game is played’.
I was told by one man in this Chamber that it is actually a game. I do not believe it is a game. I believe the process is to serve our objective: to serve the best interests of Territorians.
Too many times I have found it so disappointing to find a wholly political presentation of counter ideas, such as fireworks: ‘We know what the CLP secret plan is; you are going to ban fireworks’. That is absolute rubbish! Just not true! Yet, a Chief Minister can stand in the Chamber as though this is his great contribution to the debate, and put out such absurd rubbish as that; to run ridiculous lines which have been found to be patently untrue, such as the Country Liberals’ secret plan to slash the public sector - not true at all - absolutely untrue. Yet, without a qualm, without a concern at all, they use the vehicle of estimates to push back untruths. I find that so dishonourable of those who like to have the prefix ‘honourable’ in front of their names.
This is estimates, about unpacking the budget; hold yourself accountable, be able to account for yourself, show you understand. We do the best we can. You, one day, may be in opposition and you will see from the point of view of opposition that you want to use this process so you can get a better grasp. Why do we want to do that? To knock you out? No. To ensure we hold government to account so people get a better deal and are not conned or manipulated by spin. Hopefully, we can crack the spin cycle and get to what it is all about. That is what it is about; that is the process we are involved in.
This government had no qualms about lying; we found that a number of times - plain untruths. That is what I find very difficult ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I seek a ruling on the Leader of the Opposition talking about government lying. He knows he should be doing that by substantive motion ...
Ms Purick: No, it is not a person.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I will confer with the Clerk.
Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to rephrase what you have said.
Mr MILLS: This government has no qualms about resorting to dishonesty to try to divert attention from its own plain failures. During the past fortnight of parliamentary sittings, the government has dredged out hoary old chestnuts to divert from the multiple and compounding failures we highlighted during estimates; to deflect from the Treasurer’s and Labor’s compliance - unbelievable, weak compliance - and acceptance of Kevin Rudd’s 40% resource super profits tax. The Treasurer claims we, on this side of the House, are opposed to a profits-based resource tax. Grab whatever you like and throw it across the room; do not bother with the truth. This is absurd! It was the Country Liberals who first introduced a profits-based tax in Australia ...
Ms Lawrie: You wanted 35%.
Mr MILLS: If you think it is so good, you run right against your own argument with that position.
Ms Lawrie: You wanted 35%.
Mr MILLS: We have defended the model in media releases during the course of the year. What we oppose, Treasurer, is the 40% rate the Rudd government has set, and the Henderson government has rolled over and accepted without a whimper. The tax has the potential …
Ms Lawrie: Yet, you wanted 35% …
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity, Treasurer. The tax has the potential to be extremely ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr MILLS: Make no mistake, this tax has the potential to be extremely damaging.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr MILLS: Make no mistake, this tax has the potential to be extremely damaging to the Northern Territory economy and to ordinary Territory families and business operators. The government had to perform a massive backflip on its plan to freeze public sector wage increases at 2.5%. That is fine, the figure was below the inflation rate and would have been an additional expense on top of the spiralling cost of housing, power, water, groceries and other consumables right across the Territory. Instead of slashing public sector salaries, this Labor government has opted for a public sector freeze in an effort to disguise its embarrassment. Labor is pretending the Country Liberals are going to cut the public service - nothing could be further from the truth.
Last August we made a commitment and, when we make a commitment, we mean what we say because we believe what we say and will stand our ground on that; unlike Labor, who will shift the ground. Like Kevin Rudd, who will say whatever he thinks will make him most popular at the time; but it is subject to change as circumstances change. Not so here.
Last August we made a commitment, a cast iron commitment, that no public servants would lose their jobs under the Country Liberals. The government will, no doubt, continue their dishonest scaremongering, but our public servants are too smart to be whipped into a frenzy by the dishonesty of those like Delia Lawrie and Paul Henderson. Enough is enough!
Ms Lawrie: Is this your leadership speech?
A member: He is the leader, you idiot.
Ms Lawrie: He is being challenged, you idiot.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr MILLS: During the introduction to the Ombudsman’s Bill in 2008, the Chief Minister said:
You then went on to say, Chief Minister:
Yes, Chief Minister, but the legislation is barely worth the paper it is written on unless the government backs it up with action and adequate resources to ensure the good intentions behind the policy are much more than just empty rhetoric.
Talking of legislation that has a distinct lack of support from this government, there is no knowledge of any prosecutions for failing to report domestic violence. You can assert all you like in the marketplace, but back it up with action? No action.
There is endemic failure to enforce payment for breaking the laws of the Territory to a tune of almost $6.5m. That is 75% of court fines not paid, and 43% of penalties not paid, and that was just for 2008-09. Talk about a consequence to affect behavioural change; it almost appears, under this Labor administration, it is optional to pay your fine.
The Health Complaints Commissioner, we saw the government’s failure to act on the recommendations made in a review of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act. This is only one of multiple reports which have been produced at great expense to taxpayers, yet, because it may not sit comfortably with the government, it has been relegated to the depths of someone’s in-tray.
The Health minister is not interested in running hospitals as the businesses they are. The nature of the job dictates if people need treating, you treat them, and that should not detract from the fact hospitals should be run efficiently so money is not needlessly wasted, and provide the services Territorians expect, particularly from a department which commands quarter of the entire Territory budget. Yet, despite continued record spends by this government and budgets that allocate 30% more per patient than the national average, the Territory has slipped from the top of national ED and elective surgery wait times in the late 1990s to the absolute bottom.
Electoral Commission - much heralded foray into super shires has been akin to a complete farce with an average of one shire election every two months, and it is only because of a question from the Independent member for Macdonnell that we found out the accounting company Deloitte had been called in to assess the Barkly Shire books, to see how serious matters are in the Barkly Shire.
Where is the government, the architects of grand reform when you need them? They are not there.
Your Business minister cannot answer the most fundamental question about support for businesses in the Territory, and when asked what areas of government have opened up the potential new industrial investment, he hid behind a cacophony of filibuster and excuses.
A member: Hear! Hear!!
Mr MILLS: Appalling! No leadership! Hiding behind process! Who is in charge? Who needs this Labor government? They do not seem to be doing anything.
Education and the BER: once again have a government that has given no attention to the vital question of how you actually get value for that. Once again, describe the process; put any heat on them - blame someone else. 28.5% of the BER funding is taken up in administration, project management and consultancy. Truancy is through the roof despite promising meaningful increases in school attendance in 2009.
Youth crime: family responsibility initiative - much hype with glossy brochures by the Labor government prior to the 2008 election. I remember it well, and these characters do not care as long as you get the perception right, because remember we want to get re-elected. Do not worry about the truth. Do not worry about the substance that might sit behind the glossy brochure. The object of the exercise is to get re-elected.
The plan was to confiscate plasma televisions from families whose children repeatedly broke the law. This financial year no family responsibility orders were issued and no plasmas were confiscated. Rubbish! What a terrible position and legacy you will leave unless you wake up and recognise what you have to do, which is much more than just trying to stay in government. Do the right thing and the community will reward you.
Waterfront Corporation: the government’s inability to manage the running of the wave pool to the tune of $1m a year in operational expenses, and a mere $500 000 in income. Part of the development agreement for the Darwin Waterfront is there be lock access for boats. What is the timetable for construction of that lock? According to the CEO of the Waterfront Corporation the earliest date Territorians can expect to see this lock is 2016.
Department of the Chief Minister: the extraordinary, unbelievable waste of money does not seem to cause any concern whatsoever in the face of a community which has entrusted you with a job to spend money within the various outreaches of the Offices of the Chief Minister, note the offices - the Palmerston office - no Labor members, so we have an outreach post there. Territorians, you are called upon to fund this for $525000 for the office and $435 000 for a staff of three people in Palmerston.
In Alice Springs, the Office of the Chief Minister - $334 000 for salaries and it employs five people. Think of the number of nurses or police or FACS workers, workers who are critical to the running of the Territory that could be employed with wages spent on, essentially, political staff. For what real purpose? A political purpose? Or do you genuinely want to serve the best interests of the Territorians? Once again, it appears not. Alternatively, that $850 000 could have been spent on maintaining Power and Water infrastructure rather than increasing tariffs by 20%.
Major events: BassintheGrass - $368 000 support for 6000 tickets plus 1500 at the gate, a subsidy of $50 each, but much less than the subsidy for the Territory Wildlife Park and Alice Springs Desert Park of $80 per year.
Construction Division: $25m in external consultants conveniently hidden as an expense under Sales of Goods and Services. Fortunately, with the good work of members of the opposition we were able to extract that which needs to be put in plain view and not hidden.
The environment: the minister for the Environment is a terrible environment minister and should not keep his job.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: The talent pool in this Labor Party is depleted and Territorians have almost given up on this government. The Territory’s environment is a big loser here. The handling of the environment portfolio has been so bad that whistleblowers have had to report spillages at our wharves, and Darwin City Council has had to identify an outbreak of bacteria.
The government is so desperate to score cheap political points the minister, last night, claimed our environment spokesman, Peter Chandler, had described the Environment Protection Authority as ‘lazy’. The minister is lazy, not the EPA. The EPA is under resourced and not properly empowered, and that is the lazy minister’s fault. Do not offload and attack the person. The issue is take responsibility.
Port Corporation: only $5m from last year’s $32m budgeted for the conveyor in the 2009-10 budget will be used, and that is only for the design - not the construction - just the design. Borrowing $22m to do capital works for Treasury; loading the Port Corporation up with debt like the Power and Water Corporation and probably the Land Development Corporation.
Or, SIHIP: unbelievable. This, to me, was the lowest point. To have a Chief Minister assert something he knew was not true, could verify, or substantiate - just said it. If he said it, it must be true; nothing to back it up, just offload responsibility once again. The cupboard is bare, there is nothing there in the area of acceptance, responsibility, understanding how these things work, and knowing it is not just you at stake here, it was money given in a crisis to build houses, and all you can do is scrape the bottom of the barrel and come up with the most basic of offloads - concoct some weird story which does not stack up.
This is the Chief Minister who dares to mislead the parliament and this Estimates Committee by asserting something he cannot back up …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! The Leader of the Opposition knows he cannot use such language without a substantive motion.
Madam CHAIR: Quite correct. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw the reference to misleading. Such comments can only be made under a substantive motion.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw, in that case. This is an issue which will not go away, but for the purposes of this exercise, I withdraw.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask the member be granted an extension of 10 minutes?
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. It is this Chief Minister who needs to substantiate because, in this case, the game is up. You cannot stand there and say something for convenience because no one believes it any more. You have seen what has happened to the brand when you continue to posture after all these years and say anything for the immediate convenience of saying something, and found it to be wanting. You have to have people trust and believe you; that trust has been significantly eroded. When we have the opportunity to ask the Chief Minister questions, no one will believe him.
In the output of the Attorney-General, the Chief Minister said the Commonwealth decided on its own, for whatever reason, the project would not go ahead unless the Territory government accepted their contracting methodology. I believe the term the Housing minister used to describe it was a decision made under duress, and I heard in the media …
Dr BURNS: I said it in the House last week. You were not listening.
Mr MILLS: … we had a gun to our heads. Yet in today’s The Australian it was revealed the strategic alliance concept was never supported until after 2008 - after the change of government.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr MILLS: You know it is getting desperate when the Chief Minister starts yabbering to distract by talking about fireworks; so shallow is he. Like a little kid caught out telling a big lie and wants to tell you something else to distract from it. One lie leads to another lie, and it becomes increasingly ridiculous.
Ms Lawrie: Not true, not true. You are spinning on yourself now. This is spin, pure and simple spin. You are spinning.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order! Treasurer, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: I think it is very important to emphasise to the community at large that all public servants who took part in the estimates process are a critical segment of transparency we must witness in our political processes; it is never a waste of time or effort; it is never anything less than truly valuable. To see it treated as I, and other members saw it treated, particularly in this case by the Chief Minister, was a disappointment. I believe in my Territory, and I believe there needs to be a better quality than I saw in that desperate and embarrassing attempt to divert and distract from what was glaringly obvious. You need to accept responsibility and get on with the job, rather than resorting to such nonsense.
The good thing is, with my confidence and trust in the Territory community, they can see it too, and we will hold our ground because there must be a change. This government must change its attitude, and it has had an opportunity to do so, because we will not change our position; we will continue.
