2009-02-17
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Neville Perkins AM
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr Neville Perkins AM, former member of the Legislative Assembly and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students accompanied by Ms Kirsteen Squires and Ms Tania Tamaotai. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure I report today on my 10-day trade and investment mission to meet with key representatives in three of our most important trading partner countries – China, Japan and the United States.
It is vital to keep confidence in the Territory economy high and develop new opportunities for Territory business. As we enter 2009, one of my highest priorities is positioning the Territory as well as I can in the face of the global financial crisis. Our economy is well placed to withstand fallout from the economic downturn. My government will continue to do everything it can to foster investment and increase economic activity. We need to create new investment opportunities and support our existing businesses and industries so they can continue to provide jobs and opportunities for Territorians.
With this in mind, I targeted key sectors in which the Territory has strategic advantages, particularly energy, resources and tourism. The LNG industry is a key advantage we have in the Territory, and I was pleased to be in Tokyo when INPEX announced awarding of the contract for front-end engineering and design for its LNG plant at Blaydin Point. This is a key milestone in the progression of the development of the Ichthys project. The ultimate milestone, the final investment decision, is still on track to be announced by the end of this year.
As honourable members are aware, capital costs for the LNG plant is estimated at $12bn, whilst the whole Ichthys project is estimated to cost more than $US20bn. Obviously, this project would drive the economy’s growth for decades to come. The project will employ up to 2000 people at the peak of construction and create about 300 new ongoing jobs. The INPEX gas project is the largest single private sector investment project in the energy sector for Australia.
However, we have not put all our eggs in one basket. Accordingly, in China, I met with key executives and representatives in the resource sector, where I was briefed on their projects going forward. I was also pleased to inform them that the Territory remained open for business, and of our determination to further develop the AustralAsia Trade Route that positions Darwin as Australia’s northern trade and export gateway. In this regard, my government has committed $100m to expand Darwin’s port facilities, and we are seeking an extra $290m to $360m from the Australian government for further strategic expansion of our port.
As fate would have it, I was in Beijing at the same time as the federal minister responsible for the Australian infrastructure fund, Hon Anthony Albanese. I was able to meet with him and further press the Territory’s case. Other meetings in China were with Noble Resources, which has a number of investments in the Territory, including the Frances Creek Iron Ore Mine; the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre with a view to boosting convention and business events in the Territory; and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce Metals, Minerals, and Chemicals Importers and Exporters that has been a strategic partner in progressing our China Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy which was launched in 2007.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia with such a dedicated strategy, and the Chamber has been instrumental in promoting the Northern Territory’s mineral exploration investment opportunities in China. Since the launch of the strategy, there have been 50 visits to the Territory by 29 Chinese companies. Another visit by representatives of the Chamber is planned for March. The China Mining Association, a peak body representing Chinese exploration and mining companies, is another strategic partner in promoting the Northern Territory’s mineral exploration investment opportunities.
Following my visits and an invitation from the minister for Mines and Energy, my colleague, Kon Vatskalis, the CMA sent its first-ever delegation to the Territory at the end of January 2009 to meet with specific companies, the Northern Territory Resources Council, and the government. The Stone Group, which has visited the Territory on a number of occasions, is pursuing a number of potential investments.
Japan remains the key trade and investment partner for the Territory. My engagements, whilst wide-ranging, were focused on energy resources and tourism. In addition to INPEX, I met with:
the senior Vice Minister for Energy and Trade;
Osaka Gas - the company’s investments in the Territory include Greater Sunrise and the Evans Shoal gas fields and our gas pipelines;
Tokyo Electric Power Company which is the principal customer of Darwin LNG and a nuclear power generator;
Tokyo Gas is also a major customer of Darwin LNG and is Japan’s second-largest importer of LNG, a major player internationally;
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation is a government organisation responsible for ensuring stable supply of oil, gas, and
non-ferrous metals to Japan. JOGMEC is also a strategic partner in promoting Japanese investments in the Territory. Work is under
way for a JOGMEC delegation from Japan to visit the Territory in mid-2009.
Tourism Australia’s office in Japan to gain a better understanding of the effect of the global financial crisis on Japanese tourism and
strategies to continue encouraging Japanese visitation, such as promotional links to the movie Australia, Indigenous culture, national
parks, and the cruise ship industries.
In the United States, I went to Houston to meet with ConocoPhillips and Bechtel senior executives regarding work to expand Darwin LNG. These companies have played a huge role in developing the LNG industry in the Territory. They are certainly looking to expand Darwin LNG even further.
It was appropriate for me to go overseas, visit and meet with our key and potential investors to the Northern Territory, and I believe the trip was a great success, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports such trips. They are a very important role of government to build that important connection, as we in the Northern Territory are strategically located within the region and we have the opportunity to engage effectively. You are quite right, Chief Minister, that we are well placed in that we have a range of natural resources which could assist us in getting our way through difficult times.
I commend you, Chief Minister, on the gathering that you called at the convention centre, and how well attended it was. That is evidence of the importance of this information flowing back into the community. You would note, however, at that gathering, after the briefing had occurred which was well received and well presented, there was a range of questions. Those questions were not related to that which lies over the horizon. We know that INPEX is most likely to occur. We are all one on that, and we see the benefits that will flow. However, that is over the horizon. The Chamber of Commerce has said quite plainly that those benefits will flow in just out of arms reach. What people are concerned about is what is here right now.
If we want to maintain high confidence, we need to deal effectively with issues such as McArthur River. That is right here and now. Confidence will be strengthened if you deal with the difficult issues that are placed before you now: if you could be progressive with the release of land; if you could be honest about the $200m black hole; if you could reassure people over the fact that you have not managed in times of plenty, and how we are going to get through difficult times with the same mindset. They are the issues. Are we going to get water? Are we going to get power? Are we going to have roads and bridges …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I congratulate the minister for going overseas and discussing these important issues for the future economy of the Northern Territory. However, as you know, the Western Australian Premier is also visiting Japan at the moment. I am interested to know what role the Northern Territory is playing at this present time to ensure we do not lose the LNG.
Already, as you know, there is movement in the rural area caused by INPEX because they are looking for a place to site their workers in the area. The government needs to go softly, softly with that particular project because there are a number of issues which need to be addressed that are important for local people. The project will bring benefits, but it has some downsides. I believe the government needs to be flexible as to exactly where this workers’ construction village may be. However, again, these things will flow-on into the local community especially at the construction phase, putting in the infrastructure that is required. Those things will benefit the community.
You also mentioned the nuclear power plants in Japan. I am interested to know if the government is working to increase the amount of uranium that will leave the Northern Territory. It is a clean source of energy, minister, as you have said. It is a strange thing that we do not bother to use it ourselves, but that is a minor problem. However, we do promote it as a clean form of energy and I am interested to see where we are going in relation to increasing our exports in that area.
I am interested to hear how other areas, such as the proposed phosphate mine in the Barkly, are going. Today, when fertiliser has substantially increased in price, are we sitting on something that could help keep costs down in Australia in relation to the production of food? There are many things we could discuss, but we cannot do it all in two minutes.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members opposite for their comments. What we are doing right here, right now, Leader of the Opposition, is making sure that we have our share of the $42bn stimulus package which the Prime Minister announced last week, unlike the Country Liberal Party Senator who voted against it in the Senate – who voted against $500m direct into our economy, supported by …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Yet again, the same point of order. He cannot refer to a vote that never occurred.
Madam SPEAKER: Reword, Chief Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: In the Senate, the Country Liberal Party Senator voted against upgrades for schools, new houses in the Northern Territory, new roads in the Northern Territory, and against $500m direct investment in the Northern Territory’s economy ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, he referred to a vote that never occurred.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, no matter how they try to run and hide from this, they cannot run and hid from it. They cannot run and hide.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, this morning I report to the House on the new opportunities for Territory businesses in the regions of the Northern Territory, with one of the largest housing and infrastructure programs ever to be rolled out in Indigenous communities throughout Australia. As I reported to the House last week, the $672m SIHIP program is a joint arrangement between the Australian and Northern Territory governments to cover infrastructure upgrades in 73 remote Indigenous communities.
As of today, people will be aware that there have been three alliance partners selected. They include Earth Connect Alliance, which is a consortium of Canstruct Pty Ltd, Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd, Force 10 International Pty Ltd, Green & Associates Pty Ltd, and Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd. Another is New Future Alliance, which comprises Leighton Pty Ltd, Broad Construction Services Pty Ltd, Opus Qantec McWilliam Pty Ltd, and Ngarda Civil & Mining Pty Ltd. The last one is Territory Alliance, which is a consortium comprising Sitzler Pty Ltd, Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd, McMahon Services Australia Pty Ltd, and ESS, Compass Group.
This program will certainly be an economic driver through the remote areas. The contractual requirement of the SIHIP program is to deliver more effective housing to these communities but, also, it has to deliver job and training outcomes. That is a prerequisite. Almost dwarfing the actual construction is the jobs training package. This will bring job opportunities in housing repairs and maintenance, and construction for people in those remote communities, n.
In Tennant Creek - one of the first three cabs off the rank - we have 16 local Indigenous trainees being trained in civil construction at the Certificate III level. This has been supported by Julalikari Council, who do an excellent job.
The sheer size of SIHIP cannot be underestimated. There will be substantial workforces required to complete this work over the next few years and it is a first in the Territory. When you look at what we had previously - about $15m coming into the Territory for Indigenous housing construction - this absolutely dwarfs it; it is a new world. It is something we are trying to get the most out of.
Next week, there will be industry forums through the Northern Territory so those remote and regional towns can get the most out of it and small business operators in regional towns can get the most out of this program to maintain jobs. The alliance partners will be attending those meetings so small businesses can come along and talk to them and see what services and supplies they need for this construction program. This could include setting up workers’ camps, food supplies, plumbing and electrical supplies, internal and external fittings for houses and, most importantly, training providers. These are real opportunities. We are focused on retaining the funds within the regions, within those local communities, through either wages or through local businesses. The business forums are free and this will be a real chance for small businesses to come along.
Next week they will be in Alice Springs on Monday 23 February; Tennant Creek on Tuesday 24 February; Darwin on Tuesday 10 March; Katherine on 11 March; and Nhulunbuy on 18 March. I will be attending all the forums next week and I encourage people to come along. This is great for the regions, it brings a much-needed economic boost and real job opportunities, not only for this phase of the construction program, but workers will be trained so they can take on ongoing repairs and maintenance jobs. The realty is, there is a lot of work around the Territory but it is spasmodic. This is a real opportunity to get mobile work teams to travel to centres which are undertaking major construction work. Madam Speaker, this is a real opportunity for those regions and those businesses.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. He referenced mobile work teams going out to places to build and repair houses. That is all well and good but, unfortunately, they cannot get to those places because the roads are in such an appalling state that any kind of work is going to be restricted to four or five months of the year, which is the Dry Season.
$672m is a lot of money coming into the Territory, and this government’s track record over the last eight years has shown that they are not very good managers with money. It leaves me with concerns that this government, whilst all this money is coming into the Northern Territory, will not managed it properly and we might not see the houses and repairs implemented as quickly as possible so the overcrowding issues can be minimised and health can be improved, which is what we all want. It is what we, on this side of the parliament want, and I know it is what the people in the communities want. However, so far, this government’s track record is quite appalling in regard to managing money that has come from the Commonwealth. There have been various reports which have demonstrated this; they have syphoned money off.
I have no issue with the alliances; they are all very good companies. I know about the Territory Alliance and the work they are doing on the Tiwi Islands. I had a meeting and tours with them over the weekend. I wish all those alliances the very best in getting the job done quickly.
However, Madam Speaker, if this government is left to manage the program, I do not believe it is going to be as successful as we would like it to be.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. There is a range of questions that need to be asked about this program. It is not that it is not a good idea; we have to increase the amount of housing on Aboriginal communities - we know that is a definite. However, I do have concerns about the type of housing we build and who has a say in the appropriate design of those houses for different areas of the Territory. Are we still working on trying to produce houses that are cheap and affordable? The figure I mentioned the other day was $530 000 per house.
You mentioned job training; that is terrific. However, I worked on Bathurst Island 38 years ago and, about 35 years ago, there were people working for the Ullintjinni Association. Are they still working? Do we still have the same people coming in from outside Bathurst Island to build houses? How are you going to ensure that the jobs you are trying to achieve there will be permanent; that you will not have to bring in people from outside? You need to give us some idea how that will work.
In the management of houses, there is no doubt one of the biggest problems we have is, in some cases, the demolition of houses because there is no control over damage done to those houses. What schemes will the government bring in to ensure houses are respected? Will they bring in programs to help people learn how to look after the houses? There were schemes 30 or 40 years ago, I remember, where people were shown how to use the kitchen, how to maintain the house correctly. It is no good building houses if they fall down again in 10 years.
The other issue is what will happen to local housing associations? What role will they play? Many of them have been around a long time and a number of them have been very successful in what they are doing. I would not like to see them get done out of a job.
The last thing, which I mentioned the other day: will there be a program that does not punish those communities which have done the right thing over the years, that have produced many good houses, and still need more but, because their houses are in good nick, the focus will be on those places where conditions are worse?
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I will try to cover all those points from the members for Goyder and Nelson.
I do not know where the CLP is at the moment. They are wearing suits and do not know anything about bush roads anymore, and they are very much divorced from the bush. The Wet Season has been a bit of an issue around the Territory for a very long time and we are spending more money on roads than ever before. I do not know how divorced they are from the bush.
With respect to the member for Nelson, the type of design is being worked through. Obviously, we want to build very robust houses and they do cost money. However, for the very first time in housing construction for Indigenous houses we will know exactly how much it costs to build a house, because the alliance partners have already agreed on a percentage of profit. We will know exactly what the input costs are for those houses being constructed for the very first time. Before it was a lump sum and you did not know whether it was only 10% of the total price going to repairs and maintenance. This is a new world and we certainly want to get the most for those people in the regions.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I report on the Territory government’s commitment to expanding facilities at East Arm Wharf. The Port of Darwin has experienced a period of unprecedented growth. The port has been established as Australia’s second LNG hub with the presence of Darwin LNG as the service and supply centre for the offshore oil and gas industry, as well as regional centres across northern Australia’s coastline.
In the last financial year, the total trade across the East Arm Wharf alone increased by 87% to a total of 2.73 million tonnes, and commercial shipping calls increased by 23.5% to a total of 1547 calls - a record year in the port’s history. While the traditional market sector of the port’s trade had a strong year, the major influence on growth of the port in recent times has been the re-emergence of the bulk minerals export trade. Bulk minerals are again being exported through the Port of Darwin for the first time since 1999 and, in the case of iron ore from Frances Creek, for the first time in 33 years. To support this, the Territory government has invested $24.5m in a new bulk minerals handling facility at East Arm, which includes rail receiving facilities, stockpiles and a ship loader capable of loading 2000 tonnes per hour. Despite the current financial crisis, demand for our resources is predicted to continue to grow. Demand for bulk mineral export through East Arm Wharf is projected to grow from 2.5 million tonnes this financial year to in excess of 10 million in the next five years.
Coupled with the significant growth in the bulk minerals sector and associated economic development, all market sectors of the port’s trade are expected to increase over the same period. This will place significant pressure on the existing infrastructure. The Territory government recognises that ongoing development of the port facilities is integral to the economic development of the Territory. We have committed $100m over the next term. $59.5m has been approved in this financial year’s capital works program to continue to develop the port’s infrastructure. The capital works items include: an overland conveyor to link the stockpile to the ship loader, $35m; reclamation of Pond F on East Arm Wharf to provide additional hardstand area on the wharf, $15m; and treat and seal the eastern reclaimed area on East Arm Wharf to provide additional hardstand areas, $9.5m. The current bulk loading system using road trains to transfer the product from the stockpile to the ship loader will be improved with an overland conveyor system, and further strategic port land will also be created. The new infrastructure will support the development of our resources sector and regional development, as well as continued commercial development of the AustralAsia Trade Route.
A further $40m is provided for additional capital works which will be identified and prioritised from the current master plan review of East Arm port. This review is focusing on future demand scenarios for the port to 2030, including forecasting increased trade and shipping, long-term land use and precinct planning, infrastructure and equipment needs, including enhanced bulk mineral handling facilities and berth extensions.
The Prime Minister and the minister for Infrastructure, minister Albanese, have visited the port and recognise the ongoing development of our Port of Darwin is important in not just the development of the Territory, but also the nation. $3.2m has already been committed by the federal government to fund two strategic studies focused on larger shipping having access to the Port of Darwin, and a feasibility study into a larger bulk materials handling berth in the port to support regional mining development. The Territory government has applied for a further $200m from Infrastructure Australia. I met with the Chair of Infrastructure Australia, Sir Rod Eddington, last month to promote our submission and outline the importance of our port expansion for the development of the Territory, and the development of our nation.
I am pleased to announce that I have appointed transport logistics expert, Chris Bigg, as Chair of the Darwin Port Corporation Advisory Board. Chris has a wealth of experience across the transport sector. He has previously held senior positions in the Departments of Chief Minister and Planning and Infrastructure. Mr Bigg replaces the outgoing Chair, Mr David Looker, who has served in the role for the last three years. I thank Mr Looker, who did an excellent job in bringing the port to this exciting period of expansion. Mr Bigg has expert knowledge and, I am sure, will take the port through this very exciting period of growth.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Infrastructure for the report. For those of you who may recall, in my maiden speech of parliament I spoke about the very important move towards creating Darwin as a greater gateway for Asia. The port expansion has an important role in fulfilling that. I have had the luxury of touring the port and getting an update on how the port is performing and its requirements for expansion.
I also recognise that the government has made a commitment to extend the port as we seek to grow our minerals export industry, our cattle industry, and so forth. I also understand some of the issues around logistics in getting to the port and how the rail and road infrastructure supports the ongoing development of the port. It is very important that we focus on that. I have asked for a briefing on how the expansion of the port is going, and I expect the minister to ensure that happens in a very speedy manner.
I am also very keen to know the outcome of the bid for Infrastructure Australia to attract federal government dollars so we can support the greater expansion of the port in the near future rather than later. The expansion of the port and the application for money from Infrastructure Australia, through Sir Rod Eddington, is something that could have been sought after in the stimulus package. When I spoke yesterday about the need to localise elements of the stimulus package, this is something we could have sought: to get money for our port which will create greater jobs growth right across the Territory, through Bootu Creek Mine, Territory Iron Ore, and the potential exporting of minerals from South Australia. There is a wide variety of things we could have done, and the stimulus package was the mechanism where we could have attracted those funds in the shorter term to expand the port, create jobs in Darwin, and have a sustainable future for the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It should have been a statement. This is worthy of a much better and bigger focus. There is a whole range of issues which could come out in that statement. For instance, what is going to happen to the area near the city, the Perkins Barge area, the Duck Pond? What is the future of that area? What plans has the government for expanding barge landing areas at East Arm port? The Minister for Business did mention that the other day. What plans are there for allowing bigger ships into the harbour? Do we need more dredging offshore to allow those ships into the harbour? Are there problems with the railway and the road infrastructure coming into the port? Does the government have plans, for instance, for an overpass across the railway line so there are fewer hold ups there and more room for expansion of rail shunting areas? Is the government seriously looking at where the required industrial development for the port will move to? I specifically say this is in relation to the debate about the use of Berrimah Farm. Where will future growth for the port go in relation to those industries which rely on the port?
There is a whole range of issues. What is going to be the future in regard to the tugboats? Do we need more of them as shipping increases? What effects will the LNG plant at Blaydin Point have from the point of view of dredging? Will that have other effects on the harbour? There is a whole range of issues which, I believe, are really worthy of debate and discussion in this parliament.
I am pleased the government has brought in some protection for the harbour in the form of ship loading equipment for bulk minerals. As I raised once before, the iron ore being loaded into some of the ships was certainly getting into the sea. I am glad the government has put some money into making sure that does not happen.
Madam Speaker, a statement would be better than a report.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. The shadow simply does not understand the federal government’s processes in infrastructure funding. The Prime Minister has very clearly articulated that the stimulus package is quite separate to the Infrastructure Australia bid which, of course, requires due diligence due to the scope and nature of those significant infrastructure projects. Infrastructure Australia has been undertaking that due diligence and we have been supplying a lot of information in and concerning our port bid and, of course, our roads bids and other bids.
Tiger Brennan Stage 3 does certainly deliver an overpass over the rail to provide for that flow-through of traffic down Berrimah Road. That is locked in; we have the funding for it, it is on the program. That will proceed and roll on as another program.
Regarding the industrial land around the port, we have been working for about four or five weeks with the Land Development Corporation to identify future growth corridors and needs for industrial land, and that is already factored into growth requirements.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence for today be granted to the member for Arafura due to ill health.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to require the defence to provide notice to the court, and to the prosecution, if they intend to present expert evidence during criminal trials in the Supreme Court. This aims to make the trial process fairer, reduce court time and costs, and reduce trauma to witnesses. Expert evidence is often technical and relates to matters like DNA evidence or medical evidence about such things as deep vein thrombosis. Expert witnesses, therefore, have specialised knowledge, skill or experience in the area of their testimony. Expert evidence is not testimony concerning facts. The role of an expert is to assist the court to determine the issues in dispute. To do this, the court must be able to assess the evidence adduced, including the independent expert’s opinion.
The majority of jurisdictions in Australia have legislation requiring defence to disclose an intention to call expert evidence. The Northern Territory currently does not. This leads to the situation where, sometimes, the defence will let the prosecution know if they intend to call expert evidence. However, sometimes the defence gives no notice and the prosecution can be taken by surprise in the course of the trial. This limits the court’s ability to assess the evidence introduced.
If the prosecutor knows the defence intends to call an expert, and what that person’s opinion is, then he or she is better able to effectively cross-examine the witness. It may be the case, as happens in some instances, that the prosecution accepts the defence expert’s opinion. In such a case, a trial might be avoided, or at least the issues in the trial are narrowed down, saving court time, expense, and trauma and inconvenience to witnesses.
This government appreciates that the proposed legislation amounts to a shift in balance between the prosecution and defence. Indeed, some might argue that the nature of our criminal justice system means that the prosecution must prove its case, meet all defences, and the defence should not be obliged to show its hand at all. However, the defence is already obliged to give notice of an alibi for the reason that it makes the trial process fairer and reduces court time and costs, as a trial might be avoided. The government believes this further obligation to give notice will not lead to injustice.
The notice is limited to trials in the Supreme Court. Additionally, the court is empowered to allow the defence a shorter period of time than the 14-day notice period prescribed in the legislation, to comply with the notice obligations. In short, notices in the interests of procedural fairness will, potentially, reduce trauma and inconvenience to witnesses and decrease court time and cost.
The courts and the legal profession have been consulted in relation to the decision to introduce the legislation. The majority of stakeholders were supportive. In particular, the judges of the Supreme Court noted that the absence of a requirement for the defence to give notice of intention to call expert evidence can create procedural difficulties in the trial process and unfairness to the prosecution, due to the lack of opportunity to properly prepare to meet the defence evidence.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms ANDERSON (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is to amend arrangements concerning the management of government records and archives, following the administrative separation of records and archives services within the government structure.
Until recently, the Northern Territory Archives Service managed both record services to government and archive services to government and the community. In 2007, the archive service transferred from the former Department of Corporate and Information Services (DCIS) to the then Department of Planning Environment and Arts (NRETA), while the record service function was retained within DCIS. The archive service was relocated to NRETA to align it with other collection- and heritage-focused agencies of government, while the record service remained with DCIS as an internal service to government.
Following recent changes to the public service structures, the archival heritage functions remained with the Department of Natural Resources Environment and Arts and Sports, and the records policy and the systems function became the responsibility of the newly formed Department of Business and Employment, which assumed functions of the former DCIS.
Part 9 of the Information Act deals with records and archives management. As Part 9 provides for archive services to manage both these functions, it became necessary to review the legislation and provide for record services to be managed by another part of government. There has been no change to the service delivered. Two work units have moved within the government structure and there has been no change to the resourcing of these services. There remains only the requirement to facilitate this change in the legislation.
The bill contains six key amendments to Part 9 of the Information Act. Clause 3 revises the definition of ‘archive services’ and ‘standard’. It also inserts seven new definitions of terms, including: ‘applicable standard’, ‘appraise’, ‘archives standard’, ‘disposal’, ‘permanent record’, ‘records services’ and ‘records standard’. These definitions describe in more detail the role of the Records Service and Archives Services in managing these functions.
Clause 4 replaces the requirement for archives services to manage these functions and provides for two separate services to now perform these functions. The Records Service is established to prepare records standards; provide policy and systems to assist agencies to comply with the standards; monitor agency compliance; and facilitate the preparation of records retention and disposal schedules. The Archives Service continues to appraise records; collect, transfer, preserve and provide access to archives; prepare archives standards; provide assistance to agencies to comply with the standards; and monitor agency compliance.
Clause 5 amends the requirement for agencies to make arrangements for the Archive Service to monitor the management of their records, with the requirement for agencies to make arrangements for both the Record Service and Archive Service to monitor the management of their records and archives.
Part 9, Division 3 provides for the creation of standards for the Archives Service and the process of consulting with other bodies; the review of the standards; and approval of the standards by the minister. Clause 6 substitutes this with provision for: the Archives Service to continue with these responsibilities for archives standards; the Records Service to take responsibility for record standards; consultation between the services and other bodies when preparing standards; the approval of standards by the minister responsible for the relevant service; the Records Service to facilitate the development of records retention and disposal schedules; and approval of records retention and the disposal schedules by the Record Service, the Archive Services and the responsible agency.
There is a provision describing how a person may mishandle records and commit an offence. However, it is not an offence if it is done in compliance with the relevant standard. Clause 7 substitutes ‘standard’ with ‘standard applicable to a public sector organisation’. This clarifies the type of standard.
There is also a provision describing how it is an offence to mishandle records to prevent access to them or correction of them when an application has been made under Part 3 of the Information Act (Freedom of Information). As in the previous provision, it is not an offence if it is done in compliance with the relevant standard. Clause 7 substitutes ‘standard’ with ‘standard applicable to a public sector organisation’. This clarifies the type of standard.
The amendments to the Information Act will bring about the administrative changes to the Archives Services and Records Service to facilitate the separation of two units.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement which accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 25 November 2008.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I turn the House’s attention to the mid-year report for the financial year 2008-09. I begin with the observation that I find it a little surprising that, for some reason, we have determined to place this as item No 1 on the Notice Paper when we will next be dealing with item No 2 on the Notice Paper which, chronologically, places these two debates in the wrong direction. However, I have raised it with the Leader of Government Business and he does not see it as a major issue and, frankly, it is not. However, I would have preferred to be talking about last year’s budget first, rather than this year’s budget first.
Anyway, with that observation made, here we are and we are talking about the mid-year report. I note at the outset that there is a discrepancy between the mid-year report as produced by Northern Territory Treasury and by the Commonwealth Treasury in their MYEFO – which is their Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which I think is the name of the document, hereinafter called MYEFO. There is a discrepancy between the Northern Territory’s estimation as to what the fall in the GST income would be and what the government has publicly stated that the fall in the income will be - and it is an $8m discrepancy. The Northern Territory government has announced a fall of $56m, thus reaching the estimated deficit for this financial year on the cash statement of $9m, whereas the original budget anticipated a deficit of $47m, where the original budget anticipated a surplus of $9m. I invite the minister to explain why there is a difference of $63.514m between the two documents. It does raise the question as to how much faith we can place in the Treasurer’s public assertions about the condition of the budget.
I am also concerned - and this is one of the reasons why I wanted to be able to talk about the next item on the budget paper first - there is also a discrepancy - I advise the Treasurer that I will be raising this issue in the House - between the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for last year and the Auditor-General’s summation of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement of last year. This is why I, particularly, in an earlier debate in this House, asked the Treasurer to be quite specific in relation to the figure of $6.4m being the remnant amount left in the Treasurer’s Advance; whereas the Auditor-General has come up with a figure which is slightly over $4m - another discrepancy. What we now have is a situation where the federal government does not agree with the Treasurer, and the Auditor-General does not agree with the Treasurer, and we have to continue relying on the Treasurer’s ‘trust me’ approach as to how this budget is put together.
The Treasurer, I note, relies on Access Economics’ assertion that we have a growth forecast of 4.7% for the current financial year. As well, I note in the mid-year financial report the growth forecast of a similar 4.5% puts them roughly in the same boat. However, both the economic forecast of Access Economics and this particular document, to reach those figures, have to make certain assumptions. I draw members’ attention to the bottom of page 16 in the 2008-09 mid-year report which says:
The situation on the global front is somewhat grimmer than we would have known in November, when this document hit the table. Subsequent to that time, we have seen the effective non-operation of McArthur River Mine, the Browns project, and GBS Gold. Several of those producers have stopped producing altogether and others have limited their production. It is with some concern that I note in Japan, their annual growth is now minus-12.5%. Japan, being one of our major trading partners, is a consumer of the raw materials that we produce. We heard the Chief Minister talk about his trip to Japan earlier today and the importance of the trip. He identified Japan, particularly, as one of our major trading partners.
Similarly, the situation in China is that, whilst China is still on the right side of zero in its growth numbers, it ain’t the double digit growth that used to occur. Therefore, I have some reservations about these projected growth rates, particularly the 4.5% figure, as well as the Access Economic 4.7% figure, because MRM and those things were not calculated into each of these numbers.
Whilst that quote goes on to talk about other export sources of income for the Northern Territory such as the Alcan refinery at Gove, Territory’s Resources iron ore, Frances Creek, and OM Holdings at Bootu Creek, I do not know what their current exports are. I suspect, if what is being reflected in other jurisdictions is correct, then perhaps 4.5% might still be a bit on the ambitious side. However, we will see. This will be a matter which will resolve itself in about six months’ time when the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement comes out.
I am also concerned about some of the other assumptions which are now possibly redundant in this particular document. It is unusual to be discussing a document in these circumstances because, normally, we could comfortably rely on the steadiness of these documents. However, in the current environment, we find that the earth moves under our feet, and there is an element of redundancy in these documents which is far more advanced than would normally be the case.
I also refer members, and the Treasurer, to another area of concern to me. It deals with the 10-year bond rate and how it affects the Northern Territory. I draw members’ attention to the bottom of page 24 in the 2008-09 mid-year report, because it has a direct effect on our nett debt plus employee liability to revenue percentage rates. It is an area of concern, and I would like the Treasurer, in her final words on this, to address this particular issue. I would like to know what the current state of play is right now in relation to these numbers. I will quote the important bit from the bottom of page 24:
The 10-year bond rate is not 5%, it is actually 4% right now. I checked the other day with the RBA’s graph, and it is just a smidgeon, a fraction, over 4%. With interest rates going the way they are at the moment, and the fact that the government has almost abandoned monetarism in favour of fiscal stimulus packages, believing that interest rates are no longer the vehicle by which you adjust investment, I suspect what is going to happen in the current climate is that interest rates are going to keep creeping down despite these stimulus packages. As a consequence of that, you will find that the bond rate will track down behind it. That will have a direct effect on the long-term liabilities of this government, particularly in the area of superannuation.
I suspect, as investments in TIO start to crystallise and people will want to start getting some of their money back, there will also be a negative effect on TIO which will wash over onto the government guarantee. I have raised these issues already in parliament. They remain unanswered, and I would like the Treasurer to draw her attention to these particular issues.
The reason this is important is that, if you allow for a fluctuation of the 10-year bond rate to fall by 1.5% and you get an income to debt ratio shift that is 17% as a result of that, what you actually have achieved is a big shift in income to debt ratio. I suspect the 10-year bond rates being used by Treasury are ambitiously high, and that 4% is probably still on the ambitious side of the ledger considering the way things are panning out at the moment, particularly for the medium term of one or two years in calculating this out. My question to the Treasurer is quite specific: has Treasury revisited the assumptions used for the bond rate? If they have, what nett debt plus employee liability to revenue ratio are they now projecting?
I look forward to that answer from the Treasurer, because I suspect it will be a figure much higher than the 106% which is currently being quoted on page 25. I suspect that the projections between the financial years 2009-10 to 2011-12 will also be substantially higher. A fall in interest rates means an increase in the Northern Territory government’s exposure to employee liabilities, in particular, and superannuation costs. I would also like to see the Treasurer table, if possible, some projections in relation to how our employee liability situation is tracking.
The Treasurer has made much in the past of the situation of the Northern Territory government in the financial year 2001-02, when they took over control of the Northern Territory budget. Without revisiting all of those issues - and there are many which I could discuss - the nett debt and employee ratio to earnings was 131 at the time. I believe it actually finished the financial year at 133, if I remember the TAFRs from that year correctly - which is not a good result; it was high. However, one has to realise that these ratios are not calculated on a year-for-year basis; they actually have a prediction component built into them. It is curious to see how it will track now. One has to remember, in that time, our annual income was $2.2bn and it now tracks in the order of about $3.5bn or $3.6bn, which means we have a substantially increased income. What we also have is a substantially increased nett debt plus employee liability situation. I suspect, as I have already stated, and for the reasons I have stated, that employee liability will increase.
I also note, from several comments the Treasurer made, that she keeps asserting nett debt is going down. It is not going down. I draw members’ attention to a very convenient assertion by the Treasurer that she uses and will rely on to justify nett debt coming down, based on the general government sector balance sheet. For members who are so inclined, I draw your attention to page 29 where, indeed, nett debt looks like it is tracking down - and bully for the Treasurer on that one! However, that is not where the government’s liability ends when it comes to the issue of nett debt.
I ask members to flick a couple of pages forward into this document, where there is another balance sheet. Yes, there we are. You can find it on page 32, the Public Non-Financial Corporation Balance Sheet. This jigger is where you will find the nett debt from borrowings which are about to be taken out by areas that are not specifically based in the general government sector balance sheet. This debt, you will notice on the bottom of this page, is ramping up substantially. It is probably going up about 80% or 90% on projections to 2012. The reason for that is the borrowings are not being done by the general government sector. The borrowings are being done by Power and Water Corporation as part of their infrastructure expenditure - infrastructure expenditure which was intended to be done by borrowings, when it could have been done from all that extra revenue which had been collected over the last few years, and we would not have had to raise debt to achieve it.
As we hurtle towards a $200m black hole, thanks to this Treasurer, we are doing it on the back of an income stream which has yet to be matched in the history of the Northern Territory. I find it astonishing that the government is so dependent on this infrastructure package. No matter about the debate in relation to the infrastructure package, they are absolutely addicted to the expenditure of money and they are still absolutely reliant on a bail-out package. They were prepared to take the first package that came along - $200m was the package last week: ‘$200m! Oh, my God! Shock, horror! $200m, we really need that’.
It was only when somebody came into this Chamber and said: ‘Hang on, that is not such a good deal’, that they found another $300m to claim. They spent the whole of yesterday saying: ‘It is $505m, depending on take-up rates’. It just shows you how desperate they are. They signed up for the first deal not knowing the details of that deal at all; they signed up to the first deal that was shovelled up to them by the federal government and did not ask a question about it, just said: ‘Oh, $200m! I will take that, thanks. Phew, that is this year’s drug fix sorted out’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Ms LAWRIE: The shadow Treasurer is highly offensive - highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw those comments. Thank you very much.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. If Mrs Robinson over there is a little sensitive about these things, then so be it ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just what is the shadow Treasurer saying in the reference to Mrs Robinson?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: It is a reference to a Simon and Garfunkel song.
Madam SPEAKER: It is an odd reference; I think it is perhaps offensive. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw Mrs Robinson, Madam Speaker. I am just wondering if the minister would be kind enough to go through the Greater Oxford Dictionary for me and advise me of which words she does not find offensive.
The fact is - and small wonder they are getting twitchy, I might add - it is ridiculous the way they ran the argument last week with a figure of $200m saying how it was so horrible and, when it was pointed out to them that it was actually not a good deal, they suddenly decided: ‘Oh, my goodness, it is worth more. We have to talk more about these things and find them more’. It just shows the desperation that percolates through this government because they have had an approach to expenditure in the past which has left us vulnerable in these times.
Why are we borrowing? Why - in this age of so much income, since we have been the beneficiaries of a tax system that they actively rejected, fought against and voted against in this House, but they have become the beneficiaries of it, and that income has been substantial – do we find that we are in an increased debt situation? Nett debt is going up when you look at the total government sector, as is the superannuation liability. And it will be amplified by the current fiscal environment.
This government committed itself years ago to a fiscal strategy which, if they had been a little more attentive, would have produced results far better than what have been produced. I raised this issue before in this House, and I went back and checked those debates. During those debates, I started raising the issue that there are actually two increases we get every year, essentially. One of them is: we know how much we are going to get - you can find those projections in the budget books. Then there is the extra where we did not expect to get more money - the GST windfall - as it is called ...
Ms Lawrie: It is not a windfall. What do you want? New South Wales to take it instead, do you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The GST windfall, as it is called. I can tell you something: that is money we never expected to get. Did this government save that money? Did they go to the bank accountant and say: we are going to put it away? A little they did; they poured a little into the Conditions of Service Reserve, which has now become the piggy bank for infrastructure projects. How much have you raided that for in recent times?
Ms Lawrie: We have not done any raids.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: How much is it worth today? How much was it worth 12 months ago? This government has taken the small amounts of saving whilst debt goes up, while superannuation employee liabilities go up and, now, they are announcing a $200m black hole ...
Ms Lawrie: No, we are not.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you are. You are announcing it, and you are doing it almost as a footnote to a media release - $150m in the next financial year. The only thing which will get them even close to $47m this financial year is that, when they get this money from the federal government in June, they will stick it in the bank account and, all of a sudden, there will be this really good improvement in our financial situation.
The only place from whence this government can draw comfort is from their own source revenue because, this financial year, they will have to be relying on the GST guarantee to keep them in their current position. This is why next financial year we are going to cop such a hit, because that guarantee stops on 30 June this calendar year and they have to turn to their own source revenue. The Treasurer insists that own source revenue is holding up. Where? Where is it holding up - mining royalties?
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely!
Mr ELFERINK: Are they? Then table those documents. I notice that the Treasurer …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin well knows that he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: He is right, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, he is; if you could do so, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I defer to his wisdom and insight.
I ask, in that case, that the Treasurer gets the most recent projections the Treasury can give her - her briefing note or whatever - and tables it in this House, with the date the projection was calculated, because I find it difficult to understand how mining royalties are going up in the current environment. I am nervous that, with an unemployment rate which has crept up slightly in the last few months, we are relying on our payroll tax as a source of increased income. I am not entirely sure that more people are gaining at the moment because there may well be less disposable income.
For all of these areas, I would like to know what the current projections are and how they are tracking because, under normal circumstances, it would be quite proper of us to rely on this document. However, these are not normal circumstances, these are circumstances in which a document like this becomes redundant in fairly quick time, and the projections held in this document are unreliable given the circumstances of what is occurring, particularly with interest rates.
I look forward to the Treasurer’s response, particularly on the issues surrounding the projections of the superannuation liability and the nett debt situation, including the ratio issue that I raised earlier. If she does table that, I would also like to know the date when those calculations were made by Treasury. I look forward to what the Treasurer has to say on this particular issue.
The only thing which will keep this government at a $50m deficit this year is a cash income from another source. So far, the only light on the horizon is the Commonwealth government’s credit card. Being a fiscal conservative in the true sense of the word, I am nervous about credit card expenditure. Whilst I accept the necessity of it from time to time, the fact is that a job created today is generally created at the expense of a job not created tomorrow, because you are paying back credit card debt. Nothing in this world is for free and, if the government wants to rack stuff up on the credit card in the current environment, I understand that there are good fiscal arguments to support that position. If the federal government wants to rack up expenditure on the credit card, I understand that there are reasonable and good fiscal arguments to support that position. However, I am mindful that the chant and the mantra that this is all for jobs is only half the debate – and is true in the Northern Territory, as it is true for the federal government. We are more service deliverers than economic managers in what we do as a provincial government, or as a state government. However, having made that observation, we too are capable of racking stuff up on the credit card, and that is exactly what this government will be doing to the tune of at least $200m in the next 18 months.
I am mindful that is $200m which will have to be paid back, and of the fact that our income sources are being reduced over that period. I am careful to point out that, whilst that may have an affect on jobs and investment in the short term, it will also have an affect on jobs and investment in the long term. A job which is created now is being done literally at the expense of a job which may be created in the future ...
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not. What a lot of rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, what are you going to pay it back with?
Ms Lawrie: What a load of rubbish, really. What part of economic growth do you not understand in terms of jobs creation?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: I understand it very well. I understand this much: you have to pay back these loans; the government has to pay back these loans. What are they going to pay them back with - air? The fact is these loans have to be paid back, and money paid back on a loan is not money which is available for other purposes. For the Treasurer to sit here and say, ‘No, no it is not. It has nothing to do with it’. For her to simply argue that you pay back loans with nothing – well, that is errant nonsense and, for the first time since starting this debate and being the shadow Treasurer, I am genuinely irritated with this minister. I can tell you the Treasurer is living in la la land if she thinks there is going to be no effect by increasing the debt of the Northern Territory. That effect will be real, and the only reason it does not touch this particular Treasurer is because it will not be her who has to pay it back, it will be another government on another day. Her attitude is so typical of the Labor Party in relation to this sort of thing; rack it up on the credit card - just rack it up and to hell with the future.
Ms Lawrie: Says the CLP who left us in debt.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is an outrageous position, and for her to be so precious about it and dismissive of the future demonstrates that she has not a care about the future of the Northern Territory. That tells me her only interest is in her own self-image and her own presentation as the Treasurer of the Northern Territory right now.
It is a disgrace that the Treasurer is so dismissive of debt. It is the reason we are racking up more debt on a daily basis in the best of times. Do you think that we are going to reduce debt in the worst of times? Not a chance! The worst of times means that our debt to income ratio will start to go up, and go up substantially. The worst of times means that, when I am out of this parliament and when she is out of this parliament, we, as a jurisdiction, will still be paying off the debt she has saddled Territorians with.
They complain about a black hole, well, their black hole is substantially bigger than any black hole they have ever been presented with. I find it disgraceful that this Treasurer is so dismissive – so dismissive of the future of the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I sat here listening very interestedly to the contribution by the member for Port Darwin, who continually talks the Northern Territory economy down. I believe he is completely out of touch with the business community and the real challenges we face.
The bottom line is that the Northern Territory’s fiscal position is very strong, despite what the member for Port Darwin says. It is strong. We are coming off the back of six surplus budgets, and I know this government has the confidence of the business community. Furthermore, it is heartening to hear the confidence expressed by the business community in the future of the Northern Territory, particularly given these difficult times. It was very evident at the summit which was held last Sunday afternoon where it was expressed by a number of speakers. They reflected on the poor fiscal position and outlook in other states within Australia, but the relatively and comparatively good outlook in the Northern Territory, particularly in the construction sector. The biggest challenge for us is to find capacity, and manage the capacity issues around the industry to meet all the projects that are on the horizon: we have INPEX on the horizon, the stimulus package, record capital expenditure by this government. Since we came to power, our infrastructure spend has been at record levels and greatly appreciated by the construction sector. I believe it is a matter of capacity; it is a matter of managing the projects on our horizon. I have every confidence in our Treasurer - both as Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure - that she has a mind for the timing of these particular projects.
The member for Port Darwin made a lot about bleak confidence – ‘faith in assertions’, I believe were the words used by the member for Port Darwin, in relation to both the Treasurer’s Mid-year Financial Statement or report, and also what is emerging day-by-day almost, because of the world economic crisis.
I remind members on the other side that it was this government that introduced the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, which was in response to the fiddling that went on by the opposition when they were in government, around budget estimates, particularly around elections. I believe although there might be a divergence of views, that the fact we introduced it ensures a well-informed debate, with everything out on the table. I really applaud that. I know the shadow Treasurer is not going to agree with all the figures and he can point to discrepancies in the figures. Those who read The Financial Review know there is a debate within the economic community about forward projections. Economics is not an exact science and there will be differing views about outlooks and different rates that are at the base of budget assumptions.
I listened with interest the other day when the member for Port Darwin was talking about the three degrees he has. I know he has a Bachelor of Arts, and also a Bachelor of Laws from the University of New England, but I am very interested to know what the third degree is. I am interested to know if it is in economics, and what school of economics it came from …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am just asking the question.
The Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act is a cornerstone of these debates we are having here. It was introduced by this government in response to what happened around the last CLP budget, when they were fiddling around the forward estimates. Economics expert, Professor Percy Allan, came in and found the CLP black hole about budget assumptions - I believe it was $130m - that were completely off the planet. There was the sale of NT Fleet, and a whole range of other aspects; also the way in which it wound back the budget estimates around police, education, and health coming into the 2001 election.
This government has openness and transparency in the debates around our budget and our budget forecasts. I commend the Treasurer for her publication. She will debate the issues raised by the member for Port Darwin today. We are in a period of unprecedented stress in both the global and Australian economies and, as I alluded to before, we have had six successive cash surpluses in our budgets and our budgets have been employed very well. The member for Port Darwin talked about the GST windfalls. There is no doubt - and this government is not backing away from the fact - that significant GST revenues have flowed to this government, however, we have employed those surpluses in spending on health, education and police - all areas that had the screws put on them by the previous CLP government.
Through my experience in the Health portfolio and also the Transport portfolio …
Mr Tollner: Yes, we know about your experiences, too.
Dr BURNS: Just listen; you might learn something. I know the federal government was having surpluses as well, but it was doing it at the expense of the states and territories. What they were doing in health was ratcheting back the 50:50 contribution which had existed for some time around hospitals. At the end of the Howard years, the Territory was paying 60% and the Commonwealth government was paying 40%; government had to outlay more money from those GST revenues into those areas. In transport - what happened with Tiger Brennan Drive? There was an agreement for a 50:50 contribution. As prices escalated, and we knew they were escalating - the price of steel and labour was escalating - the Commonwealth government steadfastly refused to pay their fair share of the 50% and …
Mr Tollner: You are incompetent.
Dr BURNS: I remember the member for Fong Lim saying with Jim Lloyd: this is going to happen and that is going to happen and, within a day, there was a retraction from Jim Lloyd in relation to Tiger Brennan. What has happened with the Labor government? There has been a commitment of money that was never forthcoming under the previous Coalition government ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Members, cease interjecting, please.
Mr Tollner: You are hopeless!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the question was asked, and I have answered that question in relation to the way in which this government has deployed extra revenue within the Northern Territory. What does the opposition want? Did they not want us to spend more money on education? Did they not want us to spend more money on police? Did they not want us to spend more money on health? What is their position? It is about as garbled and as mixed up as their position on the stimulus package ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I can answer the minister. Quite simply, what the opposition wanted was an outcome ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat, please, member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have thought the building of Tiger Brennan Drive would be an outcome …
Mr Tollner: Spending money is not an outcome!
Dr BURNS: That is an outcome. It just stalled under you …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The member for Solomon completely stalled – could not advocate; could not seal the deal …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Talking about confidence in our business community, it was my pleasure on Saturday night to attend Ray White’s awards night. Ray White, in the Northern Territory, has amalgamated with the South Australian operations and Mr Nick George, who owns that business and an associated loans business, is working together with Ray White and offering people finance. I found out on Saturday night it is the third largest non-bank home lender in Australia, so it is a significant player in the market. The Leader of the Opposition was there
Mr Nick George talked about confidence in the Territory economy; he talked about ongoing confidence in the Territory economy compared to other states and territories in Australia. In conversation with him, he reiterated that. He has a very strong view about the future of the Territory and how he, as a very successful business person, wants to be more involved - and is becoming more involved - in the Northern Territory.
That is in stark contrast to the doom and gloom coming from the member for Port Darwin. They need to get out more. The Leader of the Opposition probably needs to be communicating more with the member of Port Darwin and say: ‘On Saturday night I went here, and this was said …
Mr Mills: You would be surprised what was said on Saturday night.
Dr BURNS: There is a lot of confidence out there and you, shadow Treasurer, should be reflecting that.
Mr Mills: Do not go there.
Dr BURNS: It just points to a lack of communication on your side.
There is a rapid deterioration in the international and national financial environment in recent months - everyone knows that. The Territory cannot avoid entirely the impact of the global financial crisis. However, we have a plan, a strategy - unlike members opposite, unlike the disarray of the team in Canberra with poor old Julie Bishop. She has moved on and Joe has taken over the portfolio. I have to say I personally like Joe Hockey. He has a big challenge in front of him as Malcolm Turnbull spirals out of control in the eyes of the Australian public for the woeful way he handled the whole issue of the economic stimulus and …
Members interjecting
Dr BURNS: You know what? This lot followed him. Maybe it is because he has a nice suit, but they are following him down the downward spiral. I heard today that 63% of the Australian community supports the economic stimulus package. These people here are in the minority and, federally, they lack support.
We have good fundamentals and, as Business minister, I will support the ongoing efforts of the government and the Treasurer to maintain our low tax policy. I have a graph here which shows accumulative tax savings that this government has delivered to business since 2001 - over $230m. That is because we are the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia on small business. Fact. There are further cuts to come. Not only that, in our support for homeowners and all the things government has brought in, there are substantial savings within our community. I will table that. Maybe members opposite might want to have a look at it, and have a little think about it.
I support the Treasurer in her statement. I agree with member for Port Darwin on one thing: things have moved on since that report was tabled. However, the Treasurer has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, that we are flexible; we are moving to address this issue. We have the confidence of business - small business and large business - and I do not think the opposition does. I believe business takes one look at the member for Port Darwin and what he has to say; it is all gobbledegook and it does not make sense to anyone apart from the member for Port Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I am confident our Treasurer - I know our Treasurer - has the confidence of our business community. Therefore, I commend the report and the Treasurer’s response to it.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister for Business, for his contribution. He is out and about and listening to the business community, and is very aware of the confidence that exists across the business sector in the Territory’s economy and how we are tracking.
No one is under any illusion that these are the most challenging of economic times for any jurisdiction anywhere in the world. I am consistently on the record as saying, as the Treasurer of the Territory; we will not be immune from the global financial crisis or the economic downturn. However, that being said, we are the best placed in our nation to ride out the tough economic times we are in now, and all will be in for some time ahead.
Here we are this morning debating the mid-year report I tabled in November and, as the Minister for Business pointed out, under a greater transparency and fiscal integrity regime that it took a Labor government to introduce. I know the member for Port Darwin likes to make much of ‘You cannot trust the Treasurer’s figures and you cannot trust the Treasurer’s estimates’. I can say …
Mr Tollner: I think he was referring to you, actually.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, he was referring to me as the member for Karama – I will pick up on that interjection from the member for Fong Lim, who is a fool.
I can say …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms Lawrie: Oh, I withdraw – they are sensitive.
Mr ELFERINK: If Mrs Robinson is offensive, then surely that sort of language is very offensive. Four-letter ‘f’ words - very rare.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you would mind containing yourself.
Ms LAWRIE: I point out on page 2, that the mid-year report appears under the Under Treasurer’s certification. Cast any aspersions about me you like, but the reports I table as Treasurer come in here under the Under Treasurer’s certification. It ill behoves you when you are casting aspersions …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I made the point very clearly that this document was probably redundant in the current financial environment. At no point did I say that the Under Treasurer was untrustworthy. That is what she is alluding to, and she has no right ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order. Resume your seat. If you wish to make a personal …
Ms LAWRIE: There is no point of order. No. You made it very clear throughout your speech that assumptions contained within the report …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, resume your seat.
Mr Mills: Have some decorum, for goodness sake, if you want to be the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: No, I do not, actually.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, please resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, if you wish to make a personal explanation, then approach me at the end of this debate. Treasurer, please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The shadow littered throughout his flights of fancy queries about the assumptions Treasury had made within the mid-year report. The government is on the record - I am on the record - saying that a lot has changed since November of last year; there is no doubt about that. In just two-and-a-half months, the global economy has significantly worsened. We are all aware of that, but this mid-year report provided a snapshot in time, an overview of the Territory’s updated financial position which included the money flowing through from the Commonwealth in the form of GST payments and Specific Purpose Payments, our SPPs, and based on a revised estimate in the Commonwealth Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the MYEFO.
I have already provided this response to the member for Port Darwin, and I will provide it again. The difference between the mid-year report and the MYEFO numbers regarding GST is because - and I have said this before - we have used Northern Territory population estimates which are higher than the Commonwealth. This is the case in every report. I have said that on the record, yet you continue to query: what is the difference, why is there a difference? We have repeated it again and again; it is based on population estimates. It is very simple, not difficult to understand, but the member for Port Darwin likes to fantasise about why there is a difference.
In November, I reported to this House that, based on the revised estimates, the Territory was facing a deficit of $47m in 2008-09, as the global economic downturn was affecting the wider Australian economy, resulting in reduced GST revenue as consumption levels in the southern states slowed. In view of the rapidly changing international and national environment, the federal Treasury released a further set of estimates in the updated economic and fiscal outlook earlier this month, setting out a revised fiscal strategy and a revised economic outlook, forecasting a federal deficit over the budget and forward estimates period, with the expected receipts for the Commonwealth revised down by around $115bn - down a further $75bn since its MYEFO. Like many leading economies in the face of eroding revenue and a deteriorating global economy, Australia is now facing a deficit of $22.5bn in 2008-09, and $35.5bn in 2009-10. However, the Commonwealth government has committed to returning the budget to surplus as soon as revenues allow.
Following the federal Treasury’s advice of falling GST revenues, the Territory Treasury revised our fiscal position and, like most Australian jurisdictions, we will move into deficit. We are predicting here to hold that deficit at around $47m in 2008-09, and we are predicting that to worsen to an estimated $150m in 2009-10. However, unlike other jurisdictions, our own source revenues are holding up well and we expect that this position will be maintained over the forward estimate periods.
As an example of how the assumptions of the member for Port Darwin and the Deputy Opposition Leader can be so far wrong - and I say assumptions - they both assumed during debate this morning that our mining royalties are not holding as predicted. In fact, what I predicted in the mid-year report is that we would see an increase in mining royalties. They both assumed that is wrong. I can report that mining royalties in the mid-year report were predictably up by $88m due to the effect of the long-term contracts already in place ...
Mr Elferink: Up by $88m, or to $88m?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Up by $88m. These additional funds in the mid-year report have now been received. They were trying to paint a picture that our predictions are so far wrong because we do not understand what is happening in the mining sector. Well, they are wrong. We have already received the increased mining royalties that we had predicted.
It is very important to be clear that this is a temporary deficit I have announced for the Northern Territory. This is a result of the global financial crisis, which is affecting national spending levels and, in turn, reducing the national GST collections which go directly to state revenue. The GST is about 67% of our total budget revenue.
However, our local economy is holding up well, and certainly better than other state jurisdictions. The Labor government, through strong economic management, has delivered six consecutive surplus budgets. This is what places us well to ride out the toughest years of this economic cycle. While Australia’s economic growth is expected to slow to 1% this year, our economy is faring much better and we are predicting a forecast of 4.5% growth this year, and Access Economics is forecasting 4.7%.
The member for Port Darwin made much of his assertions and he queries those predictions by both the Northern Territory Treasury and Access Economics. This Kellogg’s packet shadow Treasurer asserts he has a greater grasp of the economy than the experts. He spoke of our trading partners, the downturn in growth - a significant downturn in growth - of our trading partners. Regarding the exports commentary in the mid-year report, what he did not pick up on - which he should have - is that it mainly relates to LNG exports. These LNG exports are not slowing. Indeed, as we are seeing through the strength of our mining royalty receipts, a number of other exports - for example, manganese, bauxite and alumina - are also still quite strong.
I speak regularly to the Treasurers of other jurisdictions and they are all facing falling revenues, falling consumption levels, and low growth. I speak regularly to Territory business leaders and they all tell me they would rather be here than in any other place in Australia. Confidence is the key when we are facing the risk of a global depression - and the Territory remains confident. More Territorians have jobs, our population is growing and there is strength in our local construction industry and property markets. Key indicators show the Territory is out performing the nation in private consumption and will continue to enjoy strong population growth. The labour force participation rate is 73.1% as of January 2008, compared to a national average of 65%. The unemployment rate trend, 4.2% as of January, compares to a 4.6% national average. Retail trade growth, 12%, year-on-year growth, compares to the 4.4% national average year-on-year growth.
The federal stimulus package will deliver around $450m to $500m for the Territory economy and significant infrastructure over the years ahead to support jobs. The member for Port Darwin made much of the fact that, at COAG, I estimated $200m in infrastructure. If he wants to go to the actual detail of that media release, rather than seek to go on his flights of fancy, he will read that I was quite specific in the components of that $200m which are the components around education infrastructure, housing infrastructure and the component for roads and rail. What was not included in that was the pull-down into the Territory economy of the direct payments and tax breaks for businesses. If you look at all of those and what the package amounts to, as well as significant Defence housing, in total you are heading towards the $450m to $500m mark. As I said yesterday in the Chamber, if you factor in what we are yet to know, which is our secondary school pool of secondary schools in the class of need, that figure will get higher.
Bear in mind these investments into the Territory economy, made directly through the Rudd government stimulus package, were rejected by the CLP - rejected out of hand. Their man in Canberra voted against it. He did not stand up for Territorians and say: ‘We will take that, but give us another slice because I am in a position, with the power of one vote, to negotiate for more’. He kept his head down, kept his tail between his legs, and voted with his Liberal mates in Canberra. He put the Libs in Canberra ahead of the needs of Territorians, to their eternal shame. We will continue to remind you of that.
We know that the stimulus will have a significant impact on our economic pipeline for the here and the now. As the Chief Minister has said, it will take us through these tough two to three years. Indeed, that is exactly where the stimulus package falls. What do we know is on the horizon for the Territory’s economy? The INPEX investment. It grows more certain. We know INPEX has moved to the front-end engineering and design stage and they have commenced community consultation regarding the possible site for a workers’ camp - $12bn-odd onshore investment; a total $23bn-plus package of investment for the nation.
Access Economics did not factor this investment into their economic forecast for the Territory where they had an averaging out of around 2% growth over the five-year forward estimates. Bear in mind that INPEX, which would represent the single biggest private sector investment in the Territory’s history, is fundamentally our best insurance policy, aside from the economic stimulus which will tide us through the tough times. The INPEX investment and the INPEX project is the best insurance policy we can have against the impact of the global financial crisis. Who was it? It was a Labor government that went out and secured that project, stole it from Western Australia. It was a Labor government that had the foresight to go out and aggressively pursue the INPEX project and to work hand-in-hand with the …
Mr Elferink: Like the CLP never did anything with gas?
Ms LAWRIE: The CLP’s Leader of the Opposition was out there peddling letters into letterboxes saying what a bad project it was going to be.
These are tough economic circumstances and we have seen governments around the world moving into deficit in order to keep economies afloat. The shadow made much of this Treasurer not caring about debt; that I would rather go into debt and I do not care because someone else is going to have to deal with the problem. What a load of rubbish. There is not a Treasurer in the world who would want to go into deficit by choice ...
Mr Elferink: But do not be so flippant.
Ms LAWRIE: There is a global financial crisis, you idiots!
Ms Purick: Oh, you have noticed. About time you noticed.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, we are not idiots.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw ‘idiots’.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
There is clearly a global financial crisis, which is the reason why we are seeing significant reductions in revenue - that is, in GST - coming as a result of the slowdown in the southern states. We have a choice: slash spending, slash jobs, pull back on infrastructure spending and stay in surplus - as the CLP would have us do. Or, we maintain spending in those key areas of growth requirements across the Territory - areas that my colleague, the Minister for Business, quite appropriately pointed out where we have put significant spending – health, education, law and order, and record infrastructure.
In roads alone - the opposition have all of a sudden discovered roads. All of a sudden, the opposition is starting to mention roads. Well, hallelujah! I say as the Roads minister, because they have not paid attention to them in the past. The CLP spent $80m on roads. There will be $270m spent this financial year under a Labor government. We are the ones who are out there improving the road network which we inherited as a legacy of disrepair, and the woeful state of only 23% of our road network sealed.
Mr Elferink: Rubbish!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin. There was 23% of our road network sealed under the CLP, and we are out there with the largest road spend in the history of the Territory. I make no apology whatsoever for putting increased budgets into the core areas of service delivery in which Territorians, quite rightly, expect to see improvements - not just in the urban centres with our head in the sand and forget the bush, which was the method of the CLP. Proudly, a Labor government spends across the Territory, across all our regions, across our remotes regions, for all Territorians. We make no apology for that.
The great Kellogg’s economic expert opposite would have us think that you do not worry, you slash jobs, you rein in your spending and you stay in surplus during tough economic times. Well, I will use a couple of commentators who just might know what they are talking about and whose advice I would take rather than listen to the advice of the member for Port Darwin.
One is the International Monetary Fund. Ray Brooks is the Division Chief of the IMF Asia Pacific Department, and he says increased government spending has already helped cushion the blow and more is needed, even if it results in a budget deficit. I quote him: ‘It would be unwise to stop going. The budget has to go into deficit in these circumstances’. The head of the IMF is calling on governments to roll-out stimulus packages to avoid another Great Depression. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF managing director, has stated: ‘Loss of confidence is now the central problem. Governments and central banks should credibly commit to measures sufficient to eliminate the risks of a repeat of the Great Depression’. This is at the time when IMF is forecasting global economic growth to flatline at just 0.5% this year as the global recession deepens.
The shadow Treasurer is calling for cuts to services and jobs to avoid a temporary deficit …
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time of 10 minutes for the member to finish her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am happy to support the motion if she actually answers one of the questions.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. May I remind you, member for Port Darwin, that when the Speaker is putting a question you are not to speak.
Ms LAWRIE: If he had been listening, I have already answered two of his direct questions. The first was the question on the difference in figures between the MYR and my MYEFO on population estimates. The second was the issue of royalties and, therefore, economic growth figures, and how we can sustain the 4.5% prediction, and Access Economics’ $4.7% prediction. However, he was not listening there either.
I will continue. The issue of deficit is not one any Treasurer likes, in fact, good Treasurers do their utmost to avoid deficits. I hope to be in the category of a good Treasurer. Time will tell, but I can tell you it is not easy in the midst of a global financial crisis and economic downturn, juggling the aspirations of a Treasurer for surplus, and the needs of Territorians for a continued spend by government. I will put the Territory before my own personal desire not to break the Labor record of consecutive surpluses. I do not want to be the first Labor Treasurer to break those consecutive surpluses but, guess what? I care more about Territory families out there who rely on jobs to pay their mortgages, to pay their rent, to get their kids clothed, fed and to school, than I do about whether or not I would be the first to go into deficit.
We will do what we need to do to ensure we keep a robust economy, and we continue to create and maintain jobs for Territorians who, very clearly, are seeing the effects of the global financial crisis and the economic downturn. Yes, sadly, I am predicting moving our Territory budget into a temporary deficit. I will put measures in place to ensure that we come out of it as soon as we possibly can, because we know that whilst we are in a low economic cycle, revenues will recover as the economy improves. I am happy to debate the issue of the Treasurer’s Advance when we get to the Auditor-General’s November report - which was a direct question from the member for Port Darwin, which he flagged. I will debate that in the next debate so we have something to actually debate.
Regarding the superannuation liabilities, again and again I have said - the member opposite wants to ignore it – this is the reality of super liabilities. They are long-term. The actuarial advice – again, an expert compared to the Kellogg’s man - is to use long-term bond rates for forward estimates, not the current bond rate. The current bond rate is used for the current year only. Changing the bond rate regularly will result in significant and unrealistic volatility. We are using 5.7% as the long-term rate. Averaged over the last 30 years, that is more realistic than looking at the last six months and projecting forward. Changes in the bond rate really only result in changes in book value at a point in time. It has no effect on the actual payments. That is a requirement of accounting standards only ...
Mr Elferink: Ah, it is a book entry.
Ms LAWRIE: I have said it again and again, but the member for Port Darwin does not like to hear it. Government debt is falling. This is a sector which is supported by our tax revenue. Debt to corporations is rising, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, but that is because they invest in revenue-generating infrastructure; for example, Power and Water. This is how businesses operate. This debt will be paid off over time through revenue from those businesses. Using any spare GST so the Power and Water Corporation does not have to borrow seems like double accounting. This would be money from the GST that is already included in our accounts.
The worsening of the global economic situation will affect the Territory. As I have said repeatedly; we are not immune. Economic forecasts are changing rapidly. However, what we do know is governments must act swiftly to stimulate the economy, to stimulate growth and support jobs. All governments are being affected by investment losses, and many are facing temporary deficits as they support their constituents through the maintenance of essential services and ongoing commitments through infrastructure spending.
This Territory government is absolutely committed to supporting Territorians and Territory businesses through the tough period ahead. The Territory’s budget will continue to be managed prudently. The Territory Treasury’s conservative investment strategies will be maintained - conservative investment strategies - which is why we have lost far less than everyone else.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: If only I could say to him ‘come in spinner’.
For example, while the Australian Stock Exchange suffered losses to the value of 28.6% at the end of December 2008, the Territory’s prudent approach saw the Territory’s total investments drop by only 4%, and the long-term investments held in the Conditions of Service Reserve returned minus-18.38% over the same period.
Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that this government will continue our strong fiscal strategy principles, despite the global economic challenges we face. It is due to our economic management that we are well positioned to ride out the toughest economic cycle of our times.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Parliament House Public Tour participants. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the great disappointment of my life is I did not get to ask the final question which I was about to fire at the Treasurer. However, I have the opportunity to ask now. Treasurer, how is it when you stand up in this place and say, through your Mid-Year Annual Financial Report, that you are going to get a drop or a reduction in GST revenues of $56m, and the federal government says, through its Treasury, it is going to be $64m? How is it when you say in your Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement the remnants of the Treasurer’s Advance is $6.4m, when the Auditor-General says it is $4.1m? How is it that in your last reply on the debate immediately prior to lunch, you miscalculated mining revenues to the Territory through royalty payments by a factor of 100%? Why should we trust you in anything you say when you make such …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not say I miscalculated mining royalties by a factor of 100%. He is not listening in the House. What I clearly said is that in the mid-year report we estimated there will be an increase of mining royalties of up to $88m. We had already been predicting $88m, and we have received it. So do not lie and put words in my mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, please resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, you may continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Here is a little mathematics for the Treasurer of the Northern Territory. When the budget says $88m is what we are going to earn, and then I make an additional $88m, that is $176m. If you look at your own half-yearly report that is what it says. Budget Paper No 2 said from mining royalties we are going to get $88m. In the mid-year report, she said they are going to get $88m more ...
Ms Lawrie: That is right.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. That is a 100% mistake. That is what it is. The Treasurer stands up in this place and has miscalculated the revenues from mining royalties by a factor of 100%.
The Auditor-General, in this report, said that the Annual Treasurer’s Financial Statement is wrong on the issue of the Treasurer’s allowance. The federal Treasury says she is wrong. We rely on what the Treasurer says. The Northern Territory business community, which they have been banging on about for the past few days, relies on the things they say. That reliance is very important, which is why the Treasurer, even more than the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, has to be the most sober they can possibly be in relation to the pronouncements they make.
The fact is there are major errors. When the Treasurer said immediately prior to lunch: ‘Well, we can explain the difference between the MYEFO, which is the Mid-Year Financial Economic Outlook produced by the federal government, and our own budget books. It is because we calculate population differently’. Well, based on what, Treasurer, ABS statistics? Where do you get your population figures which are different to the federal government’s population figures, and how does that affect what we are given?
It is not the Treasurer who determines what we are given as a result of GST income; it is actually the Commonwealth Grants Commission. They do the calculations and they determine what we get, not the Territory Treasury. If the federal government is saying we are not going to get $64m, the Northern Territory Treasury can sit there and hold their breath until they are blue in the face – and there will be no difference to the attitude of the federal government in relation to this matter.
Therefore, the question remains, and the question is quite simple: what is the actual shortfall that is going to occur as a result of the changes in the GST revenues? Is it going to be the $56m that the Treasurer claimed, based on population statistics which are being interpreted in a different way by the Northern Territory Treasury, or is it actually going to be the $64m that the federal Treasury said we are not going to get? It is all very good for her to say: ‘We calculate population differently’. The fact is we will either get $64m or $56m or a number somewhere in between. It is up to this Treasurer to come clean and tell us exactly what the figure is. Do not sit there and talk about the niceties of how it is interpreted. How much money are we, or are we not, going to get?
In more recent times, I had a debate with the Treasurer on this particular issue; that is, the correctness of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement in relation to the Treasurer’s Advance. I asked her to confirm that it was a $6.4m leftover in the cash tin on the tail end of the Treasurer’s Advance, and she said: ‘Yes, absolutely, $6.4m. No doubt about it, that is the figure’. Why then, would the Auditor-General, on page 31 of the November 2008 report the actual amount of unexpected money in the Treasurer’s Advance was $4.173m? They do not agree. I expressed my reservations at the time I raised this issue with the Treasurer, and I got a bucket of abuse tipped on me for having the audacity to challenge the wisdom of the Treasurer on this particular issue.
Well, it would appear that the Auditor-General also has a problem with this particular set of numbers. It is up to the Treasurer to start delivering books and reports to this House which get the approval of the organisations that have something to do with the Territory budget. One of those organisations is the federal Treasury. Another one of those is the Auditor-General’s Office and the Auditor-General himself.
I find it incomprehensible that we find ourselves having to question the Treasurer’s numbers. When I say: ‘Please explain these issues’, we get these ethereal little discussions about counting population numbers; but what we do not get is an explanation.
Who do I trust? Where can I take some comfort? So far, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Auditor-General was wrong in his assessment of the Annual Financial Statement, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest that the MYEFO was wrong in its assessment of the GST revenues for the Northern Territory. However, I turn to the budget papers. I turn to Budget Paper No 2 for own source revenue. I asked the question about how the own source revenue was going, and I was told that mining royalties - in spite of MRM and GBS Gold closing down, and the lower production rates coming out of some of the other mines - are going to double. She said: ‘Look at the gas and look at the rest of the comments in the mid-year report’. I did look, and the assertion is there in the Treasury documents that mining royalties again doubled from $88m to $176m – a mistake of 100%. The Treasurer might get all churlish and bent out of shape that she did not use the term 100% ...
Ms Lawrie: Correct.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I will describe it in the Treasurer’s own words, ‘We had $88m projected, it is now going to be $176m, up by $88m’. That is a 100% mistake, by the way ...
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not a mistake. You do not understand estimates, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes it is. It is a miscalculation. If your projections are so unreliable, Treasurer, why should we rely on anything else you say?
Ms Lawrie: You do not understand it.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand perfectly well when you start a financial year, you have to do projections, and you have to do those projections out from the beginning of the financial year. I well understand that there will be margins of error in those projections because nobody in Treasury, not even the Treasurer herself, is clairvoyant enough to know what is going to happen in 12 months’ time. I can tell you now, if she did have that level of clairvoyance, I am sure the Conditions of Service Reserve would not be down by 18% as a result of her playing the stock market with our superannuation savings. So, Madam Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer does not play the stock market. I have explained to the shadow before that we have a Treasury Corporation which has a great deal of expertise. In fact, if you see their results compared to other results, they have done extraordinarily well in extraordinarily difficult times ...
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, There is no point of order.
Ms Lawrie: I congratulate them.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please direct your comments through the Chair?
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If she had gone down to the Commonwealth Bank she would have gone 7% in the right direction.
Ms Lawrie: Get it right. Do not tempt me.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in defence of the Treasurer, nobody had that foresight. When you are putting a budget together, you have a rough idea as to what is going to happen in the 12-month period. To be out by as much as 100% on a projection is an unusual result, to say the least. When you see the federal Treasury disagreeing with the Northern Territory government, and the Auditor-General disagreeing with the Northern Territory government, one has to become a little concerned as to the numbers the Treasurer is bringing into this place. She will try every trick in the book to obfuscate and obnubilate her way through this issue.
The fact of the matter is one of the stunts she pulled just before the lunch break is she whipped out the Treasurer’s Mid-year Report and said: ‘Well, look, Jennifer Prince, the Under Treasurer, signed this’. Are you accusing her of something? Are you accusing her of being a - what did she say? I am just trying to remember, Madam Speaker, exactly what she said. She accused me of attacking the Under Treasurer. It is all too common that we see ministers from the opposite side of this House hiding behind the coattails of their senior public servants and blaming them for the utterances and statements and the things that happen in this Chamber. We have seen it with the former Health minister, who twice ran the defence of ‘my department lied to me’. We have seen it with other …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The former Health minister did not do that. The member for Port Darwin is on flights of fancy here – flights of pure fantasy.
Madam SPEAKER: Unfortunately, I was distracted by something else. I did hear you saying the former minister had lied about some things.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I did not say that at all, Madam Speaker. I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, on two occasions the former Health minister ran the defence of being misinformed by his department. That is bureau-speak for lied to. If the government is at all worried about anything, and bent out of shape, the fact is they have this habit of suddenly shoving a public servant out the front every time they are under the pump.
It is the Treasurer who is responsible for what comes into this House. It is the Treasurer who has to cast her eye on the material that is brought into this place. It is the Treasurer who makes these pronouncements, yea or nay. I continue to harbour reservations about the utterances from this Treasurer because to be wrong as often as she is, to have an excuse and a reason for this problem or that problem is no longer satisfying. It happens all too often that we have to come back for clarification and seek guidance from the Treasurer in relation to some of the things she has said. I am becoming extremely concerned about some of the things that are happening.
Last week, we heard the government make it clear that it was a package of about $200m coming from the …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: See! This is it. All of a sudden, that assertion is wrong. Last week, the package was $200m …
Ms Lawrie: Read the media release. Infrastructure. I was very clear and you are misleading again.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: The package was $200m and this week it is $500m.
Ms Lawrie: You are misleading again because you cannot handle the truth. You cannot …
Mr ELFERINK: Let me tell you something: you did not know what you were signing up to, Treasurer. You did not know what you were signing up to.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Resume your seat. Honourable members, Standing Order 51:
Honourable members, there have been a lot of interjections. Treasurer, you will have an opportunity to respond later in debate. Member for Port Darwin, I would like you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is clear they did not know last week what they were signing up to. Do you think they would have been talking about a package of $200m if they knew that $500m was in the pipeline? Not a chance on earth.
The member for Fong Lim is quite right: they went down south and they had their bellies scratched and they thought, ‘Oh, $200m is fine. We will take the $200m. That is cool’. Guess what? It turned out to be more than that. Well, good luck to them, it turned out to be more than that. The fact is that they had signed up for something they did not have a clue about. And on Friday, I believe it was, out came the media release that it is actually $450m. The government never mentioned that figure in parliament. All of a sudden, it comes out by media release. That is why I am starting to gravely doubt the capacity of this Treasurer and this government to be honest with Territorians.
I hear the allegation that the CLP is talking down the economy and is being negative about the economy. It is the duty of members of this House, both in government and on our side of the House, to be honest with Territorians about what is happening because what we say is actually relied upon, particularly words from the lips of the Treasurer. People make their fiscal plans based on the things that the Treasurer says and produces. There are clear points of difference between her and other Treasurers, clear points of difference between her and the Auditor-General, clear losses being incurred by her investment proposals in the area of the Conditions of Service Reserve, and the liabilities we carry are much worse than our own Treasury predictions of a few years ago.
I refer members to the comments made by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, about where the superannuation liability was going to go and where it has ended up. We have a Treasurer who has no capacity to restrain the expenditure of her Cabinet, and her own mid-year financial report says $33m of extra Cabinet decisions were listed in the financial report - $33m. How could you possibly not, through the budgeting process, know you are going to spend $33m extra dollars as a result of Cabinet decisions? How can you just not know that?
What happens is they suddenly have this idea: ‘Oh, we need to do this and we need to do that. We are going to create this package’. None of it is budgeted for because none of it is planned for. That really is the essence of why the Treasurer is so far out every year between what they put in the beginning of the year, what they say is going to be in the budget papers, and what comes out the other end. They are worlds apart. When they realise they are in trouble, what is the trick? They go and rely on SPPs, which are the Specific Purpose Payments from the federal government, and you wind back your own budget allocations.
I refer the Treasurer to her own Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report dealing with the Department of Health and Community Services. You can see the budget allocation gets smaller over the years, despite the fact that the department spends more. You track it through the money trail back through the transfers of excess allocations, and money is taken out of Health and similar amounts are being shoved back into the Central Holding Authority ...
Ms Lawrie: Transferred back in. You know that - transferred back in to the Department of Health.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Transferred back into the Central Holding Authority so it does not appear in that budget, so you can roll it over into next year’s budget …
Ms Lawrie: You know that. You have been given that answer time and time again.
Mr ELFERINK: You have been caught out with your hand in the till, Treasurer – caught out with your hand in the till.
Ms Lawrie: Stop misleading.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 49: the member for Port Darwin well knows that he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I refer to Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, there have been a large number of interjections. I ask members to contain themselves, please. Member for Port Darwin, continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the Treasurer has had her hand in the till last financial year and ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This clown has no idea the Treasurer does not have a till, let alone put her hands in one.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The term used just then by the Treasurer referring to this member in that way was unparliamentary. I wish her to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the reference to ‘clown’ in relation to the member for Port Darwin
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You made some rulings in the last few days in relation to insinuations. Obviously, the shadow or Leader of Opposition Business - whatever he calls himself - has made an insinuation about the Treasurer. I ask him to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: I would allow it but, member for Port Darwin, you need to be very careful about what you are saying, bearing in mind Standing Order 62.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Why would the Prime Minister of this country say to the other jurisdictions: ‘You cannot use this extra money as a result of the stimulus package to offset against your own budget’, if it had not been happening in the past? Why? Because other state governments have been doing it and the federal government has wised up to it. That it what …
Mr Mills: Labor wiser to Labor.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is a very good point. I pick up on the interjection. It is a Labor government saying: ‘Do not do it. We know what you guys have been up to. You guys have been supplementing your budgets with our SPPs. That is not quite how the arrangement is going to work’. ‘Let me tell you,’ says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Treasurers nationally, ‘if you try to do that, by gee, there is going to be a price to pay’. It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister should say so. Why would he be saying it? Because state-level governments have been doing exactly that - offsetting their own expenditure by shrinking their allocations and then using federal money to plug the hole ...
Ms Lawrie: Does not understand Health, does he?
Mr ELFERINK: I understand it a lot more than you want me to. These are the sorts of things the states have been up to, and the paper trail speaks for itself. She can sit there and whinge about it as much as she likes, but the truth of the matter is that the federal Treasury has wised up and they will be policing it very closely.
I find it astonishing this Treasurer continues to say we are talking down the Territory when, what we are actually trying to be is, honest. We are asking the government to be just as honest.