I commend my colleagues for the hard work they have done in a short time to hold this government to account. It is much more than a political exercise; this is an exercise to understand and learn our craft so we can do our job in opposition - hold government to account in the interests of better government for the Northern Territory. I believe we have managed to do that in many ways.
I know some of the ministers on the other side, through this exercise, had the opportunity to learn more about how things work. I know that is the case. I have spoken to public servants, and I recognise the extraordinary amount of work those public servants have done, and I commend and respect you for the work you have done.
The whole exercise is of benefit but, if we added rather than took from it, we could see a greater benefit flow from the estimates process. I was disappointed to see some very childish obstructionism by the Education minister who thought he was doing a great job in blocking; he thought it was a great achievement. Probably went home and patted Bruiser, and thought: we got him today, we knew where he was going and we headed him off at the pass to make sure he could not answer that line of question. Big tick in the political box for us.
Well, I am more concerned whether the money given into the trust of this government is going to be used to benefit kids in schools in the northern suburbs, in this case. I do not think they will be particularly happy and think: good on you, member for Johnston, you are a very clever man; you have played the political process so well. You are a smarty pants and you are able to block a line of inquiry - big tick. Well, you can hear a high five out there in the Labor Party lobby, but you are not going to get high fives in staffrooms with teachers, or the kids. That is where it should help, changing and strengthening the culture of education in the Northern Territory, which is the issue, not winning a political point and being a smart Alec.
All that said, this has been a good process. We will continue with it, and we will grow from strength to strength in the interests of ensuring we have good government in the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I thought more members of the opposition would be contributing, so I was waiting for their contribution.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: This is normally treated as a wrap so, if other members want to speak, I will resume my seat.
Madam CHAIR: The Treasurer is wrapping up debate. Are there any speakers from the opposition before the Treasurer wraps up?
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was happy to clarify that because we would not want to be gagging any illuminating contributions from the opposition, as we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, which was really a political rant. I was looking forward to anything of substance or any examples he could provide here in scrutiny of the 2010-11 Budget …
Mr Bohlin: I thought the Chief Minister would have spoken on his own budget but he did not. His was a political rant.
Madam CHAIR: Order, member for Drysdale!
Ms LAWRIE: … instead, what we had was political rant and spin from the opposition, with just rhetoric flowing. I have to say that is disappointing.
I also want to add my sincere thanks to everyone who has put in so many long hours of work in assisting the estimates process; from the committee members themselves - 50 hours is a long time; our three government members put in extraordinary hours. I also recognise the Independents put in very lengthy hours, and members of the opposition who rotated their way through the 50 hours. Ministers spend a long time preparing for estimates, and I acknowledge the incredibly hard work that occurs right across the public service in preparing for estimates.
It is a good process, and that is why we brought it in as soon as we came to government. We formed a process whereby the PAC of the day looked at estimates processes elsewhere in Australia and we introduced it in the Territory. It has evolved, it has changed, and this year we have additional hours; the 50 hours allow additional time to question ministers across their portfolio areas.
The Assembly staff: I recognise it was technically complex to begin estimates on the Friday of the sittings week. I know staff had to organise arrangements from the Chamber to the committee room and, as Treasurer, I thank them for that. It certainly was no a joy as Treasurer to go from a three-day, long hours sitting week into the estimates session, so I certainly understand how the Legislative Assembly staff felt backing up on Friday morning.
Thank you to the Hansard staff: they are the silent heroes when it comes to the operations of parliament.
A member: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: They do the long hours of the parliament Chamber, and they did the extremely lengthy hours of estimates; so I thank them.
The Committee Secretariat: Mr Graham Gadd has stepped into that role. Gaddy, on behalf of government, thank you very much for the work you did in supporting the committee as the Secretary; and the Clerk, and all the committee members, and all the staff of the Public Accounts Committee.
Aside from thanking the departmental staff across government for the lengthy preparation, and also their attendance, I also thank the Power and Water Corporation’s Chair, Ms Judith Kelly, and the Power and Water Corporation staff.
It is interesting, we have been getting a great deal of feedback across the public sector about estimates and, apart from a couple of standout disturbing episodes from members opposite, which have become the talk of the public service, on the whole I believe most people found it to be a fair and reasonable process.
There were a couple of disparaging moments when the Independent member for Macdonnell, I will name her, made a disgusting comment and reference in regard to a public servant’s speech. In the cold light of day, I believe that member should come into this Chamber and make a fulsome apology. It was disgraceful and despicable. Having been a former Minister for Family and Community Services, I can say that that public servant is a highly regarded, fabulous professional, regarded nationally for her understanding in the specialist area of Allied Health Services, and to have a speech impediment alluded to in such a despicable manner by the member for Macdonnell is disgraceful and warrants a fulsome apology in the Chamber, on the public record. I challenge her to do that and admit when a serious mistake has occurred.
Estimates, ultimately, was to scrutinise the budget. I was not there for all the hours of estimates but, from my perspective, I was disappointed there was more focus on political grandstanding than scrutiny of the budget. In Treasury, the opposition chose not to go through output by output; I accepted that request and we took a general, whole-of-Treasury approach to the estimates scrutiny.
That being said, I found it disappointing there was far more time spent on back-casting positions back to 2002-03 - all healthy positions for government, so you would wonder why opposition wasted their time doing that - rather than looking at what is in the 2010-11 budget. There was time wasted in just grandstanding around, showing some graphs and charts, instead of getting into the detail of the scrutiny which I had expected to occur.
This budget was constructed clearly as a post-global financial crisis budget with continuing impact on our revenue of GST reduction. Our economy slowed in private sector investment, which is why we made the deliberate decision to go into deficit, the deliberate decision to increase debt to keep people in jobs, keep the economy pumping ahead of private sector investment returning to the Territory, and the major projects on the horizon. That was a responsible thing to do. We did it in the previous year’s budget, in 2009-10 and, having the benefit of hindsight, what a smart decision that was; we had the nation’s lowest unemployment rate, at 2.9%, and we have created some 6000-plus jobs.
With the record $1.8bn infrastructure investment in the 2010-11 budget we will be creating a further 3600 jobs. As I said when handing down the budget and in the estimates scrutiny, the Chamber of Commerce, not exactly a Labor ally, not exactly on the left of the political spectrum, rated the 2010-11 budget, an eight out of ten, because they get business needs government to step up its public sector expenditure, to step into deficit, go into further debt at a time when public sector spending needs to increase to support jobs right across industry sectors. They understand it, but the opposition is left out there, on its own, not understanding it.
Much of the debate which occurred between me, as Treasurer, and the member for Port Darwin went to this issue of debt. He had a little graph that showed a 94% debt increase post-GFC, again, not understanding what you are doing, which is supporting jobs. I pointed out in Western Australia alone, a Liberal jurisdiction, they have increased debt by something like 333%. So if you want to understand what is occurring in the Territory with government debt, you have to do a comparison across our nation to see what is happening.
The opposition was saying, ‘Even New South Wales is in surplus’. Talk about dishonesty! How dishonest does it get when they are running the spin of operating surpluses. The Northern Territory is also in surplus. We run an operating surplus; New South Wales is running an operating surplus. When it comes to the cash position, the real position, we are in deficit, but so is New South Wales.
We are predicting a $249m-odd deficit: New South Wales is predicting a $300bn deficit. But, no, the opposition are running a smoke screen saying: ‘New South Wales is in surplus’. Well, so are we. We are in operating surplus, too.
I have heard nothing but spin and dishonesty from the opposition when it comes to deficit and when it comes to the debt burden across our nation. The debt burden is a result of every government having to keep people in jobs, waiting for private sector investment to return. How do you look at your capacity to service debt? I quoted to the Estimates Committee the Moody’s Ratings Agency which assessed the Territory position post handing down the 2010-11 budget. Moody’s have said we are rated as stable, we continue our AA1 rating and they also said we have a moderate level of debt, a very serviceable level of debt.
So, Moody’s have given our 20110-11 budget the big tick on the issue of our stability, of our government’s plan to step out of debt, step out of deficit, clearly articulated within our budget books. They say: ‘You do not have a plan to slash jobs’, and that is correct; you do not slash when you are propping up your economy by keeping jobs growth positive instead of creating a positive on the unemployment side of your economic data ledger, which is what they would do. They say they do not have a plan to slash jobs but they went to the last election with a party platform clearly articulating a massive reduction in public service positions.
Since that election, they have handed down a dissenting report to the Council for Territory Cooperation which says they are going to wipe out the entire department of Local Government - and they say we are making up this plan to slash jobs. It is in writing in the CLP party platform. It is in writing in the CTC dissenting report and we have quoted the member for Port Darwin on ABC morning radio saying: ‘Well, there is fat in the public service’ and the ones on contracts are the ones they are going to go after. Words out of your mouth, written in your platform policy, written by your members in the dissenting report to the CTC.
Bring back the toe-cutter, Col Fuller, put him up there and let us see if they are ever allowed anywhere near government. God forbid that would ever occur, because we would be back to the ridiculous situation where police numbers were frozen for four years; nurse numbers were dramatically reduced and, guess what? It did not save them money; it cost the government of the day an additional $70m to destroy critical service delivery, and add to cost of government.
What a ridiculous outcome in the old Col Fuller days! But, he is back up there sharpening the knives.
Through our economic management we have taken the nett debt-to-revenue ratio we inherited from the CLP, which was at 61%, and driven that down to around 20% in 2008-09. Not only have we increased service delivery - more police, more teachers, more nurses to improve the health of Territorians, the safety of Territorians, and improve education which is fundamental to a better society - and access to education irrespective of where you live in this great Territory, because there was a pretty big barrier in the bush when the CLP were in government. Not only have we done all that, at the same time we have dramatically reduced debt.
We have slashed debt in the general government sector by $552m, and in the non-financial sector by $496m since coming to government. We have a track record of reducing debt and, at the same time, improving services Territorians quite rightly expect in those core areas of law and order, health and education. This budget is all about increased housing stock to give people the housing options they need - a record housing budget in 2010-11.
Taking into account the temporary deficit position we moved into as a result of the private sector being swept away by the global financial crisis - they are starting to recover, but it is a long recovery and it will take at least another two to three years before we see full recovery in the private sector. We have slashed the nett debt-to-revenue ratio down and predict, at 2010-11, it will be at 26% - half the level we inherited from the CLP. The opposition may not understand it, but the mums and dads paying off a mortgage get that a nett debt-to-revenue ratio is the capacity to pay your debt, taking into account your income; in other words, your revenue.
We have driven up our annual income to almost four times our nett debt. The Territory is the second lowest nett debt change across the forward estimates for all jurisdictions at only 74%. Western Australia has significantly increased its debt position – it has blown out to something like a 1786% change in its nett debt position as a result of the post global financial crisis, and the need to invest in infrastructure. Pretty scary figures in Western Australia, but the Northern Territory is tracking as the second best jurisdiction in Australia when it comes to nett debt-to-revenue position.
In our economic position, we are predicting a strong rebound in the 2010-11 financial year, rebounding from a soft 0.4% in this financial year to 3.6% in 2010-11. It is fundamentally supported by our decision to spend $1.8bn in infrastructure, to go into deficit and to increase our debt level. If we were not doing that we would have a very flat economy. We are doing the right thing by this economy by ensuring we shoulder the burden of infrastructure spending ahead of a private sector recovery.
That being said, we are seeing increased demand for Territory exports, particularly in alumina, manganese and iron ore exports. With our strong capital investment we have created over 6000 jobs in the 2009 year alone.
This is a budget focused on delivering for families through massive spends in health, education, law and order and, significantly, in housing; and that all important A Working Future $980m record investment means Territorians in the bush can start to see the light being shone on improving services and critical infrastructure across the Territory, irrespective of where they live.
I know the opposition is trying to run the line that somehow, as shareholding minister, I missed being held accountable for the Power and Water Corporation’s accounts. What a furphy that is. Not only did I, in my opening statement as shareholding minister, point out - and I will quote from my opening statement:
Did we get around to debating Power and Water issues? Yes, we did. There were a series of exchanges between myself and the member for Port Darwin which went to the position of the debt picture for Power and Water in the debt-to-equity swap the government has undertaken to support Power and Water in their new generation strategy. I talked about that debt position, the reason behind the decision for the new generation strategy, and about other asset management occurring in the financials for Power and Water. We went on to have quite a lengthy debate about my role as shareholding minister in oversighting the Power and Water Corporation.