The package, in the short term, will be good for business in the Northern Territory - no doubt about that. However, there is a price to pay in the long term; that is, in repayments of debt that comes with using the credit card. For these examples trotted out, one after the other, from different areas - federal Treasury - are you suggesting the federal Treasury is making this stuff up? No, I am not suggesting it. Am I suggesting that the Auditor-General in this report which we are talking about now is making that stuff up? No, I am not suggesting it. But, someone is wrong. ‘There is an explanation’, said the Treasurer and she muttered something about population numbers being factored in, in a different way.
The truth of the matter is there are differences that are starting to occur. These differences should not occur. There is a uniform presentation framework, a structure by which this stuff is presented to us. We have liabilities out of control. The liabilities we are carrying now are going to get worse - much worse - in the current financial environment. We get these cooing, reassuring words from government saying it is all squeaky clean; it is all going to be sweetness and light.
When is the debt going to be repaid? This is another example. Immediately prior to the lunchtime break she said: ‘Oh yes, all that extra nett debt which is being carried by corporations is going to be paid off by the corporations’. However, if you look into the forward projections for the non-financial public sector, they are actually going to be spending more than they earn, indefinitely - to the end of the projections. There is no point where they are actually going to have a plus sign on their nett debt situation on the balance sheet, and on their cash statement. At what point is this government-owned corporation going to be in a position to start paying off its debt successfully, if it continually returns deficits from now until the end of the projection period?
Those are important questions, because it is not Power and Water which, ultimately, carries the can in this instance. Who carries the can are the Northern Territory Treasury and, ultimately, the taxpayers of the Northern Territory and, by virtue of the way the GST works, the taxpayers of this country. The Treasurer would like to paint a picture that all is sweetness and light but, in her urgency to paint the picture of everything being sweetness and light, cracks are starting to appear. They are very serious cracks because they are caused by other organs such as the federal Treasury and the Auditor-General in this report today.
I continue to express my concern about where the government of the Northern Territory is taking us based on good solid grounds and on the reports the Treasurer herself brings in here, compared with other reports such as the reports of the federal Treasury and the reports of the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory.
This Treasurer needs to start explaining to Territorians why we are in more debt than we have ever been; why we are going to be in $200m more of debt in the next 18 months; how long the temporary budget deficit is going to be; and how exactly and by what vehicle we are going to start repaying this amassing debt and these amassing liabilities. Whilst I accept the argument that the superannuation liability is projected forward over many years, the fact is that it is growing - and growing and growing. I take very little comfort from her arguments and her suggestions. Those numbers are not healthy - they are not healthy any way you interpret them.
If the Treasurer is more interested in spinning this and giving us a spin version, a fifth floor version, rather than an accurate version which we can rely on and which will not be questioned by other bodies, then, Madam Speaker, I look forward to that day.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, we are debating the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory’s audit of November 2008, which audits the TAFR, and also audits the Indigenous Expenditure Review. I note the shadow did not touch on that at all. I also note that whilst the shadow made much of his flights of fancy, he did not mention at all that this is the first time we have received an unqualified audit from the Auditor-General - a matter of much rejoicing in the halls of Treasury to receive an unqualified audit from the Auditor-General.
He likes to present a case of how we can trust the figures, because we really cannot trust the figures because the figures keep changing. Yet, when we receive an unqualified audit of the figures from the Auditor-General, there is no mention of the fact, no mention of reality. He prefers to stay in his flights of fancy - because they truly are flights of fancy.
I also note in the Auditor-General’s comments, he said the Territory really is setting a standard for other jurisdictions. I refer members to page 5 of the Auditor-General’s overview. He talked about the second audit outlined in the report of the 2008 Indigenous Expenditure Review, and said
It is a significant comment from the Auditor-General about opening up the books on Indigenous expenditure that the Territory government has done - something that would be of national interest, I would think, and something that our own Auditor-General, a very independent and fair man, indicates can set the benchmark for all jurisdictions.
The Territory can hold its head high that we are going where no one else has dared to tread. It took a Labor government, a Labor Treasurer, the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, to take us there. I am absolutely committed, as the Treasurer of the Territory, to ensuring we continue to undertake Indigenous expenditure reviews so we can genuinely see where government expenditure is occurring for Indigenous Territorians who, we recognise are significantly disadvantaged particularly in our regional and remote areas and, also, where revenues are received for Indigenous-related expenditure.
The Auditor-General, fundamentally, in his unqualified – for the first time in years – report, has given the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report his tick of approval. The TAFR differs from previous years due to the adoption of a new accounting standard that is whole-of-government and general government sector financial reporting. This was introduced in 2008-09 and it is to be in place by that reporting year. The Territory, along with Tasmania, has taken up this standard up earlier and we prepared our 2007-08 accounts on this basis.
The audit goes through the Central Holding Authority appropriations and Treasurer’s Advance. I know the member for Port Darwin would rather stay in the realms of fantasy over this, but I will take him through it anyway. The Appropriation Act sets out the purposes for which the appropriation can be paid from the Central Holding Authority. These purposes are: output appropriation; capital appropriation; Treasurer’s Advance; interest, taxes and administration; and employee entitlements. The appropriation is a cash concept and it lapses on 30 June each year.
Throughout the year, appropriations are monitored and adjusted formally through parliament via sections 19 to 21 of the Financial Management Act, depending on the adjustment type. These adjustments are reported in the unaudited section of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which sets out the final appropriation for each purpose as at 30 June.
As Treasurer’s Advance is an appropriation purpose - not a concept the shadow seems to get - it also has a formal balance at the end of the financial year. This formal balance was $6.223m. The Auditor-General, in his November report to parliament included a table, Table 6, setting out the allocations by the Central Holding Authority for 2007-08.
This has been explained to the member for Port Darwin; I will explain it again. He has taken a different approach from the TAFR unaudited section in that he has identified actual payments on the CHA cashflow statement for all appropriations except Treasurer’s Advance, and compared these with the original appropriation. The Auditor-General has then calculated the remaining TA as a balancing item at an amount of $4.173m. Both schedules are correct. It is simply …
Mr Elferink: So how much money was actually in there?
Ms LAWRIE: He never wants to listen. It is simply that one calculates the formal variations actioned under the FMA throughout the year up to 30 June, and the other compares an actual outcome on an accrual basis, including post-30 June entries against budgeted allocations. Both methods show a different result every year since the commencement of accrual accounting. The latter highlights complexities which arise from an accrual budgeting framework in that entries can occur subsequent to 30 June, which may affect the categorisation of payments on the cashflow statement.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that actual payments by 30 June are in accordance with approved appropriation limits, a report post-30 June but prior to accrual adjustments occurring, is kept for audit purposes. Based on this report, as at 30 June 2008, Central Holding Authority payments on the cashflow statement were within the capacity of each appropriation purpose and the unexpected balance of Treasurer’s Advance was $6.223m.
The member for Port Darwin has cloth ears. This has been explained to him by representatives from Treasury. It has been explained to him in this Chamber before, by me. I have explained it yet again, and I bet he will continue to undertake flights of fancy around this question. He is the only one undertaking these flights of fancy.
In another flight of fancy, despite having written answers to his question on notice and having a discussion with Treasury officials and with me, is about the transfer in and out of $30m from the department of Health. It was explained that we have received a lot of very late payments from the Commonwealth in 2007-08 financial year, and we transferred $30m out of the department of Health because there was no way they could spend it by the end of the financial year. However, we transferred that allocation back into the department of Health in the 2008-09 financial year; there was no nett loss from the department of Health; and they have the $30m to spend this financial year.
That does not matter; in the fanciful mind of the member for Port Darwin. He does not want to listen; that is the way he operates. He rambled off the statement and started to ramble along the lines of Kevin Rudd being on to the behaviour of the states and territories because they play with the Commonwealth money and pull back on their own expenditure, and that is why he, the Prime Minister, has put these requirements and sanctions into the stimulus package.
This is a government which stands strongly on its record of going for our fair share of the GST revenue - which the opposition likes to call a windfall, which then makes you realise that they would actually prefer New South Wales, Victoria, perhaps Queensland, to take those GST payments from the Territory. We get our fair share of GST revenue and we have had a strategic approach, since Labor has been in government, of also pursuing increases in SPP payments, which are tied grants or tied payments. You do not have the same flexibility in the expenditure of the SPPs, but they do provide a sounder footing for revenue coming in, insomuch as they are, by their nature, of some year’s duration. Most of them tend to sit around the five-year duration point. They provide for another area of growth in funding to a small jurisdiction significantly reliant on Commonwealth government funding, such as we are.
An example is: he would like everyone, having listened to him, to think we have been taking money out of our Health budget because the Commonwealth has been increasing payments. He clearly did not hear the contribution from our former Health minister who, prior to lunch, explained as an example, the ACA SPP and what had happened to Health payments under the Liberals in health agreements, where instead of the ratio being a 50:50 payment to fund important services such as hospitals, as had previously been the arrangement under Labor government, Johnny Howard and his mates spent their time in Canberra cutting …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The use of the names of members of other parliaments, or former members of other parliaments, is something that has really upset the Treasurer. Now she finds herself, perhaps inadvertently, doing the same.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to withdraw. The former Prime Minister, who is no longer a member of parliament, lost his seat at the last election - so little regard did the constituency of our great nation have for the man and his behaviour.
Their method of dealing with funding arrangements in critical areas such as Health, for example was, instead of a 50:50 split, which by anyone’s assessment is a fair split between Commonwealth contribution and state or territory contribution - bearing in mind the Commonwealth takes a larger share of taxes; that is revenue, and a larger revenue take from Australian’s pockets anyway - the 50:50 cut is what you would reasonably expect as a minimum. But, no, the Liberal government decided to actually pare back. You can look at the SPP arrangements across all those major agreements. Health is but an example, you could look at disability, education and training. However, let us deal with Health for a moment.
It went from a 50:50 split Commonwealth and state/territory contribution to a 60% state/territory contribution and a 40% Commonwealth contribution. I know there is a significant reduction in the matching requirements. We know it did not keep pace. We know that the growth normally built into agreements such as this, the indexation, was ridiculously low. Health indexation grows at anywhere from 9% to 12% depending on who you want to buy into the argument of Health indexation. This was sitting around 5% and below for these payments under the Liberal government. Whichever way you slice it, it was woefully inadequate.
As a result, we had jurisdictions with less of a revenue base, such at the Territory, putting more money in than the Commonwealth was taking out. I wanted to take up that issue with the shadow who seems to be the champion of the men in Canberra lately which, if you listen to all his economic arguments, is: ‘Do not take any extra revenue from Canberra, Northern Territory, because you really should be leaving it there’. One would question who he wants to have that revenue - New South Wales, Queensland or South Australia?
I tell you, as Territory Treasurer, I will be down there every chance I get. I will be running the argument in every forum I can that the Territory gets a bigger slice - whether it is GST, SPP payments or, in fact, national partnership payments which is, of course, what our economic stimulus package from the Commonwealth government is. It is every bit our due and, in fact, we need more. We need a lot more to deal with the legacy of disadvantage we inherited when we obtained self-government, when the Commonwealth handed over the responsibility to the Territory.
I make no apology for being a sycophant to the people in Canberra. The shadow would have us say: ‘No, no, do not give us any extra GST revenue. Do not look at increasing those SSP revenues to the Territory’. As we saw, shamefully for the CLP, they said no to a significant national partnership proposal put forward by Rudd which was, of course, the economic stimulus package.
Another flight of fancy of the shadow, the member for Port Darwin, is that he likes to think that in my media release on 5 February when I was in Canberra at COAG and when the Chief Minister was signing up for a significant economic stimulus gain by the Territory, I pointed out there would be an estimated $200m for new infrastructure in the Territory. Again, the shadow does not like to deal with the reality. I was dealing specifically with infrastructure; I specifically talked about education, housing and roads.
An NT journalist could back this up. I had a phone conversation with the NT News journalist who was the only one who asked the question: ‘Why $200m? Was that figure based on infrastructure?’ I told him, of course, the Territory is going to benefit more from the stimulus package in that we have payments direct to people; we have the tax breaks which will be of enormous benefit to business; you have to add into that the figure for Defence housing. As you add each component of the package together, you get a far higher figure than $200m, which is just a conservative take on the education, social housing, roads and rail part of the package. I explained that to the Northern Territory News journalist. He understood it. It does not matter how many times I explain it to the member for Port Darwin, he does not seem able to understand such a basic concept. It is very surprising, given it is explained in very plain English.
We had a debate earlier today about where the Territory economy is tracking. Every year, Treasury makes what are undoubtedly conservative estimates. I am on the record, as Treasurer, saying they are conservative estimates - and so they should be. We are not in the business of inflating our estimates so something looks good. We will always, whilst I am the Treasurer, deliver conservative estimates; because that is the way we are best placed to make decisions about the future growth of the economy and, in fact, where we determine to put government revenues into government expenditure.
Given the conservative estimates, the mid-year report was an opportunity to revise estimates down because of the impact of the global financial crisis. Instead of, say, the 6.6% economic growth that the Territory had predicted, when Access Economics had been predicting 7% growth, we used the mid-year report to revise down economic growth to 4.5% as a Treasury prediction. Access Economics came out some time later and said they would be predicting at 4.7% economic growth for this financial year. Yet, we had the Kellogg’s packet shadow Treasurer, armchair economist deciding today that Access Economics and Treasury would be wrong. Well, I am looking forward to the debates we will be having in this House later in the year to see just who was wrong.
As I said, whilst we face an unprecedented shift in the economies of the globe and an unprecedented economic downturn in our nation, and while our nation is one of the few left standing and not predicting significant recession, this jurisdiction in the Territory is the best place to ride out the global financial crisis and the economic downturn. We are predicting the healthiest of growth figures. The strong fiscal management of successive Labor governments and Treasurers has meant that we have delivered six surpluses in a row. What that means is we have driven down debt; debt has been falling. So, we are well placed to move into temporary deficit during the tough times, to ride out the tough couple of years ahead because we will not pull back on our spending …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It appears the comments made by the Treasurer are straying a long way from the subject at hand.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. There is a certain degree of latitude around this report.
Ms LAWRIE: The Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear this but, if he sat here and listened to his shadow Treasurer, his shadow Treasurer went to the issue of the deficit in his remarks; his shadow Treasurer went to the issue of the debt in his remarks; his shadow Treasurer went to the issue of the economic stimulus in his remarks. Every comment I am making is in direct correspondence to what his shadow Treasurer said in his remarks in this debate.
He does not want to hear the truth about how well placed the Northern Territory is to ride through the toughest times …
Mr Mills: The truth? You do not know what that is.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The global financial crisis is the toughest and we know we are facing the toughest economic times since World War II here in our nation. The OECD has said Australia is better placed, that we are one of the few developed nations which are unlikely to slide down into recession. We have seen what our trading partners have to cope with. We have seen the extent of the economic stimulus packages that governments around the world have had to bring forward. We have seen the extent of the response by our own federal parliament in their economic stimulus package. We have seen also that, despite the worst economic times for our globe and for our nation, the Territory is the best place to ride it out. It is not by accident that we are best placed. It is strong financial management which has delivered growth across the services sector and the important core services such as health, education and police - the record after record infrastructure budget.
It was a deliberate decision of the Labor government when we came to government in 2001 when economic growth was flatlining, when economic growth for 2001 was 0% …
Mr Mills: Before the GST.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Zero percent. It was a deliberate decision taken by the Labor government to climb back to economic growth through construction expenditure …
Mr Mills: What did you build? A railway? A port?
Ms LAWRIE: That is why we have poured money into our key infrastructure ...
Mr Mills: A road? A bridge? A dam?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, please cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They cannot help themselves. The opposition all of a sudden discovered the roads and the port. I have sat here as minister responsible for those areas for a couple of years, and you do not get questions in Question Time about roads and ports from the opposition. They sit on their backsides and they wander around all sorts of other subjects. I am so glad they have finally woken up to the importance of infrastructure in developing our great Territory. I am so glad they have finally realised the legacy we inherited - the absolute neglect of our bush roads. We took the roads budget of $80m in 2001 to $270m this financial year.
I am fighting for every dollar I can get out of Canberra – for $1.65bn worth of roads that we need to spend here in the Territory, because, quite clearly, getting product to the marketplace helps our economic growth. The flights of fancy from the opposition are simply that.
The Auditor-General, for the first time in years, has given us an unqualified audit report on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. The Auditor-General also said that we, potentially, set the benchmark in our nation for our Indigenous Expenditure Review - something the CLP would never have done. It would have never opened the books to Indigenous expenditure in the Territory. I could talk about what the Public Accounts Committee discovered in the way the CLP constructed their budgets. When we came to government in 2001 …
Mr Mills: Nine years ago.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection; it is nine years ago. May we never forget, as a jurisdiction, the dangers of politicians artificially presenting figures in budgets for political gain. May I never, as a Treasurer, ever forget that. That would never be able to occur under this government, because we introduced the Financial Management Act to ensure that such artificial presentation could never, ever occur again.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report, for the auditing for parliament of both the TAFR and the IER. I sincerely congratulate the staff of Treasury for receiving their first unqualified report, which was met with a great deal of justified pride in Treasury. I commend the Auditor-General’s report to the parliament.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, in making comment on the Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08, I note that comments have already been made on this matter by government, and much of what has been said we can agree with.
We recognise the very important role the Ombudsman has to play. There have been issues brought to this Assembly and the community in recent times which would not have occurred in the manner they did if it was not for the role of the Ombudsman. We, as legislators, participants in the parliament, should always be grateful for this important role which was the subject of much discussion in the significant review of the act which occurred last week. With that in mind, we recognise that what we are commenting on now is emanating from the act prior to the significant change of last week.
The view of opposition is that the Ombudsman’s Office should be supported in its role of promoting an effective, internal complaints resolution process across all agencies. It is a very important role to be genuinely supported so there is that capacity for complaints to be lodged and to be resolved. That needs ongoing, vigilant support from government to be true to its charter: to govern in the best interests of all Territorians. We recognise there was always difficulty in drawing that line and providing that unqualified support. Territorians should have confidence that there is an avenue within an agency where they can raise initial complaints which will be dealt with fairly and openly in the first instance, with the Ombudsman as the last resort. We need to constantly maintain our efforts so that citizens feel included and they have the capacity for genuine issues to be genuinely addressed.
Complaints in this report are down from 2006-07 but the initial approaches, interestingly, are up. The majority of the increase had to do with areas outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Does that tell us that citizens are becoming more desirous, interested or aggrieved and need to find a place where they can go to be heard if there are more complaints being attracted to the Ombudsman which are falling outside the jurisdiction? That may well be something to consider. Why is that? Is it simply a matter of people not understanding the role of the Ombudsman? Or is it a matter of an increased level of aggravation, concern and disquiet? These matters, I am sure, would weigh on the mind of government and parliamentarians to find which one of those two is the case. Perhaps it is a combination of both.
The three top agencies for complaints and main inquiries were Police and issues to do with police procedures, abuse and rudeness even, in one case, and arrests and procedures surrounding that. Another issue was with Corrections: prisoner’s rights, grievances and administrative acts. It must be a very difficult role working as the Ombudsman and bearing responsibility for the genuine and perhaps frivolous in some cases, issues which are brought to the Ombudsman’s attention.
As local members we know we are the front line in many cases. People are unsure what they should do about something, but they know darn well that they can come to the local member and talk about things. Some things are very difficult to get a handle on and to find out how you can assist. How much more would that be for an Ombudsman? As a local member and representing, I am sure, the views of all 25 local members, I admire the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman’s capacity to go as far as possible in carrying the concerns of citizens.
Another area was Local Government, Housing and Sport. There did not appear to be a breakdown, but 19 of the 21 complaints were directed to Territory Housing. I note that these matters will probably stay with us for some time. As a local member with a large contingent of public housing, we know that there are, on many occasions, issues which arise and need the attention of authorities that are independent of government or agencies.
There were general issues concerning programs, service delivery, practices and procedure, fees, and so on, where 4% of the complaints resulted in a change of practice or procedure; the same margin as the previous year. One hundred and forty-one recommendations were made and 135 adopted by the relevant agencies. I am sure the relevant agencies would be able to account for that.
A couple of the significant investigations were women in prison, and the report made mention that recommendation 48 of the CAYA report into Correctional Services be adopted within two years of the Ombudsman’s report. It is important to note the report was released in March 2004. Therefore, that is something which needs to be watched.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those words we, once again, reinforce our view that this is such an important office. It needs to be understood and we need to ensure that our citizens understand the role of this office and that we, in this position as representatives of the community, provide the level of support that is required so citizens have that opportunity available to them if the need arises. We commend the work of the Ombudsman and his report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the comments the Leader of the Opposition made in his response to the Ombudsman’s report. As was discussed when the new Ombudsman Act was passed recently, the Ombudsman is a very important part of our democratic processes. If you do not believe that then you should be required to read this book. What the Ombudsman does is not only help those who feel they have been disadvantaged by government’s decision - which could include councils or government departments - but the Ombudsman can also criticise the government in areas the Ombudsman thinks the government should do something about. The Ombudsman has the role of looking at some of the bigger issues which, if you look through here, you will find. As well, the Ombudsman has the role to go out and promote that role.
A couple of examples where the Ombudsman has highlighted issues which she thinks the government needs to do something about, can be seen on page 6 of the Ombudsman’s report. She said:
She notes the report was not the subject of any debate or question. This gives us an opportunity to ask the government what was outlined in that report and whether there was a response from either the government or the police regarding issues raised by the Ombudsman which needed to be dealt with. If they have not been dealt with, why not?
Further down on page 6, the Ombudsman also reiterated the concern raised in the debate surrounding the introduction of the new act. The Ombudsman said:
The minister needs to answer that in his response. It appears the Ombudsman disagrees with the government, but we need to place it on record that the Ombudsman has raised these serious concerns about accountability and transparency and the rights of those who have a grievance about police conduct. The minister needs to explain why he does not agree with the Ombudsman’s point of view.
In relation to education and promoting awareness of the Ombudsman’s role, on page 7 the Ombudsman clearly stated that: ‘little activity increased public awareness of the Ombudsman service occurred’. Another important issue is rural people, remote communities - people who normally would not know about the Ombudsman - need to be educated about the important role of the Ombudsman. A person’s injustice 500 km west of Alice Springs is no different to a person’s injustice in Darwin city. All people in the Territory should have full knowledge of their rights under the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. It should be a requirement of the government to ensure that public awareness is an important part of the Ombudsman’s service, and provide enough funds and means for that to occur. If that means travelling across and around the Territory, then so be it. I would not like to see the report next year saying: ‘little activity to increase public awareness of the Ombudsman service has occurred’ - because that would be a failing.
The Ombudsman highlighted a number of cases dealing with the work she does, including issues of prisoners. We all know that, generally speaking, a prisoner’s only way of having a complaint dealt with, unless it is internally, is through the Ombudsman’s Office. There were issues about Power and Water, where two people living on one block shared the meter, and one person did not pay the water bill, and the other person did, so they shut the whole lot off. It always raises a question for me: if Power and Water can put two electricity meters on a block, why can they not put two water meters? I just do not understand the logic behind their refusal to do that. Hopefully, it would stop that particular issue occurring again.
There is an article here about some damaging e-mails at TIO. Even though the Ombudsman had a look at it, in the end, the Ombudsman does not have any power over the TIO, so all that she could do is advise TIO to look at it.
There was, again, an issue of defaulting with Power and Water. This was to do with a complainant who was put on a credit agency list because they said she had not paid her bill. When she tried to remove it, there were many complications in getting her name off the credit agency list. There were some issues about who would take her name off, was it Power and Water’s responsibility or the credit agency? Eventually, after some negotiation, the Ombudsman found ways to fix the problem. She said:
Which is exactly the role of the Ombudsman: not only to fix the problem, but to talk to those agencies and see whether they can improve their processes.
There was the issue of a juvenile assault at one of our schools, and a long, drawn-out problem with one of the parents asking for an apology. Eventually, after a long investigation and mediation, a result did occur. It probably did not satisfy everybody completely, but I believe everyone walked away satisfied with what happened, although hey may have had some little gripes about it. Again, the Ombudsman was able to work with the department of Education and look at ways of improving their systems so it does not happen again.
There was an issue about the council removing a sign which was advertising a business in one of the streets in Katherine. The complainant was unhappy that he was losing business because the sign had been removed by the council. The Ombudsman looked at that and tried to work through the issues.
There was a particular case which I will highlight as well. This is in relation to page 44 of the Ombudsman’s report with regard to cell mates. It had to do with someone who had been drinking too much being put in a cell with someone who had not long before been part of a problem - that issue was eventually sorted out. However, when you read the report it makes an interesting statement. It says:
It has to do with the Police Administration Act.
I will go down to section 8.3 where it says:
She went on further to say that:
What concerns me, and I have discussed this before, is whether, via a sleight of hand to some extent, for public drunkenness, which is not a crime, we basically pick up people who are drunk and put them in gaol. Also, because they come under this section, I believe there is not a great amount of paper work; you might have to record they were put there, but you do not have to fill in the paperwork as if you were dealing with a criminal offence.
The other thing that concerns me is this must be taking up a lot of time for police and police infrastructure. We have Night Patrols. There has been much talk about Night Patrols and Day Patrols. If we are not really, technically, arresting people for a crime, should we be looking at whether Night Patrols are not more than just a feel-good patrol, or should we be giving them more powers to pick up intoxicated people? If you take the law as it is, being drunk in a public place is not an offence. Should it be their job, basically, to take over some of the role of the police? The police might be far better chasing people smashing windows and pinching cars, and taking them to the parents first, if that is needed, or to the home of that person, or to a detoxification place.
All I am saying is, it seems to highlight the fact that police spend a lot of time dealing with these matters when, technically, being drunk in a public place is not a criminal offence; we bring it under this section of the act about protective custody. It would be interesting to know why we cannot put more effort into the patrols, get them to do that, and lighten the load of the police. I am sure the police do not really like doing this all the time. It must be very demoralising picking up drunks night after night, when we are really looking for enough police on patrol to fix up break-ins, vandalism, or getting kids off the street and home. I make that point and I am interested in the minister’s response.
There are a lot of other issues, anything from dogs to overzealous policing - you name it. Of course, then you get to a part of the Ombudsman’s role that we forget sometimes. It could not be any better highlighted than in the Ombudsman’s report on women in prison. I visited the women’s prison twice about four years ago and, I must admit, regardless of whether you think people in prison should have a hard time, I thought the women’s prison was pretty woeful. Obviously, the Ombudsman is someone who has more time to look at the detail involved in women in prison, as she has shown in her report. She, basically, summarises that report in her annual report.
We have had the Ombudsman’s full report before parliament, and it certainly raises quite a few issues. Even though the Ombudsman has raised that report, it would be good for this parliament to hear from either the Minister for Correctional Services or the appropriate minister …
Ms Carney: Someone in government, even.
Mr WOOD: Yes. What have you done in relation to the Ombudsman’s report? I imagine the Ombudsman, if nothing is done, will report back to this parliament with a special report showing us what has or has not been done. It would be good if the government got in before the Ombudsman did, that would look a little embarrassing.
In relation to other issues, even dealing with the Dental Board in relation to a complaint; the Ombudsman has such a varied job and it is such an important job. I do not need to be convinced of the role of the Ombudsman. Anyone who picks up this report would realise it protects the weak in our society, those who have suffered injustices, and it also protects the government. It is not only about people putting in a complaint. Sometimes complaints are unfair on the authority; sometimes complaints are unfair on the council, people have their own axe to grind, and it may be totally unfair. The Ombudsman is able to, at least, look at these issues and improve the processes if they are failing.
Overall, this report is a great indication and example of the role of the Ombudsman and I congratulate her for her report. I hope some of those issues I raised will be responded to when the government sums up.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to follow the member for Nelson. I propose to comment on the Women in Prison Northern Territory: Report of the investigation into complaints from women prisoners at Darwin Correctional Centre, 2008.
I share the member for Nelson’s concerns and propose to deal with some of the matters raised in the Ombudsman’s report from my position as shadow minister for Justice.
Before getting to those, however, I am sure all members will join with me in thanking the Ombudsman, Carolyn Richards. The Ombudsman’s role is, as we know, an incredibly important one. It is well-known around the traps that the Ombudsman’s and Auditor-General’s reports often create dramas for governments. That has always been the case, it will always be the case, and it should be the case. Unless you have these independent arbiters, we know that governments are famously bad at holding themselves accountable. We look to mechanisms such as the processes of the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman so that, in this case, the Ombudsman can give a voice to complaints which come before her in relation to government departments and performance of government in the implementation or operations of those departments. Those people have a voice.
This Ombudsman’s report quotes various examples of complaints made by Territorians, the length and breadth of the Territory and, in that respect; unfortunately, it is the same as many other Ombudsman’s reports. I am not so nave as to suppose that, particularly given the way modern politics are, there will ever be an Ombudsman’s report with very little in it. Congratulations to the Ombudsman and her team.
I have read the Women in Prison report. I suspect I am one of the few people - probably the only one in this House - who has read that report. I wept; it is a dreadful report. I read it from cover to cover. I do not have it with me, it is a big report and is in my office in Alice Springs. It was just dreadful, and it was long overdue - CLP, ALP, does not matter - it was a report that needed to be done and it is very powerful in both its contents and recommendations.
Looking across the Chamber, I look at the new minister for Corrections and encourage him to read that report. It is not an easy read but, as minister for Corrections, you should read it. It says a lot about prison, women, the Northern Territory, and a lot, minister - through you, Madam Deputy Speaker - about what needs to be done to improve things for women prisoners in the Northern Territory. I believe all members of parliament should read it. Because I do not have it with me and I could not look it up on the Internet in the sense it is such a big report, I would not have been able to print it out in time for my comments this afternoon. But the Ombudsman summarised the report on page 54 of her annual report where she said:
It says much about prisons, women and the Northern Territory, but it also says something about this government.
There were a total of 67 recommendations arising from this report. I understand notwithstanding regular meetings between the Ombudsman, Correctional Services staff and so on, only one recommendation has been implemented. If that is the case - and this was information I received reasonably recently - but if I am mistaken in that regard, then I look forward to a minister advising the parliament as to how many of those recommendations have been implemented.
This report came out some time ago - probably more than 12 months ago, from memory. It was the type of report that should have rocked politicians, particularly those in government. I do not recall one ministerial report, let alone ministerial statement, about this issue. That is to the eternal shame of this government. We often hear in the course of debates ministers say they look forward to advising the House in due course, keeping us all up-to-date. Frankly, something as important as this was worthy of a debate in some form or another in parliament. Yes, the report was tabled in parliament, but I do not believe we had a debate on it. Sadly, it says a great deal about this government.
I urge members, particularly women members on the other side, to look at this report. You will be shocked. Many of you will become angry and dismayed at the contents. I look forward to hearing from someone in government, at some stage, why it is that only one recommendation has been implemented. The recommendations made by the Ombudsman were extensive.
It is interesting, given the announcement last week about a new Corrections facility and we have a matter of public importance later tonight about the new gaol. Putting aside people’s support or opposition for the new gaol, I have not seen anything in the announcements in the media releases last week, or anything from government, about what they propose to do in this ‘whiz bang’ new facility about addressing some of the problems for women prisoners such as: the profound lack of services, the discriminatory practices, the inadequate safeguards against abuse and so on; all of which have been identified by the Ombudsman.
I can roll with the punches in modern politics just as well as the next person, but I ask you, minister - through you, Madam Deputy Speaker - as a new minister, is that reasonable? I do not think so. Put your political baggage to one side and ask yourself, as a human being, as minister for Corrections, whether you reckon in all the public pronouncements in the last week or so about a new gaol, whether it is conscionable not to refer to some of the matters referred by the Ombudsman about women prisoners in the Northern Territory. I do not think it is, quite frankly.
I sincerely hope, minister, that sooner rather than later – although I appreciate you are new in the portfolio - you are able to come into this parliament and say: ‘This is what I am going to do about the recommendations. I am going to ensure that those who work in Corrections implement these recommendations. I am going to ensure that, as a member of Cabinet, I will argue and lobby as hard as I can to get sufficient resources …’ - much of it is a resourcing issue as well – ‘… to address these recommendations’.
At the very least I encourage you, minister, to keep an eye on this and ask what is happening because, from where I am standing, next to nothing is happening. There may well be stuff behind the scenes, granted, but the Ombudsman’s report about women in prison was a document tabled in the parliament. Therefore, I believe it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be ongoing public discussion about it. Sadly, there is not. I hope you can do better in that regard. That was really the main issue I wanted to talk about in my capacity as shadow Justice minister.
I note the government has separated the portfolios in the reshuffle last week. We have been calling for – I do not know long – probably seven years for government to separate Corrections and Justice. When the CLP was in government they had a minister for Corrections and - I think they called it something else – in essence, a Justice minister. We did not think it was a smart move to combine them. I am pleased, and I know prison officers are as well, they have now been separated. However, it still is, nevertheless, the same department. In my perfect world, and that of many others, there would be two separate departments.
Accepting that I cannot get everything I want, I am not altogether displeased that there is a separate minister for Corrections, because there can often be a conflict between Justice issues and Corrections issues. Sometimes a minister for both, around the Cabinet table, will have differences about resources and issues and so on, so it is prudent to have them separated with two separate people. I wish you well in that regard.
Corrections is important. It is not only important for us to think about Corrections from a law and order point of view, but we have prison officers in the Northern Territory who work tirelessly. I have many of them as constituents in my electorate. I know the sort of work they do. I know it is often thankless and it is often tough. However, they really do a great job.
I wish you well, minister, but urge you to really pick up the baton on the Women in Prisons report.
Finally, I take this opportunity, once again, to thank the Ombudsman for her report and wish her well for the next 12 months.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Ombudsman and her staff for her comprehensive examination of agencies in her 2007-08 Annual Report. The Ombudsman fulfils a very important role within government. Her work helps to ensure government agencies meet necessary levels of transparency and accountability. I am proud to be part of a government which is the most open and accountable in the Territory’s history. We have implemented freedom of information laws, introduced whistleblower protection, introduced a members’ code of conduct, and expanded the parliament sitting schedule.
The Ombudsman’s report includes three case studies involving Correctional Services. These were situations where a protection prisoner complained he had been refused a request for a special one-hour contact visit; a prisoner had difficulties accessing information from his file; and a prisoner complained that the superintendent had cancelled a medical direction for a special diet. I am pleased to report to the Assembly that, where recommendations were made by the Ombudsman, they were accepted and acted upon promptly by the Department of Justice. In all instances, the Ombudsman was satisfied with these outcomes and did not need to take further action.
I also thank the member for Araluen for her wisdom and advice. I assure all members in the House of the new era in Corrections delivered by the Northern Territory government. The new era represents a whole new focus on education and rehabilitation. Not only will the new correction facility deliver a state-of-the-art, innovative and secure environment, it will deliver better outcomes for rehabilitation and education. It will also specially cater for reintegrating prisoners back into our community.
The member for Araluen has a lot to offer here, and I welcome her advice. I urge the member for Araluen to also share that wisdom with the members of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, and encourage him not to oppose the development of the new correctional facility which represents this new era in Corrections.
I conclude by thanking and commending the Ombudsman for her report.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also thank the Ombudsman for her work and that of her staff. The office does provide an important service to the people of the Northern Territory, as do all the other Ombudsmen around Australia. We certainly cannot do without them.
While this report does not detail the complaints made about Territory Housing, and resolutions reached by the Ombudsman’s Office for those complaints, I am, obviously, not really happy with the number of complaints. They dipped last year, and were around a similar number in 2005-06. Obviously, any sort of complaint that is made does concern me and we would like to resolve them.
It is important, in relating complaints, to recognise the type of service that Territory Housing provides. Territory Housing manages over 5200 properties, with well over 10 000 tenants, throughout the Northern Territory. Territory Housing is a provider of last resort. Many of the clientele have, obviously, not been able to access the private market, or have previously been in the private market. They have a lot of complex needs that, perhaps, the private market cannot or will not cater for. So, Territory Housing offers a wide range of services and caters for a wide range of people with very complex needs. It does that in a very challenging financial environment.
As I highlighted yesterday, Territory Housing and other housing providers throughout Australia had their funding cut by 24% in real terms over the last 10 years of the Howard government. Having their budgets cut by a quarter made a difficult job even harder. They are always trying to provide and deliver a better service in a more effective way, and this government has tried to assist in that. We have boosted the funding to Territory Housing by 61% since 2001. We are looking at expanding our public housing stock - 15% of all the major land releases will have affordable housing - 5% public and 10% affordable. We have the development at Parap and also at Bellamack with the senior’s village, which will cater to both new stocks in a more appropriate manner, and more of it.
We are also working with the federal government with the stimulus package, which will deliver at least $65m in social housing. We will certainly be bidding higher than that to get more of that stock built. We are also working very closely with the non-government sector, both in an efficiency way, so we cater for those clients we share, but also enabling them to leverage into private investment if they so choose.
Territory Housing also has in place a complaints management framework which allows tenants to appeal decisions made regarding their tenancies. The Territory Housing Appeals Board is chaired by Vicki O’Halloran, who is with Anglicare, and is well respected. We also have representatives from across the community including industry representatives, Territory Housing, tenant representatives and public sector and community agent representatives. The appeals board is a fairly diverse board for all complaints that are made. The board plays an important role in providing an open and accountable review process regarding Territory Housing policies and decisions. I thank them for the work they do; it is very professional and they deal with, obviously, some tricky complaints. Territory Housing tries very hard when dealing with a complex clientele base, both from tenants and from people outside the Territory Housing client base as well.
The other area is the Power and Water Corporation which, in the 2007-08 financial year, received 11 complaints. This is a reduction on the previous year which may be attributed to a formal complaints management process being implemented. Power and Water has employed a full-time Complaints Manager, who is the first point of call with complaints. Having visited their offices and spoken with that person, looking at those complaints has been a tool to continuously improve the service they provide. They are not just addressing a complaint, they are learning lessons about why the complaint was made and about changing the way they do business so they can continually improve service to their clients. The manager is working very closely, quickly, and fairly with those complainants.
I also understand that Power and Water is working more closely with the Ombudsman and her office and they will be having a more direct relationship in the very first instance.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Ombudsman for her report. Within my portfolios, we will try to do as much as we can to have fewer complaints next year.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support this document by the Ombudsman. It is a very interesting document to read and, at times, some of the stories are hard to even believe and fathom. However, it is a reality that things occur and there is a need for people to be able to express their concern about organisations, or things which have gone wrong in their life, that they need to raise a grievance against. This is the means; this is the vehicle by which the public can deliver those complaints and have them dealt with in an unbiased manner.
I fully support the Ombudsman in her approach to delivering these reports. They are not always in favour of everyone. Some people are found to have misled things, some people are supported in their complaints, and there are processes to be followed from there. It is a very important role the Ombudsman takes, and she does a very good job. There are times when there is stress on the staff, and the staff does a fantastic job.
There are parts within the report that talk about police complaints which, overall, were down this last year, which is a very good sign. It is a good sign that staff members are doing the best with the facilities they have, and the public, in general, are very accommodating for the position they are in.
Interestingly enough, the complaints about Correctional Services are down from the 2005-06 statistics - which is also another good sign - although they were up slightly from 2006-07.
I find it interesting there is a complaint about Arts and Museums. I would like to look further into that, as that is in my portfolio. It is a bit of strange area to have a compliant about. Maybe the person did not like the artwork displayed.
Housing continues to be a problem, and to have 19 complaints on housing is a concern. I accept that members opposite have talked about this. We need to continue to look at this and ensure the public understand this is the vehicle by which they can vent their grievances and have them assessed independently. For that, I fully support the Ombudsman and her position.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to the Ombudsman’s Annual Report to the House. As everyone says, the Ombudsman performs a vital role in regard to providing an independent oversight and outlet for complaints by members of the public in regard to decisions and actions taken by government officials and our police force. it is a very important role the Ombudsman plays.
I will pick up on comments made, I think, by the member for Nelson. It is a position where the Ombudsman protects the ordinary person, the little guy, so to speak, in regard to decisions taken by government officials. We expect the Ombudsman to do the job without fear or favour, and she does. It has been a time of significant reform. During this session of parliament last week, we passed a new Ombudsman’s Act, the first time the Ombudsman’s Act has been significantly amended and put into a contemporary setting since self-government. I am sure that legislation will do the Territory proud as we move forward in opening up transparency and accountability of government, government agencies, and the police, across the Territory.
Looking at police matters: of a total of 407 complaints handled by the Ombudsman, the agency with the most complaints was the Northern Territory Police with 274, 28% of which were in relation to police policy and procedures. As minister for Police, I am pleased to note that improvements in the average time taken to resolve complaints against police during 2006-07 have been maintained during 2007-08. In 2006-07, 79% of complaints were closed within 180 days, compared to 76% in 2007-08. This is very similar.
The Ombudsman has also demonstrated there has been a substantial amount of progress made in upgrading the case management complaint system which is to the benefit of the community. Overall, the Ombudsman has shown that, whilst there will always remain issues which need to be addressed, by and large, our public sector works hard to provide good service.
I pick up on the comments by the member for Nelson. He talked the identification in the report that so much of police work is alcohol-related in taking people into protective custody. He asked whether that would not be a job better done by Night Patrols. An enormous amount of work our police do is alcohol-related. In Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, around 80% of all police work is in some way or other alcohol-related. That is why we have to work so hard as a government to reduce the consumption of alcohol in the Territory and the totally disproportionate role it plays in contributing to crime and antisocial behaviour. That is why we continue to try innovative approaches to reduce alcohol consumption.
We, as a government, and with the Commonwealth government-resourced Night Patrols, have dedicated Aboriginal community police patrols in the Territory. We have established the First Response Patrols to get to people early in the day to try to get them to rehabilitation programs, other medical assistance, or return them to their communities. I agree with the member for Nelson; it is an ongoing battle and a disproportionate amount of police time is taken up in dealing with low-level but highly-visible alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, which impacts on our broader community.
I also comment, along with my colleague, the member for Barkly, the new Corrections minister, in regard to what I though was a passionate speech by the member for Araluen about the report the Ombudsman made on the Corrections service and the women’s prison. I can say the previous minister oversaw significant improvements; I am not sure in regard to which specific recommendations to the women’s prison at Berrimah. I had the opportunity to visit the prison with the previous minister just after Christmas.
In regard to the rhetoric of the political debates which have ensued in regard to the new Corrections facility, or any sort of public commentary that, somehow, our Corrections facilities in the Northern Territory in Darwin and Alice Springs are some sort of holiday camp, is absolutely without any foundation whatsoever. It was my first visit to Berrimah gaol, and I was quite taken aback and surprised as to how overcrowded that facility is, and the lack of education and training facilities within the walls of that particular prison. I had an opportunity to visit the women’s prison, and observed the same.
Then we have this absurd debate going around that prisoners do it well because some prisoners, who behave very well and are role model prisoners, have a portable DVD available to them; as if it is some sort of luxury existence and somewhere people would want to go to for a comfortable life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly believe that a custodial sentence, in part, has be a punishment for the crime that has been committed and should be at a place where most people would not want to spend any length of time. However, that does not mean to say that it should not also be humane and have a real focus on rehabilitation outcomes to assist people to change their behaviour so they are not readmitted. We are going to have this debate. We had a very tempered, very passionate, very well-considered and articulated position put by the member of Araluen tonight. I have to say, for the most part, I agree with what she said.
Then, you had the political rhetoric coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition when he said - and I believe the language he has used in the House this week has been that we should not be building what I think he called - a ‘comfortable new prison’ for people sent to gaol instead of a new hospital in Palmerston.
The prison we will build will not be a comfortable new prison, but it will be a prison that will deliver better education and rehabilitation outcomes, and will certainly deal with the issues raised by the Ombudsmen in her report and pick up on those recommendations. There is no way those recommendations can be implemented in full within the current construct, confines and design of the existing women’s gaol.
Let us hope there is a debate in the party room on the other side, recognising the fact that we do need a new Corrections facility. It does need to be contemporarily designed to have the capacity to pick up the recommendations by the Ombudsman in her report, but it will have to deliver better rehabilitation outcomes than we are achieving at the moment within our existing Corrections facilities here in the Northern Territory.
Let us move away from the rhetoric of this debate that prison in the Northern Territory is some comfy, soft, mollycoddling type of reward for behaviour as it currently is because, patently, it is not. If anyone was to read the Ombudsmen’s report in regard to the conditions in the women’s prison …
Mr Chandler: Give one good reason why you cannot build it where it exists
Mr HENDERSON: I am sure you have not been out there, member for Brennan, and I am sure you have not read the report either. That is what we are committed to do, as my colleague has said, in a new era of corrections.
I remember going on Radio 8HA in Alice Springs, the current presenter had a letter, I suppose - I am sure he did have a letter - from a prison officer in Alice Springs, basically making the assertion that the Alice Springs gaol was like five-star hotel accommodation that everyone wanted to go back to, such was the wonderful experience you had whilst you were in prison. It was outrageous and quite mind-boggling correspondence. Again, there is political rhetoric out there that prison in the Northern Territory is some really soft option, a five-star hotel that people would willingly want to go to and give up their freedom in the outside world. Nothing could be further from the truth in regard to our prisons in the Northern Territory.
I commend the Ombudsman on her report. I thank her and her team for the work they do on behalf of all Territorians. I am sure we will continue to have debate about Corrections in the Northern Territory. I know it is hard, but it is an important debate to have because all of us here want to reduce the rate of reoffending and improve rehabilitation outcomes. If there is one thing we can agree on, let us try to get that right, not play politics with it. At the end of the day, if we do improve rehabilitation, if we do reduce the amount of reoffending, Territorians as a whole will be much better off.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of the Administrative Arrangements of November 2007 for the provision of travel, motor vehicle, communications, postage and childcare entitlements for members of the Legislative Assembly; the annual schedule containing payments for each member for travel at government expense, and for satellite and mobile telephones for 2008.
I also table a letter dated 16 February 2009 from the Chief Minister containing a schedule of ministerial mobile phone expenses for 2008.
MOTION
Print Paper - Members Telephone and Travel Expenses 2008
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Primary Industries Review
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory’s primary industry sector makes a significant contribution to our economy. It is currently estimated at around 2.2% of gross state product. Further, the sector is currently facing a number of challenges and opportunities, primarily driven by national and international factors, which are likely to impact on the future development of a range of primary industries in the Territory.
Against that backdrop, it was extremely timely that the Primary Industry Group within my department was reviewed thoroughly last year, with findings and recommendations presented by the independent consultant just prior to year’s end, and a new structural arrangement for the group put in place from earlier this year.
The primary industry sector has been increasing in value over the last few years, recording a 16% increase in 2006-07, and a further 7% increase to be worth $414m to the Territory’s economy in 2007-08. The importance of primary industries cannot be overstated. Not only is it a major contributor to the economy, but it is the industry that manages the majority of the productive land in the Territory, providing jobs in remote areas, ushering in regional development, and allowing a far greater geographic spread of population than would otherwise be possible. On a global scale, the primary industries sector feeds the world’s population.
Primary industry in the Northern Territory falls in three broad categories. These are pastoral, horticultural and agricultural, and all are profoundly affected by our changing climate. I will delve further into climate change later. However, at the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Forum, it was determined a new approach to the way we view and respond to drought is now required. The basis for this improvement has two principles: first, that both the role of farmers in natural resource management and in maintaining vibrant rural communities be recognised; and second, the importance of maintaining and supporting the natural resource base through times of drought and climatic change.
It was agreed that having accepted those two principles, specific measures are now required to deliver these specific outcomes. These include:
income support and safety net measures available to farming families facing financial hardship, regardless of the cause,
including time limited and capped concessions for on-farm and liquid assets;
assistance for farm businesses to prepare for future climatic change and drought, including supporting farm planning and business
training and to implement risk management, natural resource management and drought preparedness strategies;
improved research and development, including seasonal forecasting; and
assistance for farming-dependent communities to prepare for droughts and other hardships, and to improve the health of rural communities.
Now that these principles have been agreed, we can move forward with the process of delivering a revised, comprehensive drought policy.
In attending the Primary Industry Forum in Canberra last week, I sought an assurance that the exceptional circumstances arrangements will remain unchanged for those producers to the south and east of Alice Springs who are currently receiving assistance for existing drought declared areas. I can inform the House that pastoralists in Central Australia in exceptional circumstances declared areas will continue to have access to support under the current rules.
Our pastoral industry was worth $205m in 2007-08, up 6.4% from 2006-07. The cattle industry remains the largest contributor to the rural industries sector, making up 39% of rural industry and fisheries estimated production value in 2007-08. The flow-on effects from the cattle industry, particularly transport and retail trade, are major contributors to regional economies throughout the Territory.
The rangelands area of the Territory is ideally suited to breeding cattle which meet specific requirements for feedlot markets, both interstate and in South-East Asia. Areas in the Top End and Douglas Daly regions also provide the ability to rapidly grow young cattle at times during the year when other areas of the Territory are less productive.
In 2006-07, around 57% of Territory cattle turned-off was exported, while the remaining 43% were destined for interstate markets. The majority of cattle consigned to interstate markets are generally feeder cattle for further growing prior to slaughter and sale in domestic and international markets. The industry is expected to grow significantly in coming years.
Based on producer estimates, carrying capacities across the Territory are expected to grow through investment in station infrastructure and more refined management practices. The increase in carrying capacity is due, in the most part, to the use of improved pastures and the development and implementation of best practice land management systems. A Best Practice Manual for Beef Cattle Production is currently being developed by researchers within the Primary Industry Group for each of the four Territory regions. The manual, covering beef cattle production in the Katherine region, has been well received by industry. Productivity improvements in the cattle breeder herd will also increase the overall efficiency and profitability of the pastoral industry.
This predicted growth in the industry is necessary to accommodate the estimated increase in demand for our cattle in South-East Asia. Indonesia currently imports around 600 000 head of cattle per year, with half of those cattle coming from the Territory. Austrade predicts that the Indonesian market for live cattle will grow to one million head per annum in the next five years. At present, most of the beef products from the live cattle trade to Indonesia are consumed in Jakarta and other main centres in Java. As disposable income levels of Indonesia’s middle class continue to rise, they will look to buy more expensive forms of protein – particularly beef.
The challenge that we face in the Territory is to grow our market share, given the likely rise in demand for live cattle throughout Asia. If northern Australia is unable to meet the increasing demand expected in Indonesia, feedlotters may seek alternative suppliers – most likely from West Asia. Cattle from West Asia are unlikely to meet the standard that the Northern Territory currently supplies and are not supported by rigorous quality assurance programs, but will be sourced from lower-cost producers.
Obviously, we must look for new markets for our livestock as a risk management strategy. In this regard, I travelled to Vietnam last year, together with industry members, to investigate the potential of a new market for live cattle. This builds upon an earlier visit by the then Chief Minister to examine opportunities for Territory businesses. I am pleased to report the Vietnamese companies that we met are currently investing in feedlot infrastructure with a view to begin construction in March. This bodes well for a new market for Territory live cattle.
It is vital that we explore ways to grow the pastoral industry in a sustainable manner. The challenge of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions aside, we believe that production can lift from the current turn-off of around 550 000 head of cattle per year to close to 1m. Much of this gain will be realised through increased efficiency of production, but also includes opportunities for bringing Aboriginal land back into production. This is being achieved through dedicated programs such as the high-profile Indigenous Pastoral Program.
The Territory’s agricultural sector, incorporating broadacre dry land and irrigated cropping, pasture seed and hay production, is poised to grow. The value of production in 2007-08 is estimated at $23m, an increase of around 20% from 2006-07. This growth was mainly due to increases in the hay and fodder crops grown in the Katherine and Douglas Daly regions and used for the live cattle export industry. One of the major expansions currently under way is the further development of the peanut and maize industries. These crops are grown in rotation with one another in Katherine by the Peanut Company of Australia. Current plantings of peanuts and other broadacre crops such as maize and sesame are in the order of 700 ha, with the company outlining its intention to further develop incrementally subject to relevant government approvals.
Underpinning this substantial development in broadacre farming has been significant practical research and field trials involving agency staff and facilities at the Katherine and Douglas Daly Research Stations for more than a decade. This expansion is likely to continue to drive jobs and economic development in the Katherine-Daly region.
The rapidly emerging forestry sector is also of importance to the Territory. Approximately 30 000 ha of Acacia mangium, destined for use as paper pulp, has been planted on Melville Island by Great South Plantations Ltd. In more recent times, approximately 6000 ha of African mahogany have been planted in the Douglas Daly region by four managed investment scheme companies. The current intention is to use these trees for their timber. It is likely that these plantations will expand by approximately 2000 ha per year, with the first harvest likely to occur in 2015. These semi-arid tropical plantations are a world first on this scale. My department is assisting in identifying the best genetics in African mahogany for timber production, which will be critical to the long-term success of this industry.
Similarly, the Territory’s horticultural industries are dynamic, contributing 29% to the total value of Territory rural industries and fisheries production. The value of horticultural production for 2006-07 was $145m, an increase of 52% from 2005-06. The reasons for this increase can be linked to a rise in mango production due to biennial production cycles of mango trees – an increase in production every second year – and substantial increase in the value of vegetable and melon production. Horticulture continues to expand, driven by market niches arising from out-of-season production when compared with other horticultural areas throughout Australia. The diversity of horticultural production is vast in the Territory. We produce substantial amounts of traditional fruits like melons, mangoes, cucumber and citrus; but also less mainstream products such as Asian vegetables, rambutan, dragonfruit and other tropical fruit. Our nursery and garden industry is also a significant employer, and turf production is increasing.
The horticultural industries are primarily driven by Dry Season production under irrigation. Because of this, access to water and improving irrigation efficiency in a sustainable way is of paramount importance. Indeed, the overall sustainability and production efficiency of the industry is being driven by both economic necessity and market demands for clean, safe and environmentally responsible food production.
While I am on the topic of environmentally responsible production, let me be clear about the situation with the Ord River Irrigation Area. The Western Australian government, in partnership with the Commonwealth government, is moving ahead with the Ord River Irrigation Area expansion on its side of the border. It should be noted that this expansion is on the Weaber Plain and includes several infill areas within the existing development. It will take this stage, plus one or two more, before the development and, hence water supply, will reach the Northern Territory border. Obviously, as the development is moving from west to east, the Primary Industry Group of my department will be monitoring the project to examine opportunities to develop it into the Northern Territory. Future developments into the Northern Territory will be, ultimately, dependent on infrastructure developed over time on the Western Australian side of the border, and overall water availability.
A high-level meeting was held just last week between Commonwealth, Western Australia and Northern Territory government representatives. At that meeting, it was agreed representatives from the three jurisdictions will meet again in the near future to ensure collaboration in examining opportunities for the medium- and long-term development of the Ord River Irrigation Area. With input and assistance from colleagues across the Territory government, the Primary Industry Group will continue to lead this effort for the Territory.
We live in challenging times. There are two great pressures facing Australia’s agricultural industries: climate change and globalisation. I will talk about how the Primary Industry Group is preparing to deal with these challenges in a minute. First, however, let us be clear about the challenges themselves and what they mean.
Climate change brings four major challenges we have to deal with: water temperatures, longer and deeper droughts, more extreme weather events, and biosecurity risks where we will see increases in the occurrence of pests and diseases.
I mentioned previously the Primary Industries Ministerial Forum I attended last week. At that meeting, we endorsed the principle of a strengthened partnership approach for managing biosecurity. Ministers agreed to work together so as to implement reforms which will further strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system and provide substantial benefits to our industries, communities and natural environment. This means that we are looking to a formal agreement on a national biosecurity system by the end of this year. This proposed agreement will cover: stronger science and risk-based approaches; an improved working partnership across the biosecurity continuum - which is to say offshore, at the border, and onshore; agreed cost-sharing arrangements covering all relevant sectors; improved information sharing arrangements and systems; collaboration in optimising application of all available government investments in biosecurity services; consultation on national priorities for major new investments; arrangements for consulting on certain policy decisions and operational matters such as appointments to the National Biosecurity Commission; and increased Commonwealth responsibility for ballast water.
This spirit of cooperation in biosecurity arrangements bodes well for the Territory, as we are the closest and, often, first point of contact with Asia. You can be assured that my department is making a major contribution to such planning. Territorians well remember the outbreak of black striped mussels in our marinas, the exotic fruit fly infestation and controls over the movement of fruit and vegetables, and the eradication of the grapevine leaf rust from the Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas. More recently, Northern Territory departmental officers provided assistance in combating the equine influenza outbreak in New South Wales and Queensland.
Other challenges ushered in by climate change include the impacts of a changing environment and the Australian government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme and associated policies. Climate change must be considered in the context that Territory agricultural industries are already designed around significant inter-annual and intra-annual variations in climatic conditions. Growth of the agricultural sector is reliant on matching appropriate land and water resources in responding to market demands. Soils and land systems suitable for agricultural production are fragmented throughout the Territory. These factors, taken together, will continue to direct and, in some cases, influence future expansion of agricultural production in the Territory. It is against this reality that the ongoing research and development work of the Primary Industry Group is so important.
The Australian government has signalled that agriculture, fisheries and forestry will be included in an Emissions Trading Scheme by 2015. The issues to be considered include the point in the supply chain at which the obligation for emissions will be applied and the process chosen to estimate emissions. For the Territory’s primary industries, the beef industry will be considered for inclusion as the beef, sheep and dairy industries make up most of Australia’s agricultural emissions. Forestry is to be included on a voluntary basis from the start of the scheme for those plantations established after 1989. Again, the details are still being developed.
On the other hand, globalisation carries its own set of challenges: more opportunities for pests and diseases to reach our shores in a world where we trade far more than we used to, and in which people and goods cross borders in ever-increasing volumes. An additional issue is the increased community interest in the perceived effect agricultural development may have in relation to maintaining a healthy environment. This community concern is primarily based on historic development practices in southern Australia, particularly the Murray-Darling. This community concern has been heightened by the current, growing, national interest in increasing agricultural production in northern Australia.
As great as these pressures are, they also present a range of opportunities. These include the chance to become more productive and competitive while maintaining a healthy environment. We are also well placed to supply cattle and food crops to domestic and international markets. I am sure you will all agree these are important and pressing issues, the emergence of which has prompted my department’s Primary Industry Group to reassess the way it does business, its priorities, and how it interacts with industry.
My department has had in place for some time a system of rolling reviews and, under this scheme, a review of the Primary Industry Group was undertaken late last year by the consultant Walter Turnbull. The review sought to better align the department’s Primary Industry Group with government and industry priorities following concerns the agency was not well equipped to respond to merging national and global issues. The review also took into account the views of the various industry sectors, the challenges I mentioned earlier posed by climate change and globalisation, and the need to ensure the delivery of services to the various primary industry sectors was as efficient and appropriate as possible.
Now the review has been delivered, its recommendations - which I will talk about in some detail shortly - have to be cross-checked and discussed with industry and other stakeholders. As we move forward, the ramifications of each of the recommendations are discussed with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association, the Northern Territory Live Export Association, and others. This process is vital, as we want to ensure we get the appropriate strategic advice from industry to ensure our new programs deliver what both industry and the government require.
The review proposed 16 recommendations, all of which are in the process of being implemented. Key among them is the development of a policy statement and strategy on the government’s vision for Primary Industries in the Northern Territory. Once the policy is articulated, the department will align its strategic and business plans, programs and services to take account of the government’s vision in consultation with staff and industry groups. While many of the recommended changes have, or are in the process of being initiated, the policy statement outlining the government’s position and policy on primary industry will be presented to parliament at a later date, after detailed consultation with industry has been conducted. This consultation process is, by nature of the size of the Territory and the number of industry groups involved, one which will take several months to complete.
The review also recommended a formal stakeholder engagement forum be established to allow for better communication between industry associations and the department. I am pleased to say that work on the Primary Industries Consultative Forum is well advanced.
Another recommendation covers the need for an overarching Primary Industries Research Strategy. This is to have a minimum three-year horizon with an annual review aligned with the government’s budget cycle. Work on this has commenced with industry consultation under way; the recent mango workshop held earlier this month being a good example of strong beginnings.
The implementation of these recommendations will better prepare the Primary Industry Group to meet the challenges ahead and will ensure that it is better organised to deliver the outcomes expected by the government and industry.
In addition to the recommendations of the review, the Territory government took the decision to base the leadership of the Primary Industry Group in Alice Springs in recognition of its regional importance. As a result, the Executive Director of Primary Industries and his support staff are now based at the department’s Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs.
The review and associated reorganisation has given the Primary Industry Group the chance to take a fresh look and redefine its purpose and future strategies, strengthen its policy development and extension services functions, continue its market development work, and strengthen its commitment to Indigenous employment. There will be an increased emphasis on ensuring the work undertaken on the department’s research and demonstration farms is in line with industry expectations and priorities.
Key among the review’s recommendations was a reorganisation of the department’s Primary Industry Group. A new division called Plant Industries has been created incorporating the crops, forestry and horticulture division, as well as those diagnostic services which support plant industries. This new division allows a more holistic focus on agriculture, horticulture and forestry, incorporating both extension and research and diagnostic services into the one division. In addition, the Plant Industries Division is now responsible for those research and demonstration farms which primarily focus on plant-related research; namely, Berrimah, Katherine, Ti Tree, Coastal Plains and Arid Zone Research Institute.
To better deal with current policy issues and intergovernment relationships associated with sustainable development, the Primary Industry Services Division has been strengthened. This group, Policy and Services, will continue to manage the confronting agenda of nationally significant issues with additional expertise.
The Pastoral Production Division will continue, but with the added responsibility for the research and demonstration farms at Beatrice Hill, Douglas Daly, Kidman Springs and Old Man Plains.
The Berrimah Veterinary laboratory is now part of the Biosecurity and Product Integrity Division, reporting to the Chief Veterinary Officer. That arrangement, together with robust, risk-based biosecurity planning, will strengthen the Territory’s biosecurity preparedness and response capabilities.
As I stated previously, the world is changing, and my department’s Primary Industry Group has been reorganised to assist it better meet the challenges of the future. There is a high public expectation today with regard to the environment, animal welfare, new crop and pasture varieties, water use, and land management practices. For the department to be able to meet these expectations there is a real need for better science and education, more focused research, and the ability to develop management practices to deal with climate change and globalisation issues.
With all these issues and challenges, clearly what is required is a Primary Industry Research Strategy. We are now committed to developing such a strategy which will be inclusive of government policies, nationally agreed priorities, and the needs of local industries. In consultation with industry, this strategy will take into account the best use of the department’s research and demonstration farms and will be reviewed on an annual basis. To complement the research strategy, an extension services strategic framework will be developed. Again, this will be done in consultation with industry partners.
My department, with its new regional development responsibilities, will strengthen its capacity and capability to embrace the challenges of Indigenous employment, and this will flow strongly into the refocused Primary Industry Group as yet another plank in its heightened responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, I am sure from what I have outlined, you and honourable members present today can appreciate the sense of excitement and purpose which now drives our Primary Industry Group. I am sure that you, like me, will look forward to its performance into the future.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House this afternoon. It is an important issue for Territorians. Primary industry has long been a cornerstone of the economy of the Northern Territory, and it is nice to see that there is - if I can take the minister’s words on face value - a renewed energy in focusing on primary industries. I also take this opportunity to thank the minister for providing me with the opportunity to receive briefings from the Fisheries Division and also a tour of the Berrimah Research Farm. I am looking forward to touring the other primary industry facilities in the future.
Minister, I am pleased that you, through your government, seem to have quite a strong focus on the primary industry sector. I do not ever doubt your sincerity, minister, and the interests you have in, and importance you hold for, primary industries.
However, I do have a couple of grave fears. One fear is rooted in the history of the present government. Much of the feedback I receive from primary producers and industry groups is that the current government has, unfortunately, dropped the ball in respect of primary industries. I will speak about that in more detail shortly.
My next fear is twofold. You have been handed the poisoned chalice – the Health portfolio. You now have a ministerial workload that can be summed up as enormous. My fear is - and these fears are shared across some parts of the NT - that you will simply not have the time to give primary industries the due care and consideration it needs. A number of people have told me that one of two things will occur: either plenty will get done because you will be in a position to just rubber stamp because the department will be doing everything for you and you will not give those decisions due care and attention; or that nothing will get done because of the enormous workload you will be bearing. These are issues which have been brought to me by people across different parts of the Northern Territory. I hope you will be able to assure people that neither of those scenarios will take place. I sincerely hope the focus you have on primary industries is heading in the right direction. From what I read in the statement today, minister, all the words seem to be right. I just hope it will all be put in place and deliver some real outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory, particularly those involved in this sector.
I was pleased to see a review of Primary Industries had been conducted and, having read through the report, I was a little saddened to read - and I quote from page 1 of the Executive Summary of that report:
That is a statement from the report which backs up the sentiment of people around the Northern Territory; that the government has dropped the ball on primary industries. However, having said that, the next paragraph in that Executive Summary went on to say:
That is very good news in anyone’s language. Therefore, notwithstanding anything that might have stood in the way of horticulturalists and pastoral people, they have managed to overcome those and continue to grow their industry at double the national figure. To our people in the primary industry sector, I send my congratulations and say well done.
The minister’s statement this afternoon does contain a lot of positive news about the state of the industry overall. It is great to see continuing improvement in both the number of NT cattle being exported, along with corresponding increases in the dollar value of those exports. That is good news, but we cannot rest on our laurels in relation to that. As you know, with the very unstable global economy and the Australian dollar bouncing around all over the place, the value of our exports heading overseas is seriously affected.
I note the report raised a number of issues the NT will need to look at into the future. They include: climate change; sustainable development; availability of land for primary industries development; water management; rising fuel and transport costs; increased focus on biosecurity; providing appropriate infrastructure to support the development of the industry; the continuing focus on animal welfare from lobby groups; increased focus on food quality and safety; priorities for Indigenous development; focus on regional development; increases in commercial forestry; and difficulties in recruiting and training staff. Indeed, as the minister pointed out, 16 recommendations came from the report which are very broad recommendations. If they are properly applied to the specific areas of need as reported, and are accepted by the government and implemented, they will go a long way to addressing many of the identified needs of the primary industry sector.
There are a few specific areas about which I will speak. There is a strong perception within the farming community that outreach services have been pared back by the Primary Industry department over the past few years. Producers report to me they rarely, if ever, see a representative from the department visiting them on their blocks. I believe in the past there had been a great deal of involvement from the department with on-site trials, research and development. What is being fed back to me is some of those things are becoming a distant memory for a lot of people on the land. I notice in the statement today, minister, that you mentioned outreach staff. I am sure the pastoralists and the horticulturalists would like some assurances from you that they will start seeing staff from your department back out on their blocks and farms.
A concern in relation to that which has also been raised with me is the implementation of the recommendations of the Walter Turnbull report. Some believe there will be an increase in staff to accommodate the implementation, but they will be at the expense of people who are actually working on the ground. I hope that will not be the case.
I pick up on one of the other matters mentioned in the review in relation to availability of land for primary industry development; it is in the context of the Douglas Daly Region. Up until recently, as we all know, there was a moratorium on land clearing in the Daly. We, the Country Liberals, have said publicly – and we stick by it - that we would lift that moratorium and allow decisions to be made in respect of land clearing applications based on the science and merits of each application.
To her credit, the minister for Environment, the member for Macdonnell, has worked with the people of the Daly region and taken advice from the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and, in a sense, lifted that moratorium by imposing restrictions that land clearing applications for areas over 200 ha must be approved by the minister for Environment. I thank the minister for Environment for taking the effort to touch base with Territorians on that very important issue.
However, I am also advised there has been a raft of new requirements imposed on the application process. My advice is the new requirements on applications make the process almost impossible to achieve and prohibitively expensive. I do not know if the Environment minister is aware of this situation with applications. It seems the applications have so many requirements that it will cost each applicant thousands of dollars per application to meet those requirements. On top of that, the application takes a very long time to complete. One primary producer I spoke with said she is giving up on the application. This lady is an articulate, university-educated woman, and she says it is too hard.
The feeling amongst primary producers is this new application process - and it is a cynical view - I am yet to be convinced one way or the other - was designed so people would say: ‘It is just too hard’ and throw their hands in the air, effectively keeping the moratorium going because there will still be no land clearing happening in the Daly. I provide that information to the Environment minister because I know she is keen to get on top of this issue. I leave it with her.
The point, as it relates to the ministerial statement today is: while the report suggests the government will need to consider the availability of land for primary industry development, yet if the process of obtaining the necessary approvals is so difficult and obstructive, then how can the government facilitate more land being available? That is one of the basic tenets of all primary industry production - to have land to put it on. If the department of Planning or the Environment department cannot facilitate that, then the whole process is going to come to a grinding halt. There seems to be a terribly disjointed approach to this issue. I am asking the government to aim for a far more collaborative, interdepartmental approach to the issue, so that Primary Industry are talking to Environment and they can share the problems and issues they have. After all, if we are going to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations of the report, then the departments will need to be talking to each other to solve the problems that stand in the way.
Speaking of interdepartmental collaboration, roads and infrastructure also need to be a priority focus. It is great to hear the news from the minister in his statement that our production figures are on the rise - that is excellent. I urge the ministers of this government, however, to start thinking and planning for the infrastructure that will be needed; for example, when our cattle production doubles or triples some time in the next 10 or 15 years. These are things we need to be looking at now, so we can start planning for roads and staging yards. It is nice to hear the minister for Infrastructure talk this morning about new East Arm port expansions. Those are the types of things we could use now, but they are the type of things we will most definitely need in the years to come. It takes time to get those things happening; you need to start that planning process now. I urge the government to jump on board quickly and start to progress it with some real action.
There needs to be much consideration given to the concept that the NT holds the status of being the food bowl of Australia. However, much has to be done to achieve that. The government will need to consider how we overcome one of the greatest difficulties the rural sector faces at this time: how do we stem the flow of people away from the primary sector and turn it back to people flocking back to the land? There are many things we need to consider. It is all about lifestyle, and people who move onto the land having the prospect and chance of making a good living and setting themselves and their families up for the future.
The type of things we need to consider are health service provision for people on the land; that is having services that can actually be accessed by people in the bush. We also need to consider the provision of education services. When I say education, I do not necessarily mean schooling in the traditional sense for children. As time goes by and technology grows and expands at a faster and faster rate, technology is going to be one of the ways to improve crop yields and animal production. There needs to be a push to get that technology into the bush and teach people how to use it. There needs to be programs in place which will facilitate educating people on the land in relation to new technology. Examples of that new technology include remote watering and bore monitoring and sensing. They are just two of the examples. We need to consider telecommunication services for people out bush. That goes to the lifestyle of people living in the NT. We need to spend time to think about the services we will need to have in place to entice people back to the bush.
There needs to be consideration given to many of the side issues affecting profitability, including sustainability, environmental issues and the cost of those, and access to energy and the cost of that. Consideration needs to be given to the use of renewable energy and how that might be facilitated in the bush. What about the costs associated with transport, fuel prices, driver compliance, and fatigue management? All these things add up to increase the costs of the primary producer, and hurt their bottom line.
I will touch on the issue of the Ord River Stage 2 development, which the minister mentioned in his statement today. There are a few things about the Ord Stage 2 that I would like to point out. It is nice to see the government is finally on board with Ord Stage 2. Just after lunch, I was speaking with a Senator from Queensland. He told me the Northern Territory government, up until as long as 12 months ago, did not even want to discuss the matter of the Ord development; they were in denial and really were not interested. I cannot fathom why they would have been like that; I imagine it was because they feared all the up-side was going to Western Australia. It is nice to hear they are finally on board with this. However, the problem is, of course, we are now years behind Western Australia as far as the planning process goes. It would have been nice to be keeping pace with the Western Australian government on this issue so we are in a position to work, rather than wait for all their infrastructure to be built and then take advantage of it so we can start doing something on this side of the border as well.
There is about 32 000 ha of land affected by this Ord Stage 2. Half of it is in Western Australia and about half of it is in the Northern Territory. I notice the minister mentioned water in the Ord - if it was not mentioned in the statement, perhaps it was in a question during Question Time earlier today - there is heaps of water there. I do not think any further studies need to be done on it. My advice is there is sufficient water for 10 megalitres per hectare to cover both the Northern Territory and the Western Australia side of the development. My understanding and advice is that the channel which is going to be built to provide water to Ord Stage 2 will be wide enough to accommodate progress on the Northern Territory side as well.
I guess it is symptomatic of how we have seen the government operate in so many facets of their government, but they do not seem to have a very long-term or strategic view of things. This is a long-term project. There needs to be a strategy put in place, and it needs to be considered as important because food is the staple; it is the bottom line. If mining turns down, okay, we can do without a bit of steel; if tourism turns down, that is sad too. However, we all need to have food and it must be considered the very highest priority. It will not be long before most food production in Australia, if not all of it, will be above the Tropic of Capricorn. There is increasing pressure placed on water-abundant parts of Australia to become hefty food producing areas because of the drought and the water problems we are seeing in the southern states.
On drought, I notice the minister mentioned in his statement they were looking at issues in relation to drought. A large part of Australia is in drought at the present time and it is good to see they are considering a plan to work on drought - not so much prevention - preparedness for drought, rather than having to deal with people who find themselves in drought. It is certainly much easier to prepare people for it so they have contingency plans. I welcome that comment from the minister in relation to drought.
The Emissions Trading Scheme is another area which is going to significantly impact the primary industry sector in the Northern Territory. There are predictions of a 20% increase in the cost of freight, crop contracting, chemicals, and up to a 200% increase in the cost of electricity when an Emissions Trading Scheme is introduced. This will significantly affect, along with all the other things I mentioned earlier, the bottom line, the profitability, of arable farming land in the Northern Territory. This is something that needs to be very seriously considered. If we are going to attract people back onto primary producing land, then there needs to be some sort of incentive, or at the very least no penalty, to pay for moving out onto the land.
The last thing I want to touch on is the government’s move to transfer the department of Primary Industry to Alice Springs. I am lost as to the reason why. I have had a briefing on it and I still just cannot quite grasp the sense in moving the CEO of Primary Industry to Alice Springs …
Mr Wood: From Howard Springs he went. He had to pack up.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes. Well, to Alice Springs, yes.
On one basis alone: the cost of transporting the CEO of that organisation back to Darwin, Lord knows how many times a month or a week is going to affect Territorians. We have said the government is irresponsible in their spending and this will be another example of fiscal irresponsibility; it will cost Territorians big money. The far more sensible approach would have been - and I will be accused of being Katherine-centric, but that is fine - to Katherine, which is the hub of the vast majority of primary industries in the Northern Territory. There is significant horticultural capacity around Katherine, as well as cattle. It would make more sense to move the CEO and the department to a place like Katherine, rather than all the way to Alice Springs. It seems to me to be a veiled attempt to satisfy the platitudes of the people in Alice Springs. The government will say: ‘Look what we did for you; we have given you the department of Primary Industry down there’. Yet, it really does not make a great deal of sense to do that.
The minister’s statement this afternoon was quite comprehensive; there is quite a bit in there. It is titled the Primary Industries Review and it covers things rather broadly. I encourage all members to pick up a copy of the Walter Turnbull review and have a look through it. It contains much interesting information that is relevant to primary producers in the Northern Territory. I encourage the government to seriously look at primary industries as the most important industry we have in the Northern Territory. It does not contribute as much as other industries to our gross state product; however, we definitely need to have primary industries as a high priority.
We need to ensure we start with the basics in primary industries and get people back to the bush. Those people need to be satisfied they are going to have a good life in the bush. The Northern Territory is an interesting place; it was founded on the hard work and toil of primary producers and we should not forget our roots in that regard. With the downturn in mining we are seeing at the moment at McArthur River, to name just one - of course, we are going to have a shot at them - the fact that the Northern Territory government has done little or nothing to push the federal minister for Environment along on that issue is incredible. It still beggars belief. I would be camping on his doorstep if it was me.
It is expected there will be a downturn in tourism this year. I believe other tourist destinations in Australia are starting to feel the bite of that already. I sincerely hope the tourism sector remains strong, as I do the mining sector. However, the global financial crisis will bite on people. The focus needs to come back to the basics. We need to have food on our table. We have abundant land and water and we have an ideal opportunity to progress primary industries to their fullest extent. It is something that we need to do, and we need to start planning now.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to the minister for Primary Industry’s statement on the changing face of this sector of our economy. As a member of a bush rural electorate, and having devoted my working life, before politics, around Katherine, Timber Creek, the VRD, Kakadu and Tennant Creek, I am only too aware of the value the primary industry sector contributes to the Territory economy, and to the social fabric of the Northern Territory.
As the minister noted, in straight financial terms this sector generates 2.2% of the gross state product. Since coming to parliament, I have had numerous meetings with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association. Most recently, I met with Roy Chisholm, the President of the NTCA and also Luke Bowen, the Executive Officer of the NTCA. It is good to see Luke here today, and also the former Executive Officer, Stuart Kenny, who is now with AAco in Queensland.
In that meeting, Luke and Roy again reminded me of the value of the sector and how its influence is much broader than sheer economic terms. In a place like the Northern Territory, it is very difficult to work in this industry; there are the vast distances and remote populations, but it is those areas which generate wealth and income for those people so they can have livelihoods. The communities can be sustained, as well as those regional towns where people buy a lot of produce, and so create jobs. It has a multiplier effect through the whole of the Northern Territory.
The pastoral industry was worth an estimated $205m in the Territory in 2007-08 financial year, and the largest component came from the cattle industry. With a number of cattle stations in my own electorate, the strength of the Douglas Daly region introducing young cattle for the export market overseas, and for breeding with interstate cattle, I applaud the minister and commend him for harnessing the potential of growth in this sector.
It was good to have that interaction with the NTCA. They highlighted the potential we still have in the industry with respect to cattle exports. I am trying to remember the figures: 80% of cattle go out through the Dry Season, and the 20% remaining is restricted over the Wet Season because of access. Hopefully, the extra money this government has put into roads will boost the ability to get cattle out to the port during the Wet Season, thus allowing them to grow their businesses and get greater yield to the live export market. It is encouraging to see the targeted growth potential in Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Vietnam. I know much work has gone into that, and it shows the great foresight that both the minister’s department and the industry has applied in catching that live cattle market in Asia.
There are dangers, and the people involved are working very hard for the quality we produce. Other countries are not. South America, although they have the largest herd in the world, I believe quality and disease prevention are some of the things they lack. Australia needs to be very conscious of maintaining the quality and integrity of our herds.