I talked about the $400m-plus reduction done in the non-financial sector, which is Power and Water, in how we had reduced debt, and how it will increase due to this significant capital program - some $1.5bn-plus - the new generation strategy. There was also exchange in regard to the use of Treasurer’s Allowance to provide for additional funding for Power and Water Corporation’s capital program, as well as undergrounding power.
There was a further exchange between me and the member for Nelson in regard to Power and Water’s contingent liability and the Utilities Commission which oversights a range of tasks on behalf of government with Power and Water.
Short memories, perhaps, in the opposition because there was a series of debates when I appeared before the Estimates Committee which went to the financial position of the Power and Water Corporation. They are very short memories indeed, because it was only one week ago that debate occurred. Also, on Thursday during the sittings, I had tabled the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent as shareholding minister. Again, there was debate in the Chamber at the time of tabling the SCI which highlights the roll-out of our largest ever investment in the infrastructure for Power and Water in new capital and increased …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Chair! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the Treasurer be given an extra 10 minutes to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed.
Ms LAWRIE: It highlighted the massive roll-out in new capital and increased maintenance which will both improve service reliability and, very important for Power and Water, businesses and also our domestic consumers, increase their overall capacity, particularly with the new generators coming in to Channel Island and Weddell - apart from raising the dam wall and the improvement of the sewerage system.
The Statement of Corporate Intent sets out the amount forecast to be spent in the SCI period on repairs and maintenance. It also sets out the forecasts for nett loss after tax of some $10.8m in 2010-11, and the expected return to profitability in 2011-12. It also details the Territory government’s series of debt-to-equity swaps for Power and Water Corporation over the budget and the forward estimates period; and these will be reassessed annually. It is not the only time the government has used a debt-to-equity swap in a government-owned corporation; we had a series of them when the CLP was in power, I believe, but they have short memories.
The first of these swaps will occur in 2010-11, with the value of some $112.6m. This is recorded in the general government sector balance sheet and was completely open to scrutiny. The debt-to-equity swaps occurred a number of times with government business divisions since the introduction of National Competition Policy, and we make no apology for delivering a record infrastructure program which will rebuild our essential services when they were run down after decades of neglect. So, after this massive capital program and massive repairs and maintenance program we will have a reliable network well placed to meet the dramatic growth we are seeing in the Territory in both industrial and domestic growth.
There was ample opportunity for all of this to be scrutinised by the Estimates Committee through me. As I said, there was a series of exchanges between the members for Port Darwin and Nelson and me, and also directly to the government owned corporation itself.
Madam Speaker, I did not find the rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition backed by any substance; it was purely a CLP spin he was given to come down and puff about. Government always goes into estimates with the hope there is a thorough scrutiny of the books, because that is good for democracy, and we welcome the scrutiny; and we believe it is good for all managers across the public service to see how that level of scrutiny makes us accountable for the work we are doing and the responsibilities we carry.
Again, I thank the committee for the extraordinarily long hours they have done, and I thank all members who participated; I thank all the staff of the Assembly who supported this process, and I sincerely thank all our public servants.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committee in relation to the proposed expenditure on output with reference to the Appropriation 2010-2011 Bill 2010 (Serial 99) for the activities, performances, practices and financial management …
Mr Tollner: What? Hang on!
Dr Burns: You missed the call.
Mr Tollner: I have been standing here …
A member: Yes, you did.
Mr Tollner: Absolute rubbish, I have been standing here waiting. I could not have …
Madam CHAIR: Pause please, while I confer with the Clerk on this. We had called for speakers from this side, and the indication was, which was why I was putting the question.
Member for Fong Lim, you have the floor.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do apologise, I could not hear you; so if you did call for speakers, I did not hear it although I have been standing here.
Like the previous speakers, I also thank, as a PAC member, the support the PAC received through this process from the hard-working Legislative Assembly staff, Graham Gadd and his team; and I also thank the countless number of public servants and others who fronted the committee and assisted ministers giving evidence. Thank goodness they did turn up because, I have to say, there is such a lack of talent in the Northern Territory ministry at the moment we would not have a single answer to a single question had there not been an army of advisers and public servants to assist ministers; so it was very good people turned up and assisted when they did.
I thank the members of the PAC for the way they conducted themselves during these estimates. It was refreshing the member for Arafura kept her constant interjections to a reasonable minimum, and her points of order, although you could not say she was a shrinking violet; it was great to see her there.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff who put in so much time and effort and, whilst we did have a glitch or two here and there, I do appreciate it was very hard work. They did a very good job in keeping the committee members and ministers and all the other people satisfied and ensured the job was done. From a technical viewpoint, I think estimates went very well, the staff made sure of that, and I know those on the other side of this Chamber are very grateful.
As I said from the outset, it was very fortunate we had an army of advisors and public servants assisting ministers, because there is a serious lack of talent in this ministry. Ministers clearly are not across their portfolios and when asked why they make decisions on particular issues they often consulted their advisors, saying: ‘Why did I do that? What did I do that for?’ That seemed to be almost a standard response across many ministries.
The gold medal winner, the bloke who really showed himself to be the biggest dill of the lot, would have to be the member for Daly. Asked who the Defence Support minister was, the member for Daly looked around dumbly and could not answer the question. He was asked three times who the Defence Support minister was and could not answer the question. Fortunately, the Chairman of the PAC was there and I eventually asked him: ‘Who is the Defence Support minister?’ And he pointed to the member for Daly.
It is not surprising the member for Daly does not realise he is the Defence Support minister. Not long ago he was jumping up and down berating the Housing minister who, at the time, he believed was the member for Goyder. He believed the Housing minister was the member for Goyder, and the member for Goyder was somehow responsible for all the failures of SIHIP, the escalating housing crisis, and the public housing crisis. At the very time, interestingly enough, the member for Daly was the minister for Housing. So he has a real identity problem, and a real issue understanding his role.
As I say, that would have to be the gold medal performance in any parliament right across Australia, probably the world, to find a minister who does not know he is the minister or what his ministries are. It defies belief but, no, we are very fortunate in the Northern Territory Labor government to have the single biggest dill operating amongst us. Needless to say, he constantly had to seek advice from his advisors because he did not seem to be up to answering any questions on any matter at all.
One of the great problems I have with this estimates process is it is still very complicated, and very difficult to understand. This is my second estimates now, and I can say I have a track record having done one before, but working out what is relevant to what output group is a science unique to estimates and it will take me a couple more yet to understand exactly how that works.
Having said that, it does make it very easy for ministers to dodge questions; ministers you know would be quite capable of answering questions, under other circumstances, but for reasons I will come to later, are quite keen to pass the buck or dodge the question however they can.
Estimates has reinforced in our minds, on this side of the Chamber, the culture of cover-up which exists within government in the Northern Territory. It again provided an example of how ministers wriggle and worm their way out of situations where they do not want to answer questions and sit there and look at you dumbly. I believe the member for Daly probably did know who the Minister for Defence Support was; he just refused to answer the question.
Mr Knight: I could not believe you were asking the question.
Mr TOLLNER: It was an interesting exchange. I asked him about Defence Support and he said: ‘Oh, no, that is not me, that is some other output group blah, blah, blah’. Like the Defence Support Hub had nothing to do with the Minister for Defence Support. It defies logic. But, he was not alone, plenty of his colleagues were quite prepared to sit there and dodge questions all day long. It was interesting to see the different tactics used to dodge questions; I think the member for Daly uses the ignorant fool tactic. The member for Johnston obviously uses the long, endless diatribe tactic, as does the member for Karama who seems able to talk with a mouthful of gravel underwater talks endlessly in the same dull, boring, monotone she has, constantly wasting time, using up time, making sure none of the real gritty stuff is reached. Probably the two most experienced ministers in that regard are mumbling away and carrying on.
The member for Barkly is an interesting mix. A fellow who really had problems answering any questions, except to say: ‘This is a fantastic question, and I will ask such and such to answer that. The government leads in this particular area, and it is something that is a great priority for us. I will ask the gentleman on my right to speak’, or vice versa. It does leave you scratching your head and wondering how across their portfolios these ministers are.
I sat in for a great portion of the Estimates Committee meetings this time, although there were some notable chunks of time when I was not there; most of the time I was. It was interesting to see the way things panned out and the way different ministers operate. I know they get het up about this; they worry at night whether they will be sprung or caught out, and some of the public servants who have to derive the information can get quite worried and flustered. But, I do not think the process is that daunting, and I do not know why there is so much effort to cover up, to hide things, not explain things properly, and not answer questions succinctly; it is a bad look and, hopefully, one day we can turf this mob out and fix the process to be something meaningful for Territorians and allows genuine scrutiny of the budget, where we get some genuine answers about government’s position, government expenditure, and where they are taking the Territory.
But, if you have no ideas, no plans, if you have nothing going for you there is not much you can do except bluff your way through and cover up and hide things.
I thank all those people who put in so much hard work; and thank you to the ministers as well, for fronting up and teaching us new ways of dodging questions. It will be interesting to see what the coming weeks and months bring from these estimates meetings. A huge amount of information has been garnered from them, and collating that information and getting it into some form is the hard work the opposition has ahead.
To you, Madam Chair, thank you for your efforts as well in the last few days.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 5 May 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, acknowledging these are consequential and necessary to the passage of appropriation, we will provide support.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I thank the opposition and the Independent members for the support of the revenue bill that amends the Stamp Duty Act, the Taxation Administration Act, the First Home Owner Grant Act, the Victims of Crime Assistance Act and the Mineral Royalty Act to implement the 2010-11 Budget revenue measures.
The key aim of this was to ensure we improve housing affordability in line with the government’s commitment to a balanced housing market in the stamp duty changes contained here. We also put in some simple, efficient and equitable measures under the Territory stamp duty and general taxation regime. We have also increased the Territory’s mineral royalty rate from 18% to 20%. This will increase the return from non-renewable resources owned by the Territory through what we believe is a reasonable share in profitability of the mine. Lastly, the bill makes an amendment to increase the victims’ levy for infringement notices from $10 to $20.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister for misleading the Estimates Committee and this Assembly in regard to his claims that he and his government were forced to accept the alliance contracting model in relation to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, and that he, his ministers, and his government persist in making deliberate misleading statements to the Estimates Committee about members of this House and their inability to manage the finances of the Northern Territory ...
Madam SPEAKER: Please, pause.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): We will not be accepting the motion, Madam Speaker. I move the question be now put
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
Motion negatived, there not being a simple majority.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Honourable members, that was the first of two motions before the Chair. The question now is that the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
Motion negatived, there not being a simple majority.
Continued from 10 June 2010.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 108) in the name of Mr McCarthy. Consideration in committee of the whole and in continuation.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I place on the record the minister’s office did provide us with another briefing which was much appreciated by me and my colleague, the member for Braitling, in regard to this legislation. We did have some concerns regarding the mechanics and how the legislation would operate.
One was in regard to what we perceived to be the retrospective nature of the legislation, in other words, it could have been open ended, but we have been advised by the department it is specifically designed to deal with the problem currently before the building industry, the community, and families; where builders have gone broke, gone out of business; or have died, in which case obtaining final certification of the house is at what is described as an impasse.
It is to correct that situation so they can proceed to certification through another builder and another arrangement, which is welcome for those families in Alice Springs and Darwin who have suffered, both financially and emotionally, by the collapse and demise of these building businesses. There were concerns regarding the time frame for families to get their requests for exemption to the building controller, because obviously it is not going to be limited to two weeks or two months, which is what we were concerned about, so there is a reasonable time. Reasonable is hard to define and quantify, and we received assurances the department has written to the people in this situation - about 15 - and I hope the 14 or 15 builders in Alice Springs, and the five or seven in Darwin, have been approached regarding this option and encouraged to talk to the building controller to get their problems sorted out.
I still have reservations; there are some other things put into the bill, obviously the opportunity presented itself so the government believed they could put in some other amendments. One is in regard to decisions of the appeal board - previously there were two. We did try to get clarification of those appeals - the cases, but we did not hear back, so I and my colleague, the member for Braitling, would be interested to know about those two decisions by the appeal board, which are now going to be validated, because I understand there was a question about their legal standing. We would welcome comments from the minister, given those decisions are now to be validated and without this legislation they are in legal limbo. Apart from that, we welcome the legislation.
Much hard work has been put in by the member for Braitling. It was a sad state of affairs in Alice Springs with the builder going bust, and the dodgy builder I had to deal with in Darwin through my constituents, the Poretti Property Group. We hope this problem will be sorted out, and I urge the minister to ensure the builders registration system works well so if a person is not operating professionally and according to industry and building standards, he or she is deregistered as a matter of priority and not continue to operate in an illegal or an unprofessional way, as was the case in Darwin and Alice Springs
Everyone in Darwin knew the Poretti Property Group was not working and acting professionally and ethically. The government knew, the department knew, the industry knew. Industry groups knew, yet the government and the department did nothing about it, despite complaints to the department and the minister’s office - the previous minister, I admit. I understand the Alice Springs situation was different; however, I urge the minister to ensure the Building Advisory Services Unit works more efficiently; resource them as best you can so we do not have the problem of families being stranded and creating the emotional duress those families have had to suffer.
I would welcome comments from the minister to clarify those cases of the Building Appeals Board.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response to the exemptions to builders’ declaration pursuant to section 69, one was for a 10B structure, a water feature, block work and fish pond. The builder did not provide a builders’ declaration for the construction of the work and subsequently went out of business. The certifier advised the owners they would need to seek a waiver of the requirement from the Building Appeals Board. The owner applied to the board, and an exemption was provided by the board. It was a requirement in section 69 the board was purporting to exempt.
In the second matter, a house and carport, class 1A, the builder collapsed in 2000, and a builders’ declaration was unable to be obtained. The owner applied to the board, and the board issued an exemption from the requirement in section 69.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I know we are in committee stage, but one of the reasons we are here is because members on this side had some concerns about the detail in this bill and, as it was on urgency, we did the right thing by asking for it to be delayed. I also received a briefing, and even the people who were briefing us said it is fairly complex legislation. It might appear on the surface to be fixing up a relatively small issue, but the ramifications are not a simple case of changing a few clauses in the act.
It has taken me a while to understand it, and today if someone asked me what it was all about, I would say: ‘Come back a little later and I will tell you’. There certainly needs to be a layperson’s version of this. I do not know whether you are going to have any fact sheets on it, but it is not easy legislation to read. Perhaps people in the building industry may be able to understand it, or some of our parliamentary draftsmen might find it a piece of cake, but it is not easy legislation to understand.
Basically, I see it as it is written in the beginning. It is broken into two sections; one is amendments to the Building Act and the other is regulations. I understand why regulations are important in relation to appeals. You have changed or made it clear where a declaration is required and you say what is required in that declaration. You also talk about exemption certificates and when an exemption certificate is required. It gets down to some transitional arrangements, and they are the ones which are a little difficult to get your head around. Some transitional agreements relate to declarations made by the corporation after commencement day for building work completed before the commencement day, and the same for an owner/builder. There are also declarations made in the regulations to certain types of buildings and whether they require an occupancy permit or do not require an occupancy permit.
I thought this to be a relatively simple thing which needed changing, but having seen what is in this amendment and what we were told at the briefing, this was not a simple case of putting a couple of lines in the act to fix it up.
I certainly hope this will make a difference because I will be telling people who have approached me about another building firm that went bust that they can get exemptions. I know we have not debated too much the other issues in the original motion which caused this to go on; the possibility of financially helping some of the people who were involved in the Carey Builders debacle. However, at least this is a good start and this legislation will help. As I said, minister, I am interested to know if you are going to bring out some fact sheets on this. The way I see it, this is fairly complex legislation, but maybe builders do not see it that way. I tried to do some charts myself, and there are arrows going everywhere; obviously, it will need explanation for people who are not used to reading legislation.
Bearing all that in mind, Madam Chair, I support the amendments.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response to the member for Nelson, yes, there will be fact sheets issued, and there is also information available on the website. The other communication process is through the building note. That is point taken, and there will be much more communication on this. It is our objective to do better, and to communicate this with the industry as well.
Madam CHAIR: Madam Speaker, I have to report that the committee has considered the bill and agreed to the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 108) without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this legislation coming on, I understand it is on urgency. I recognise it has come about as a result of Carey Builders in Alice Springs. I hold some reservations about this bill and I think there are possibly some sinister but more complex issues in this bill which have not been properly canvassed in the short time. I am not sure we have got to the bottom of what is actually in this bill.
We did have a briefing the other day, for which I thank the staff. I received an e-mail from someone in the minister’s office with some information, and I replied asking for further information, but have not received a reply.
I hope it provides some certainty for people who have been put in that position, such as the victims of the Northern Territory government and Carey Builders, but I do worry there are other elements in this bill that may come to fruition in the future which will need to be rectified.
I also want to put on the record how saddened I was to hear government is going back on its word about the motion for assisting the victims of Carey Builders. I understand the member for Karama had a fairly heavy hand in making that decision about not providing support, and I think that is pretty poor form. I am not sure which way the minister went, but I know some of the members of government went one way and some went the other, but the member for Karama was quite vocal.
It is disappointing a government can waste so much money in so many areas, but we cannot help the people who need help the most, Madam Speaker; so we will let the legislation go through.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all the people in this House who work so hard for the estimates process. I would also like to thank the member for Fannie Bay; he is on the other side, but I think he did a decent job as Chairman of the Estimates Committee. Last year, I did not think it was that flash, but I think this year he did a pretty good job, and he should be commended; and so should all the staff for the work they did.
I was shocked and amazed to see some of the responses during estimates, particularly asking a couple of easy questions about the port - everything seemed to get so hard, and no one seemed to know where any money was, and I was quite concerned about that. Very concerning, and I will raise that at a later date.
I am also concerned in the Budget Paper No 4, where the government alludes to it being the biggest infrastructure budget on record. There are numbers in that budget which are clearly not going to be delivered this year; there is no money put aside for them, yet they have been announced, and that is just false. So I am concerned about that.
The real reason I speak today is to congratulate the six teams of dragon boaters who have recently competed in the Ord River Marathon, which is a 55 km dragon boat race without competing, along the Ord River. They normally take five boats every second year; this year they took six, and two boats in particular I would like to mention, but I will mention them all. One from Kununurra, which is the host location; one from Harvey, south of Perth; one from a place called Cockburn, an unfortunate name, in Perth; one from Dubbo; Dragons Abreast from Darwin, which is a breast cancer organisation from Cullen Bay who do a bit of paddling, and also Spirit of Friendship, another breast cancer organisation from Penrith.
I particularly thank my mum, who has come from the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, based at Penrith Lakes, who does paddling. A survivor of breast cancer twice, and coming all the way through Sydney to Darwin, to Kununurra, paddling 55 km, for a 63-year-old women I think is pretty good. I thank her, and her 13 team mates and the person who gives them instructions on the boat, I cannot think of the name. She is sitting outside and she will be quite displeased I forgot.
I pay particular note to the women from Dragons Abreast in Darwin, who also made the trip. It is really pleasant they have done that, and it is good to see a bond for mum to come to the Territory, which is excellent - it is really good.
Thank you for another wonderful estimates, and another parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Before adjourning the House, I place on the record my thanks to all parliamentary officers for their very hard work over this last week with estimates. It is a very long process. It is hard enough for members of parliament but particularly hard for our staff. I extend my thanks to all parliamentary officers.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Port Darwin
Member for Port Darwin
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Port Darwin be granted leave of absence for this day.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Committee Membership - Changes
Committee Membership - Changes
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that the following changes be made to membership of committees:
Privileges Committee – discharge the member for Port Darwin and appoint the member for Drysdale.
Public Accounts Committee - discharge the member for Port Darwin and appoint the member for Goyder.
Council of Territory Cooperation - discharge the member for Port Darwin and appoint the member for Fong Lim.
Motion agreed to.
OPPOSITION PORTFOLIO RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I advise of the following changes to shadow portfolio responsibilities:
the member for Blain to take responsibility for Treasury;
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Wanguri and Port Darwin; and Members for
Fannie Bay and Port Darwin
Pairing Arrangement – Members for Wanguri and Port Darwin; and Members for
Fannie Bay and Port Darwin
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of pairing arrangements for today as follows:
the members for Wanguri and Port Darwin for the period 5.30 pm to 7 pm; and
APPROPRIATION (2010-2011) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Continued from 9 June 2010.
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 Speaker I am pleased to table the reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee in their consideration of the Estimates of proposed expenditure contained in the schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2010-11.
I advise honourable members any outstanding information, including answers to questions taken on notice will be tabled during the August 2010 sittings of the 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 onto the Legislative Assembly website.
The management of the overall workload of the Estimates Committee is always a challenge. This year there were several changes implemented to the terms of reference which had a positive impact on the estimates process. The total number of hours of estimates was increased by five hours from 45 to 50 hours; there was the addition of a fifth day to the estimates timetable; and an increase in time for questioning of the government owned incorporation, Power and Water, from two hours to three hours. The effect of those changes was to provide more time for the examination of proposed expenditure for 2010-11.
There was also greater flexibility provided to the Estimates Committee with respect to the hours a minister could appear, up to a maximum of seven hours. We saw an increase in total questioning hours for several ministers up from previous years. The Chief Minister appeared before the committee for seven hours, minister Burns for six-and-a-half hours, minister Vatskalis for six-and-a-half hours, and minister Gerry McCarthy for six-and-a-half hours.
Changes to the terms of reference for paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 covering questions and answers were also important.
Initial questions still needed to be directed through the minister or Chair, but subsequent questions could be answered by the departmental officials present. I believe this change in the terms of reference reflected the often conversational nature of estimates, where practical, and they worked.
Another change was commencing Estimates Committee hearings with the Treasurer as the first minister to be questioned, rather than the Speaker. This was an important change because it allowed for the overall picture of appropriation for 2010-11 to be examined from the outset.
As in previous years, the substitution of members on the committee was set within certain parameters providing opposition shadows the opportunity to question the appropriate ministers and agency officers and also provided flexibility for members to be present when specific portfolios were being scrutinised.
Additionally, there was an informal time sharing agreement reached amongst members of the Estimates Committee for the opposition and Independents, and an informal roster for agencies. As my Deputy Chair would attest, I am sure this made it easier and harder to chair the estimates this year compared to last year. I thank the ministers and members for their flexibility as we managed that, and it did provide more certainty to agencies when they would appear before the committee, and that they would actually appear before the committee.
Over the last few years, members of the committee, in preparation for estimates, had sought a list of agencies or output groups that were not questioned during the hearings. As an information sharing process, and to assist future committee members, I will provide a summary of agencies or output groups that were not examined or, as a result of timing, were not able to be questioned during the 50 hours.
Of the Treasurer’s portfolios, as the shareholding minister, the financial statements of Power and Water were not questioned. During the questioning of the Chief Minister, under the portfolio of Police, Fire and Emergency Services the areas of investigations, services to the judicial process, road safety services, fire prevention and response management and emergency were not able to be questioned. During the appearance by minister Malarndirri McCarthy, the portfolio areas of Outdoor Areas Protection Authority, the Women’s Policy in the area of Territory Discoveries and Tourism were not questioned.
During the questioning of Dr Burns, the output groups of NT Home Ownership and Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment were not questioned by the committee. During the appearance of Mr Gerald McCarthy, the output group Juvenile Detention under Correctional Services as well as Archives, Herbarium, NT Library, Araluen Arts Centre under Scientific and Cultural Collections, were not examined. During the appearance of Mr Hampton, the portfolio area of Central Australia was not able to be questioned.
This information may be able to assist in the allocation of time for ministers in next year’s estimates now the Estimates Committee has this flexibility.
For questions taken on notice, I can report there has been an increase in the total number of questions taken on notice during the proceedings. There are 169 questions on notice this year, four of which were for Power and Water; the number of questions is an increase of 39 questions on last year. Twenty-four questions have already been responded to in writing during the hearings and, on behalf of the committee, I thank the ministers and agencies for the promptness of their responses so far. However, I do ask any outstanding answers be provided to the Secretariat as soon as possible in order to meet the intended August 2010 sittings tabling of questions and answers.
I thank all members who participated in the estimates process, in particular, members of the Public Accounts Committee who form the core membership of the Estimates Committee deciding the manner in which these public hearings were conducted.
This is the Legislative Assembly’s ninth year of Estimates Committee hearings. Each year the Assembly has learnt and improved its estimates process and has become very efficient at conducting this very important scrutiny role in our parliamentary democracy.