In my electorate, I have always been quite impressed with the Indigenous Pastoral Program within the department. It certainly has helped many traditional owners, who have land trusts, to develop their properties, many of which were formerly used as cattle stations. The people have a fond memory of those times in the cattle stations, although they were hard and, sometimes, cruel. The old men I speak of a time when there was a lot of pride in what they actually did, and they look at it as an opportunity for the young people to actually have jobs and do something they will be proud of.
However, it is a balance and it is a choice of traditional owners to choose to use their land in that way. It also is a type of industry which can be very challenging with respect to the management of those properties. Typically, cattle stations are run very dictatorially; there has to be one boss and his or her word is the only way to go. Obviously, there is a lot of work that happens and I know the Pastoral Unit actually does that around the government’s arrangement for those cattle stations.
Amanbidji Station is a great former Durack property in the north-west VRD. I do not claim to know a lot about cattle properties, but I have taken very good cattlemen out there from time to time. They were virtually salivating at the pastures and the potential for cattle on that property. It has taken a long while, but now, I understand, there is consolidated pastoral and other interests working with that property to get it back into production, with local jobs being created. When you consider that 50% of the land across the Northern Territory is covered by Indigenous Territorians, this area has huge potential for economic growth. I hope the minister provides continuing support in that area.
Primary industry is, of course, not all about cattle. The Territory grows a diverse range of produce from mangoes and melons, to cucumbers and Asian vegetables in the rural area. The Vietnamese community has a great number of properties in the rural area, and they produce much of the produce you see in the local markets here, which is quite diverse. In Katherine, as the minister alluded to, the peanut industry has a foothold, and I wish it all the best of luck. Daly River has a bit of history of peanut farming, which has been mixed. However, I hope it goes well in Katherine.
Horticulture production in 2006-07 was valued at $145m. I am pleased to say that growth in the sector is being supported by hay and fodder crops in the Douglas Daly region. Malcolm Bishop does a great job on his property there; he is quite a big grower and he also works other stick farms around other parts of the Territory. He has done a great job of being a leader in fodder crops, as well as the initiative of sending fodder crops over to Korea, at one stage, just to test that market. It is great to see there is growth in that area.
Also, the Douglas Daly Research Station does good work there. Things are changing in the Douglas Daly with, as the minister mentioned, the mahogany tree plantation; it is really changing the face of the Douglas Daly. The research station is adapting to those changes, and I commend all the staff there and the great work they do, and the great community that they support.
I pick up on the comments by the Primary Industry minister about the challenges of climate change for our primary industry sector. This government is well aware of the need to balance growth in our primary industries with the need to protect the environment for future generations. While we invest significantly in facilities such as the Douglas Daly Research Station and in targeted missions to grow our cattle industry, it is not at the expense of the environment. It has been my experience that the modern pastoralist is an environmentalist. They are business people, and the soil, the water, the creek lines, the buffer zones, and riparian areas are all assets to their business and they understand that very much in today’s terms. They look after every bit of that because, if they do not, their business will go down the drain, basically. They, obviously, are there to produce crops or cattle, or whatever it might be, but they do look after those areas.
The Daly River is a pristine river. The work the departments of Environment and Primary Industry have done in balancing the growth in that area is the right way to go. It was this government which set up the Daly River Management Advisory Committee to do the water studies, the water management plans. That is the way to go. We are not going to follow what we have seen down south where they did allocations and then studied later. We will get the studies done first and then allocate based on that and do annual allocations, because that water supply has to be there into the future, and it will protect those business interests in the future as well.
Our primary industries include agriculture, horticulture and pastoral, and cannot succeed without investment in our roads. As a bush member, I spend a lot of time off the bitumen, and I am proud of this government’s commitment to improving remote roads across the Territory. In Budget 2008-09 we committed $271m to improve remote roads. That is on top of the $386m the Australian government invested in Territory roads, including $52m for community, beef and mining roads over four years. In the Katherine region alone, an area I spend a lot of time in, more than $13m has been committed to upgrading the remote roads - roads that keep the primary industry sector connected to the major centres and to markets interstate and overseas. To highlight a few examples: $2.2m has been earmarked to upgrade stream crossings on the Daly River; $4m has been allocated for new gravelling access roads to support horticulture development; and a total of $32m has been allocated for four bridges along the Victoria Highway.
This government recognises the importance of the primary industry sector - a sector which contributes to the economy and to regional and remote communities. We will continue to invest in that area, because it certainly is an industry which keeps giving every single year. The mining industry is beneficial for the Northern Territory, but we do have booms and busts. However, the pastoral industry, the horticultural industry, and the agricultural industry keep producing every year. It is something we are very aware of.
On a point from the member for Katherine, the Douglas Daly area is in my electorate, and I have communication with that community on a regular basis. I have not heard any complaints about the process for the new land clearing arrangements. I had a meeting there on the day that announcement was made. The minister and her office are working very hard to help, in a balanced way, those applications to proceed. I am sure that that is happening in a very sensible and appropriate manner. I do not accept it is impossible to get the applications through.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement on primary industries. It is about time we saw this kind of statement from the government on economic drivers in the Territory that is not about gas.
There is much in the statement, minister. If the government is serious about primary industries, then they will ensure the management of the changes proposed are outcomes and result-focused and not bogged down in processes. Change for the better will also not work if government is indifferent. To date, I have not seen too much real interest in the primary industries of the Territory by this government. Agreed, minister, your work is admired and you do work hard at promoting the industries in your portfolio of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. However, sadly, I do not believe that you are backed up and supported properly and fully by your own colleagues.
I hope this statement is serious, for far too long now we have seen all talk and no action from the government when it comes to primary industries. First, this government wants to chop up and sell off Berrimah Farm when it is well-known in the industry that some of the top paddocks have some of the best soils in the whole of the Top End. - a valuable resource for research and trialling of pastures and, perhaps, new pastures. The buildings are to be demolished and people relocated, but are not sure where.
How long has it been since there was an open day at Berrimah Farm, either for industry people, scientists or just the general community? We should have heard the alarm bells ringing when the title of the farm was changed from Berrimah Research Farm to just Berrimah Farm. Over the last eight years, we have seen a downgrading of the sites’ capabilities and research aspects of the farm, and that is not good. Research is fundamental to the resolution of problems of sustainable production and conservation in the Territory. It will also provide the objective data to show that climate change, for example, is or is not having the effects predicted. For some time now, primary industry research has been an easy target for managers to attack in pursuit of predetermined budget reductions - or to use that wonderful misquoted title - efficiency dividend.
It is worrying to me to note that even in the few developing areas of the Top End such as the Ord River, research is minimal and that which exists is not directed at environmental issues such as salinity detection or nutrient problems in an irrigated environment. A great deal of modern research in the Territory has been undertaken by the university; for example, Cooperative Research Centres and the CSIRO. While much of this research work is sound and good, at times it wanders off into the academic wilderness. Good scientific research will provide the data desperately needed in the Territory for the development of rational - and I stress rational - policies by government. This research and data should, and can, come from the department of Primary Industry.
This government has shown the fundamental misunderstanding of science by expecting definite answers to specific problems in a short time span. With few exceptions, it just cannot be done; we just have to get used to it. Science is not like that and we should all know this. The research needed to solve Territory and environmental problems today and into the future needs to be multidisciplinary and long term, to encompass the range of seasonal conditions experienced in a tropical monsoonal climate of the Top End, and the desert arid climate and conditions experienced in the Centre. Research must examine not only production viability but also a full range of sustainability parameters and environmental effects. By way of example, research should examine a crop or pasture production system, with emphasis on production levels, nutrient inputs and effects on the soil, the rates of carbon accumulation, soil improvement or stability, and the effects on soil profiles, water tables and drainage. This latter part is more important in irrigation systems.
Multidisciplinary research means multi-organisation. Ideally, this way of scientific operation will be well led if meaningful results are to be achieved. Our research capabilities in the primary industries area needs to be improved and expanded and properly supported by government and industry, where and when possible and appropriate.
I turn my attention now to the statement which, in theory, should be a good news story. In parts, it is a good news story. However, it is strange that in the statement there is talk about reviews and more policy, and not much talk on substance such as practical activities on the ground, research in the laboratories and in the field, and work on developing new crops, pastures or farming industries.
Let me elaborate a bit more. Yes, on a global scale, primary industry does feed the world’s population, but this is mainly directed at beef production. Let us be clear, it is predominantly beef production and not smaller-scale primary production. However, having said that, it should be noted that the Territory’s production does not even feed the Territory’s population. All our cattle are exported and we import our meat back into our shops at higher prices.
We cannot provide local meat as there is no abattoir in the Top End any more, or even in the Centre. This government is not interested in fostering a new one any time in the near future. We had a piggery that supplied the majority of pork into the Territory markets. The piggery also provided general abattoir services. It is closed and this government did nothing to keep it open. I do not mean hand-outs or commercial step-ups; I mean working with the industry to keep that abattoir open. It was not interested. We do not have chiller rooms anymore in the Territory. Chiller rooms are a private enterprise and they are mainly servicing the wild pig or wild boar market.
Our wild pigs are highly desirable in Europe, particularly in central Europe. That will be one area I will be taking up with the minister and the department, because it is a niche market and it has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way to our economic development.
This government talks about providing assistance to farmers in trouble from climatic adversities. That is all well and good and I do not have a problem with that. However, there is no serious talk of how to improve farming activities so when there are climatic issues, the industries are best placed to respond.
Cattle exports are by far our biggest export, and most go to the Indonesia market. I note the minister has made a trip to Vietnam. I applaud him for this. However, one swallow does not make a summer, and a bit of rain does not mean the Wet Season has started. Minister, you and your government need to make regular trips to Vietnam and to other Asian countries so that, if there are any issues with exports to Indonesia, we do not have the situation of cattle loaded up on a boat with no place to go.
The statement references the desire to increase cattle numbers from 500 000 to 1m. From my knowledge of cattle production, and from talking to the industry, this will take upwards of 10 years. I referenced previously that a large number of cattle stations on the Barkly were de-stocked this year - something upwards of 15 to 20 cattle stations - because of drought conditions.
What will happen in the meanwhile, whilst we are trying to get stock numbers back up? What government should be doing is looking seriously at the Douglas Daly area where the carrying capacity could be increased through good management of improved pastures. The soils of the bioregion of the Douglas Daly catchment area with potential for sustainable use for improved pasture production, crops, or forestry are estimated to be 400 000 ha, much smaller than the overall area. Even with full development using standard conservation principles and procedures successfully developed decades ago, the overwhelming majority of the Daly River catchment basin will remain in native vegetation. Areas in the north, such as those found on the Stuart Plateau, Port Keats area, and nearby, could be improved and utilised for high-density grazing through improved pastures. Where is the research into these areas and potential industries?
I applaud the emergence of crops such as peanuts and maize in the Katherine region, but these are not broadacre crops. I urge the minister to refer to them correctly and that is: specialised farming. A broadacre crops description conjures up an image of vast miles of paddocks. Peanut growing is not done that way at all. I do not want people to misunderstand exactly what is going on there, so that there is no resistance to any expansion of that industry.
The statement also references the research at Douglas Daly Research Station has been going on for a decade. That is not true. Research has been undertaken at that research institution since the 1960s, and was started through CSIRO research. The facts need to be checked properly, and we need to know what research has been undertaken there, so we can be confident that future research will be appreciated and utilised in association with new research.
Forestry does offer hope from expanding industry in the Territory and, yes, Acacia mangium is a good tree for coastal areas. Work should be done on other areas, or possible areas, for this valuable crop. It is a coastal tree crop, and could be grown successfully in the Port Keats region. However, once more, there does not seem to be any research into areas where this tree, a valuable crop, could be grown and expand the industry, particularly in areas near Aboriginal communities, as much of this land is Aboriginal land. Government needs to identify and select land now - not in five years time and not in 2030 - for the mahogany timber production. Mahogany trees are slow-growing; however, they too are a valuable resource. In conjunction with the acacia trees, we need to get them moving quickly, so that all can benefit.
The horticultural industries are far bigger than described in the minister’s statement. It is disappointing there is no reference to the cut flower industry or the herb industry, to just name two. We have pages on policies and reviews but, when it gets to the real guts of primary industries, we get a small paragraph. I do not think this is good enough. When the statement talked about access to water, and improving irrigation efficiencies, it did not talk about where the water is going to come from in the future.
I have seen no real evidence of planning for the future of Darwin’s water supply. Yes, the Darwin River Dam wall is being raised and, yes, this may result in increased capacity. However, the question I ask now is: will this be sufficient to meet the demands of urban development, rural development, and an increase in industry development?
Currently, the Power and Water Corporation has a licence to extract 12 000 megalitres of water per year from the bores of Girraween, but only takes 3700 megalitres per year. What would happen if the full licence was taken up to feed Weddell, Darwin and more industry projects such as INPEX? I will tell you: it will detrimentally affect the Howard Springs East aquifer, and people with bores will lose or have poor water supply. Residents in areas such as Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Girraween, Herbert and surrounds will be affected. However, we do not see this government caring in regard to this aspect - not at all. There is no planning for water supply other than ‘Let us just keep extracting more from the bores’. If we are to get a new dam - and there is and has been talk about a new dam - it needs to start now, as it will take up to 10 years to fill a new dam to design yield - 10 years, that is in 2019 it would nearly be ready for use after settling the water, clearing, cleaning, purification and after the infrastructure, or in association with the infrastructure, is in place to move the water to where it is needed.
Regarding the Ord River Scheme, Western Australia and the Commonwealth are getting on with the business to expand the scheme, but the Northern Territory does not seem to be doing much, just sitting on its collective butt watching, doing nothing. Previously, there was a large amount of research done regarding Stage 3, around 1970 to 1972. Is the government not taking up that research and findings and using it towards further research? The Weaber Plain around that area leads into the Keep River system, some 70 000 ha that could be used for production. If this is to become a reality, we need to act now, not just sit and watch other state governments and the Commonwealth doing things; otherwise we may well miss opportunities.
Climate change is referred to as a global challenge and, indeed, it is. However, what this statement overlooks are the local challenges to primary industries such as quality roads to get product to market, freight costs, airline schedules, and the infrastructure for handling growing industries. These challenges must be acted upon as well as bigger issues such as climate change. Climate change had, until the advent of the global financial crisis, become the political cause clbre, where worst-case scenarios were being fervently promoted by the environmentalists, fringe interest groups, and some scientists mindful of the next year’s funding. The loss of Kakadu Wetlands, for example, was widely claimed to be a potential major consequence. The irony of this, of course, is that if a worst case scenario climate were to be realised - as unlikely as this may be - the loss of Kakadu wetlands would be of little consequence, compared to the potential loss of Australia’s agricultural capacity.
Different scenarios are predictions and, while constructed with powerful computer systems, they do require rigorous scientific analysis, experimentation, and observations to be confirmed or denied. This work needs to be done with the relevant department, which is the department of Primary Industry. Staffing levels and programs need to be improved, particularly in the scientific areas, to ensure we are prepared for the challenges that arise from climate change, and which will also assist work on the lessons learnt in past agricultural projects so such mistakes are not repeated and research is not lost.
While I agree the inclusion of the biosecurity reference is very important - I do not support it taking over a year to get on with action and implementation. We should be doing it now. What we have here is another committee being set up. Twelve months is a long time, and we could have a major problem on our doorstep, if not in our gardens, while the committee deliberates over its terms of reference. I say, just get on with it, and get on with it quickly. Again, I urge the minister to ensure the program with sentinel sheep and other species is not lost or downgraded, and find it a little disappointing that these aspects were not mentioned in the statement.
Emissions trading is a can of worms, a Pandora’s Box, a large box of tricks which is going to cause a lot of grief and angst in the pastoral industries. The scheme picks up the pastoral industries in 2015 and the biggest issue is where the supply chain will be obliged to pay for the emissions from the cows, goats or sheep, as the case may be.
How are they going to manage a cow’s farts? Who will count them? Will they be divided into different categories depending on what they eat? Will it be based on the weight of the cows or type of feed for the cow? As you know, cows from a feedlot are more odoriferous than their free-ranging paddock cousins. We do not know if we will see the situation when we buy a steak, we have to pay an amount to cover the emissions from the cow which so happily gave up its life for the table.
This statement makes no reference to carbon sequestration, nor does it show that government is working with industry or the community to get the best deal for carbon credits for plantations established after 1989. Why can we not have it before 1989, which may bring benefits to the Territory?
Towards the end of the statement, the minister talked about more policy statements, strategy and vision, and 16 recommendations. If this review is good, meaningful and important, why have we not seen more detail on the recommendations – the main ones? I do not mean the three that are taken up with developing a policy statement, vision and strategies. My fear is that some of the recommendations may refer to the chopping up of the sections, divisions and programs, and I would not want to see this happen. If this is the case, all will be lost and we may as well pack up our bags and go to live in New Zealand. There is no reference to time frames for the recommendations, so we could see things taking a very long time. Yet again, we see the scientific people being bogged down on peripheral matters at the expense of their core business.
The review talks about setting up a stakeholder forum. It is unclear to me. Does the government just want one forum? If that is the case, then it is not going to work, all the stakeholders brought together in one forum. If the minister means multi-engagement, then the word ‘fora’ should have been used. I recommend this, as nursery people do not have a lot in common with crocodile farmers.
I am a little confused and unclear also about other buzz words: ‘an overarching Primary Industries Research Strategy’. Where does this fit with the proposed government strategy on the government’s vision for primary industries as detailed on page 19? Which is it, and how do those strategies relate to each other? The mango workshop mentioned, which was held earlier this month, was not an initiative of the government; it was an industry initiative, as that industry was fed up with government dicking around and showing no direction for their industry and its future. To claim that it was a government initiative is clearly just wrong.
When I first received this statement, I thought it would be a ‘leading light’ document. While I said at the beginning there is a lot of good in it, and I commend the minister for that, it also has a lot of holes and omissions. Government needs to focus more on what primary industry is all about and not get distracted by issues which do not add value to the industry, do not contribute to an expanding industry base, and are not in step with modern day practice of scientific research.
I commend the staff of the department for working under a cloud of uncertainly at the moment in regard to Berrimah Farm, and acknowledge and appreciate their work - individually and collectively - at times, it is cutting edge research, as shown with the identification of the disease affecting farmed crocodiles.
If the minister is serious about primary industry and is going to work hard at that portfolio, then I ask that he takes on some of the issues I have raised here tonight. I would be more than pleased to talk him through some of these matters, and with the industry people in my areas.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on primary industries, because it is a really important industry in the Northern Territory. I want to reflect on the cattle industry and the relationship it had all those years ago, and still has in small ways, with Indigenous people.
The cattle industry gave employment opportunities to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. They supported one another, they cared about their children, and they looked after their children. The wives of the station owners would teach my people how to cook and clean, and speak English and look after their children. And, of course, there was that huge employment opportunity for Indigenous people moving to the east, west and centre of the Northern Territory, working in places such as Narwietooma Station, Derwent Station, Jervois Station and Huckitta Station on the eastern Plenty. There was a buzzing relationship there.
The people we talk to today who have come out of the pastoral industry are the people we know have good literacy and numeracy skills; it was through the interactions they had around the campfires while they were having bully beef and billy cans of tea. It was the communication and the contact they had with one another that allowed our people to broaden their understanding of where the station owners were coming from, and that they were really just friends and wanted to give the Indigenous people the opportunity to raise their family where there were employment opportunities. We can still see that through the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. There are huge opportunities for Indigenous people to get back to that employment possibility of working in the cattle industry.
So many of our Indigenous children have now lost the skills their grandfathers and fathers had, of how to muster and brand cattle and ride horses and bulls. People in the Gulf region, the Borroloola region, still follow the rodeos. In my electorate at Harts Range and Alcoota, they still go across the border to Queensland and follow all the rodeos. They are a breed who still has cattle handling skills instilled in them. They are really rodeo and cattle people. I know a lot of those people live in the Barkly region as well; you can see them walking around with their big 10-gallon hats and their boots. They live and die for the cattle industry. There are also non-Indigenous people like them as well, who live and die for the cattle industry, and that is so good.
I believe the minister has been really productive and has a vision of the possibilities of encouraging Indigenous people to go back into that industry. It is a huge industry in the Northern Territory, and an industry that we, as a government, wholeheartedly support because we know that these people are the backbone of building our nation. They built the Territory along with non-Indigenous people and their families, and their history is bred into this country of the Northern Territory. They are part of the rivers and the landscape we talk about, and you can see it in their grandparents.
However, as the member for Daly was saying, you have a very differently educated group of pastoralists in the younger generation nowadays, where they have foremost in their minds the environmental impacts and aspects of the environment. They have incorporated that with what their grandfathers and their fathers did. The impression we always seem to have of the pastoral industry is: they just love to clear land and get rid of the vegetation. We have a new generation, new blood, who have the environment foremost in their minds. They know that the buffers on the creeks and along their fencelines are very important to the environment, to the bird and the mammal life that we have and enjoy so much in the Northern Territory. These people are so aware of that.
I went to the Daly Douglas for a whole day and sat around talking to these people – not just to hear what these people were telling me, but to feel it. I could feel the passion these people have for the environment. I had great pleasure just sitting around the whole day talking to these people. Some were people older than all of us in this Chamber. Some people were in their 70s and 80s, and some only in their early 20s and 30s, and they were very much about farming the land, looking after the environment, but also knowing they have to get productivity from the land. I believe there is a balance. You can see the balance there. All of us in this House, especially the minister for Primary Industry, have on many occasions spoken about the balance of productivity, supporting the industry, and ensuring that we look after the environment.
I want to get on to my portfolio and talk about the environment. You can see by the clear policies driven by this government that we are not going to make the same mistakes we have seen in many states across this country. All you have to do is go and have a look at South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Fly over, and starting from 100 km to 200 km out of the cities, see the bareness of the country with just little squares with borders around them, where there are buffer zones. The whole country has been cleared. The ramifications of all that is what we see in the Murray River. They are starting to go back and redevelop policies they should have had 20 or 30 years ago to preserve the environment and ensure they leave the environment as beautiful as it was before they destroyed it.
This government has that in mind. We want to leave what we, as adults and Territorians enjoy today in the Northern Territory, for our children and our great grandchildren. We want to ensure they enjoy the beautiful rivers, our beautiful bird and sea life. We want to ensure all this is there for many generations to come, so that our grandchildren can enjoy what we enjoy today and enjoyed when we were young.
It is very important to have a vision of productivity in the Northern Territory, because we are only a small jurisdiction compared to other states in our country. However, we know the productivity of horticulture and the cattle industry is primary in the Northern Territory. We take great pleasure and pride in talking about all these industries.
It is an absolutely wonderful statement, minister, you have brought to this House today because it is a very important industry.
I go back to those remote Aboriginal communities of 30 years ago. We cleared enough land to do farming, but not masses of it. We had piggeries and rodeos and we enjoyed that life because we could get food and vegetables from the gardens and we killed the odd pig every now and then to feed the community. It was a real thriving industry we had then in most of our communities in Central Australia. Yuendumu was huge; Kalkarindji was huge as were Papunya, Hermannsburg, and Areyonga. You can still see the relics of the past in some of these communities if you drive around and have a look at what we had. Those possibilities were brought to us by the relationships we had with the pastoral industry.
When I was a baby and my oldest brother was five years old, my parents lived and worked on Mt Liebig Station, which was on the eastern Plenty. Our parents were nomadic workers so wherever they went, as children, we went as well. We supported our parents while they were working for four, five, or six months at a time at all different stations. You could see they were proud people back then.
Regarding the issue the member for Katherine raised about the Douglas Daly and how the land clearing application forms are too hard, I take this opportunity to place on the public record that my department has been working with these people. My office upstairs has been in contact with Luke Bowen, and we are working things through with them. We take our jobs very seriously and we want to help these people. If I did not care about these people, as the Environment minister, I would not have taken the day to spend in the Douglas Daly and sit down with them and really nut out the issues they have. I want to give these people support. My office is looking at all the issues which have been raised; it has known about this for a couple of days, and my Chief of Staff was on to it straightaway.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the statement that has been brought by the minister to the House, and commend it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the statement, and comments from the member for Katherine and the Environment minister, the member for Macdonnell, in relation to the environment and the way we should develop the Territory. Environment and development can be complementary. Over the last few years we went a little political to the extent that we were scared about development, and although we used the excuse that we were protecting the environment, there was a fear there would be a backlash from certain groups. If we are dealing with the issues fairly and using the right science, the arguments of the people who have those fears - whether they are philosophical or otherwise - should be matched by the government using the science that its own research has shown can allow development in some areas, as long as certain conditions are put in place.
Getting back to the statement, I must admit I picked this up last night and said: ‘Yes, ministerial statement Primary Industries Review’. It is not until you get to page 18 that the minister talks about the review. It could have said ‘statement on primary industry in the Northern Territory, pages 0 to 18; and the review from there to page 22’. It is a little disappointing because I knew this review had been issued. Considering there are 16 recommendations and the minister talked about three, I thought there might have been more emphasis on the review rather than an overview of the current situation with primary industry. Whilst I appreciate many of the comments the minister made in his statement, it seems to me this statement should be about the review, and yet the review gets the smallest share of this statement.
Some comments made in the statement in relation to production seem to be at odds with sections of the review that I have. Minister, I hoped that, maybe, when the statement was made today we could have received a full copy of the review. All I received was this Executive Summary. I rang the Horticultural Association and asked if they had any more than this, and they said: ‘No, that is about all we have’, and they had input into this review. However, I would have thought a few copies of the review for members of parliament would have been a good way for us to ensure this debate was a little more in-depth.
In fact, what I found interesting is the section called Technical Annual Report 2007-08 attached to this. It talked about estimated growth value of plant industries; I presume it is in the Northern Territory. It talked about Katherine and other areas and said:
It went on and talked about fruit production where there was a 29% decline in value compared with the previous year; a decline in yield for mangoes from 18 115 tonnes in 2006 to 15 425 tonnes in 2007; a melon production decline between 2006-07; a banana and table grape production decline of over 60%; in one case, citrus production doubling in the Katherine region; and vegetable production declining in 2007, a 46% decline compared with 2006. There were some increases in the vegetable industry in gourds and snake beans. It noted:
It went on to talk about the trees on Bathurst and Melville Islands. It talked about the nursery industry and about cut flowers.
When I turned over to page 5 and read on, there is no page 6. I have part of a review that is a bit hard to review because I do not have the whole review. I have an Executive Summary. However, what concerned me about those figures, minister - and I hope there is an explanation – is that the figures you have quoted are from the 2007-08 annual report for Primary Industry. I am hearing all these things in your own department’s Technical Annual Report which is part of Turnbull’s Primary Industry Function Review.
It said the value of horticultural production for 2006-07 was $145m, an increase of 52% from 2005-06. That could give you the impression that things are moving up. However, these figures here, minister, appear to be telling me the complete opposite. I am not sure why those figures are markedly different, but I hope there is some sort of explanation for it.
I believe, as I have said before, that this department is the poor cousin when it comes to the Northern Territory. It used to be the shining light; the one we were all very proud of. I hope it can come back to that. I am not knocking the minister; I believe he is passionate about his portfolio. I know from the way he has worked in this House with other portfolios, if he gets the job he will go full slather with it. In these economic times, we should start to push primary industry - not push it in a reckless way. It is a bit like the Chief Minister saying we are getting this money from the stimulus package - are we going to cut a few corners here and there? There is no good cutting corners if it comes back to bite us in the future.
The minister for Environment just talked about problems with the amount of land clearing which occurred down south. You have to be very careful comparing down south with up here. Much of the land that was cleared and we look at now as being an overkill, was done in the soldiers’ settlement period where government stipulated, as part of conditions for freeholding that land, you had to clear just about every tree off the property. Even later, in recent times, some property owners had to clear a percentage of the bush before the government would give them the freehold title. I do not think that is the smartest idea in the world, because it does not take into account the environment of the area.
I had a note, minister, that the Technical Annual Report was not attached to Turnbull’s report, but it is the technical annual report for the Northern Territory for that period. Therefore, I take that back. However, I am still interested to know why these figures do not match the figures in the annual report. There is a big gap between what is here and what is there.
You ask people who know about the soil types in the Daly River, for instance: ‘How much land could you possibly clear for irrigated agriculture?’ It is actually very small. There is no small land in the Daly catchment, there are heaps that are rocky, suitable for making some pastures but, overall, it is not a huge amount of land that can be actually cleared for horticulture production. It might look big, but if you put it in context with the whole of the Daly River catchment, it is not very large. That is not to say we should not have good clearing guidelines. There is a belief out there that people are clearing massive amounts of land on the boundaries of the river. I would never support that. However, when you read the report regarding why the Daly is silting up - and it was very silty when I was down there – it is saying it is simply because we have had increased rainfall.
Anyone who knows the bush knows that when you have fire in the natural bush, and then you get pouring rain in the first big rains, all that topsoil in the natural bush gets washed into the rivers. If you have ever seen the Daly at the beginning of the Wet Season, it has this big red plume going out into Anson Bay. Considering there is very little land cleared near the Daly River, it is obvious where that has come from - it is natural erosion caused by natural processes. Many people have forgotten there are natural processes and that is how you have rivers in the first place, and that is how you get siltation. We should not try to exacerbate nature unnecessarily and create problems. Nature itself can deal with those; we should just look after the land properly and deal with that.
I believe irrigation is certainly the way for the Territory to go when it comes to cropping. One of the problems with the Douglas Daly settlements, when they first came into being, was farmers were told: ‘You get 60 inches of rain here’. But what they did not tell them was you might get 35 in September, then you might not have anything until about mid-January and, then, you might get the other 25. By that time, the crop is dead. If you want certainty when you are growing, you really require a uniform rainfall, and the only way to guarantee water for those types of crops is to have irrigation. Of course, with irrigation you require water, and with water you require the scientific knowledge to say how much water you have for irrigation.
There is work being done. There are water allocation plans, but there is not a lot of discussion about that in the statement. I believe water allocation plans are an issue which needs to be fully debated in this parliament. One of the producers in Mataranka rang me up and said under the new guidelines for water allocation, basically, if she owns a block of land and is irrigating a part of that block of land, her water allocation is quite sufficient for that block. If she wants to cut a piece off that block of land and sell it to someone else, the water allocation is finished. So, she then does not have a water allocation anymore, because that is the rule. I am not sure of the sense behind that. It highlights that we need to discuss some of these issues more. What effect will water allocation plans have on areas like mine? We have horticulture in the rural area. We also have domestic bores and we have the town supply being pumped out of the rural area.
I know the government is talking about what affects the water allocation plans have on horticulture in the rural area. That is an area, I believe, the minister - I do not know whether he has touched on it, and I did not see much in the report - needs to look at, and alternative ways of storing water. There are large amounts of land that could be developed away from the Daly, but we need to look at ways to store water in the Wet Season so we are not affecting Dry Season flows and, somehow, be able to maintain that water in those storage areas for the Dry Season.
That will not be simple because evaporation is enormous in some parts of the Territory, and it is difficult to retain that amount of water. I believe they are issues that, if we are to move ahead, we will have to find some innovative ways of developing our cropping - especially our irrigated cropping.
Regarding the Ord River, the minister said something positive about it at least. I have been reading the details of a media conference the Prime Minister had when he visited Kununurra on 16 December 2008. One of the journalists was referring to development and asked the Prime Minister:
Developing the Ord certainly has the Prime Minister’s support. At least he has been saying he would be willing to talk to the NT government. They are putting in big money; I believe they are putting $195m into the Ord. I believe we need to be there saying: ‘Okay, we are interested. We know we are the third cab off the rank’. Let us ensure the impression put out there is not: this is Western Australia and too bad for the Northern Territory. I believe we need to be out there, because this is an area where irrigated cropping can be done because we have stacks of water. We have to keep the Ord River as a major opportunity to develop the north.
The member for Katherine made comments about the departmental move to Alice Springs. I am one of those who believe that was a silly idea. It was not just a silly idea; I believe it was a political idea, and I understand that governments are not just about straightforward things like science or common sense; they are about politics. Perceptions are important when you are in politics because you want to get into power next time around. If this will convince the people in Alice Springs that you are doing the right thing by decentralising government, I am not sure you picked the right department.
The member for Katherine, I believe, was dead on; Katherine should have been the place. I could have lived with that because it is a centre of our horticultural development and it has mining, agriculture, and it is also fairly central to much of the pastoral work. It is not central in the sense of the whole Central Australian region, but if you combine horticulture, agriculture and pastoral, Katherine is probably the closest you get to being the centre of where the main development is. Plus it has a big research station, which is important.
Touching on research stations, the minister has spoken about changing the research stations. I am interested to hear why, for instance, the Douglas Daly has moved away from some of the cropping it used to do. I remember going there and seeing sesame flowers on the Douglas Daly. They used to have large peanut crops at the Douglas Daly Research Station and it concentrated on some of those cropping areas which should still have some potential in the Douglas Daly region. I understand you have to focus on specific areas to try to get maximum efficiency; however, I am interested to know why the Douglas Daly has gone from being pastoral rather than having some cropping there as well.
There are many issues the minister raised. The big ones are climate change and emission trading. Even I do not have a proper understanding of some of these issues and where they are going to lead us. The Prime Minister mentioned them when he was speaking in Kununurra. I do not know what the ramifications are but, if we want to develop our economy we should not be putting too many more taxes and charges on it, because that is going to make it harder to develop the north.
To turn to local issues; there are some areas which have been constantly producing in the Northern Territory, and one of those is the nurseries. We have had nurseries in my area for many years who have just rolled on - no big fuss – and kept exporting their plants to Western Australia and interstate. There is Darryl South’s nursery and Jeanny’s Nursery in Howard Springs - they export all the time. There is the Girraween Nursery in Howard Springs - another wholesale nursery. Many of them, like the Howard Springs Nursery, supply the local markets like Coles and Woolworths, but they also export. They sometimes do not get quite as much recognition as the bigger crops, but they are very important.
Also, of course, the cut flower industry has developed from a lot of experimental work. It is a major area when it comes to developing the horticultural industries in the Northern Territory.
Finally, overall, the minister’s statement is good. It is a general summary of where primary industry is in the Northern Territory at the moment. We have to do our best to improve it, to expand it - to expand it in a sensible way. Sustainable development is very important. If we want more cattle to go overseas, then we need to question whether the land can support higher densities of cattle. It is no good ruining the land just to fulfil markets. We need to ensure we look after the land. We can do a lot more experimental work, not only in cattle production but, also, horticultural production.
I was going through the drawers in my house the other day cleaning out miles of horticultural notes from when I worked at Bathurst Island and Daly River, and there were all these notes on Taiwanese ...
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was close to summing up. Thank you, member for Stuart.
I was going through the notes and there were descriptions of Taiwanese cabbages and cauliflowers. Someone in the department used to go over to Taiwan to look at varietal trials and they would bring some of those seeds back to the Northern Territory to do trials. I am not saying we should be growing cabbages and cauliflowers, but there was a period where we were not just working for what the industry wanted - and that is important - but we were leading the way in areas no one else was bothering about. We went off on a tangent and tried to grow crops that, if we could find a niche in the market, we could supply elsewhere.
That is what horticulture in many parts of Australia is about. You do not grow a crop 365 days of the year, you will grow a crop at this time because it suits the market there. Then, it gets too hot and you have to try another crop because of the variation in climate. I believe we have a lot of potential to develop horticulture.
I have mentioned before that horticulture is the way to go when it comes to our prisons. When we talked about prison farms the other day, the Chief Minister said, slightly cynically: ‘Oh, we will be growing vegetables’. Well, I have Diploma in Horticultural Science - this is not a serious comment; I am not really upset by it but, to some extent, it is the Chief Minister putting down my trade, which is a very important trade; that is, growing vegetables. There is nothing wrong with teaching people how to grow vegetables, not only for health reasons and providing food, but it is an important skill. If you tell me you can just put a seed in the ground and a cabbage will come out and you will be eating it in three months, I will tell you that is not going to be the case, because the caterpillars will have eaten it, or the termites will have decided to have a go at it or, if you have not watered it, it is probably dead. There is a lot to understand before you can grow vegetables well.
I believe we should be promoting these types of things in our prisons. If we had five prison farms – they do not have to be gigantic to grow vegetables - from one end of the Territory to the other, you have five opportunities for producing fruit and vegetables from five different climatic regions in the Northern Territory, which can be moved up and down according to wherever you live. Work camps might be able to do some of that, but if they are moving in and out of town, it is possibly not the way to go because you need a regular workforce to manage a prison farm.
I believe vegetable farming still has a long way to go in the Northern Territory. We lost much of our vegetable production with the decline of market gardens on communities. As the member for Macdonnell said, she can remember when there were all these gardens everywhere. So can I; I ran some of them and they are not there now. There have been a few attempts. Some intellectual types moved in who thought you could just grow vegetables for a community of about 1000 people from a book that said ‘permaculture’. That is fine; that is a good way to go; however, some of these ideas do not suit the area in which you live. They might suit a back yard for a couple of people, but are not always applicable when you are trying to grow a large amount of food for a large number of people. Again, you need to develop systems according to where you live and the climate.
In summing up, I thank the minister for his statement; there are many issues in there. I could have raised the great issue of cotton. The Katherine Research Station produced cotton. It did the work. It said if you grow it in this manner, using GM cotton, you will not affect the environment. In fact, the funny thing is we are promoting peanuts and mangoes and, if you read the report, it says peanuts and mangoes will have more spraying and use just as much water as cotton. However, cotton is politically unacceptable; it has nothing to do with the science, it is just not politically acceptable. Yet, the Katherine people - our own department under a Labor government - showed that if you do it the right way, using the right techniques, you can grow it.
The problem we have is, we sometimes live in the past. Cotton was a disaster in Kununurra - an absolute disaster. It killed fish - you name it, they did it - they did all the wrong things. No wonder they now have trouble convincing people it is good. I am not saying cotton will be grown because it will be up to some private industry to say there is a commercial benefit in growing it. However, I would hate the government to say to me it cannot be grown because it is environmentally disastrous, when their own figures and scientific reports on the research they conducted at Katherine over seven years showed that, done the right way, it is no different to any other crop.
We need to keep our minds open. We need to look at alternative ways of growing things. We need to look at alternative crops. We need to be innovative. We still need to develop sustained agricultural and horticultural industries. We have the knowledge. We need to be able to go forward. The Territory will one day, perhaps along with the top end of Western Australia, be the food bowl of Australia. When times are tough, as the member for Katherine said, we still have to eat. We still have to eat and horticulture and agriculture is the way to go.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. Let us hope, from now on, there is more emphasis on the importance of agriculture, horticulture and primary industry in the Northern Territory.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of the minister’s statement on the Primary Industries Review. I begin by acknowledging all the work which has been done by the Primary Industries Group within the Department of Regional Development and Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. The minister and I, obviously, share the agency, the one department, and I understand some of the issues that have been raised in the review.
I support the minister in his passion, and his enthusiasm and drive for the portfolio he holds. As we all know, he has travelled extensively throughout Vietnam and Asia promoting the industry and doing the good work, along with many of our representatives of primary industries, selling the Territory to our Asian neighbours. I believe there is no dispute in the House this afternoon about the drive and enthusiasm of our minister.
As the Minister for Regional Development, I am only too aware of the commendable work this group and the department do, as they work in partnership with the sector to promote industry growth and to ensure access to market the Territory produce we have talked about this afternoon.