On behalf of the whole committee, I thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their work …
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr GUNNER: … to ensure the process runs smoothly.
Special mention must be made of Hansard, the Table Office, Building Services and Committee staff. It is always a risk to mention names but I do thank Maria Viegas, Lauren Copley, Steve Stokes, Annette Brown and Kim Cowcher and, of course, the redoubtable Mr Gadd …
Members: Hear! Hear!
Mr GUNNER: … for their work during the last two weeks. We do realise having to move from sittings in the Chamber one day, last Thursday, to the Estimates Committee hearing the next morning takes much work and is a huge effort, and we appreciate your role in making this committee a reality.
I also acknowledge the Government Owned Scrutiny Committee which sat earlier this afternoon to provide a valuable insight into the operations of Power and Water.
I place on the record my appreciation to staff of all agencies, and Power and Water, who were involved in the estimates process. We all know how much time and effort staff put into preparing for estimates; and I am sure all ministers have thanked their staff as well. I know preparation for estimates commences months in advance, and staff put in long hours in preparation for and during estimates.
I commend the reports to the House.
Madam CHAIR Honourable members, pursuant to the resolution of the Assembly dated 9 June 2010, the committee has before it consideration of the Appropriation 2010-2011 Bill (Serial 99) and reports of the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation’s Scrutiny Committee. The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions and expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure, or output, with reference to the Appropriation 2010-2011 Bill 2010 (Serial 99), all the activities, performances, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statement of Corporate Intent for 2010-2011, be noted.
I remind members speech time limits for this debate are as follows: 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 5.42 pm, if the debate is not completed by 10 42 pm I will put the question.
Honourable members, when consideration of the bill and reports has 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; the bill will then be reported to the Assembly. Following this report, the Speaker will then call upon the Treasurer to move the third reading of the bill.
Mr MILLS: Madam Chair, I commence with echoing the member for Fannie Bay’s comments in reference to those that assisted in this process, the Hansard staff, the Table Office staff, and those who worked around us to ensure we were able to do that in the time we did. The Territory opposition also places on the record its genuine appreciation of the good work of the people around us.
I also acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Estimates Committee; it is a difficult job.
We acknowledge the process we have just been through, and moving to the purpose of that process, having been through a number of estimate processes, we always look forward to estimates as an opportunity to get some vital answers to questions which can be hidden from view and sometimes very difficult to get a grasp on certain aspects of a problem. It is not a simple matter of going to a library and getting out a book, because there are those who stand in the way and prevent you from getting that information. Why? Because it would expose, and that is why we look forward to estimates, because it provides us with that opportunity to get that information.
In fact, I have a quote that comes to mind; the member for Arnhem once said: ‘The estimates process is about unpacking the budget’. That is what we look forward to, like Christmas time, come along, look at that budget, and unpack it to see the story behind the story. The trouble is we are often blocked in our capacity to unpack, sometimes we are given boxes to unpack and there is nothing in them, and too many times there has been a barrage of distracting or obstructionist lines.
In many cases it was grossly unsatisfactory for Territorians who expressed concerns about all manner of things that affect them, and when the straight, plain question is asked, there is no danger that question will be answered - perhaps there is danger if the question was answered. I found it astonishing some members were able to hide behind process and deny access to the information sought. I found that astonishing, and it occurred a number of times.
Worse than that was another aspect; ministers thought a description of the process itself was the answer, and hid behind the process: ‘No, it is not my responsibility, you should be talking to this person. You have missed your chance, you should have spoken to that person’; or ‘Wrong output group, sport, you should have done it here, there, or over there’. Those tactics seem to have been skilfully employed on a number of occasions. Of course, they come back and say: ‘You have to understand how the game is played’.
I was told by one man in this Chamber that it is actually a game. I do not believe it is a game. I believe the process is to serve our objective: to serve the best interests of Territorians.
Too many times I have found it so disappointing to find a wholly political presentation of counter ideas, such as fireworks: ‘We know what the CLP secret plan is; you are going to ban fireworks’. That is absolute rubbish! Just not true! Yet, a Chief Minister can stand in the Chamber as though this is his great contribution to the debate, and put out such absurd rubbish as that; to run ridiculous lines which have been found to be patently untrue, such as the Country Liberals’ secret plan to slash the public sector - not true at all - absolutely untrue. Yet, without a qualm, without a concern at all, they use the vehicle of estimates to push back untruths. I find that so dishonourable of those who like to have the prefix ‘honourable’ in front of their names.
This is estimates, about unpacking the budget; hold yourself accountable, be able to account for yourself, show you understand. We do the best we can. You, one day, may be in opposition and you will see from the point of view of opposition that you want to use this process so you can get a better grasp. Why do we want to do that? To knock you out? No. To ensure we hold government to account so people get a better deal and are not conned or manipulated by spin. Hopefully, we can crack the spin cycle and get to what it is all about. That is what it is about; that is the process we are involved in.
This government had no qualms about lying; we found that a number of times - plain untruths. That is what I find very difficult ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I seek a ruling on the Leader of the Opposition talking about government lying. He knows he should be doing that by substantive motion ...
Ms Purick: No, it is not a person.
Madam CHAIR: Leader of the Opposition, I will confer with the Clerk.
Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to rephrase what you have said.
Mr MILLS: This government has no qualms about resorting to dishonesty to try to divert attention from its own plain failures. During the past fortnight of parliamentary sittings, the government has dredged out hoary old chestnuts to divert from the multiple and compounding failures we highlighted during estimates; to deflect from the Treasurer’s and Labor’s compliance - unbelievable, weak compliance - and acceptance of Kevin Rudd’s 40% resource super profits tax. The Treasurer claims we, on this side of the House, are opposed to a profits-based resource tax. Grab whatever you like and throw it across the room; do not bother with the truth. This is absurd! It was the Country Liberals who first introduced a profits-based tax in Australia ...
Ms Lawrie: You wanted 35%.
Mr MILLS: If you think it is so good, you run right against your own argument with that position.
Ms Lawrie: You wanted 35%.
Mr MILLS: We have defended the model in media releases during the course of the year. What we oppose, Treasurer, is the 40% rate the Rudd government has set, and the Henderson government has rolled over and accepted without a whimper. The tax has the potential …
Ms Lawrie: Yet, you wanted 35% …
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity, Treasurer. The tax has the potential to be extremely ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr MILLS: Make no mistake, this tax has the potential to be extremely damaging.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr MILLS: Make no mistake, this tax has the potential to be extremely damaging to the Northern Territory economy and to ordinary Territory families and business operators. The government had to perform a massive backflip on its plan to freeze public sector wage increases at 2.5%. That is fine, the figure was below the inflation rate and would have been an additional expense on top of the spiralling cost of housing, power, water, groceries and other consumables right across the Territory. Instead of slashing public sector salaries, this Labor government has opted for a public sector freeze in an effort to disguise its embarrassment. Labor is pretending the Country Liberals are going to cut the public service - nothing could be further from the truth.
Last August we made a commitment and, when we make a commitment, we mean what we say because we believe what we say and will stand our ground on that; unlike Labor, who will shift the ground. Like Kevin Rudd, who will say whatever he thinks will make him most popular at the time; but it is subject to change as circumstances change. Not so here.
Last August we made a commitment, a cast iron commitment, that no public servants would lose their jobs under the Country Liberals. The government will, no doubt, continue their dishonest scaremongering, but our public servants are too smart to be whipped into a frenzy by the dishonesty of those like Delia Lawrie and Paul Henderson. Enough is enough!
Ms Lawrie: Is this your leadership speech?
A member: He is the leader, you idiot.
Ms Lawrie: He is being challenged, you idiot.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr MILLS: During the introduction to the Ombudsman’s Bill in 2008, the Chief Minister said:
- The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends to administrative actions of public authorities and the conduct of police officers whilst on duty. As Chief Minister and Minister for Police, I wholly support these additional safeguards to the integrity of our police force.
You then went on to say, Chief Minister:
- However, in the unlikely event that corruption was ever suspected or detected, my government and the wider community must be confident that there is legislation in place that provides the Ombudsman with sufficient powers to conduct the necessary investigation.
Yes, Chief Minister, but the legislation is barely worth the paper it is written on unless the government backs it up with action and adequate resources to ensure the good intentions behind the policy are much more than just empty rhetoric.
Talking of legislation that has a distinct lack of support from this government, there is no knowledge of any prosecutions for failing to report domestic violence. You can assert all you like in the marketplace, but back it up with action? No action.
There is endemic failure to enforce payment for breaking the laws of the Territory to a tune of almost $6.5m. That is 75% of court fines not paid, and 43% of penalties not paid, and that was just for 2008-09. Talk about a consequence to affect behavioural change; it almost appears, under this Labor administration, it is optional to pay your fine.
The Health Complaints Commissioner, we saw the government’s failure to act on the recommendations made in a review of the Health and Community Services Complaints Act. This is only one of multiple reports which have been produced at great expense to taxpayers, yet, because it may not sit comfortably with the government, it has been relegated to the depths of someone’s in-tray.
The Health minister is not interested in running hospitals as the businesses they are. The nature of the job dictates if people need treating, you treat them, and that should not detract from the fact hospitals should be run efficiently so money is not needlessly wasted, and provide the services Territorians expect, particularly from a department which commands quarter of the entire Territory budget. Yet, despite continued record spends by this government and budgets that allocate 30% more per patient than the national average, the Territory has slipped from the top of national ED and elective surgery wait times in the late 1990s to the absolute bottom.
Electoral Commission - much heralded foray into super shires has been akin to a complete farce with an average of one shire election every two months, and it is only because of a question from the Independent member for Macdonnell that we found out the accounting company Deloitte had been called in to assess the Barkly Shire books, to see how serious matters are in the Barkly Shire.
Where is the government, the architects of grand reform when you need them? They are not there.
Your Business minister cannot answer the most fundamental question about support for businesses in the Territory, and when asked what areas of government have opened up the potential new industrial investment, he hid behind a cacophony of filibuster and excuses.
A member: Hear! Hear!!
Mr MILLS: Appalling! No leadership! Hiding behind process! Who is in charge? Who needs this Labor government? They do not seem to be doing anything.
Education and the BER: once again have a government that has given no attention to the vital question of how you actually get value for that. Once again, describe the process; put any heat on them - blame someone else. 28.5% of the BER funding is taken up in administration, project management and consultancy. Truancy is through the roof despite promising meaningful increases in school attendance in 2009.
Youth crime: family responsibility initiative - much hype with glossy brochures by the Labor government prior to the 2008 election. I remember it well, and these characters do not care as long as you get the perception right, because remember we want to get re-elected. Do not worry about the truth. Do not worry about the substance that might sit behind the glossy brochure. The object of the exercise is to get re-elected.
The plan was to confiscate plasma televisions from families whose children repeatedly broke the law. This financial year no family responsibility orders were issued and no plasmas were confiscated. Rubbish! What a terrible position and legacy you will leave unless you wake up and recognise what you have to do, which is much more than just trying to stay in government. Do the right thing and the community will reward you.
Waterfront Corporation: the government’s inability to manage the running of the wave pool to the tune of $1m a year in operational expenses, and a mere $500 000 in income. Part of the development agreement for the Darwin Waterfront is there be lock access for boats. What is the timetable for construction of that lock? According to the CEO of the Waterfront Corporation the earliest date Territorians can expect to see this lock is 2016.
Department of the Chief Minister: the extraordinary, unbelievable waste of money does not seem to cause any concern whatsoever in the face of a community which has entrusted you with a job to spend money within the various outreaches of the Offices of the Chief Minister, note the offices - the Palmerston office - no Labor members, so we have an outreach post there. Territorians, you are called upon to fund this for $525000 for the office and $435 000 for a staff of three people in Palmerston.
In Alice Springs, the Office of the Chief Minister - $334 000 for salaries and it employs five people. Think of the number of nurses or police or FACS workers, workers who are critical to the running of the Territory that could be employed with wages spent on, essentially, political staff. For what real purpose? A political purpose? Or do you genuinely want to serve the best interests of the Territorians? Once again, it appears not. Alternatively, that $850 000 could have been spent on maintaining Power and Water infrastructure rather than increasing tariffs by 20%.