My colleague, the member for Casuarina and the minister, said the importance of primary industries cannot be overstated, and I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. As the minister said, it is an industry which manages most of the productive land in the Territory and, consequently, is a driving force behind regional development and the creation of jobs in remote areas.
As I told the House last week, if there is one objective above all others in Regional Development, it would be simply jobs. With this in mind, I was particularly interested to hear the minister’s analysis of the Territory’s pastoral industry. The minister said it was worth more than $200m in 2007-08, and is forecast to grow significantly in the coming years if the Territory can increase its share of the live export market.
The minister and the member for Daly mentioned the Indigenous Pastoral Program in the context of bringing Aboriginal land back into production. The Indigenous Pastoral Program is the Territory’s success story. It began in 2003 with a memorandum of understanding signed at Kalkarindji, in my electorate of Stuart, by four key stakeholders: the Territory government; the Northern and Central Land Councils; and the Indigenous Land Corporation. The basic aim of the program is to return inactive Indigenous properties, such as Mistake Creek and Loves Creek, to pastoral production. It also trains Indigenous Territorians in station hand skills and teaches good land management principles.
Last week in the House, I touched on some painful chapters of the Territory’s history. I spoke of the conflict between white and black Australians as pastoralists arrived and acquired vast tracts of Aboriginal land. Obviously, the couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head, is the Coniston massacre and the Gurindji walk-off at Wave Hill Station, both in my electorate of Stuart. I spoke of how Aboriginal people then became the backbone of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, of the mechanisation of the industry and the subsequent reduction of Aboriginal participation in the cattle industry.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program scheme is part of the government’s efforts to turn the situation around. I understand the program is now working on 18 properties, six of which are run by owner management, while the other 12 are leased to outside pastoralists. The program works not only to bring the land back into production, but by providing jobs for young Indigenous Territorians. Dozens of trainees have gone through the program, and I understand the retention rate is well over 50%. From my own experiences in my electorate of Stuart, particularly with some men from Willowra, I understand how successful the program is and how much they really do get out of it.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program is a model of cooperation. As well as the four key stakeholders I mentioned earlier, it also involves the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. I place on the public record my acknowledgement of their hard work. I also congratulate all those pastoralists who are making use of the program to bring land back into production, providing jobs for young Territorians, and increasing our cattle herd.
As Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy, I also pay particular attention to the Territory’s pastoral industry. As I said, we had the mechanisation of the industries in the 1960s and 1970s, but what we are seeing now is the computerisation of the industry.
You can start with the RFID tag, which contains the animal’s details. The tag can be read by a radio frequency ID reader and the information can then be downloaded. Then you have the technology associated with remote management such as walk-over weighing, which is a solar powered system which collects animal weights whenever they access water. There is also automatic drafting which is a pneumatic powered technology which can draft individual animals based on various characteristics including gender, mass, and age. There is also SAND, a telecommunications technology which incorporates video screening to allow monitoring of remote cattle yards and watering points. That sound we can hear is a couple of thousand Territory stockmen turning in their graves, but that is progress for you, I suppose.
In Central Australia, the department’s Primary Industries Group is working collaboratively with Desert Knowledge and CSIRO on the innovative 21st century pastoralism project. This project explores high-tech mechanisms to improve efficiency and profitability for Central Australian pastoralists. It is not surprising that the industry has been enthusiastic in embracing this project. In my travels in the electorate of Stuart, there is no doubt - and I believe the members for Daly and Katherine touched on it - talking to pastoralists, the key issues for them are education, health and roads.
The member for Daly touched on the road situation. I have also travelled thousands of kilometres through various road networks such as the Victoria Highway, the Tanami Highway, the Buntine, Buchanan and Sandover Highways, just to name a few. Roads are an integral part of the Northern Territory, and are vital to the pastoral industry. That is why it is important that we acknowledge the significant amounts of money this government has contributed to improving our road network and beef roads. $52m over four years is a significant injection and I am sure the pastoralists out there welcome the extra money being committed to the roads.
The other topic I would like to touch on is the education aspect, particularly the work of our School of the Air programs, both in Alice Springs and Katherine. I had the pleasure of visiting the Katherine School of the Air some time ago, looking at how technology is also touching the lives of many of the kids out in the remote areas and pastoral leases. In particular, the IDL system allows students and teachers based in Katherine to communicate with each other via videoconferencing.
In closing, as I said before and will say again, regional development is everyone’s business. I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to support the minister and his statement. Once again, I acknowledge the great work he has done for many years in this portfolio. He is a minister who is passionate, enthusiastic and has a lot of drive. He has gone overseas on many occasions selling the Territory very well, along with the industry. I look forward to working with him, particularly in the horticulture areas, which I have not touched on yet. In my electorate, particularly at Ti Tree, there is potential, minister, as there is at Pine Hill and the research farm. There are employment and training opportunities for local Anmatjere men - and women, I might add. There are some women’s courses currently occurring at Centre Farm. Linking employment and training is also vitally important.
I was interested in the Executive Summary of the review which said:
That is correct. As I said, employment and training are vitally important in primary industries and horticulture, and it is vitally important to the Northern Territory and the people of Stuart.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the minister in the very near future.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I also support the statement by the minister for Primary Industry. Minister Vatskalis spoke about the great contribution primary industries really make the Territory. This contribution is no more apparent than in my own electorate. As the member for Barkly, I am particularly aware of the challenges and rewards faced by those who are working on the land to produce Territory-grown products which are exported around the world. I will talk about the Barkly briefly, as that is one of my passions: representing the Barkly and sharing the Barkly with the members of the House and the people of the Territory.
We will go for a little walk through the Barkly from the beef and reef of the Gulf, from the prawns, crabs, fish and the beef cattle to some of the best pasture land in the world, to the live export of cattle from the Barkly Tablelands; to the new horticulture projects that are expanding at Ali Curung. The member for Nelson would be very happy to hear about the watermelons and pumpkins on the south side of the access road and the planned pomegranates for the leaseholds on the north side of the access road.
The Barkly electorate has increased in size and goes right to the Roper River. We have horticultural projects representing mangoes and fruit growing which adds to the level of diversity the minister represents in his statement. The diversity of product and of regions enriches the potential of the Northern Territory in the future. Things have not been easy for pastoralists in the Barkly over the past few years, and the member for Goyder mentioned this briefly. Until very recently, the Barkly and greater Central Australia were in drought. Minister Vatskalis pointed out that warmer temperatures and longer, deeper droughts will become more common across Australia due to the effects of climate change. The other effect of climate change will be more extreme weather patterns which, again, we have seen recently in the Barkly with the floods. Droughts and floods make for tough times, and tough times are what primary producers are used to.
I also commend the minister for the scientific diversity encompassed in the statement, reflecting a new way forward for the Territory and keeping pace with innovative industry standards which will protect and develop the Territory. I welcome the comments from the minister in relation to the collaborative approach the Territory government is taking to work with other governments to develop stronger science and cost-sharing arrangements to reduce the impact of the expected changes in climatic conditions.
We are also working hard in other areas to support primary producers. As the Transport minister, I am committed to supporting the industry by ensuring all primary industry producers have access to well-maintained road networks. As a government, we are taking this responsibility seriously, with a record $271m roads budget targeted at improving remote roads. This is the highest roads budget per taxpayer in the country. In addition, the Australian government has committed to investing $386m on Territory roads, and, recently, an additional $9m through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Roads are the lifeline for many primary producers and, in turn, are essential to the economy of the Territory.
Under the capital works program, the major roads projects this financial year include: the Victoria Highway, with construction of four bridges at a cost of $32m; continued sealing of the Tanami Road, which is an important road for pastoral producers and the mining sector; the Buntine Highway, sealing and widening - $4m; the Plenty Highway - $4m; spending $4m on Pine Hill to support horticultural developments; $3.5m on the Maryvale Road; Santa Teresa Road - $2m; Daly River upgrading stream crossings - $2.2m; Fog Bay Road - $1.5m; Sandover Highway - $1m; the Port Keats Road - $1m plus $9.95m plan; the Central Arnhem Road - $1m; the Arnhem Highway - $800 000; Kintore, Papunya and Mt Liebig Road - $750 000; the Finke Road - $500 000 and the Outback Way - $500 000. That represents a great diversity, as well, in representing regional Northern Territory and supporting the primary industries sector.
In addition, the department has also been working to repair flood damage across the Territory, with a particular focus on the Barkly and Victoria Highways. Under tough conditions, people have been working around the clock to get these flood-damaged roads fixed as soon as possible.
I was pleased to hear of the changes to the structure of the Primary Industry department which minister Vatskalis spoke about earlier, particularly the renewed focus on regional areas, and I look forward to seeing primary industries in the Territory growing and developing. As Transport Minister, I will be actively involved in supporting the industry.
As Corrections minister, I look forward to discussing with minister Vatskalis and his Policy and Services Group, the opportunity of Corrections’ working parties providing a boost to primary industry producers. I believe there will be some fantastic opportunities for work parties to provide direct assistance to regional communities. Initially, it may involve simple projects like painting community grounds or structures, but supporting the lifestyle of primary producers is an important part of supporting the industry. As we progress through the trial stage of work camps, I am optimistic the Barkly community will find many ways work parties can help the community and, in turn, our primary producers. As work camps are established across the Territory, they will have the capacity to provide support to all aspects of the primary industry.
Just as importantly, the training and experience prisoners will receive will provide them with skills necessary to enter primary industry jobs on release, or near their own communities. Prisoners will undertake certificate courses in mechanical maintenance, equipment use, occupational health and safety, stock work, and animal control. They will be encouraged to gain skills in areas determined to suffer labour shortages in certain primary industry categories. As we enter a new era in Corrections, we will also be working towards developing primary industries across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support the statement by the minister for Primary Industry, and agree we have some exciting times ahead. I will be working closely with minister Vatskalis to offer our Primary Industry Group my total support.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank very much all the members for their contribution. I appreciate their concern. Many thanks, in particular, to the member for Katherine for his concern about my increased workload. I do appreciate that. However, I remind him that previously I had the portfolios of Business and Employment, Asian Relations, Defence Support, Tourism and, of course, Primary Industry and Fisheries and Mining. I am not afraid of hard work.
The reality is I am fortunate that this is my second round as minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. I was fortunate to have actually asked, in the first round, for a review and restructure of the Mines department. That has already been a restructured and works like clockwork.
However, when I came back to the portfolio this time, I realised we had to go back and have a look at what the department does, why it does it, whether it does it well, whether it does what the industry wants or what the bureaucrats want. That is why I asked for the review, which was conducted by a private consultant who, after he received his terms of reference, went out and spoke widely to the community, the industry, and the people in the department. As a result, we have refocused the department with regards to research: why we do research, and where the research should be focusing. Is it focused on what people want to do for their PhD, or what jobs a farmer wants to do for his mango farm, his potato farm, or his onion farm? The research has to have a purpose, and the purpose is to assist the industry to grow and prosper.
Also, there has to be regional focus. Should it actually be concentrating everybody in an office in Darwin? Our major production does not happen only in Darwin, it happens in Katherine, Ti Tree and in Alice Springs. We believe the person in charge of pastoral properties should be in Alice Springs. That is the reason we now have a branch of the department in Alice Springs, in particular, in pastoral properties.
As I said before, another of my issues was the lack of extended services. I recall meeting with industry and they told me that, many years ago, people from the department would visit farms. I was surprised and dismayed that people were not doing that any more. That does not only happen in the department of Primary Industry, it happens in many departments. People used to go out but, all of a sudden, they came back into the office and rely upon e-mail, telephone and other means of communicating with the industry. I believe face-to-face communication is vitally important, and this is exactly what we are doing. I have a commitment from my Chief Executive Officer that extended services will be reinstated.
Some people might say: ‘Okay, this is what you say, but what does the industry think?’ I was very surprised a few weeks ago at a function to be stopped by a pastoralist who congratulated me upon the review and the restructure of the department. He said: ‘This is the first time we have seen people coming out. This is the first time we feel really confident the department is going to do what the industry wants’. That was very pleasing.
With regard to roads, I do not have to repeat what my colleague, the member for Barkly, said. This government, since we came to power, has put a lot of money into roads. We have done this work in consultation, especially with the pastoral industry. We asked for a list of roads with priority. We were given the list, and we delivered. Today, I received another list from the pastoralists, from the Cattlemen’s Association, of the roads they want to be maintained and upgraded; the reasons why, and how many thousand head of cattle go through those roads. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Transport, will take this list into account before he allocates money for the maintenance of roads.
I am very keen to see the experimental farms maintained as much as possible; however, some of them have passed their use-by date. Some others though, have become more important because of the climatic change; for example, Coastal Plains. That is very important because we can do research we could not do before on other farms. The Katherine one is very important. Kidman Springs is very important. In Kidman Springs, we have managed to produce and breed cattle we have not bred anywhere else in the Territory. We continue to breed different lines to improve the bloodline of the cattle so we have better exports to other places. I have visited Kidman Springs and I was very impressed with the work they are doing.
I enjoy travelling around the Territory and I enjoy the company of pastoralists and horticulturalists. They are real people. I am fascinated how they do what they do because, to tell you the truth, I am not that kind of person. I would not be able to be in isolation on a station, or work so hard on the land; and I admire them for that. I had to drive miles and miles to visit Napperby Station when I was in Alice Springs, and I have given a commitment that this year, when we go on the show circuit, I will personally drive to different stations from Alice Springs, from the Barkly Highway, as we move up to Darwin - and I will do it. It is easy to fly in and fly out; the difficult part is actually spending time in the car and going on the roads they use and see the conditions they live in. I enjoy that and appreciate it, and I believe they appreciate it too.
My commitment to the industry is well-known. I am very enthusiastic about the industry. I believe the industry has a great future; that is why I strongly support the industry. On many occasions I have expressed my concern about having only one market for our cattle industry. That is the reason I have not visited Sabah in Malaysia, or Sarawak in my own time on private holidays. I used that trip to visit Vietnam. The results we have from these places are very positive, with the most positive response from Vietnam, where people on the ground, are establishing feedlots. People from the Territory’s Cattlemen’s Association and the Exporter’s Association have visited to assist them. We believe Vietnam will be another emerging market in the next few years, where middle-class income is increasing.
Regarding the availability of land, I believe more land must be opened up. I want to work with the pastoralists, but I am always concerned about the mistakes we made in the past when Tipperary Station was opened. They cleared the land, they utilised part of it, and the rest disappeared down the Daly River. That should never have happened. I am very concerned about how things are done and why they are done. I recall the criticism from the previous member for Katherine; she was all for wholesale clearing of the Daly. I totally disagree with that. If we are going to clear land, we have to do it gradually. We have to see how we are doing it, what the consequences will be to the environment, and what will be the outcome of the clearing. Do we get our money’s worth if we clear a hectare of land? Can we utilise it? I do not want to clear land for the next three years; I want to clear land and maintain it for the next 100 years. Land is very important. I do not want to repeat the mistakes they made down south.
The other issue raised was open days for the farms. There are open days. I visited Katherine farm on Open Day and I had a great time; I went to Douglas Daly farm and had a great time, too; I went to AZRI in Alice Springs and had a great time. However, there are no open days at Berrimah Farm because there is not much happening. There are no cattle there as there were 10 or 20 years ago, and there is no production there anymore. What we are doing at Berrimah Farm is mostly testing. We have a laboratory and we are checking for diseases which, to a lot of people, would not mean anything. Plus, people would not be able to get in because of quarantine, especially in the area where they test for viruses. Berrimah Farm was an excellent farm 40 to 50 years ago; it was far away from residential areas. Today, the value is not in Berrimah Farm, the value is in Katherine Farm, Coastal Plains, and AZRI in Old Man Plains and Kidman Springs. These are the farms today which have become very important.
Regarding the abattoirs; there is quite a problem with abattoirs. It is not that we do not have the facilities - we have. Some of them are moth-balled. The problem is we do not have guaranteed supply. If pastoralists can sell cattle at $1.85 live weight and put them on a boat and send them to Indonesia, I do not believe they will be prepared to sell for $1.25 to an abattoir. Every person I spoke to about abattoirs in Katherine told me that if there is no guaranteed supply they are not going to open the abattoirs because they are not prepared to - and they cannot - pay somebody $1.85 live weight as it is today, and make a profit. I fully understand that.
We have an abattoir which is currently operating, in Alice Springs. Mr Garry Dann operates it - selectively, it does some killing. He uses it for cattle and camels because of demands from niche markets. There is also an abattoir in Batchelor; however, it needs extensive upgrading by the owners in order to meet today’s standards, especially export standards.
The problem with abattoirs is not that there is no government support, we try to help the people in Katherine, but the reality is that we can help as much as we can, but they cannot afford to pay the price people get for their cattle on the boat. As long as there is demand from Indonesia for our live cattle export, this is what is going to happen, especially in the northern part of the Northern Territory. Our growers in the Territory are focusing mainly on the South-East Asian market, rather than the Victorian market. To tell the truth, it is probably our fault because we have never marketed the quality of the meat of our Brahmin bulls down south. We can change tastes, and we have to market that, but we have not done it very successfully.
Regarding increased cattle production, yes, that has increased but we cannot put a lot of pressure on the land. The pastoralists themselves are telling me they cannot put a lot of cattle in some areas because different areas will carry different numbers of cattle. How we can increase cattle production is by opening the vast areas of land currently owned by Indigenous interests. We have already started doing that. We have pastoralists who actually rent properties from Indigenous people, such as the Underwoods at Riveren Station, who have an agreement to lease a vast parcel of land from their Indigenous neighbours. The agreement incorporates the contract that if they need to do repairs, fencing, or work on the station, they will hire people from the Indigenous community.
We can overcome the problem of land because the reality is 50% of the Territory is Indigenous land. There are vast tracts of land that are very productive and we can bring them back into production. Elsey Station is a very good example; it is owned and run by Indigenous people. They do the training and people put their cattle there for agistment. So, we can do it and we can increase the capacity of the Territory, not in five years but, if we put our mind to it, very quickly.
Forestry is an exciting project. To tell you the truth, 14 to 15 years ago when I came to the Territory, if somebody had told me we would have mahogany or kauri trees in the Daly River, I would have laughed at them. Now it is a reality. The mahogany trees, yes, they are slow growing, but the return from mahogany is enormous. Currently, it would take thousands of dollars per cubic metre to bring them from Africa, and we can actually produce good quality mahogany timber because we have done our research. The department has been involved for many years in research, and we can do it. The other thing I have no problem with is growing trees for pulp. Why should we cut down old forest trees to send to Japan to become paper when we can have this crop growing and, every three to four years, cut it down and renew it? This is a good way to produce trees to be utilised for today’s needs, especially for paper.
Water is going to be an issue. We see what has happened in the Murray-Darling. It is a significant issue for the future and we have to treat it very carefully. With regard to the member for Goyder’s point about the water supply for Darwin by raising the Darwin River Dam wall by 1.5 m, we can increase the capacity of the dam by 20%. In addition to that, Power and Water has identified and acquired Marrakai, a big area, for a new dam and land in the Adelaide River area for another dam. They consider these will not be necessary for the next 20 years, so they are not going to the expense of creating new dams that will not be used for the next 20 years. That may change, though, and may have to be progressed earlier than that.
However, instead of spending all this money, we can reduce our water consumption by simply recycling effluent. In every state in Australia, thousands of litres go into the ocean every day, with minimal treatment. At the same time, in Western Australia, Perth sends water to Kalgoorlie in a pipeline 500 km long. This was done at the beginning of the 19th century.
We can reduce our consumption of water by using smart water devices such as the dual flush system, which our scientists say saves enormous quantities of water. By simply changing a device which normally uses 10 litres-a-pop down the drain, now it uses four litres. But if you want a thorough flush, it uses 10 litres. By using these smart devices, such as changing the shower rose, you can reduce water consumption by 80%. There are ways to reduce water consumption. Of course, here in the Territory where it rains every day in the Wet, we do not care about water. I have seen people hosing down. If you go south, you do not see anybody hosing; they do not even water their gardens with a hose. There are ways to actually overcome the problem of demand for water.
The other big issue is emission from animals. There is already a lot of debate about animals’ emissions. I respond to the member for Goyder’s concern, regarding how you evaluate where the emission comes from. We are trying to find ways by changing the diet of ruminants, by providing different feeds so they process it differently in their stomachs. We have a very good example with kangaroos; they have a different digestive system and produce less greenhouse emissions than cattle. That is simple science. It will not be long before ways are found to reduce emissions from animals, but it will be a debate that will continue in the future.
The Ord River, for me, is a nation-building project. That is why I am interested in it, and why I initiated the discussion with Gary Gray and my colleagues in Western Australia. I believe the Ord River has the potential to become the food provider for Australia and the world. It also has potential to benefit the Territory, not from food production, but through exports. The closest port to the Ord River is Wyndam, which is very tidal - you can go in and out several times. When I told them that Katherine is only 400 km away from the Ord River, and has a railway line to southern markets, their eyes lit up like Christmas trees. The other thing is that the Darwin port can export produce to other countries.
So, the Ord River is the next very exciting thing. It is going to be very expensive and I do not think that we can do it ourselves but, with assistance from the Commonwealth, we can do it. In previous discussions Western Australia wanted the Territory to contribute to the construction of a canal of sufficient size to bring water to the Territory. The good news is, now they have dropped that demand. They are going to create a large sized canal which will stop 10 km short of the Territory. My next discussion will be with the Commonwealth and Western Australia regarding how that will benefit the Territory, and how we are going to get involved in the Ord River.
Mine is an exciting portfolio. I have argued before that we have the capacity to provide Australia and the world with niche products. We cannot compete with southern Australia producing massive amount of melons, cucumbers and everything else, but we can produce off-season and niche products that have large demand in Australia. We are one of the biggest suppliers of Asian vegetables to Sydney and Melbourne. With our proximity to Asia and similar weather, and the fact that many people here are from Asia and are involved in the horticultural industry, we have high-quality products that are in high demand in the southern states.
I have one last comment. The member for Nelson mentioned a discrepancy in the figures I mentioned and the ones in the report. He had the Information Sheet, NT Plant Industry Profile 2007 from which he quoted some figures but, from the top of this table …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you. I am not going to take 10 minutes.
The member for Nelson questioned the difference between my figures and the figures quoted in the report. However, I point out that, on top of the table it says:
We asked growers to provide us with information, and many did not return the information, so the figures are down.
Overall, Madam Speaker, Primary Industry is an exciting portfolio. I believe we have a unique opportunity here in the Territory because of our weather, and the availability of land and water, to become a big supplier to the rest of Australia with tropical fruit, Asian vegetables, cut flowers - some of our flowers are in high demand because they are different - and live cattle export to Indonesia and, hopefully, Vietnam. My next target will be Korea and China. I look forward to a bright future for the industry, and I thank members very much for their comments and support.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Goyder.
It is signed by the member for Goyder.
Is this proposed discussion supported? I call the member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance: that the demolition of the current Darwin prison, with the building of a new prison on a site which we now know to be at Noonamah, at the cost of over $300m - not $300m, but over $300m - of taxpayers’ money when, despite eight years in government, there is no coherent or comprehensive plan by the Northern Territory Labor government to address the alarmingly high rates of re-incarceration and the disgraceful rates of literacy amongst prisoners in the Territory.
The current Berrimah gaol is young by comparative standards with gaols across the country. It is not an old gaol ...
Mr Knight: Have you been there?
Ms PURICK: Yes, I have actually been to the Berrimah gaol. I actually recall when the old Darwin gaol was operational. I recall the current Berrimah gaol being built, and when the Don Dale Centre was opened.
There have been recent improvements by government in regard to the low-security and medium-security sections. They have been spending money on this gaol over the last five to six years. I know from maps I have studied and from contact I have had with the people associated with Correctional Services, that there is adequate room on that land for expansion.
The location of this Berrimah gaol is on and in an industrial area. It is bounded by industrial properties on Anictomatis Road. It has the Stuart Highway on one side, Wishart Road on the other side, and Berrimah Farm and industrial areas on that side. It is in an industrial location, which is where it should be. It should be close to those services which are required to service a gaol.
What I believe has happened, when the government announced they wanted to chop up Berrimah Farm, ditch all the work of the researchers and the scientists over the last 20 years, move them to different places, and have it as a residential facility, they suddenly realised: ‘Oh dear, we have a big gaol right next door to where we want to build all these houses. We know people will not like this and people will not buy the land. If they do buy the land, then it will be at low prices. So, let us move the gaol’. It was not whether we should look at the Berrimah gaol and at expanding, changing, or redeveloping the Correctional facility; I believe it was a knee-jerk reaction. It was made on the spur of the moment. Someone brought it to their attention that next door to these 600 or so residential lots would be a major Correctional facility.
The government has taken well over 12 months to announce where the new gaol location will be. I will come later to what I think about the location. They announced it was going to be in the vicinity of $300m – or, I should quote: ‘over $300m’. How have they arrived at that figure? Where are the sums to say this gaol will cost $300m and, if not, it could cost more? Sometime later, after the announcement that they wanted to build a new gaol - and do not get me wrong, I do not have an issue with improving the Correctional Services facilities in the Northern Territory - the government then decided they might have a private partnership in regard to the building and development of the new gaol.
Well, what is it? What is this new gaol going to be? Is it going to be a fully-funded Northern Territory government facility, or is it going to be a government/private partnership facility? There has been no detail as to what this new gaol will entail. We do not know whether there is going to be – well, I presume it will be high-security - low or medium-security. We have had no information with regard to the juvenile detention centre, currently called the Don Dale Centre. Will it include the women’s facility? Will it have the remand centre included at this new location near Noonamah?
Will it actually have a mini-hospital? An important question, given its location. The area they are proposing for the new gaol is some 45 km, if not a little more, from Royal Darwin Hospital. It is a long way down the track. People in the rural area already suffer from not getting quick and prompt treatment in regard to injuries and accidents, for no other reason than the distance they live or working from the hospital and the time it takes to get there. Are we are going to have a hospital parked way down the Stuart Highway, then down to Weddell, by some 10 km?
There are questions but no answers at this stage. I believe the planning of this proposed new gaol has been poor at best, and abysmal. The government promised the new gaol would not be near any residential areas. I have a map of the proposed new gaol, and I am sure members have seen this map and, perhaps, the public has seen this map. Perhaps they have not, judging by the phone calls and people coming into my office who do not know exactly where this gaol is to be located. It is next door to rural residential …
Mr Knight: It is 2 km away.
Ms PURICK: Member for Daly, it is in your electorate, but it is also just down the road from Jenkins Road, and people live on Jenkins Road. There is an airstrip on Jenkins Road.
Madam Speaker, the only …
Mr Wood: They are going to fly the prisoners there.
Ms PURICK: Pardon?
Mr Wood: They are going to fly the prisoners back and forward to hospital.
Ms PURICK: Oh, that is how they are going to get them to hospital? They are going to fly the prisoners to hospital when they need treatment.
In regard to the location of this gaol, the government, no doubt, was looking at various and alternative options. My question is: where were the other sites for this gaol, and what were the criteria government used in the selection of this proposed site, right next door to Weddell, and right next door to rural residential?
Government has made a big play of talking about the commencement of the Weddell satellite city, with the first sod turning in around five years. I wonder whether people are thinking of moving, particularly to the areas right next door to where this gaol is going to be. They will have, potentially, a maximum-security prison right next door to them. As it is, the residents of Noonamah and surrounds are very concerned with the lack of consultation. There has been no consultation, no information, no public meetings; no ministers, no government officials even considering talking to the people in the area about putting a major facility to the value of $300m-plus there.
There has been, over the past little while, quite a bit of comment and discussion in regard to the development of a master plan for the Noonamah area. That is going to be difficult in regard to the development of the rural area, and the Noonamah area in particular, now the government proposes to put a gaol smack back in the middle of a rural residential area.
One of the other things that government seems to have overlooked is the Darwin gaol and other gaols - and I only speak in this regard to the Darwin gaol - do have a lot of activity to and from the gaol with families, friends, and loved ones visiting. We have the most appalling public transport system into the rural area at the best of times and yet, they are proposing to put a gaol some 45 km down the Stuart Highway, and in by about out 10 km, and expect it to be accessed by prisoners’ family members easily. It is just not going to happen. That is an appalling situation for the families of people who are in the gaol. As I said, we still do not know exactly what components of the Correctional facility will be built near to Weddell. Will it be high, low, or medium security, or will it be juveniles? Will it be the remand centre? If it does include the remand centre, that raises interesting issues as well because there is a lot of toing and froing into the court system. That is going to add additional expense in the delivery of services to the Correctional facility. I wonder whether this has been factored into the equation of building a new gaol. Perhaps that is why they believe the cost will be over $300m. Over as in how much over? Will it be $100m over, $50m over?
The other component about this whole new Darwin prison is that government, by its own admission, has said it will be full by 2016. That is just seven years away. What happens then, when it is filled? What work is being done by this government to keep people out of gaol? Where is the evidence of any diversion schemes? There are none - not that I can see, not that I can find. There are no coherent programs in regard to keeping people out of gaol. There are no comprehensive plans.
The Country Liberals have a plan and a policy. If you go to gaol and you cannot read and write, we will teach you to read and write, so that you have those skills when you leave the facility. If you do not have any skills that can get you gainful, meaningful employment, we will give you the skills.
The minister and the government have talked about setting up a farm, a prison farm or a work camp at Tennant Creek as part of this package. Well, what a surprise being in Tennant Creek. Again, there are scant details. How many people are actually going there? Is it going to be just the people from Tennant Creek, or are people going to come down from Darwin to Tennant Creek? We know that the majority of our population in gaols are people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. Are they going to be moved to these workplaces, or is it just people from Alice Springs who are going there? Does the cost of building the new Darwin prison include the cost of putting this workplace at Tennant Creek?
I have no issue with expanding and improving the Correctional Service facilities in regard to the Darwin gaol. However, is it the best use of money? Is it the best use of taxpayers’ money? What analysis has been done in regard to moving the gaol? Is $300m an accurate figure? The track record and the history of major projects in the Territory, as well as elsewhere, is you can never conclusively pin them down to the original quote or price. Therefore, what plans does government have for overruns, for whatever reason? Again, there is scant detail.
What other sites had been considered, and why were they not suitable? Why is this site the most suitable, and what was the criteria for the selection of this site? A $300m project is a substantial sized project. I ask the minister and the government: given its size and scope, will they be conducting a full environmental impact statement in regard to this new gaol? I suspect not, and that is wrong. It is a major project which will have its own sewage treatment plant, water supply issues, energy efficiency issues, social impact issues, all of which would be considered in an environmental impact statement. I urge the government, if they are going to go ahead with this project at that location, to undertake a full environmental impact statement. I am quite sure there is some migratory bird species that will be impacted by this project being located where it is. I am sure there will be a threatened species located exactly where that gaol is going to be. I believe and I am sure that they should do full environmental impact studies.
It is not surprising that this announcement has come from government because, once again, it is showing it is short-sighted in regard to planning, and this has been a knee-jerk reaction in regard to: ‘Well, we need to get rid of Berrimah because we are going to have a potential subdivision nearby, and those nice urban people will not like the gaol located nearby’.
The government, by announcing they are going to relocate or build a new gaol, has not given any consideration to how they are going to keep people from going to gaol. There have been no coherent or comprehensive plans in regard to keeping people out of gaol, or for having people not reoffend, which is probably the more important thing. Yes, sometimes people run amuck and they do the wrong thing, they make the wrong choices and they end up in gaol. However, the important thing is to keep them from making those mistakes again. This government has not indicated - not to my satisfaction and not to the opposition’s satisfaction - that it has any plans to decrease the number of people going to gaol, or to keep people from repeating the offence they went to gaol for in the first place, or any other offences.
This is a matter of public importance, and I do not think the public is either comfortable or informed in regard to this new gaol: whether this is the best location, whether there are plans in place, other than bricks and mortar, to drop the rate of people going into our gaols. I do not believe this is the end of the story. I know, from the information, contacts and the telephone calls I have had in my electorate office, that people are extremely disappointed. Indeed, they are angry with the way government has treated them in the rural area, particularly in Noonamah. They feel they have been treated with disdain, without regard to what they feel and their rural lifestyle. It is not the end of the matter.
I urge government to seriously look again at relocating the gaol or building a new gaol, and put some money towards looking at the current facility, which is an ideal facility in regard to cost efficiencies and effectiveness - from the point of view of prison officers, visitors, the specialists who need to visit, and service delivery to the gaol, which we have overlooked in this equation.
For people travelling from the northern suburbs to the proposed site will take about an hour by road. The only thing I can say is that they will be going against the traffic going to work, and against the traffic going home from work. That is something for consideration. It will put more strain on the Stuart Highway, which is already at capacity with regard to vehicle numbers; it is double lane but it is at capacity, as I said. I do not believe government has given any real thought to the planning or servicing of this new gaol in this new location.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to reconsider and to keep the gaol where it is. They should give information and funding towards implementing programs that will keep people out of gaols and equip them with the necessary skills, qualities and knowledge to lead normal lives.
I leave it to my colleagues to talk further in regard to this matter.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, somewhat unusually, the government sits and waits, obviously not too enthusiastic about this motion. Why should they be? Because this definite matter of public importance dares to have a go at government and asserts, rightly, there is no comprehensive or coherent plan by the Northern Territory Labor government to address the alarmingly high rates of re-incarceration and reoffending, and the disgraceful rates of illiteracy amongst prisoners in the Territory.
The member for Goyder has raised a number of issues. I wish to discuss something of the history of this Labor government and, by the end of it, I feel certain that even the true believers on the other side will be so utterly persuaded by our arguments they will feel like coming over and joining our team. However, it is always important to make an assertion and then follow it up with some details.
There is no coherent or comprehensive plan by this Labor government to address reoffending rates or the rates of illiteracy amongst prisoners in the Territory, nor has there ever been. There have been attempts, from time to time, little cobbled together bits of information - an announcement here, an announcement there, a couple of ministerial reports or statements every so often - in an attempt to persuade Territorians that the government has these issues in hand. Well, they have not fooled anyone. The government has failed, and has continued to fail to adequately address law and order in the Territory.
We see, under a Labor government, an unprecedented number of Indigenous prisoners and the highest rate of reoffending in the country. The most recent statistics - I think they were from December last year - showed that 70% of male prisoners had been in gaol before, compared to a national average of 55% - a significant increase by any measure. In addition, our gaols are bursting at the seams, consistently over and above capacity, and it has been so for many years. Even those dedicated and loyal Labor voters must be tearing their hair out because they know, as we know, there is not, nor has there ever been, a comprehensive plan by this government to address the alarmingly high rate of reoffending or the disgraceful rates of illiteracy.
Somewhat remarkably, Labor asserts that having people in gaol shows not that more crimes are being committed, but that the baddies are being caught - and lots of them are. It is an astonishing argument, because we say the proper argument or the proper thing to say is: our gaols are full and getting fuller by the minute because more people are committing more crimes. That shows Labor has failed to adequately address law and order. You do not have innocent people, generally, in our gaols; you have baddies who commit crimes. They are the ones in the gaols and, because there are so many under this Labor government, that is why our gaols are full.
Labor has known about the overcrowding for many years, but such is the inertia of this administration that they have really only just got to it. When the former, failed Justice minister made one of those never-never announcements in about April last year, you wonder whether he smelt an election in the air. In any event, he said: ‘We are going to build a new gaol’. Then we saw government dragging its feet. The then minister said a site would be identified in September. It was not. Then, after the election, news emerged that things were not as they seemed.
From nowhere it emerged the government was considering the option of a public/private partnership to build a new $300m gaol. Nowhere in the new minister’s announcement last week, or in any comments made by his enthusiastic but dull colleagues, was there any reference to the public/private partnership. So, it begs the question: where is the money coming from? They say they are open, honest, transparent etcetera. Well, surely, at least in this debate, they will elaborate on this public/private partnership arrangement.
A walk down memory lane is always useful when critiquing the achievement, or lack thereof, of this government. It goes to our assertion that there is not, nor has there ever been, a coherent or comprehensive plan to address, in particular, the high rates of reoffending. Peter Toyne - I liked Peter Toyne as a human being; Peter Toyne was a good bloke. However, poor old Peter Toyne was Labor’s first Justice minister, first Attorney-General. He gave it his best shot, but it does show that it is just a bit here, a bit there. They make an announcement, they try their best to get a few media hits, and then they walk away thinking about how else to make their next media hit.
I remember, in October 2002, in a ministerial report, Peter Toyne talked about the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy. He said the strategy:
Further, he said:
We say clearly, that strategy has not succeeded because of the high rates of Indigenous people in our gaols and the highest rates of reoffending in the nation.
Peter Toyne said - and I remember when he started to talk about integrated offender management. From time to time, every year or so, he would put something out about IOMS. Well, it does not appear that has been very successful, either. Again, in October 2002, he said:
He went on and said:
Well, it has not worked. Why has it not worked? Look at the figures – not our figures - significant figures published nationally that show the Territory has the highest rate of reoffending. Should that be a concern to government? Too right it should. Would you think that any government worth its salt would have a coherent and comprehensively planned attack for this? Too right you would. But, alas, this government does not.
In May 2004, Peter Toyne rose to:
It has not worked – it clearly has not worked. You never had a plan and, if you did have a plan, it cannot have been coherent, and it certainly was not comprehensive.
He said in May 2004:
Now, this is a ripper. I will not digress, I will stick with quoting. Of course, we have the new Corrections minister and he may want to do his own search of the Parliamentary Record. Peter Toyne said:
Yes, 2004. He went on to say:
Well, it does not look as though those reforms were terribly successful either.
In August 2004, Peter Toyne came back into the Chamber - now you will love this, minister, because he said:
Read your own stuff. This is not the Country Liberals coming up with bits and pieces and merely submitting it to you. This is what the great man himself had to say. This is government, in its first term - and I have always said its best term was its first – when it had a spring in its step, said it was going to save the world. Well, you failed. And you failed because of the figures.
We are, in a sense, flattered that the government has tried to peel off some of the Country Liberals’ policy with respect to Corrections as outlined at the last election. We are flattered, but we believe the government should have taken on all of our proposals. That was a coherent and comprehensive plan to deal with reoffending and educating our prisoners, in that part of our policy relating to prison farms. I know members opposite are familiar with our policies so I do not need to quote great chunks from it.
The prison farm for Katherine was an idea which has received even recent support from associations which one would not expect anyone to say, as a group, are actual supporters of this side of politics. Support came from the North Australia Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) in a media release issued after the member for Arafura became Attorney-General. They said they wanted a meeting with her and they wanted - according to the ABC report - her to address ‘trying to reduce the incarceration rate’. The Chief Executive, Priscilla Collins, said that NAAJA ‘will lobby for a prison farm to be set up near Darwin’ - a prison farm. On the 10 February, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the next group, called on the then new Attorney-General to halt plans to build a new prison at Berrimah. The association’s President, John Lawrence, said - and I quote from the media report:
Note his use of the words ‘prison farm’.
When the Chief Minister rose to his feet on 12 January to help as best he could his new, albeit junior, minister for Corrections, he took the mickey out of prison farms. He said they were about growing vegetables. Two significant things arise: first, it is not about growing vegies and he knows it; and second, he did not take the mickey when NAAJA and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association talked about prison farms. Well, no, he could not do that; that would be getting a natural constituency offside. No, just take the mickey against us in parliament. What it does show is his supreme arrogance and that the Chief Minister, as captain of the ship - albeit for now - just is not prepared to recognise a good idea when he sees one.