Major events: BassintheGrass - $368 000 support for 6000 tickets plus 1500 at the gate, a subsidy of $50 each, but much less than the subsidy for the Territory Wildlife Park and Alice Springs Desert Park of $80 per year.
Construction Division: $25m in external consultants conveniently hidden as an expense under Sales of Goods and Services. Fortunately, with the good work of members of the opposition we were able to extract that which needs to be put in plain view and not hidden.
The environment: the minister for the Environment is a terrible environment minister and should not keep his job.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS: The talent pool in this Labor Party is depleted and Territorians have almost given up on this government. The Territory’s environment is a big loser here. The handling of the environment portfolio has been so bad that whistleblowers have had to report spillages at our wharves, and Darwin City Council has had to identify an outbreak of bacteria.
The government is so desperate to score cheap political points the minister, last night, claimed our environment spokesman, Peter Chandler, had described the Environment Protection Authority as ‘lazy’. The minister is lazy, not the EPA. The EPA is under resourced and not properly empowered, and that is the lazy minister’s fault. Do not offload and attack the person. The issue is take responsibility.
Port Corporation: only $5m from last year’s $32m budgeted for the conveyor in the 2009-10 budget will be used, and that is only for the design - not the construction - just the design. Borrowing $22m to do capital works for Treasury; loading the Port Corporation up with debt like the Power and Water Corporation and probably the Land Development Corporation.
Or, SIHIP: unbelievable. This, to me, was the lowest point. To have a Chief Minister assert something he knew was not true, could verify, or substantiate - just said it. If he said it, it must be true; nothing to back it up, just offload responsibility once again. The cupboard is bare, there is nothing there in the area of acceptance, responsibility, understanding how these things work, and knowing it is not just you at stake here, it was money given in a crisis to build houses, and all you can do is scrape the bottom of the barrel and come up with the most basic of offloads - concoct some weird story which does not stack up.
This is the Chief Minister who dares to mislead the parliament and this Estimates Committee by asserting something he cannot back up …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! The Leader of the Opposition knows he cannot use such language without a substantive motion.
Madam CHAIR: Quite correct. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw the reference to misleading. Such comments can only be made under a substantive motion.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw, in that case. This is an issue which will not go away, but for the purposes of this exercise, I withdraw.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I ask the member be granted an extension of 10 minutes?
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. It is this Chief Minister who needs to substantiate because, in this case, the game is up. You cannot stand there and say something for convenience because no one believes it any more. You have seen what has happened to the brand when you continue to posture after all these years and say anything for the immediate convenience of saying something, and found it to be wanting. You have to have people trust and believe you; that trust has been significantly eroded. When we have the opportunity to ask the Chief Minister questions, no one will believe him.
In the output of the Attorney-General, the Chief Minister said the Commonwealth decided on its own, for whatever reason, the project would not go ahead unless the Territory government accepted their contracting methodology. I believe the term the Housing minister used to describe it was a decision made under duress, and I heard in the media …
Dr BURNS: I said it in the House last week. You were not listening.
Mr MILLS: … we had a gun to our heads. Yet in today’s The Australian it was revealed the strategic alliance concept was never supported until after 2008 - after the change of government.
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr MILLS: You know it is getting desperate when the Chief Minister starts yabbering to distract by talking about fireworks; so shallow is he. Like a little kid caught out telling a big lie and wants to tell you something else to distract from it. One lie leads to another lie, and it becomes increasingly ridiculous.
Ms Lawrie: Not true, not true. You are spinning on yourself now. This is spin, pure and simple spin. You are spinning.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order! Treasurer, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: I think it is very important to emphasise to the community at large that all public servants who took part in the estimates process are a critical segment of transparency we must witness in our political processes; it is never a waste of time or effort; it is never anything less than truly valuable. To see it treated as I, and other members saw it treated, particularly in this case by the Chief Minister, was a disappointment. I believe in my Territory, and I believe there needs to be a better quality than I saw in that desperate and embarrassing attempt to divert and distract from what was glaringly obvious. You need to accept responsibility and get on with the job, rather than resorting to such nonsense.
The good thing is, with my confidence and trust in the Territory community, they can see it too, and we will hold our ground because there must be a change. This government must change its attitude, and it has had an opportunity to do so, because we will not change our position; we will continue.
I commend my colleagues for the hard work they have done in a short time to hold this government to account. It is much more than a political exercise; this is an exercise to understand and learn our craft so we can do our job in opposition - hold government to account in the interests of better government for the Northern Territory. I believe we have managed to do that in many ways.
I know some of the ministers on the other side, through this exercise, had the opportunity to learn more about how things work. I know that is the case. I have spoken to public servants, and I recognise the extraordinary amount of work those public servants have done, and I commend and respect you for the work you have done.
The whole exercise is of benefit but, if we added rather than took from it, we could see a greater benefit flow from the estimates process. I was disappointed to see some very childish obstructionism by the Education minister who thought he was doing a great job in blocking; he thought it was a great achievement. Probably went home and patted Bruiser, and thought: we got him today, we knew where he was going and we headed him off at the pass to make sure he could not answer that line of question. Big tick in the political box for us.
Well, I am more concerned whether the money given into the trust of this government is going to be used to benefit kids in schools in the northern suburbs, in this case. I do not think they will be particularly happy and think: good on you, member for Johnston, you are a very clever man; you have played the political process so well. You are a smarty pants and you are able to block a line of inquiry - big tick. Well, you can hear a high five out there in the Labor Party lobby, but you are not going to get high fives in staffrooms with teachers, or the kids. That is where it should help, changing and strengthening the culture of education in the Northern Territory, which is the issue, not winning a political point and being a smart Alec.
All that said, this has been a good process. We will continue with it, and we will grow from strength to strength in the interests of ensuring we have good government in the Northern Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I thought more members of the opposition would be contributing, so I was waiting for their contribution.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: This is normally treated as a wrap so, if other members want to speak, I will resume my seat.
Madam CHAIR: The Treasurer is wrapping up debate. Are there any speakers from the opposition before the Treasurer wraps up?
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was happy to clarify that because we would not want to be gagging any illuminating contributions from the opposition, as we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition, which was really a political rant. I was looking forward to anything of substance or any examples he could provide here in scrutiny of the 2010-11 Budget …
Mr Bohlin: I thought the Chief Minister would have spoken on his own budget but he did not. His was a political rant.
Madam CHAIR: Order, member for Drysdale!
Ms LAWRIE: … instead, what we had was political rant and spin from the opposition, with just rhetoric flowing. I have to say that is disappointing.
I also want to add my sincere thanks to everyone who has put in so many long hours of work in assisting the estimates process; from the committee members themselves - 50 hours is a long time; our three government members put in extraordinary hours. I also recognise the Independents put in very lengthy hours, and members of the opposition who rotated their way through the 50 hours. Ministers spend a long time preparing for estimates, and I acknowledge the incredibly hard work that occurs right across the public service in preparing for estimates.
It is a good process, and that is why we brought it in as soon as we came to government. We formed a process whereby the PAC of the day looked at estimates processes elsewhere in Australia and we introduced it in the Territory. It has evolved, it has changed, and this year we have additional hours; the 50 hours allow additional time to question ministers across their portfolio areas.
The Assembly staff: I recognise it was technically complex to begin estimates on the Friday of the sittings week. I know staff had to organise arrangements from the Chamber to the committee room and, as Treasurer, I thank them for that. It certainly was no a joy as Treasurer to go from a three-day, long hours sitting week into the estimates session, so I certainly understand how the Legislative Assembly staff felt backing up on Friday morning.
Thank you to the Hansard staff: they are the silent heroes when it comes to the operations of parliament.
A member: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: They do the long hours of the parliament Chamber, and they did the extremely lengthy hours of estimates; so I thank them.
The Committee Secretariat: Mr Graham Gadd has stepped into that role. Gaddy, on behalf of government, thank you very much for the work you did in supporting the committee as the Secretary; and the Clerk, and all the committee members, and all the staff of the Public Accounts Committee.
Aside from thanking the departmental staff across government for the lengthy preparation, and also their attendance, I also thank the Power and Water Corporation’s Chair, Ms Judith Kelly, and the Power and Water Corporation staff.
It is interesting, we have been getting a great deal of feedback across the public sector about estimates and, apart from a couple of standout disturbing episodes from members opposite, which have become the talk of the public service, on the whole I believe most people found it to be a fair and reasonable process.
There were a couple of disparaging moments when the Independent member for Macdonnell, I will name her, made a disgusting comment and reference in regard to a public servant’s speech. In the cold light of day, I believe that member should come into this Chamber and make a fulsome apology. It was disgraceful and despicable. Having been a former Minister for Family and Community Services, I can say that that public servant is a highly regarded, fabulous professional, regarded nationally for her understanding in the specialist area of Allied Health Services, and to have a speech impediment alluded to in such a despicable manner by the member for Macdonnell is disgraceful and warrants a fulsome apology in the Chamber, on the public record. I challenge her to do that and admit when a serious mistake has occurred.
Estimates, ultimately, was to scrutinise the budget. I was not there for all the hours of estimates but, from my perspective, I was disappointed there was more focus on political grandstanding than scrutiny of the budget. In Treasury, the opposition chose not to go through output by output; I accepted that request and we took a general, whole-of-Treasury approach to the estimates scrutiny.
That being said, I found it disappointing there was far more time spent on back-casting positions back to 2002-03 - all healthy positions for government, so you would wonder why opposition wasted their time doing that - rather than looking at what is in the 2010-11 budget. There was time wasted in just grandstanding around, showing some graphs and charts, instead of getting into the detail of the scrutiny which I had expected to occur.
This budget was constructed clearly as a post-global financial crisis budget with continuing impact on our revenue of GST reduction. Our economy slowed in private sector investment, which is why we made the deliberate decision to go into deficit, the deliberate decision to increase debt to keep people in jobs, keep the economy pumping ahead of private sector investment returning to the Territory, and the major projects on the horizon. That was a responsible thing to do. We did it in the previous year’s budget, in 2009-10 and, having the benefit of hindsight, what a smart decision that was; we had the nation’s lowest unemployment rate, at 2.9%, and we have created some 6000-plus jobs.
With the record $1.8bn infrastructure investment in the 2010-11 budget we will be creating a further 3600 jobs. As I said when handing down the budget and in the estimates scrutiny, the Chamber of Commerce, not exactly a Labor ally, not exactly on the left of the political spectrum, rated the 2010-11 budget, an eight out of ten, because they get business needs government to step up its public sector expenditure, to step into deficit, go into further debt at a time when public sector spending needs to increase to support jobs right across industry sectors. They understand it, but the opposition is left out there, on its own, not understanding it.
Much of the debate which occurred between me, as Treasurer, and the member for Port Darwin went to this issue of debt. He had a little graph that showed a 94% debt increase post-GFC, again, not understanding what you are doing, which is supporting jobs. I pointed out in Western Australia alone, a Liberal jurisdiction, they have increased debt by something like 333%. So if you want to understand what is occurring in the Territory with government debt, you have to do a comparison across our nation to see what is happening.
The opposition was saying, ‘Even New South Wales is in surplus’. Talk about dishonesty! How dishonest does it get when they are running the spin of operating surpluses. The Northern Territory is also in surplus. We run an operating surplus; New South Wales is running an operating surplus. When it comes to the cash position, the real position, we are in deficit, but so is New South Wales.
We are predicting a $249m-odd deficit: New South Wales is predicting a $300bn deficit. But, no, the opposition are running a smoke screen saying: ‘New South Wales is in surplus’. Well, so are we. We are in operating surplus, too.
I have heard nothing but spin and dishonesty from the opposition when it comes to deficit and when it comes to the debt burden across our nation. The debt burden is a result of every government having to keep people in jobs, waiting for private sector investment to return. How do you look at your capacity to service debt? I quoted to the Estimates Committee the Moody’s Ratings Agency which assessed the Territory position post handing down the 2010-11 budget. Moody’s have said we are rated as stable, we continue our AA1 rating and they also said we have a moderate level of debt, a very serviceable level of debt.
So, Moody’s have given our 20110-11 budget the big tick on the issue of our stability, of our government’s plan to step out of debt, step out of deficit, clearly articulated within our budget books. They say: ‘You do not have a plan to slash jobs’, and that is correct; you do not slash when you are propping up your economy by keeping jobs growth positive instead of creating a positive on the unemployment side of your economic data ledger, which is what they would do. They say they do not have a plan to slash jobs but they went to the last election with a party platform clearly articulating a massive reduction in public service positions.