What we have seen is a slight twist and a small variation. Government is now proposing work camps - no details, a few sweeping statements, a media release, a few questions in parliament, and a work camp with some people in Tennant Creek. There are very few details. I believe you indicated, minister, that it would deal with a relatively small numbers of prisoners. Our prison farm proposal for Katherine was significantly bigger. There was nothing about how the programs would be delivered, or how the education and other programs would be delivered to address reoffending. You have your media hits, presumably; however, I am sure in a couple of years time we will be here again talking about your lack of a coherent or comprehensive plan to address the high reoffending rates in Territory gaols.
Unfortunately, I am running out of time, so I turn to literacy. Peter Toyne made some references to literacy during the period he was Attorney-General. I believe he was genuinely committed to achieving better outcomes. He could not do it because he was part of a team which did not provide the vision, the resources, or the ability to actually deliver. We should be appalled at the low literacy rates, generally, in the Northern Territory but, also, for the purposes of this particular debate in relation to our prisons.
We were very clear in the election campaign and, frankly, I thought it was a great policy - a really good policy - of the Country Liberals. We said that all inmates will undergo testing to assess their levels of literacy and numeracy. We also said that prisoners who do not meet basic standards will be put through basic literacy and numeracy courses. Our position was clear, coherent, comprehensive and well understood with respect to literacy and, I believe, very well received by many Territorians.
All we got last week was a line or two from the Chief Minister that prisoners: ‘will be assigned an education and training plan’. That is fundamentally different from our very hands-on approach: ‘If you are a prisoner this is what is going to happen to you. We are going to give you the skills’. What was delivered last week was, with respect, very fluffy,. You have attempted to peel off a couple of bits and pieces of our policy, but you really should have taken the whole policy, because Territorians will be better served. There was nothing about business being tested. That was really quite disappointing.
The CAYA report of 2005, I think it was, said in relation to literacy that about 80% of inmates have not achieved public school graduation levels which are necessary to thrive in society, and more spaces are needed. They recommended making literacy mandatory be considered. I have no problems with that; I feel you should. Given our appallingly high rates of illiteracy for people in gaols, you should make it mandatory. I do not have the specific recommendation in front of me, but another recommendation of the CAYA report about which Peter Toyne spoke when he talked about the new era -- the other new era - was the recommendation that programs be delivered with expanded access to education.
Much has been said, much has been written, but you just have not delivered. There has been no coherent or comprehensive plan. I assume, minister, your briefcase or backpack is probably full every night taking home all sorts of things saying: ‘You should read this’, and ‘You should read that’. I recommend to you a report published sometime after the CAYA review and, subsequently, published elsewhere called 123 BIG Mob! concerning literacy in our gaols. That would be a useful tool for you.
I am rapidly running out of time but, in essence, we want government to succeed in this area. No one wants to see our gaols full of prisoners. We should not strive to build more gaols; we should be striving to have small gaols so few people need to be in them. Alas, that is not the case under the Labor administration in the Territory. For God’s sake, and for the sake of all of us, can you please get fair dinkum about a new era and start to deliver a coherent and comprehensive plan to address high rates of re-incarceration and rates of illiteracy?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing forward as a matter of public importance what I believe the government should have brought forward as a statement on gaols. For too long we have been told there is going to be a new gaol but, unfortunately, we were not told where. Now we have been told where, we have only been told that it was the cheapest option. That is about all the information we have about why this site was picked.
I would like to speak about two issues: (1) why I believe the site of Berrimah gaol should be the place where the new gaol is built; and (2) raise the issues of having less people in the big concrete gaol and more people in alternative forms of incarceration.
A little geography regarding why I believe moving the prison to Weddell is a bad move. You simply have to get hold of this map and have a look from a planning perspective. Forget the ideas the government has about putting housing in here. The prison is surrounded by land that is industrial, conservation, rural living, or East Arm port development land. You would probably get a better look if you got a bigger map. You will see how ridiculous it is to put housing there. There is plenty of land at the Berrimah Farm, if the existing land is 86 ha …
Dr Burns: Not enough.
Mr WOOD: There is 86 ha of land at the existing prison site. That is nearly the equivalent of the land of Berrimah Farm, and the government is intending to sell Berrimah Farm. There is adequate land on the site of Berrimah Farm, adjacent to the Stuart Highway, to put a new prison. You have to take into account there is a $7.2m low-security prison that was completed just two years ago, and I went to its opening. Everyone was very proud and the previous minister for Corrections said he was very proud of it. What are we going to do with that? Bulldoze it? We have Don Dale Centre which has just been upgraded to take more prisoners. Are we going to get rid of that? There is no mention of what is to happen to those two important Correctional Services facilities. Here is an opportunity to have our prison and put even a small prison farm next door. The soil at the top there is quite good for growing vegetables, because it has been a research station for umpteen years, doing research on vegetables.
I need to say up-front that I support the government’s proposal to do something about the existing prison. I visited that prison twice; it is out-of-date. If we are serious about helping numeracy and literacy, then we need a better facility than Berrimah. It has an education facility stuck in an old hall; you need to build purpose-built facilities for education. The remand centre is extremely poorly designed. In the administration block where prisoners come in, walk into an office, strip off their clothes and have a shower - everyone is going past doing their paperwork. Really, it is not the way it is supposed to be - not the way a modern prison should work. It might have been good for its time but, if we are in the business of trying to change people’s lives, trying to do something good for people, then this prison is not the way to go. However, that does not mean that the prison should go.
Why is Berrimah such a good spot for a prison besides having plenty of land? It is 10 minutes from the courts – 10 minutes from here. I will get on to Weddell in a minute. If you look at this map, Darwin is there and that is the distance to the courts from Berrimah. I do another three of those before I get to Weddell. So, in simple plain language: what does the court cost; what does the transport cost? Remand prisoners have to get moved out. People are travelling long distances. No one has convinced me that the existing site including some land next door, which is all Crown land, cannot be used to upgrade the very prison the government and I both agree should be upgraded, without putting it on a piece of country which they had never mentioned. By the way, they never mentioned it in the glossy brochure they put out the other day. The glossy brochure about Weddell said it has 2000 ha, estimated 10 000 blocks of land, private investment in divisions, $740m development cost, affordable housing, buildings, shopping and commercial centres, parks and open spaces. It did not say a new gaol - nowhere. This came out about a week or so before the government decided to announce that Weddell was the place.
I keep putting it in simple, plain language: there is adequate land here to put the gaol. We do not need to put housing here. The government has been saying things like: ‘Well, Harbour Town is going to build there now, so that is all the more reason we should have houses’. They decided houses before Harbour Town. Harbour Town just became a convenient excuse. The land does not have to be used for that. By having the gaol in Berrimah you also have the advantage of maybe helping prisoners get jobs in nearby industries. I visited two prisons in Marysville, Ohio, and the prisoners in the therapeutic community sections of those prisons where allowed to go to work in the local town for a full day. They left at 8 am and came back at 5 pm. Here we have an industrial area and a port; that gives us the opportunity to allow people to get training, on the spot, in industry. It also allows industry to have an area within the prison grounds, which they have to pay rent for, where they may be able to employ people within the prison facility to work in private industry. I believe there is great opportunity there.
And we are going to stick them down next to the mangroves. Some people might say: ‘Well, they are prisoners, too bad’. However, prison officers work there; I am not sure they will want to work in the mangroves with the sandflies etcetera.
I want the government to reconsider. It is big money. Do not put it in a place where you do not need to put it. The government said the other day: ‘We are going to develop Weddell’. I think it is time we moved on, it has been on the cards for 25 years. I said: ‘Let us get the competition going so we can have decent planning and so we know what the town will look like’. You would think that is the way to go. All of a sudden, without any of those conditions of planning, they decide to plonk the prison there. Well, what happened to the planning? This is the present Litchfield map; there is no talk about a prison in Weddell and, all of a sudden, out of the blue, they decide to put a prison in Weddell. When they announced Weddell, there was no mention of the prison.
To me, when it comes to planning, we have done the wrong thing. Sure, let us plan Weddell. Just for the sake of saying that is where the prison should go, you would say to whoever was going to do the design that we need part of Weddell left for a prison. But, no, we will put the prison in first, and then we are going to go off and design the town. That is cart before the horse stuff, and we should really not be going down that path.
Also, there is a possibility we will lose some valuable land for housing because on the map, which I have only been able to get because someone faxed it, and is the closest I have to the new map of Weddell – it is very hard to understand exactly what is happening. I gather there is a buffer around the prison. I have only seen the coloured copy once and when I asked if they could send it to me, it came out in black and white. It has been very hard to get any information. I asked the library if they had a copy of the new site for the prison and I received a copy of the press release, but I could not get a copy of this one. In fact, you cannot get a copy of Weddell unless you go upstairs and have look at it. They are not handing them out. From a planning perspective, it is very important that we look at Weddell at the present time.
I also do not believe we should be locking 80% of our people up in this particular type of prison. Certainly some people who have committed really bad crimes need to be locked up in prison, and we know they should spend a long time being punished. However, we know a lot of Indigenous people have not necessarily committed major crimes - they are not bank robbers - they have done stupid things in their lives, and we know alcohol plays a big factor. So we need to have a range of options.
I mentioned to the new minister for Corrections, who has a very big job, how they have therapeutic communities in Ohio where a group of men or women work together to try to change their lives around as a group. It is different. I recommend the minister goes to Ohio and has a look. It may not be suitable, but it is an alternative way to try to change people’s lives. Education is very important in Ohio. I spoke to women in the classroom there, and they try to get up to high school level before they are released so they have some way of getting a job when they come out. It is the same with the men. That is one style.
I visited the Wyndham work camps, and I congratulate the government for looking at it; it needs more planning. I went to Hamilton Downs youth camp recently. That is not necessarily part of Corrections, but it is another way of trying to get involved in how we handle juveniles who could be at risk. It is part of the total package we need to look at. We do not really want to be handling everybody once they have gone through the court system; if we can beat that by early intervention that would be great.
I am writing to the Minister for Correctional Services in Western Australia to see if I can visit a prison farm work camp about 300 km out of Perth. I still think it is important that we look at prison farms and work camps as part of a total package. We can educate people and give them some skills, whether it is laying paving bricks, mending houses in Tennant Creek, doing fencelines out on a cattle station, or growing vegetables, I do not care. We can try to give people a reason to live, and try to show them that by doing good work; you do not have to get into crime. That is what we should really be doing.
There are no simple solutions, but I agree with the member for Araluen; we have been travelling for eight years. We closed Wildman River down - and I am not picking on the government here - Beatrice Hill and Gunn Point were closed down by the CLP. Both sides, I believe, went backwards when they did that. We need to return to those different methods of trying to help people who are in need. Yes, they are there to be punished. People will say to throw the key away but, if you throw the key away and kick people when they are down, in a lot of cases they will just come out worse. Punishment is okay - no qualms about that. However, if we do not have the other side, which is: ‘We want you to come out a better person, and we do not want you back in here’. That is the overall picture you have to have in dealing with the vast numbers of people we have in our prisons.
We should be ashamed of the number of people we have in our gaols. In a small place like the Territory, we have nearly 1000 in Berrimah and about 500 in Alice Springs. It is packed to the rafters in Alice Springs. You would have to ask whether the planning has been any good. We should not have that many people packed into those prisons.
In summary, I ask the government to reconsider its siting of the prison. And I believe you need to consider the issue of what you are doing to the families of those people who are in this prison. Most of them are Indigenous; many are low-income people. You go past Berrimah gaol and Tivendale Road bus stop at different times of day, and you see who is sitting at the bus stops on both sides - they are Aboriginal people. Their only way to that prison is by bus; they probably cannot afford a taxi.
It is so important in prisons that we do not punish the children. I am sure there is something in the Bible about passing on the father’s sins to the son, etcetera. Well, that is not what we are about. For sure, the person in gaol is there for punishment, but do not punish the family. Hopefully, what you are trying to achieve is when the father comes out he knows he has a family to go back to; he has a wife and kids. In some cases, the only way some of these families can visit their dad if he is in prison, is via the public transport system. We are not going to have a public transport system at Weddell for ages. It is 45 minutes at least by car. We can only get a couple of bus services to Howard Springs these days; I believe one goes down to Noonamah via Bees Creek once a day. It might sound a small thing, but it is a very important thing that people should be able to access the prison, especially for the sake of families. That is all part of good rehabilitation.
I plead with the government: forget this silly idea of housing. We have a stack of blocks of land being developed in Palmerston. The government has been telling us about all the suburbs it is going to develop. It has just said it will turn off Weddell. Why do we need to promote this? You also have Lyons and Muirhead. Why do you need this area? What is the big rush? I believe we need to think this thing through again. I will congratulate the government if it says forget the housing for the time being; this is the proper site for it. There are many difficulties with having housing here too. Do not forget there is an airport; there is industry on both sides. At 5 am BHP moves all its oil rig equipment from Berrimah. I do not know what the people living next door are going to say when the lights are on and the noise is coming from that area. The best use of this land is for the prison.
Please reconsider it. I hate to see money wasted. I would hate to see the idea: well, we are going to build a new prison and it is going to be ‘you beaut’; and you do not take into account all those other things like: the cost of transport, the contact with families, that the prison on its present site is really not affecting anyone. I do not get complaints about the prison here. Why move something that is not a problem when you have plenty of land to do it? I ask the minister: what are you going to do with the $7.2m low-security prison and the Don Dale Detention Centre when you move to Weddell?
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome the fact that this very important matter of public importance has been brought on for debate here tonight by the member for Goyder. I have listened very carefully to the speakers thus far, and there are deeply held views, particularly by the member for Nelson. Also, the member for Araluen made a very good contribution to this debate.
This is an important issue. It is one that, to be honest, government has grappled with for a number of years now. I believe the member for Nelson has at least acknowledged that the Berrimah Prison is past its use-by date and is completely inadequate. We would have to spend a large amount of money anyway to reshape that prison. I will outline later why that is not possible.
There are all sorts of things that government could be spending money on, and you would think the prison is the last priority. I have come to the point where I realise that not only does government have responsibility for building schools, health clinics and police stations, we also have a responsibility to our Correctional institutions, not only the infrastructure, but also - as the member for Araluen pointed out - the important outcomes which come out of those institutions.
No one in this place would deny that the outcomes from Berrimah at present are totally unsatisfactory. Part of that has to do with the infrastructure and the programs which can be delivered within that infrastructure. There is a wider issue here, though - the social determinants of what is driving or leading people to gaol. Those of us who think about these things and have observed for a long time believe it is to do with social and economic disadvantage. It is arrears in education. It is a whole range of issues that, through those social determinants, not only drive adverse outcomes for people in health, but also their interaction with the justice system.
That is why this government - and I probably do not have time in the scope of this matter of public importance - is focused on regional and economic development; about attempting to improve educational and health outcomes particularly for Indigenous people in the bush; trying to address issues associated with alcohol and alcohol abuse. These are very difficult issues to grapple with. However, this government, through our Closing the Gap strategy, policy and funding, believe we are making some difference.
I am acknowledging here this evening that there is a problem – it is a lot wider than the gaol, but the gaol is part of it. I want to place on the public record from the start that the site of Berrimah gaol is inadequate. It is inadequate in area; it is not big enough to hold the capacity of a 1000-bed gaol that we are talking about with this new Correctional facility. Plus there is a forensic mental health facility that is also a proposed ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: If members opposite would show me the courtesy. I listened in silence to what the members opposite had to say; please give me the courtesy of listening.
The other thing about the Berrimah site - and government has looked at this very carefully - is that developing on that site would require a mountain of fill, particularly down the back end of the site. It is a lot more expensive than a greenfield site. We investigated that very thoroughly.
Also, because of the area of Berrimah and its proximity even to the industrial land, the buffer would be really insufficient regarding any residential or commercial development that would go on there. There would be insufficient buffer. That was an undertaking I gave right from the very beginning, as a previous minister, about its proximity to housing. The other point about the current site is it is completely unsatisfactory to have a construction site on an operating gaol. That is the advice we have had from the Correctional Services people.
The current gaol has not only gone past its use-by date in its physical infrastructure. Anyone who goes out there and sees the woeful, pitiful education facilities and other aspects of it, and the gross overcrowding, would realise that it is time for a quantum change in what we are doing in Corrections.
One issue regarding Berrimah is this development needs to happen very quickly. We have already exceeded our prison numbers. From memory, we are in next year’s projections from where we were last year. That is the dire situation we are in. A Berrimah Farm facility would need a staged approach to actually relocate those facilities elsewhere. For that reason also, the Berrimah Farm - apart from the issue of proposed residential development on that site - is also unsuitable.
The member of Goyder asked: ‘What is going to be there? We know very little’. I can tell you, member for Goyder, we have the unsatisfactory situation in remand - which is bursting at the seams now - where there are so many people that some of those remand prisoners actually have to go into the general gaol population. After scrutiny, they are usually people who have been in gaol before. It is not completely satisfactorily; it does happen in other jurisdictions; however, the situation with remand is completely unsatisfactory. Remand, low-security, medium-security and maximum-security will be shifted to the new facility.
Another thing about a complete greenfield site is the efficiencies that will be inherent in the new facility in the numbers of prison officers who need to be present. If you go out to Berrimah now, because it is so higgledy-piggledy and has grown like Topsy, any movement of prisoners within the current facility needs many prison officers to oversee it. In modern Correctional facilities, Berrimah actually has a very high ratio of prison officers to prisoners, and that is unsatisfactory.
The intention is that much of the infrastructure which has been put into Berrimah will be able to be moved out to the new facility. There has been investment in things that can be transported. Even some of the physical infrastructure in the fence security will also be able to be transported and resurrected, if you like, in the new facility.
Regarding crime, we have more police. We have 18 more police stations as a result of the intervention - I acknowledge that - 329 more police officers than in 2001; and laws that are a lot tougher. There is no doubt the community is demanding of government - and the opposition, as an alternative government - to pass laws which show we are tough on crime. It is a major point of debate within this House. There is a public expectation that governments - does not matter what colour - will be tough on crime. Both sides have been accused by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of having an auction, if you like, on who is toughest on crime. There is a community expectation that if people do the crime, they do the time.
I believe the 1000-bed facility will allow us to put more rehabilitation in education skills programs in place. We certainly do not have the capacity now. We want prisoners who cannot read when they go to gaol to be literate when they leave. We want those who struggle with alcohol or drug abuse to get clean and address the issues that made them take those paths. We want those who have no skills to undertake training and to leave with increased job prospects. As has been discussed here - and I think it got a tick from the member for Nelson - are prisoner work camps in the regions. There is, obviously, a very good model operating in Western Australia. I trust the new minister will go over there. Obviously, the member for Nelson has been there and he thinks it is a good idea. Prisoners will gain skills and make reparation to society. Also, being located in the regions, it will give an opportunity for these people in the regions to see the rehabilitation of these prisoners.
I spoke about Closing the Gap. We have had, under Closing the Gap, expanded rehabilitation programs for sexual offenders to break the cycle of reoffending; expanded the elders visiting programs of four communities to now include Lajamanu, Kalkarindji, Yuendumu and Tennant Creek, and discussions are continuing in other centres.
This government has also tried very hard to address alcohol abuse, which is behind so many crimes. As I said before, it is a very difficult issue - a very difficult issue, indeed. However, we are not going to give up on it. The member for Nelson also mentioned youth camps to get kids back on the straight and narrow. I am glad he visited Hamilton Downs because there is good work going on there.
Just to address some of the issues; there were criteria applied to each site. The site area proximity or lack of proximity to housing was a very important consideration. The cost, obviously, was a very important consideration by government. Issues around transport - I can give a guarantee there will be transport to the new site for prisoners’ families to go and visit. There was criterion applied.
How did we arrive at the $300m figure? Well, of course, Treasury is involved. This is something I believe the member for Goyder does not understand. As government moves down this path, Treasury and other agencies give cost estimates. Also, very specialised advice came from people who have developed these sorts of facilities, not only in Australia, but also in the Pacific region and overseas, both in costs and design. There has been some very preliminary design work done and some costing. This is how government works in its capital works program. Of course, as part of those considerations, government is considering a public/private partnership. That is what has happened in gaols elsewhere; that is what is happening in some larger projects already in the Territory, namely the railway and the convention centre. However, a final decision has not been made on that, but it will be based on advice from Treasury.
The hospital was an issue which was raised. When I visited the prison with the Chief Minister, the medical staff there welcomed a new prison where they could have greater space to treat and have consultation with prisoners. They said having a larger facility would actually cut down the need for people to travel into Royal Darwin Hospital. That came without any prompting from the people who are delivering health services at the current gaol.
Regarding the processes, I am advised that all planning and environmental processes will be adhered to. That is very important, and that is an undertaking given by government. We do have plans, as a government, to address these very important issues. This new Correctional Services facility is very important in those plans, and government will be moving forward with it. I believe there is an imperative for us to do it.
The member for Nelson is very passionate in his belief about where the gaol should be sited. He is also very passionate about land use, particularly around the harbour. I certainly take seriously what the member for Nelson says. However, government has deliberated over this for some time. The time for talking, revision and thinking is long past. We need to get on with this project because the current gaol at Berrimah is well over capacity. We need to build this particular facility, and we need to get on with that job. That is the decision government has taken. It has not taken it lightly. There has been much deliberation by me and two of my predecessors as Corrections minister, Syd Stirling and Peter Toyne. Now, it falls to the new Corrections minister to implement government’s decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a difficult decision, but I believe I have outlined tonight why government has taken the decision it has. We have examined all the possibilities, including construction on the current Berrimah site. That was not able to happen. That is why we have gone for a greenfield site. I certainly believe it is time to act.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for raising this matter of public importance, as it allows me in my new ministry to provide further detail to the Assembly of this new development. It is a good place to start. I thank the member for Johnston for giving a very comprehensive summary of the massive body of work that has taken place by government in the lead-up.
Member for Araluen, you can take me, as the new minister, and this House back even further. It does represent this concept of new era. As the member for Johnston has outlined to the House, the time to act is now. I am absolutely honoured and privileged to be part of it. Member for Araluen, you are dead right: the backpack is full and I have been receiving an intensive round of briefings, information and reports to try to bring me up to speed on the massive body of work that has taken place by a government determined to reduce reoffending numbers. This is a positive thing.
Prisons are a fact of our society. They are a necessary institution in our society, and the opposition went through this. As a constituent of the Barkly I watched this process with the development of Berrimah. However, I have now had the privilege of working with experts in the field and there are two elements I am very impressed by: (1) the level of professionalism and knowledge of world’s best practice that we have in the agency; and (2) their enthusiasm and passion to make changes. I will add a third one: my very warm feelings about agency experts and my government colleagues taking me on board to drive this project forward in this new era that will take place now.
Information from the agency, the government, the opposition in very informative debate tonight, the prison officers and my planned visits throughout all our Correctional Services facilities in the Northern Territory after these sittings, will place me well, as a minister, to lead this massive body of work and the change we intend to make. For those people who do not know my background, and there is a bit of irony here, I have been in education for more than half of my life. Funnily enough, the last third of that career represented juvenile justice programs. I have worked in education with disaffected and disadvantaged people in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and the United Kingdom.
When I participated in briefings with our expert agency people and members of government, it is world’s best practice; it is reinforcing what I learnt and what I believe; my very brief conversation with the member for Nelson reinforced exactly that - I can assure members of the House we are on the right track.
The member for Johnston gave a very comprehensive outline of an infrastructure problem – an infrastructure problem which is preventing us moving forward in the reduction of reoffending rates. It is a facility that has gone past its use-by date. Member for Nelson, the member for Johnston has summed it up very adequately; however. I will make the comment that experts in the field advise me that the site at Berrimah is not adequate. A massive reconstruction project taking place in that prison, around that prison, is not the way to go, and the greenfield concept will deliver the best results they are all striving for - results that are shared by all of us in this new direction forward.
The number of prisoners in the Territory has grown, and they are growing faster. The member for Johnston outlined that. However, we have heard what I know and believe; that there are vast numbers of these prisoners who can be rehabilitated. They are low-level offenders who are a representative group of disadvantaged and disaffected people in our community. I have just spent the last 30 years working for such people. Now we have the ability to trial world’s best practice and turn this around and demonstrate to the constituents of the Northern Territory that we are going to make a difference. Member for Nelson, I honestly believe and support the new innovative infrastructure at the new site will allow that.
Member for Araluen, it is known as a multidisciplinary institution. It will allow a cutting edge, innovative concept for men and women. This new concept is a very efficient rotational concept where facilities can be used by different groups at different times with the utmost occupational health and safety considerations for our prison officers.
It is a site, member for Nelson, where families can visit in comfort, in safety and be with people who are going to have the opportunity of life-changing decisions. A correctional facility that we know works in America will allow this. The member for Nelson has seen massive changes and he has told me about the emotion he experienced. I have seen this in the United Kingdom. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to go with us on this; do not prevent it. We are going to make a difference.
The member for Goyder was very informative. I respect a member of an old Territorian family who can provide a new minister like me with much knowledge in this area. I would like to outline for the members for Goyder and Nelson the concept of the work camps. Yes, the first work camp is planned for Tennant Creek. I am proud of that. The government knows that the community of Tennant Creek and the Barkly support that. Member for Nelson, I would like to share with you some information I have received on this intensive journey in the last week-and-a-half.
The recent developments at the Berrimah gaol were planned as relocatable facilities. The first work camp in Tennant Creek is planned as a relocatable facility which will be able to accommodate 24 people. The work camp will be for low-level offenders – minimum security. The prison and work camp will have a focus on education and training. I am pleased to say, from my early discussions, there will be academic streams and trade skills available for educational opportunities. Member for Nelson, I have already had discussions with my colleagues about pastoral enterprises, as well.
We will find ways through this to accommodate individual differences, life plans and opportunities. The work camps will represent a connection with the community. The connection will be two ways. The community will have input into what work and services are done. This represents a two-way approach in justice and the rehabilitation of prisoners; not a one-way punitive street. It will allow for community people to understand more about the reasons for low-level offending. If we can start to address percentage numbers and reduce reoffending, then we are going to make a difference in society. I am excited about this …
Ms Carney: I can tell. It is wonderful.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Araluen. As I said, you have a wealth of experience and I appreciate your input.
The whole of the Northern Territory will come together under this new correctional model. After sittings, I will be honoured to be taken by the very learned and influential people that I know …
A member: Proud of the site.
Mr McCARTHY: I will be on-site, and I will see, talk, and understand.
I would like to finish with a quote from the bush where I have been lately. It is from Bill Harney, who was incarcerated in gaol in Borroloola. I do not think Bill would mind if I mentioned the allegation, member for Araluen, of cattle duffing, and the famous quote. I want to share this with members of the House and with the people I travel with on this amazing journey in the new era of Corrections. Bill Harney said: ‘I travelled the world from the inside of the Borroloola gaol’. Deconstruct ‘I travelled the world’, members of the opposition. It was education. It was an opportunity to be educated to think differently, to change your outlook, to change your life. Rehabilitation comes with education.
Let us target this model. Let us target this new approach. Let us work for it together. I have heard it many times. I enjoy and respect the debate. Let us walk this together. Let us make a difference. Let us go back to the Peter Toynes, the Syd Stirlings, the member for Johnston, and all those people who have participated over the years. I talked to Daryl Manzie on the radio the other day. I remember Daryl Manzie, but I had to come to town to learn about him; I was in such an isolated area, I did not have a radio. However, all these people will celebrate with us in this new era of Corrections, and I will stand by that. I like that term; it represents a lot. It is very powerful.
Thank you to the member for Goyder for bringing this on. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, as a new minister, to speak with passion.
In conclusion, to my colleagues on this side of the House, it will be a ride, and we will change this; we will reduce reoffending rates. The new Correctional facility will be one of the first major developments in an area of Darwin that will represent up to 40 000 people, with town services, parks and gardens, and families. It represents the future of the Northern Territory, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, tonight I congratulate the members of the 2009 Jingili School Community Council who were elected at the annual general meeting last night. School councils play an extremely important role in the school community, and the council members do a fantastic job. They have a massive role to play, amongst other tasks, in examining educational policies to be implemented at the school; identifying the educational needs of the community; building links between parents, the community and the school; overseeing the operational needs of the buildings and facilities; determining purposes for expending funds and, of course, fundraising to enable those extras for the school and the students.
Following the AGM last night which, unfortunately, I could not attend because, as members know, we had our inaugural Monday sitting, I am pleased to congratulate: Rhianna Suttie-Gunson on her reappointment as Chairperson of the Jingili School Community Council, together with James Lantry as Deputy Chair; Bridget Riggs, Secretary; Carol Kerr, Treasurer; and other parent members Mike Copland, Josh and Jo Davis, Brigitte Grahl, Tracey Menhonshen, Tara Metcalf, Juanita Gray, Melanie Schofield, Lisa Kay, Karen Edyrane, Leisa Sjaardemma, Jane Fryar and Naomi Wilson.
The community council also had the support of the Executive Officer, Jodie Green, the Principal and, of course, Lorna Dudley as Administrative Manager and Assisting Treasurer, with teacher representatives Kerrylee Pike, Larelle Gilbert and Deniel Sachs from the preschool.
Honourable members will recall my previous adjournments throughout the years in which I have extolled the efforts of the Jingili Primary School community to make it one of the best schools in the Territory. The school does some serious fundraising, not only for themselves but for those less fortunate within their community and also worldwide. You have heard me talk about the really incredible fundraising that has gone on for the orphans of Leu Lau School in Timor, as well as the Student Representative Council and the preschool raising funds for World Vision children in Guatemala and Bangladesh. The school council and Student Representative Council at Jingili are always discussing how they can help people and the difference they can make through commitment and caring. I wish the Jingili school committee all the best for 2009.
I also foreshadow my Walk & Talk with the Pollies and Aldermen activity, which will be held in my electorate on 21 March. As all members will be aware, this is part of a program run by General Practice Network NT and called the 2009 Activate NT Healthy Lifestyle Challenge. The aim of Activate NT is to encourage the community to take a healthier approach to life and promote Darwin as an active and healthy place.
I have volunteered to host a walk around the Jingili Water Gardens on Saturday morning, and I am very much looking forward to having a very interesting time engaging with the local residents in this fantastic way and at a great venue such as the Jingili Water Gardens. I commend Julia Pettigrew, the Activate NT Project Officer from General Practice NT, who is putting this program together.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a letter I have received from The Importer on Stuart Highway, Stuart Park in relation to the bus stop outside the shop. With deep concern I read this letter because, once again, small actions of government have big consequences on small business people around the traps. I urge the Minister for Transport, in his role as the minister for the Northern Territory Bus Service, to turn his attention to this matter, because it is important. It is a small business person who, as a result of government’s decisions, is now being affected. I seek leave to table the letter from The Importer, which is dated 16 February 2009.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the document.
I say at the outset, to Cherie and Lawrence, who run The Importer, that I well understand their frustration. Over the last few years the numbers of clientele who choose to travel on our buses has, sadly, gone somewhat backwards, which is a reflection of the coverage you see in the newspapers of knife-wielding bandits and other thugs punching bus drivers and threatening them with knives. However, before these people get on buses, the fact is they have to wait at bus stops. What occurs at those bus stops is often as disgusting as what happens on the buses, if not worse. I feel for the people who run this business. To have people fighting, urinating, defecating and those sorts of things in front of their business is a matter of great concern.
I note that the Coopers have, in big, bold letters indicated they want that bus stop moved. I well understand their irritation. I ask the minister to turn his attention to this particular letter and get in contact with the Coopers and listen to what they have to say. They will be representative of so many other businesses in town which are, sadly, the subject of the arbitrary decisions of government to place things such as taxi ranks, bus stops, etcetera.
In my electorate, the decision to place the taxi rank opposite the cinemas in Darwin continues to be a running sore because, through the arbitrary decision of this particular government to place the taxi rank in that location, the only achievement is to annoy a lot of residents. It is the same cavalier indifference by this government to the location of other things such as bus stops, which is a matter of some concern. While I appreciate that bus stops need to exist, because people have to find places to catch buses, I ask the government to be more attentive to where and why they place those bus stops in those locations, and what happens at those bus stops.
The government has brought so much attention to their new transport police - for lack of better words – and there is no reason why those transport police cannot attend these bus stops from time to time and find out what is happening there, and make something happen so the conduct at bus stops, not only on buses, improves.
Clearly, the Coopers have an issue. Clearly, the Coopers feel very much aggrieved. I believe they have written to all and sundry on the issue. If the government does not get the message in relation to these simple little things, it only confirms in the minds of many people that the Northern Territory government is more interested in the big things in the world, such as the INPEX plant. Whilst I accept they are important, it is also important to turn your attention to the little things in the world like the small business operators who work very hard to make a few quid so that they can pay this government taxes. For that reason alone, they deserve the ears of the minister.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last week Nhulunbuy people rallied quickly to work out ways our community could support those who had lost and suffered in the Victorian bushfires. Our community radio station 8EAR Gove FM, which seems to find itself at the heart of every community and charity event, was at the fore of last week’s fundraising, with our Rotary Club and Nhulunbuy Corporation right behind them.
Churyl Shepard, Gove FM’s energetic administrator, along with Libby, Rob, Rabbit, Ian, Bernice and Matthew, organised a radiothon which ran throughout the Saturday, inviting people to phone in and pledge funds. I was very pleased to go into the studio in the afternoon to talk about what was happening at the Northern Territory government level to provide support for those in Victoria. Gove FM then moved to a live broadcast at the Arnhem Club on Saturday night, where raffles, collections, and an auction were held. Special thanks to the Arnhem Club, Nhulunbuy Regional Sports Fishing Club, and Gove Sport and Tackle who donated the prizes for raffling. My husband is the delighted and the very proud owner of some whiz bang new fishing gear.
When I checked with Churyl at Gove FM this morning, the tally had reached $24 000. The sum will go much higher with the annual Rotary Quiz Night being held this Saturday night, 21 February, at Nhulunbuy Town Hall, with all proceeds going to the bushfire victims. In addition, Rotary has generously offered to match the proceeds dollar for dollar.
Another major fundraiser being organised by Kendell Kenway, from Nhulunbuy Corporation, will be held on Saturday, 28 February, at our town hall at the monthly coffee, cake, art and craft morning. As part of the morning, residents have been asked to bring second-hand goods for donation, and I will be part of a team sorting and boxing up goods which have been donated by Wridgways - thank you very much, Gary Dicker. Perkins Shipping has also generously agreed to ship all the goods, free of charge, to Darwin.
For people who want to give their moral support, I have instigated a messages and condolences book which is currently circulating in our community between the local library, schools and churches, so everyone has a chance to provide a few words of support.
I also note that Nhulunbuy Primary School is making their own contribution to the efforts for fundraising as well.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Jessica Cunningham, a Year 11 student at Nhulunbuy High School, who has been selected to be the representative for the Nhulunbuy region at the 2009 Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. Jessica is a bright and energetic young woman who I know will be a terrific ambassador and advocate for youth in our region. I met Jessica in my office last Friday for a chat and a chance to compare notes and views, and what the issues are facing young people in and around Nhulunbuy. I wish her well at her first meeting this weekend, 21 and 22 February, and I certainly look forward to hearing how members of the Round Table fare with youth affairs in 2009.
Last Saturday saw the first Barras Swim Club meet for 2009 at Nhulunbuy town pool. It was a huge evening for our swimmers. We had swimmers trying to gain qualifying times to enable them to swim at the Northern Territory Age and Open. We also had new swimmers to the club competing in their first club meet. Well done to you all; there were some great times recorded. Jack Tracy was the superstar of the meet. He knocked a whopping 0.94 seconds off his 100 m freestyle time. Sinead Salisbury knocked 26.73 seconds off her 100 m freestyle time, and Bradley Turner knocked 27.27 seconds off his 200 m freestyle time. Our PBers of the month are Sinead Salisbury and Harry Walker, who both recorded four personal best times at the meet. As one of the timekeepers at the meet, it was really exciting to see the kids swim so well, and there were many proud mums and dads - including me - to see my autistic son, Harry, aged 13, do so well. We just have to work on getting him to learn how to dive.
The Barras club have nine swimmers who have qualified to swim at the NT Age and Open being held in Darwin from 5 to 8 March. Out of those nine swimmers the following seven swimmers will possibly be attending – pending fundraising efforts: Alyssa Petrofes, Ellen Guiney, Gabby Parsons, Holly Sims, Bradley Turner, Liam Staples and Wilson Liu. Loren Waller and Paul McFetridge will be attending as coach and team manager. They are all training very hard and we wish them all the very best of luck.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the hard-working committee of Nhulunbuy Amateur Swimming tonight. I apologise that, as the Deputy President, I manage to get to so few meetings. I thank and congratulate Shane Guiney, Jackie McGrath, Mike and Susan Kestel, Vicki Irvine, Loren Waller, Dave Hoskins and Kiwi Deb; as well as our dedicated volunteer coaches headed up by Loren Waller along with Vicki Parsons, Taku Taylor, Jacci Clark, Luke Hutchinson and Paul McFetridge.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have the honour of putting on the Parliamentary Record an obituary for Mr Teddy Plummer BEM, 1931 – 2009.
Mr Teddy Plummer was born in Tennant Creek in 1931 and was educated at Philip Creek. When clearing and construction of the Warrabri Aboriginal Reserve began in 1954, many Aboriginal men were given training in building construction, both theoretical and on the job. Teddy Plummer was one of the many who showed a particular aptitude for trades skills and became a skilled tradesman working as a plumber on the settlement. Teddy Plummer was a full staff member living in a staff house and in charge of a gang of young men who trained under his leadership and guidance. Teddy Plummer also inherited the ceremonial law responsibility from his late father as a respected senior man of the Waramungu people.
Mr Teddy Plummer was awarded the British Empire Medal Civil on 1 January 1970 for services to the community - a medal awarded for meritorious civil or military service worthy of recognition by the Crown. Teddy Plummer and his wife, May, who passed away in 1970, had a family of seven children: Rosemary, Peter, Edward, Ronald, Robbie, Cliff and Marlene. The references are from a booklet Warrabri Aboriginal Reserve, National Archives of the Northern Territory.
Teddy Plummer was an honourable man of vision in difficult times. As a natural leader, Teddy set a real direction for Indigenous people and his family. Teddy Plummer’s legacy of leading by example will continue to influence and mentor the many generations that will follow him. My sincere condolences go to the Plummer family on the loss of your patriarch and loved one. May he rest in peace.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Neville Perkins AM
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr Neville Perkins AM, former member of the Legislative Assembly and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 7 Palmerston High School students accompanied by Ms Kirsteen Squires and Ms Tania Tamaotai. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Trade and Investment Mission – China, Japan and the United States
Trade and Investment Mission – China, Japan and the United States
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure I report today on my 10-day trade and investment mission to meet with key representatives in three of our most important trading partner countries – China, Japan and the United States.
It is vital to keep confidence in the Territory economy high and develop new opportunities for Territory business. As we enter 2009, one of my highest priorities is positioning the Territory as well as I can in the face of the global financial crisis. Our economy is well placed to withstand fallout from the economic downturn. My government will continue to do everything it can to foster investment and increase economic activity. We need to create new investment opportunities and support our existing businesses and industries so they can continue to provide jobs and opportunities for Territorians.