Since that election, they have handed down a dissenting report to the Council for Territory Cooperation which says they are going to wipe out the entire department of Local Government - and they say we are making up this plan to slash jobs. It is in writing in the CLP party platform. It is in writing in the CTC dissenting report and we have quoted the member for Port Darwin on ABC morning radio saying: ‘Well, there is fat in the public service’ and the ones on contracts are the ones they are going to go after. Words out of your mouth, written in your platform policy, written by your members in the dissenting report to the CTC.
Bring back the toe-cutter, Col Fuller, put him up there and let us see if they are ever allowed anywhere near government. God forbid that would ever occur, because we would be back to the ridiculous situation where police numbers were frozen for four years; nurse numbers were dramatically reduced and, guess what? It did not save them money; it cost the government of the day an additional $70m to destroy critical service delivery, and add to cost of government.
What a ridiculous outcome in the old Col Fuller days! But, he is back up there sharpening the knives.
Through our economic management we have taken the nett debt-to-revenue ratio we inherited from the CLP, which was at 61%, and driven that down to around 20% in 2008-09. Not only have we increased service delivery - more police, more teachers, more nurses to improve the health of Territorians, the safety of Territorians, and improve education which is fundamental to a better society - and access to education irrespective of where you live in this great Territory, because there was a pretty big barrier in the bush when the CLP were in government. Not only have we done all that, at the same time we have dramatically reduced debt.
We have slashed debt in the general government sector by $552m, and in the non-financial sector by $496m since coming to government. We have a track record of reducing debt and, at the same time, improving services Territorians quite rightly expect in those core areas of law and order, health and education. This budget is all about increased housing stock to give people the housing options they need - a record housing budget in 2010-11.
Taking into account the temporary deficit position we moved into as a result of the private sector being swept away by the global financial crisis - they are starting to recover, but it is a long recovery and it will take at least another two to three years before we see full recovery in the private sector. We have slashed the nett debt-to-revenue ratio down and predict, at 2010-11, it will be at 26% - half the level we inherited from the CLP. The opposition may not understand it, but the mums and dads paying off a mortgage get that a nett debt-to-revenue ratio is the capacity to pay your debt, taking into account your income; in other words, your revenue.
We have driven up our annual income to almost four times our nett debt. The Territory is the second lowest nett debt change across the forward estimates for all jurisdictions at only 74%. Western Australia has significantly increased its debt position – it has blown out to something like a 1786% change in its nett debt position as a result of the post global financial crisis, and the need to invest in infrastructure. Pretty scary figures in Western Australia, but the Northern Territory is tracking as the second best jurisdiction in Australia when it comes to nett debt-to-revenue position.
In our economic position, we are predicting a strong rebound in the 2010-11 financial year, rebounding from a soft 0.4% in this financial year to 3.6% in 2010-11. It is fundamentally supported by our decision to spend $1.8bn in infrastructure, to go into deficit and to increase our debt level. If we were not doing that we would have a very flat economy. We are doing the right thing by this economy by ensuring we shoulder the burden of infrastructure spending ahead of a private sector recovery.
That being said, we are seeing increased demand for Territory exports, particularly in alumina, manganese and iron ore exports. With our strong capital investment we have created over 6000 jobs in the 2009 year alone.
This is a budget focused on delivering for families through massive spends in health, education, law and order and, significantly, in housing; and that all important A Working Future $980m record investment means Territorians in the bush can start to see the light being shone on improving services and critical infrastructure across the Territory, irrespective of where they live.
I know the opposition is trying to run the line that somehow, as shareholding minister, I missed being held accountable for the Power and Water Corporation’s accounts. What a furphy that is. Not only did I, in my opening statement as shareholding minister, point out - and I will quote from my opening statement:
- As shareholding minister for Power and Water, I will address issues in the budget that affect Power and Water, including: community service obligation payments, dividends and tax equivalent payments and regulated customer revenues. Operational or other policy questions relating to Power and Water should be directed to the Power and Water representatives who will appear before the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee.
Did we get around to debating Power and Water issues? Yes, we did. There were a series of exchanges between myself and the member for Port Darwin which went to the position of the debt picture for Power and Water in the debt-to-equity swap the government has undertaken to support Power and Water in their new generation strategy. I talked about that debt position, the reason behind the decision for the new generation strategy, and about other asset management occurring in the financials for Power and Water. We went on to have quite a lengthy debate about my role as shareholding minister in oversighting the Power and Water Corporation.
I talked about the $400m-plus reduction done in the non-financial sector, which is Power and Water, in how we had reduced debt, and how it will increase due to this significant capital program - some $1.5bn-plus - the new generation strategy. There was also exchange in regard to the use of Treasurer’s Allowance to provide for additional funding for Power and Water Corporation’s capital program, as well as undergrounding power.
There was a further exchange between me and the member for Nelson in regard to Power and Water’s contingent liability and the Utilities Commission which oversights a range of tasks on behalf of government with Power and Water.
Short memories, perhaps, in the opposition because there was a series of debates when I appeared before the Estimates Committee which went to the financial position of the Power and Water Corporation. They are very short memories indeed, because it was only one week ago that debate occurred. Also, on Thursday during the sittings, I had tabled the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent as shareholding minister. Again, there was debate in the Chamber at the time of tabling the SCI which highlights the roll-out of our largest ever investment in the infrastructure for Power and Water in new capital and increased …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Chair! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the Treasurer be given an extra 10 minutes to complete her remarks.
Motion agreed.
Ms LAWRIE: It highlighted the massive roll-out in new capital and increased maintenance which will both improve service reliability and, very important for Power and Water, businesses and also our domestic consumers, increase their overall capacity, particularly with the new generators coming in to Channel Island and Weddell - apart from raising the dam wall and the improvement of the sewerage system.
The Statement of Corporate Intent sets out the amount forecast to be spent in the SCI period on repairs and maintenance. It also sets out the forecasts for nett loss after tax of some $10.8m in 2010-11, and the expected return to profitability in 2011-12. It also details the Territory government’s series of debt-to-equity swaps for Power and Water Corporation over the budget and the forward estimates period; and these will be reassessed annually. It is not the only time the government has used a debt-to-equity swap in a government-owned corporation; we had a series of them when the CLP was in power, I believe, but they have short memories.
The first of these swaps will occur in 2010-11, with the value of some $112.6m. This is recorded in the general government sector balance sheet and was completely open to scrutiny. The debt-to-equity swaps occurred a number of times with government business divisions since the introduction of National Competition Policy, and we make no apology for delivering a record infrastructure program which will rebuild our essential services when they were run down after decades of neglect. So, after this massive capital program and massive repairs and maintenance program we will have a reliable network well placed to meet the dramatic growth we are seeing in the Territory in both industrial and domestic growth.
There was ample opportunity for all of this to be scrutinised by the Estimates Committee through me. As I said, there was a series of exchanges between the members for Port Darwin and Nelson and me, and also directly to the government owned corporation itself.
Madam Speaker, I did not find the rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition backed by any substance; it was purely a CLP spin he was given to come down and puff about. Government always goes into estimates with the hope there is a thorough scrutiny of the books, because that is good for democracy, and we welcome the scrutiny; and we believe it is good for all managers across the public service to see how that level of scrutiny makes us accountable for the work we are doing and the responsibilities we carry.
Again, I thank the committee for the extraordinarily long hours they have done, and I thank all members who participated; I thank all the staff of the Assembly who supported this process, and I sincerely thank all our public servants.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed expenditure be agreed to, the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committee in relation to the proposed expenditure on output with reference to the Appropriation 2010-2011 Bill 2010 (Serial 99) for the activities, performances, practices and financial management …
Mr Tollner: What? Hang on!
Dr Burns: You missed the call.
Mr Tollner: I have been standing here …
A member: Yes, you did.
Mr Tollner: Absolute rubbish, I have been standing here waiting. I could not have …
Madam CHAIR: Pause please, while I confer with the Clerk on this. We had called for speakers from this side, and the indication was, which was why I was putting the question.
Member for Fong Lim, you have the floor.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I do apologise, I could not hear you; so if you did call for speakers, I did not hear it although I have been standing here.
Like the previous speakers, I also thank, as a PAC member, the support the PAC received through this process from the hard-working Legislative Assembly staff, Graham Gadd and his team; and I also thank the countless number of public servants and others who fronted the committee and assisted ministers giving evidence. Thank goodness they did turn up because, I have to say, there is such a lack of talent in the Northern Territory ministry at the moment we would not have a single answer to a single question had there not been an army of advisers and public servants to assist ministers; so it was very good people turned up and assisted when they did.
I thank the members of the PAC for the way they conducted themselves during these estimates. It was refreshing the member for Arafura kept her constant interjections to a reasonable minimum, and her points of order, although you could not say she was a shrinking violet; it was great to see her there.
To all the Legislative Assembly staff who put in so much time and effort and, whilst we did have a glitch or two here and there, I do appreciate it was very hard work. They did a very good job in keeping the committee members and ministers and all the other people satisfied and ensured the job was done. From a technical viewpoint, I think estimates went very well, the staff made sure of that, and I know those on the other side of this Chamber are very grateful.
As I said from the outset, it was very fortunate we had an army of advisors and public servants assisting ministers, because there is a serious lack of talent in this ministry. Ministers clearly are not across their portfolios and when asked why they make decisions on particular issues they often consulted their advisors, saying: ‘Why did I do that? What did I do that for?’ That seemed to be almost a standard response across many ministries.
The gold medal winner, the bloke who really showed himself to be the biggest dill of the lot, would have to be the member for Daly. Asked who the Defence Support minister was, the member for Daly looked around dumbly and could not answer the question. He was asked three times who the Defence Support minister was and could not answer the question. Fortunately, the Chairman of the PAC was there and I eventually asked him: ‘Who is the Defence Support minister?’ And he pointed to the member for Daly.
It is not surprising the member for Daly does not realise he is the Defence Support minister. Not long ago he was jumping up and down berating the Housing minister who, at the time, he believed was the member for Goyder. He believed the Housing minister was the member for Goyder, and the member for Goyder was somehow responsible for all the failures of SIHIP, the escalating housing crisis, and the public housing crisis. At the very time, interestingly enough, the member for Daly was the minister for Housing. So he has a real identity problem, and a real issue understanding his role.
As I say, that would have to be the gold medal performance in any parliament right across Australia, probably the world, to find a minister who does not know he is the minister or what his ministries are. It defies belief but, no, we are very fortunate in the Northern Territory Labor government to have the single biggest dill operating amongst us. Needless to say, he constantly had to seek advice from his advisors because he did not seem to be up to answering any questions on any matter at all.
One of the great problems I have with this estimates process is it is still very complicated, and very difficult to understand. This is my second estimates now, and I can say I have a track record having done one before, but working out what is relevant to what output group is a science unique to estimates and it will take me a couple more yet to understand exactly how that works.
Having said that, it does make it very easy for ministers to dodge questions; ministers you know would be quite capable of answering questions, under other circumstances, but for reasons I will come to later, are quite keen to pass the buck or dodge the question however they can.
Estimates has reinforced in our minds, on this side of the Chamber, the culture of cover-up which exists within government in the Northern Territory. It again provided an example of how ministers wriggle and worm their way out of situations where they do not want to answer questions and sit there and look at you dumbly. I believe the member for Daly probably did know who the Minister for Defence Support was; he just refused to answer the question.
Mr Knight: I could not believe you were asking the question.
Mr TOLLNER: It was an interesting exchange. I asked him about Defence Support and he said: ‘Oh, no, that is not me, that is some other output group blah, blah, blah’. Like the Defence Support Hub had nothing to do with the Minister for Defence Support. It defies logic. But, he was not alone, plenty of his colleagues were quite prepared to sit there and dodge questions all day long. It was interesting to see the different tactics used to dodge questions; I think the member for Daly uses the ignorant fool tactic. The member for Johnston obviously uses the long, endless diatribe tactic, as does the member for Karama who seems able to talk with a mouthful of gravel underwater talks endlessly in the same dull, boring, monotone she has, constantly wasting time, using up time, making sure none of the real gritty stuff is reached. Probably the two most experienced ministers in that regard are mumbling away and carrying on.
The member for Barkly is an interesting mix. A fellow who really had problems answering any questions, except to say: ‘This is a fantastic question, and I will ask such and such to answer that. The government leads in this particular area, and it is something that is a great priority for us. I will ask the gentleman on my right to speak’, or vice versa. It does leave you scratching your head and wondering how across their portfolios these ministers are.
I sat in for a great portion of the Estimates Committee meetings this time, although there were some notable chunks of time when I was not there; most of the time I was. It was interesting to see the way things panned out and the way different ministers operate. I know they get het up about this; they worry at night whether they will be sprung or caught out, and some of the public servants who have to derive the information can get quite worried and flustered. But, I do not think the process is that daunting, and I do not know why there is so much effort to cover up, to hide things, not explain things properly, and not answer questions succinctly; it is a bad look and, hopefully, one day we can turf this mob out and fix the process to be something meaningful for Territorians and allows genuine scrutiny of the budget, where we get some genuine answers about government’s position, government expenditure, and where they are taking the Territory.
But, if you have no ideas, no plans, if you have nothing going for you there is not much you can do except bluff your way through and cover up and hide things.
I thank all those people who put in so much hard work; and thank you to the ministers as well, for fronting up and teaching us new ways of dodging questions. It will be interesting to see what the coming weeks and months bring from these estimates meetings. A huge amount of information has been garnered from them, and collating that information and getting it into some form is the hard work the opposition has ahead.
To you, Madam Chair, thank you for your efforts as well in the last few days.
Motion agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
REVENUE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 102)
(Serial 102)
Continued from 5 May 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, acknowledging these are consequential and necessary to the passage of appropriation, we will provide support.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I thank the opposition and the Independent members for the support of the revenue bill that amends the Stamp Duty Act, the Taxation Administration Act, the First Home Owner Grant Act, the Victims of Crime Assistance Act and the Mineral Royalty Act to implement the 2010-11 Budget revenue measures.
The key aim of this was to ensure we improve housing affordability in line with the government’s commitment to a balanced housing market in the stamp duty changes contained here. We also put in some simple, efficient and equitable measures under the Territory stamp duty and general taxation regime. We have also increased the Territory’s mineral royalty rate from 18% to 20%. This will increase the return from non-renewable resources owned by the Territory through what we believe is a reasonable share in profitability of the mine. Lastly, the bill makes an amendment to increase the victims’ levy for infringement notices from $10 to $20.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister for misleading the Estimates Committee and this Assembly in regard to his claims that he and his government were forced to accept the alliance contracting model in relation to the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, and that he, his ministers, and his government persist in making deliberate misleading statements to the Estimates Committee about members of this House and their inability to manage the finances of the Northern Territory ...
Madam SPEAKER: Please, pause.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): We will not be accepting the motion, Madam Speaker. I move the question be now put
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
- Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Ms Carney
Mr Hampton Mr Chandler
Mr Knight Mr Conlan
Ms Lawrie Mr Giles
Ms McCarthy Mr Mills
Mr McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Mrs Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived, there not being a simple majority.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Honourable members, that was the first of two motions before the Chair. The question now is that the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 11
- Ms Anderson Mrs Aagaard
Mr Bohlin Dr Burns
Ms Carney Mr Gunner
Mr Chandler Mr Hampton
Mr Conlan Mr Knight
Mr Giles Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McCarthy
Ms Purick Ms McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms Scrymgour
Mr Tollner Mr Vatskalis
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Walker
Motion negatived, there not being a simple majority.
BUILDING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 108)
(Serial 108)
Continued from 10 June 2010.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 108) in the name of Mr McCarthy. Consideration in committee of the whole and in continuation.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, I place on the record the minister’s office did provide us with another briefing which was much appreciated by me and my colleague, the member for Braitling, in regard to this legislation. We did have some concerns regarding the mechanics and how the legislation would operate.
One was in regard to what we perceived to be the retrospective nature of the legislation, in other words, it could have been open ended, but we have been advised by the department it is specifically designed to deal with the problem currently before the building industry, the community, and families; where builders have gone broke, gone out of business; or have died, in which case obtaining final certification of the house is at what is described as an impasse.
It is to correct that situation so they can proceed to certification through another builder and another arrangement, which is welcome for those families in Alice Springs and Darwin who have suffered, both financially and emotionally, by the collapse and demise of these building businesses. There were concerns regarding the time frame for families to get their requests for exemption to the building controller, because obviously it is not going to be limited to two weeks or two months, which is what we were concerned about, so there is a reasonable time. Reasonable is hard to define and quantify, and we received assurances the department has written to the people in this situation - about 15 - and I hope the 14 or 15 builders in Alice Springs, and the five or seven in Darwin, have been approached regarding this option and encouraged to talk to the building controller to get their problems sorted out.
I still have reservations; there are some other things put into the bill, obviously the opportunity presented itself so the government believed they could put in some other amendments. One is in regard to decisions of the appeal board - previously there were two. We did try to get clarification of those appeals - the cases, but we did not hear back, so I and my colleague, the member for Braitling, would be interested to know about those two decisions by the appeal board, which are now going to be validated, because I understand there was a question about their legal standing. We would welcome comments from the minister, given those decisions are now to be validated and without this legislation they are in legal limbo. Apart from that, we welcome the legislation.
Much hard work has been put in by the member for Braitling. It was a sad state of affairs in Alice Springs with the builder going bust, and the dodgy builder I had to deal with in Darwin through my constituents, the Poretti Property Group. We hope this problem will be sorted out, and I urge the minister to ensure the builders registration system works well so if a person is not operating professionally and according to industry and building standards, he or she is deregistered as a matter of priority and not continue to operate in an illegal or an unprofessional way, as was the case in Darwin and Alice Springs
Everyone in Darwin knew the Poretti Property Group was not working and acting professionally and ethically. The government knew, the department knew, the industry knew. Industry groups knew, yet the government and the department did nothing about it, despite complaints to the department and the minister’s office - the previous minister, I admit. I understand the Alice Springs situation was different; however, I urge the minister to ensure the Building Advisory Services Unit works more efficiently; resource them as best you can so we do not have the problem of families being stranded and creating the emotional duress those families have had to suffer.
I would welcome comments from the minister to clarify those cases of the Building Appeals Board.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response to the exemptions to builders’ declaration pursuant to section 69, one was for a 10B structure, a water feature, block work and fish pond. The builder did not provide a builders’ declaration for the construction of the work and subsequently went out of business. The certifier advised the owners they would need to seek a waiver of the requirement from the Building Appeals Board. The owner applied to the board, and an exemption was provided by the board. It was a requirement in section 69 the board was purporting to exempt.
In the second matter, a house and carport, class 1A, the builder collapsed in 2000, and a builders’ declaration was unable to be obtained. The owner applied to the board, and the board issued an exemption from the requirement in section 69.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I know we are in committee stage, but one of the reasons we are here is because members on this side had some concerns about the detail in this bill and, as it was on urgency, we did the right thing by asking for it to be delayed. I also received a briefing, and even the people who were briefing us said it is fairly complex legislation. It might appear on the surface to be fixing up a relatively small issue, but the ramifications are not a simple case of changing a few clauses in the act.
It has taken me a while to understand it, and today if someone asked me what it was all about, I would say: ‘Come back a little later and I will tell you’. There certainly needs to be a layperson’s version of this. I do not know whether you are going to have any fact sheets on it, but it is not easy legislation to read. Perhaps people in the building industry may be able to understand it, or some of our parliamentary draftsmen might find it a piece of cake, but it is not easy legislation to understand.
Basically, I see it as it is written in the beginning. It is broken into two sections; one is amendments to the Building Act and the other is regulations. I understand why regulations are important in relation to appeals. You have changed or made it clear where a declaration is required and you say what is required in that declaration. You also talk about exemption certificates and when an exemption certificate is required. It gets down to some transitional arrangements, and they are the ones which are a little difficult to get your head around. Some transitional agreements relate to declarations made by the corporation after commencement day for building work completed before the commencement day, and the same for an owner/builder. There are also declarations made in the regulations to certain types of buildings and whether they require an occupancy permit or do not require an occupancy permit.
I thought this to be a relatively simple thing which needed changing, but having seen what is in this amendment and what we were told at the briefing, this was not a simple case of putting a couple of lines in the act to fix it up.
I certainly hope this will make a difference because I will be telling people who have approached me about another building firm that went bust that they can get exemptions. I know we have not debated too much the other issues in the original motion which caused this to go on; the possibility of financially helping some of the people who were involved in the Carey Builders debacle. However, at least this is a good start and this legislation will help. As I said, minister, I am interested to know if you are going to bring out some fact sheets on this. The way I see it, this is fairly complex legislation, but maybe builders do not see it that way. I tried to do some charts myself, and there are arrows going everywhere; obviously, it will need explanation for people who are not used to reading legislation.
Bearing all that in mind, Madam Chair, I support the amendments.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Chair, in response to the member for Nelson, yes, there will be fact sheets issued, and there is also information available on the website. The other communication process is through the building note. That is point taken, and there will be much more communication on this. It is our objective to do better, and to communicate this with the industry as well.
Madam CHAIR: Madam Speaker, I have to report that the committee has considered the bill and agreed to the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 108) without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this legislation coming on, I understand it is on urgency. I recognise it has come about as a result of Carey Builders in Alice Springs. I hold some reservations about this bill and I think there are possibly some sinister but more complex issues in this bill which have not been properly canvassed in the short time. I am not sure we have got to the bottom of what is actually in this bill.
We did have a briefing the other day, for which I thank the staff. I received an e-mail from someone in the minister’s office with some information, and I replied asking for further information, but have not received a reply.
I hope it provides some certainty for people who have been put in that position, such as the victims of the Northern Territory government and Carey Builders, but I do worry there are other elements in this bill that may come to fruition in the future which will need to be rectified.
I also want to put on the record how saddened I was to hear government is going back on its word about the motion for assisting the victims of Carey Builders. I understand the member for Karama had a fairly heavy hand in making that decision about not providing support, and I think that is pretty poor form. I am not sure which way the minister went, but I know some of the members of government went one way and some went the other, but the member for Karama was quite vocal.
It is disappointing a government can waste so much money in so many areas, but we cannot help the people who need help the most, Madam Speaker; so we will let the legislation go through.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all the people in this House who work so hard for the estimates process. I would also like to thank the member for Fannie Bay; he is on the other side, but I think he did a decent job as Chairman of the Estimates Committee. Last year, I did not think it was that flash, but I think this year he did a pretty good job, and he should be commended; and so should all the staff for the work they did.
I was shocked and amazed to see some of the responses during estimates, particularly asking a couple of easy questions about the port - everything seemed to get so hard, and no one seemed to know where any money was, and I was quite concerned about that. Very concerning, and I will raise that at a later date.
I am also concerned in the Budget Paper No 4, where the government alludes to it being the biggest infrastructure budget on record. There are numbers in that budget which are clearly not going to be delivered this year; there is no money put aside for them, yet they have been announced, and that is just false. So I am concerned about that.
The real reason I speak today is to congratulate the six teams of dragon boaters who have recently competed in the Ord River Marathon, which is a 55 km dragon boat race without competing, along the Ord River. They normally take five boats every second year; this year they took six, and two boats in particular I would like to mention, but I will mention them all. One from Kununurra, which is the host location; one from Harvey, south of Perth; one from a place called Cockburn, an unfortunate name, in Perth; one from Dubbo; Dragons Abreast from Darwin, which is a breast cancer organisation from Cullen Bay who do a bit of paddling, and also Spirit of Friendship, another breast cancer organisation from Penrith.
I particularly thank my mum, who has come from the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, based at Penrith Lakes, who does paddling. A survivor of breast cancer twice, and coming all the way through Sydney to Darwin, to Kununurra, paddling 55 km, for a 63-year-old women I think is pretty good. I thank her, and her 13 team mates and the person who gives them instructions on the boat, I cannot think of the name. She is sitting outside and she will be quite displeased I forgot.
I pay particular note to the women from Dragons Abreast in Darwin, who also made the trip. It is really pleasant they have done that, and it is good to see a bond for mum to come to the Territory, which is excellent - it is really good.
Thank you for another wonderful estimates, and another parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Before adjourning the House, I place on the record my thanks to all parliamentary officers for their very hard work over this last week with estimates. It is a very long process. It is hard enough for members of parliament but particularly hard for our staff. I extend my thanks to all parliamentary officers.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016