With this in mind, I targeted key sectors in which the Territory has strategic advantages, particularly energy, resources and tourism. The LNG industry is a key advantage we have in the Territory, and I was pleased to be in Tokyo when INPEX announced awarding of the contract for front-end engineering and design for its LNG plant at Blaydin Point. This is a key milestone in the progression of the development of the Ichthys project. The ultimate milestone, the final investment decision, is still on track to be announced by the end of this year.
As honourable members are aware, capital costs for the LNG plant is estimated at $12bn, whilst the whole Ichthys project is estimated to cost more than $US20bn. Obviously, this project would drive the economy’s growth for decades to come. The project will employ up to 2000 people at the peak of construction and create about 300 new ongoing jobs. The INPEX gas project is the largest single private sector investment project in the energy sector for Australia.
However, we have not put all our eggs in one basket. Accordingly, in China, I met with key executives and representatives in the resource sector, where I was briefed on their projects going forward. I was also pleased to inform them that the Territory remained open for business, and of our determination to further develop the AustralAsia Trade Route that positions Darwin as Australia’s northern trade and export gateway. In this regard, my government has committed $100m to expand Darwin’s port facilities, and we are seeking an extra $290m to $360m from the Australian government for further strategic expansion of our port.
As fate would have it, I was in Beijing at the same time as the federal minister responsible for the Australian infrastructure fund, Hon Anthony Albanese. I was able to meet with him and further press the Territory’s case. Other meetings in China were with Noble Resources, which has a number of investments in the Territory, including the Frances Creek Iron Ore Mine; the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre with a view to boosting convention and business events in the Territory; and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce Metals, Minerals, and Chemicals Importers and Exporters that has been a strategic partner in progressing our China Minerals Investment Attraction Strategy which was launched in 2007.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia with such a dedicated strategy, and the Chamber has been instrumental in promoting the Northern Territory’s mineral exploration investment opportunities in China. Since the launch of the strategy, there have been 50 visits to the Territory by 29 Chinese companies. Another visit by representatives of the Chamber is planned for March. The China Mining Association, a peak body representing Chinese exploration and mining companies, is another strategic partner in promoting the Northern Territory’s mineral exploration investment opportunities.
Following my visits and an invitation from the minister for Mines and Energy, my colleague, Kon Vatskalis, the CMA sent its first-ever delegation to the Territory at the end of January 2009 to meet with specific companies, the Northern Territory Resources Council, and the government. The Stone Group, which has visited the Territory on a number of occasions, is pursuing a number of potential investments.
Japan remains the key trade and investment partner for the Territory. My engagements, whilst wide-ranging, were focused on energy resources and tourism. In addition to INPEX, I met with:
the senior Vice Minister for Energy and Trade;
Osaka Gas - the company’s investments in the Territory include Greater Sunrise and the Evans Shoal gas fields and our gas pipelines;
Tokyo Electric Power Company which is the principal customer of Darwin LNG and a nuclear power generator;
Tokyo Gas is also a major customer of Darwin LNG and is Japan’s second-largest importer of LNG, a major player internationally;
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation is a government organisation responsible for ensuring stable supply of oil, gas, and
non-ferrous metals to Japan. JOGMEC is also a strategic partner in promoting Japanese investments in the Territory. Work is under
way for a JOGMEC delegation from Japan to visit the Territory in mid-2009.
Tourism Australia’s office in Japan to gain a better understanding of the effect of the global financial crisis on Japanese tourism and
strategies to continue encouraging Japanese visitation, such as promotional links to the movie Australia, Indigenous culture, national
parks, and the cruise ship industries.
In the United States, I went to Houston to meet with ConocoPhillips and Bechtel senior executives regarding work to expand Darwin LNG. These companies have played a huge role in developing the LNG industry in the Territory. They are certainly looking to expand Darwin LNG even further.
It was appropriate for me to go overseas, visit and meet with our key and potential investors to the Northern Territory, and I believe the trip was a great success, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports such trips. They are a very important role of government to build that important connection, as we in the Northern Territory are strategically located within the region and we have the opportunity to engage effectively. You are quite right, Chief Minister, that we are well placed in that we have a range of natural resources which could assist us in getting our way through difficult times.
I commend you, Chief Minister, on the gathering that you called at the convention centre, and how well attended it was. That is evidence of the importance of this information flowing back into the community. You would note, however, at that gathering, after the briefing had occurred which was well received and well presented, there was a range of questions. Those questions were not related to that which lies over the horizon. We know that INPEX is most likely to occur. We are all one on that, and we see the benefits that will flow. However, that is over the horizon. The Chamber of Commerce has said quite plainly that those benefits will flow in just out of arms reach. What people are concerned about is what is here right now.
If we want to maintain high confidence, we need to deal effectively with issues such as McArthur River. That is right here and now. Confidence will be strengthened if you deal with the difficult issues that are placed before you now: if you could be progressive with the release of land; if you could be honest about the $200m black hole; if you could reassure people over the fact that you have not managed in times of plenty, and how we are going to get through difficult times with the same mindset. They are the issues. Are we going to get water? Are we going to get power? Are we going to have roads and bridges …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I congratulate the minister for going overseas and discussing these important issues for the future economy of the Northern Territory. However, as you know, the Western Australian Premier is also visiting Japan at the moment. I am interested to know what role the Northern Territory is playing at this present time to ensure we do not lose the LNG.
Already, as you know, there is movement in the rural area caused by INPEX because they are looking for a place to site their workers in the area. The government needs to go softly, softly with that particular project because there are a number of issues which need to be addressed that are important for local people. The project will bring benefits, but it has some downsides. I believe the government needs to be flexible as to exactly where this workers’ construction village may be. However, again, these things will flow-on into the local community especially at the construction phase, putting in the infrastructure that is required. Those things will benefit the community.
You also mentioned the nuclear power plants in Japan. I am interested to know if the government is working to increase the amount of uranium that will leave the Northern Territory. It is a clean source of energy, minister, as you have said. It is a strange thing that we do not bother to use it ourselves, but that is a minor problem. However, we do promote it as a clean form of energy and I am interested to see where we are going in relation to increasing our exports in that area.
I am interested to hear how other areas, such as the proposed phosphate mine in the Barkly, are going. Today, when fertiliser has substantially increased in price, are we sitting on something that could help keep costs down in Australia in relation to the production of food? There are many things we could discuss, but we cannot do it all in two minutes.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank members opposite for their comments. What we are doing right here, right now, Leader of the Opposition, is making sure that we have our share of the $42bn stimulus package which the Prime Minister announced last week, unlike the Country Liberal Party Senator who voted against it in the Senate – who voted against $500m direct into our economy, supported by …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Yet again, the same point of order. He cannot refer to a vote that never occurred.
Madam SPEAKER: Reword, Chief Minister.
Mr HENDERSON: In the Senate, the Country Liberal Party Senator voted against upgrades for schools, new houses in the Northern Territory, new roads in the Northern Territory, and against $500m direct investment in the Northern Territory’s economy ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, he referred to a vote that never occurred.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, no matter how they try to run and hide from this, they cannot run and hid from it. They cannot run and hide.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, this morning I report to the House on the new opportunities for Territory businesses in the regions of the Northern Territory, with one of the largest housing and infrastructure programs ever to be rolled out in Indigenous communities throughout Australia. As I reported to the House last week, the $672m SIHIP program is a joint arrangement between the Australian and Northern Territory governments to cover infrastructure upgrades in 73 remote Indigenous communities.
As of today, people will be aware that there have been three alliance partners selected. They include Earth Connect Alliance, which is a consortium of Canstruct Pty Ltd, Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd, Force 10 International Pty Ltd, Green & Associates Pty Ltd, and Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd. Another is New Future Alliance, which comprises Leighton Pty Ltd, Broad Construction Services Pty Ltd, Opus Qantec McWilliam Pty Ltd, and Ngarda Civil & Mining Pty Ltd. The last one is Territory Alliance, which is a consortium comprising Sitzler Pty Ltd, Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd, McMahon Services Australia Pty Ltd, and ESS, Compass Group.
This program will certainly be an economic driver through the remote areas. The contractual requirement of the SIHIP program is to deliver more effective housing to these communities but, also, it has to deliver job and training outcomes. That is a prerequisite. Almost dwarfing the actual construction is the jobs training package. This will bring job opportunities in housing repairs and maintenance, and construction for people in those remote communities, n.
In Tennant Creek - one of the first three cabs off the rank - we have 16 local Indigenous trainees being trained in civil construction at the Certificate III level. This has been supported by Julalikari Council, who do an excellent job.
The sheer size of SIHIP cannot be underestimated. There will be substantial workforces required to complete this work over the next few years and it is a first in the Territory. When you look at what we had previously - about $15m coming into the Territory for Indigenous housing construction - this absolutely dwarfs it; it is a new world. It is something we are trying to get the most out of.
Next week, there will be industry forums through the Northern Territory so those remote and regional towns can get the most out of it and small business operators in regional towns can get the most out of this program to maintain jobs. The alliance partners will be attending those meetings so small businesses can come along and talk to them and see what services and supplies they need for this construction program. This could include setting up workers’ camps, food supplies, plumbing and electrical supplies, internal and external fittings for houses and, most importantly, training providers. These are real opportunities. We are focused on retaining the funds within the regions, within those local communities, through either wages or through local businesses. The business forums are free and this will be a real chance for small businesses to come along.
Next week they will be in Alice Springs on Monday 23 February; Tennant Creek on Tuesday 24 February; Darwin on Tuesday 10 March; Katherine on 11 March; and Nhulunbuy on 18 March. I will be attending all the forums next week and I encourage people to come along. This is great for the regions, it brings a much-needed economic boost and real job opportunities, not only for this phase of the construction program, but workers will be trained so they can take on ongoing repairs and maintenance jobs. The realty is, there is a lot of work around the Territory but it is spasmodic. This is a real opportunity to get mobile work teams to travel to centres which are undertaking major construction work. Madam Speaker, this is a real opportunity for those regions and those businesses.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. He referenced mobile work teams going out to places to build and repair houses. That is all well and good but, unfortunately, they cannot get to those places because the roads are in such an appalling state that any kind of work is going to be restricted to four or five months of the year, which is the Dry Season.
$672m is a lot of money coming into the Territory, and this government’s track record over the last eight years has shown that they are not very good managers with money. It leaves me with concerns that this government, whilst all this money is coming into the Northern Territory, will not managed it properly and we might not see the houses and repairs implemented as quickly as possible so the overcrowding issues can be minimised and health can be improved, which is what we all want. It is what we, on this side of the parliament want, and I know it is what the people in the communities want. However, so far, this government’s track record is quite appalling in regard to managing money that has come from the Commonwealth. There have been various reports which have demonstrated this; they have syphoned money off.
I have no issue with the alliances; they are all very good companies. I know about the Territory Alliance and the work they are doing on the Tiwi Islands. I had a meeting and tours with them over the weekend. I wish all those alliances the very best in getting the job done quickly.
However, Madam Speaker, if this government is left to manage the program, I do not believe it is going to be as successful as we would like it to be.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. There is a range of questions that need to be asked about this program. It is not that it is not a good idea; we have to increase the amount of housing on Aboriginal communities - we know that is a definite. However, I do have concerns about the type of housing we build and who has a say in the appropriate design of those houses for different areas of the Territory. Are we still working on trying to produce houses that are cheap and affordable? The figure I mentioned the other day was $530 000 per house.
You mentioned job training; that is terrific. However, I worked on Bathurst Island 38 years ago and, about 35 years ago, there were people working for the Ullintjinni Association. Are they still working? Do we still have the same people coming in from outside Bathurst Island to build houses? How are you going to ensure that the jobs you are trying to achieve there will be permanent; that you will not have to bring in people from outside? You need to give us some idea how that will work.
In the management of houses, there is no doubt one of the biggest problems we have is, in some cases, the demolition of houses because there is no control over damage done to those houses. What schemes will the government bring in to ensure houses are respected? Will they bring in programs to help people learn how to look after the houses? There were schemes 30 or 40 years ago, I remember, where people were shown how to use the kitchen, how to maintain the house correctly. It is no good building houses if they fall down again in 10 years.
The other issue is what will happen to local housing associations? What role will they play? Many of them have been around a long time and a number of them have been very successful in what they are doing. I would not like to see them get done out of a job.
The last thing, which I mentioned the other day: will there be a program that does not punish those communities which have done the right thing over the years, that have produced many good houses, and still need more but, because their houses are in good nick, the focus will be on those places where conditions are worse?
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I will try to cover all those points from the members for Goyder and Nelson.
I do not know where the CLP is at the moment. They are wearing suits and do not know anything about bush roads anymore, and they are very much divorced from the bush. The Wet Season has been a bit of an issue around the Territory for a very long time and we are spending more money on roads than ever before. I do not know how divorced they are from the bush.
With respect to the member for Nelson, the type of design is being worked through. Obviously, we want to build very robust houses and they do cost money. However, for the very first time in housing construction for Indigenous houses we will know exactly how much it costs to build a house, because the alliance partners have already agreed on a percentage of profit. We will know exactly what the input costs are for those houses being constructed for the very first time. Before it was a lump sum and you did not know whether it was only 10% of the total price going to repairs and maintenance. This is a new world and we certainly want to get the most for those people in the regions.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
East Arm Wharf – Expansion of Facilities
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I report on the Territory government’s commitment to expanding facilities at East Arm Wharf. The Port of Darwin has experienced a period of unprecedented growth. The port has been established as Australia’s second LNG hub with the presence of Darwin LNG as the service and supply centre for the offshore oil and gas industry, as well as regional centres across northern Australia’s coastline.
In the last financial year, the total trade across the East Arm Wharf alone increased by 87% to a total of 2.73 million tonnes, and commercial shipping calls increased by 23.5% to a total of 1547 calls - a record year in the port’s history. While the traditional market sector of the port’s trade had a strong year, the major influence on growth of the port in recent times has been the re-emergence of the bulk minerals export trade. Bulk minerals are again being exported through the Port of Darwin for the first time since 1999 and, in the case of iron ore from Frances Creek, for the first time in 33 years. To support this, the Territory government has invested $24.5m in a new bulk minerals handling facility at East Arm, which includes rail receiving facilities, stockpiles and a ship loader capable of loading 2000 tonnes per hour. Despite the current financial crisis, demand for our resources is predicted to continue to grow. Demand for bulk mineral export through East Arm Wharf is projected to grow from 2.5 million tonnes this financial year to in excess of 10 million in the next five years.
Coupled with the significant growth in the bulk minerals sector and associated economic development, all market sectors of the port’s trade are expected to increase over the same period. This will place significant pressure on the existing infrastructure. The Territory government recognises that ongoing development of the port facilities is integral to the economic development of the Territory. We have committed $100m over the next term. $59.5m has been approved in this financial year’s capital works program to continue to develop the port’s infrastructure. The capital works items include: an overland conveyor to link the stockpile to the ship loader, $35m; reclamation of Pond F on East Arm Wharf to provide additional hardstand area on the wharf, $15m; and treat and seal the eastern reclaimed area on East Arm Wharf to provide additional hardstand areas, $9.5m. The current bulk loading system using road trains to transfer the product from the stockpile to the ship loader will be improved with an overland conveyor system, and further strategic port land will also be created. The new infrastructure will support the development of our resources sector and regional development, as well as continued commercial development of the AustralAsia Trade Route.
A further $40m is provided for additional capital works which will be identified and prioritised from the current master plan review of East Arm port. This review is focusing on future demand scenarios for the port to 2030, including forecasting increased trade and shipping, long-term land use and precinct planning, infrastructure and equipment needs, including enhanced bulk mineral handling facilities and berth extensions.
The Prime Minister and the minister for Infrastructure, minister Albanese, have visited the port and recognise the ongoing development of our Port of Darwin is important in not just the development of the Territory, but also the nation. $3.2m has already been committed by the federal government to fund two strategic studies focused on larger shipping having access to the Port of Darwin, and a feasibility study into a larger bulk materials handling berth in the port to support regional mining development. The Territory government has applied for a further $200m from Infrastructure Australia. I met with the Chair of Infrastructure Australia, Sir Rod Eddington, last month to promote our submission and outline the importance of our port expansion for the development of the Territory, and the development of our nation.
I am pleased to announce that I have appointed transport logistics expert, Chris Bigg, as Chair of the Darwin Port Corporation Advisory Board. Chris has a wealth of experience across the transport sector. He has previously held senior positions in the Departments of Chief Minister and Planning and Infrastructure. Mr Bigg replaces the outgoing Chair, Mr David Looker, who has served in the role for the last three years. I thank Mr Looker, who did an excellent job in bringing the port to this exciting period of expansion. Mr Bigg has expert knowledge and, I am sure, will take the port through this very exciting period of growth.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Infrastructure for the report. For those of you who may recall, in my maiden speech of parliament I spoke about the very important move towards creating Darwin as a greater gateway for Asia. The port expansion has an important role in fulfilling that. I have had the luxury of touring the port and getting an update on how the port is performing and its requirements for expansion.
I also recognise that the government has made a commitment to extend the port as we seek to grow our minerals export industry, our cattle industry, and so forth. I also understand some of the issues around logistics in getting to the port and how the rail and road infrastructure supports the ongoing development of the port. It is very important that we focus on that. I have asked for a briefing on how the expansion of the port is going, and I expect the minister to ensure that happens in a very speedy manner.
I am also very keen to know the outcome of the bid for Infrastructure Australia to attract federal government dollars so we can support the greater expansion of the port in the near future rather than later. The expansion of the port and the application for money from Infrastructure Australia, through Sir Rod Eddington, is something that could have been sought after in the stimulus package. When I spoke yesterday about the need to localise elements of the stimulus package, this is something we could have sought: to get money for our port which will create greater jobs growth right across the Territory, through Bootu Creek Mine, Territory Iron Ore, and the potential exporting of minerals from South Australia. There is a wide variety of things we could have done, and the stimulus package was the mechanism where we could have attracted those funds in the shorter term to expand the port, create jobs in Darwin, and have a sustainable future for the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It should have been a statement. This is worthy of a much better and bigger focus. There is a whole range of issues which could come out in that statement. For instance, what is going to happen to the area near the city, the Perkins Barge area, the Duck Pond? What is the future of that area? What plans has the government for expanding barge landing areas at East Arm port? The Minister for Business did mention that the other day. What plans are there for allowing bigger ships into the harbour? Do we need more dredging offshore to allow those ships into the harbour? Are there problems with the railway and the road infrastructure coming into the port? Does the government have plans, for instance, for an overpass across the railway line so there are fewer hold ups there and more room for expansion of rail shunting areas? Is the government seriously looking at where the required industrial development for the port will move to? I specifically say this is in relation to the debate about the use of Berrimah Farm. Where will future growth for the port go in relation to those industries which rely on the port?
There is a whole range of issues. What is going to be the future in regard to the tugboats? Do we need more of them as shipping increases? What effects will the LNG plant at Blaydin Point have from the point of view of dredging? Will that have other effects on the harbour? There is a whole range of issues which, I believe, are really worthy of debate and discussion in this parliament.
I am pleased the government has brought in some protection for the harbour in the form of ship loading equipment for bulk minerals. As I raised once before, the iron ore being loaded into some of the ships was certainly getting into the sea. I am glad the government has put some money into making sure that does not happen.
Madam Speaker, a statement would be better than a report.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. The shadow simply does not understand the federal government’s processes in infrastructure funding. The Prime Minister has very clearly articulated that the stimulus package is quite separate to the Infrastructure Australia bid which, of course, requires due diligence due to the scope and nature of those significant infrastructure projects. Infrastructure Australia has been undertaking that due diligence and we have been supplying a lot of information in and concerning our port bid and, of course, our roads bids and other bids.
Tiger Brennan Stage 3 does certainly deliver an overpass over the rail to provide for that flow-through of traffic down Berrimah Road. That is locked in; we have the funding for it, it is on the program. That will proceed and roll on as another program.
Regarding the industrial land around the port, we have been working for about four or five weeks with the Land Development Corporation to identify future growth corridors and needs for industrial land, and that is already factored into growth requirements.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arafura
Member for Arafura
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence for today be granted to the member for Arafura due to ill health.
Motion agreed to.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (EXPERT EVIDENCE) BILL
(Serial 32)
(Serial 32)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to require the defence to provide notice to the court, and to the prosecution, if they intend to present expert evidence during criminal trials in the Supreme Court. This aims to make the trial process fairer, reduce court time and costs, and reduce trauma to witnesses. Expert evidence is often technical and relates to matters like DNA evidence or medical evidence about such things as deep vein thrombosis. Expert witnesses, therefore, have specialised knowledge, skill or experience in the area of their testimony. Expert evidence is not testimony concerning facts. The role of an expert is to assist the court to determine the issues in dispute. To do this, the court must be able to assess the evidence adduced, including the independent expert’s opinion.
The majority of jurisdictions in Australia have legislation requiring defence to disclose an intention to call expert evidence. The Northern Territory currently does not. This leads to the situation where, sometimes, the defence will let the prosecution know if they intend to call expert evidence. However, sometimes the defence gives no notice and the prosecution can be taken by surprise in the course of the trial. This limits the court’s ability to assess the evidence introduced.
If the prosecutor knows the defence intends to call an expert, and what that person’s opinion is, then he or she is better able to effectively cross-examine the witness. It may be the case, as happens in some instances, that the prosecution accepts the defence expert’s opinion. In such a case, a trial might be avoided, or at least the issues in the trial are narrowed down, saving court time, expense, and trauma and inconvenience to witnesses.
This government appreciates that the proposed legislation amounts to a shift in balance between the prosecution and defence. Indeed, some might argue that the nature of our criminal justice system means that the prosecution must prove its case, meet all defences, and the defence should not be obliged to show its hand at all. However, the defence is already obliged to give notice of an alibi for the reason that it makes the trial process fairer and reduces court time and costs, as a trial might be avoided. The government believes this further obligation to give notice will not lead to injustice.
The notice is limited to trials in the Supreme Court. Additionally, the court is empowered to allow the defence a shorter period of time than the 14-day notice period prescribed in the legislation, to comply with the notice obligations. In short, notices in the interests of procedural fairness will, potentially, reduce trauma and inconvenience to witnesses and decrease court time and cost.
The courts and the legal profession have been consulted in relation to the decision to introduce the legislation. The majority of stakeholders were supportive. In particular, the judges of the Supreme Court noted that the absence of a requirement for the defence to give notice of intention to call expert evidence can create procedural difficulties in the trial process and unfairness to the prosecution, due to the lack of opportunity to properly prepare to meet the defence evidence.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 33)
(Serial 33)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms ANDERSON (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is to amend arrangements concerning the management of government records and archives, following the administrative separation of records and archives services within the government structure.
Until recently, the Northern Territory Archives Service managed both record services to government and archive services to government and the community. In 2007, the archive service transferred from the former Department of Corporate and Information Services (DCIS) to the then Department of Planning Environment and Arts (NRETA), while the record service function was retained within DCIS. The archive service was relocated to NRETA to align it with other collection- and heritage-focused agencies of government, while the record service remained with DCIS as an internal service to government.
Following recent changes to the public service structures, the archival heritage functions remained with the Department of Natural Resources Environment and Arts and Sports, and the records policy and the systems function became the responsibility of the newly formed Department of Business and Employment, which assumed functions of the former DCIS.
Part 9 of the Information Act deals with records and archives management. As Part 9 provides for archive services to manage both these functions, it became necessary to review the legislation and provide for record services to be managed by another part of government. There has been no change to the service delivered. Two work units have moved within the government structure and there has been no change to the resourcing of these services. There remains only the requirement to facilitate this change in the legislation.
The bill contains six key amendments to Part 9 of the Information Act. Clause 3 revises the definition of ‘archive services’ and ‘standard’. It also inserts seven new definitions of terms, including: ‘applicable standard’, ‘appraise’, ‘archives standard’, ‘disposal’, ‘permanent record’, ‘records services’ and ‘records standard’. These definitions describe in more detail the role of the Records Service and Archives Services in managing these functions.
Clause 4 replaces the requirement for archives services to manage these functions and provides for two separate services to now perform these functions. The Records Service is established to prepare records standards; provide policy and systems to assist agencies to comply with the standards; monitor agency compliance; and facilitate the preparation of records retention and disposal schedules. The Archives Service continues to appraise records; collect, transfer, preserve and provide access to archives; prepare archives standards; provide assistance to agencies to comply with the standards; and monitor agency compliance.
Clause 5 amends the requirement for agencies to make arrangements for the Archive Service to monitor the management of their records, with the requirement for agencies to make arrangements for both the Record Service and Archive Service to monitor the management of their records and archives.
Part 9, Division 3 provides for the creation of standards for the Archives Service and the process of consulting with other bodies; the review of the standards; and approval of the standards by the minister. Clause 6 substitutes this with provision for: the Archives Service to continue with these responsibilities for archives standards; the Records Service to take responsibility for record standards; consultation between the services and other bodies when preparing standards; the approval of standards by the minister responsible for the relevant service; the Records Service to facilitate the development of records retention and disposal schedules; and approval of records retention and the disposal schedules by the Record Service, the Archive Services and the responsible agency.
There is a provision describing how a person may mishandle records and commit an offence. However, it is not an offence if it is done in compliance with the relevant standard. Clause 7 substitutes ‘standard’ with ‘standard applicable to a public sector organisation’. This clarifies the type of standard.
There is also a provision describing how it is an offence to mishandle records to prevent access to them or correction of them when an application has been made under Part 3 of the Information Act (Freedom of Information). As in the previous provision, it is not an offence if it is done in compliance with the relevant standard. Clause 7 substitutes ‘standard’ with ‘standard applicable to a public sector organisation’. This clarifies the type of standard.
The amendments to the Information Act will bring about the administrative changes to the Archives Services and Records Service to facilitate the separation of two units.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement which accompanies the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2007-08
Note Paper - Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report 2007-08
Continued from 25 November 2008.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I turn the House’s attention to the mid-year report for the financial year 2008-09. I begin with the observation that I find it a little surprising that, for some reason, we have determined to place this as item No 1 on the Notice Paper when we will next be dealing with item No 2 on the Notice Paper which, chronologically, places these two debates in the wrong direction. However, I have raised it with the Leader of Government Business and he does not see it as a major issue and, frankly, it is not. However, I would have preferred to be talking about last year’s budget first, rather than this year’s budget first.
Anyway, with that observation made, here we are and we are talking about the mid-year report. I note at the outset that there is a discrepancy between the mid-year report as produced by Northern Territory Treasury and by the Commonwealth Treasury in their MYEFO – which is their Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which I think is the name of the document, hereinafter called MYEFO. There is a discrepancy between the Northern Territory’s estimation as to what the fall in the GST income would be and what the government has publicly stated that the fall in the income will be - and it is an $8m discrepancy. The Northern Territory government has announced a fall of $56m, thus reaching the estimated deficit for this financial year on the cash statement of $9m, whereas the original budget anticipated a deficit of $47m, where the original budget anticipated a surplus of $9m. I invite the minister to explain why there is a difference of $63.514m between the two documents. It does raise the question as to how much faith we can place in the Treasurer’s public assertions about the condition of the budget.
I am also concerned - and this is one of the reasons why I wanted to be able to talk about the next item on the budget paper first - there is also a discrepancy - I advise the Treasurer that I will be raising this issue in the House - between the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for last year and the Auditor-General’s summation of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement of last year. This is why I, particularly, in an earlier debate in this House, asked the Treasurer to be quite specific in relation to the figure of $6.4m being the remnant amount left in the Treasurer’s Advance; whereas the Auditor-General has come up with a figure which is slightly over $4m - another discrepancy. What we now have is a situation where the federal government does not agree with the Treasurer, and the Auditor-General does not agree with the Treasurer, and we have to continue relying on the Treasurer’s ‘trust me’ approach as to how this budget is put together.
The Treasurer, I note, relies on Access Economics’ assertion that we have a growth forecast of 4.7% for the current financial year. As well, I note in the mid-year financial report the growth forecast of a similar 4.5% puts them roughly in the same boat. However, both the economic forecast of Access Economics and this particular document, to reach those figures, have to make certain assumptions. I draw members’ attention to the bottom of page 16 in the 2008-09 mid-year report which says:
Economic growth in the Territory is forecast to increase by a solid 4.5% in 2008-09 driven by growth in public sector investment and consumption.
Although the prices for most of the Territory’s resource commodities are expected to be lower than in 2007-08, volumes of productions are expected
to increase substantially. This reflects the ramping up of production at a number of mines throughout the Northern Territory and oil and gas fields in
the Timor Sea that will lead to a strong volume growth in nett exports.
The situation on the global front is somewhat grimmer than we would have known in November, when this document hit the table. Subsequent to that time, we have seen the effective non-operation of McArthur River Mine, the Browns project, and GBS Gold. Several of those producers have stopped producing altogether and others have limited their production. It is with some concern that I note in Japan, their annual growth is now minus-12.5%. Japan, being one of our major trading partners, is a consumer of the raw materials that we produce. We heard the Chief Minister talk about his trip to Japan earlier today and the importance of the trip. He identified Japan, particularly, as one of our major trading partners.
Similarly, the situation in China is that, whilst China is still on the right side of zero in its growth numbers, it ain’t the double digit growth that used to occur. Therefore, I have some reservations about these projected growth rates, particularly the 4.5% figure, as well as the Access Economic 4.7% figure, because MRM and those things were not calculated into each of these numbers.
Whilst that quote goes on to talk about other export sources of income for the Northern Territory such as the Alcan refinery at Gove, Territory’s Resources iron ore, Frances Creek, and OM Holdings at Bootu Creek, I do not know what their current exports are. I suspect, if what is being reflected in other jurisdictions is correct, then perhaps 4.5% might still be a bit on the ambitious side. However, we will see. This will be a matter which will resolve itself in about six months’ time when the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement comes out.
I am also concerned about some of the other assumptions which are now possibly redundant in this particular document. It is unusual to be discussing a document in these circumstances because, normally, we could comfortably rely on the steadiness of these documents. However, in the current environment, we find that the earth moves under our feet, and there is an element of redundancy in these documents which is far more advanced than would normally be the case.
I also refer members, and the Treasurer, to another area of concern to me. It deals with the 10-year bond rate and how it affects the Northern Territory. I draw members’ attention to the bottom of page 24 in the 2008-09 mid-year report, because it has a direct effect on our nett debt plus employee liability to revenue percentage rates. It is an area of concern, and I would like the Treasurer, in her final words on this, to address this particular issue. I would like to know what the current state of play is right now in relation to these numbers. I will quote the important bit from the bottom of page 24:
- When compared to the 2007-08 outcome of 89%, nett debt plus employee liabilities as a ratio to revenue has significantly increased in all forward years.
As foreshadowed in the 2007-08 federal Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report and the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook report, this increase is predominantly
due to the long-term bond rate used to value the Territory’s superannuation liability. A discount rate of 6.5%, as required by accounting standards, was
applied in the 2007-008 actual outcome, resulting in a lower liability. However, since 30 June 2008, the current downturn in financial markets and
associated rate cuts by the Reserve Bank of Australia have reduced the 10-year bond rate to around 5% at the time of writing. Accordingly, 5% has been
used in valuing the Territory’s superannuation for 2008-09, with 5.35% used for 2009-10, and 5.7% estimated for all other forward years, being the long-term
average used by the Territory at budget time.
The 10-year bond rate is not 5%, it is actually 4% right now. I checked the other day with the RBA’s graph, and it is just a smidgeon, a fraction, over 4%. With interest rates going the way they are at the moment, and the fact that the government has almost abandoned monetarism in favour of fiscal stimulus packages, believing that interest rates are no longer the vehicle by which you adjust investment, I suspect what is going to happen in the current climate is that interest rates are going to keep creeping down despite these stimulus packages. As a consequence of that, you will find that the bond rate will track down behind it. That will have a direct effect on the long-term liabilities of this government, particularly in the area of superannuation.
I suspect, as investments in TIO start to crystallise and people will want to start getting some of their money back, there will also be a negative effect on TIO which will wash over onto the government guarantee. I have raised these issues already in parliament. They remain unanswered, and I would like the Treasurer to draw her attention to these particular issues.
The reason this is important is that, if you allow for a fluctuation of the 10-year bond rate to fall by 1.5% and you get an income to debt ratio shift that is 17% as a result of that, what you actually have achieved is a big shift in income to debt ratio. I suspect the 10-year bond rates being used by Treasury are ambitiously high, and that 4% is probably still on the ambitious side of the ledger considering the way things are panning out at the moment, particularly for the medium term of one or two years in calculating this out. My question to the Treasurer is quite specific: has Treasury revisited the assumptions used for the bond rate? If they have, what nett debt plus employee liability to revenue ratio are they now projecting?
I look forward to that answer from the Treasurer, because I suspect it will be a figure much higher than the 106% which is currently being quoted on page 25. I suspect that the projections between the financial years 2009-10 to 2011-12 will also be substantially higher. A fall in interest rates means an increase in the Northern Territory government’s exposure to employee liabilities, in particular, and superannuation costs. I would also like to see the Treasurer table, if possible, some projections in relation to how our employee liability situation is tracking.
The Treasurer has made much in the past of the situation of the Northern Territory government in the financial year 2001-02, when they took over control of the Northern Territory budget. Without revisiting all of those issues - and there are many which I could discuss - the nett debt and employee ratio to earnings was 131 at the time. I believe it actually finished the financial year at 133, if I remember the TAFRs from that year correctly - which is not a good result; it was high. However, one has to realise that these ratios are not calculated on a year-for-year basis; they actually have a prediction component built into them. It is curious to see how it will track now. One has to remember, in that time, our annual income was $2.2bn and it now tracks in the order of about $3.5bn or $3.6bn, which means we have a substantially increased income. What we also have is a substantially increased nett debt plus employee liability situation. I suspect, as I have already stated, and for the reasons I have stated, that employee liability will increase.
I also note, from several comments the Treasurer made, that she keeps asserting nett debt is going down. It is not going down. I draw members’ attention to a very convenient assertion by the Treasurer that she uses and will rely on to justify nett debt coming down, based on the general government sector balance sheet. For members who are so inclined, I draw your attention to page 29 where, indeed, nett debt looks like it is tracking down - and bully for the Treasurer on that one! However, that is not where the government’s liability ends when it comes to the issue of nett debt.
I ask members to flick a couple of pages forward into this document, where there is another balance sheet. Yes, there we are. You can find it on page 32, the Public Non-Financial Corporation Balance Sheet. This jigger is where you will find the nett debt from borrowings which are about to be taken out by areas that are not specifically based in the general government sector balance sheet. This debt, you will notice on the bottom of this page, is ramping up substantially. It is probably going up about 80% or 90% on projections to 2012. The reason for that is the borrowings are not being done by the general government sector. The borrowings are being done by Power and Water Corporation as part of their infrastructure expenditure - infrastructure expenditure which was intended to be done by borrowings, when it could have been done from all that extra revenue which had been collected over the last few years, and we would not have had to raise debt to achieve it.
As we hurtle towards a $200m black hole, thanks to this Treasurer, we are doing it on the back of an income stream which has yet to be matched in the history of the Northern Territory. I find it astonishing that the government is so dependent on this infrastructure package. No matter about the debate in relation to the infrastructure package, they are absolutely addicted to the expenditure of money and they are still absolutely reliant on a bail-out package. They were prepared to take the first package that came along - $200m was the package last week: ‘$200m! Oh, my God! Shock, horror! $200m, we really need that’.
It was only when somebody came into this Chamber and said: ‘Hang on, that is not such a good deal’, that they found another $300m to claim. They spent the whole of yesterday saying: ‘It is $505m, depending on take-up rates’. It just shows you how desperate they are. They signed up for the first deal not knowing the details of that deal at all; they signed up to the first deal that was shovelled up to them by the federal government and did not ask a question about it, just said: ‘Oh, $200m! I will take that, thanks. Phew, that is this year’s drug fix sorted out’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Ms LAWRIE: The shadow Treasurer is highly offensive - highly offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw those comments. Thank you very much.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. If Mrs Robinson over there is a little sensitive about these things, then so be it ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just what is the shadow Treasurer saying in the reference to Mrs Robinson?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: It is a reference to a Simon and Garfunkel song.
Madam SPEAKER: It is an odd reference; I think it is perhaps offensive. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw Mrs Robinson, Madam Speaker. I am just wondering if the minister would be kind enough to go through the Greater Oxford Dictionary for me and advise me of which words she does not find offensive.
The fact is - and small wonder they are getting twitchy, I might add - it is ridiculous the way they ran the argument last week with a figure of $200m saying how it was so horrible and, when it was pointed out to them that it was actually not a good deal, they suddenly decided: ‘Oh, my goodness, it is worth more. We have to talk more about these things and find them more’. It just shows the desperation that percolates through this government because they have had an approach to expenditure in the past which has left us vulnerable in these times.
Why are we borrowing? Why - in this age of so much income, since we have been the beneficiaries of a tax system that they actively rejected, fought against and voted against in this House, but they have become the beneficiaries of it, and that income has been substantial – do we find that we are in an increased debt situation? Nett debt is going up when you look at the total government sector, as is the superannuation liability. And it will be amplified by the current fiscal environment.
This government committed itself years ago to a fiscal strategy which, if they had been a little more attentive, would have produced results far better than what have been produced. I raised this issue before in this House, and I went back and checked those debates. During those debates, I started raising the issue that there are actually two increases we get every year, essentially. One of them is: we know how much we are going to get - you can find those projections in the budget books. Then there is the extra where we did not expect to get more money - the GST windfall - as it is called ...
Ms Lawrie: It is not a windfall. What do you want? New South Wales to take it instead, do you?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: The GST windfall, as it is called. I can tell you something: that is money we never expected to get. Did this government save that money? Did they go to the bank accountant and say: we are going to put it away? A little they did; they poured a little into the Conditions of Service Reserve, which has now become the piggy bank for infrastructure projects. How much have you raided that for in recent times?
Ms Lawrie: We have not done any raids.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: How much is it worth today? How much was it worth 12 months ago? This government has taken the small amounts of saving whilst debt goes up, while superannuation employee liabilities go up and, now, they are announcing a $200m black hole ...
Ms Lawrie: No, we are not.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, you are. You are announcing it, and you are doing it almost as a footnote to a media release - $150m in the next financial year. The only thing which will get them even close to $47m this financial year is that, when they get this money from the federal government in June, they will stick it in the bank account and, all of a sudden, there will be this really good improvement in our financial situation.
The only place from whence this government can draw comfort is from their own source revenue because, this financial year, they will have to be relying on the GST guarantee to keep them in their current position. This is why next financial year we are going to cop such a hit, because that guarantee stops on 30 June this calendar year and they have to turn to their own source revenue. The Treasurer insists that own source revenue is holding up. Where? Where is it holding up - mining royalties?
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely!
Mr ELFERINK: Are they? Then table those documents. I notice that the Treasurer …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin well knows that he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: He is right, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, he is; if you could do so, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: I defer to his wisdom and insight.
I ask, in that case, that the Treasurer gets the most recent projections the Treasury can give her - her briefing note or whatever - and tables it in this House, with the date the projection was calculated, because I find it difficult to understand how mining royalties are going up in the current environment. I am nervous that, with an unemployment rate which has crept up slightly in the last few months, we are relying on our payroll tax as a source of increased income. I am not entirely sure that more people are gaining at the moment because there may well be less disposable income.
For all of these areas, I would like to know what the current projections are and how they are tracking because, under normal circumstances, it would be quite proper of us to rely on this document. However, these are not normal circumstances, these are circumstances in which a document like this becomes redundant in fairly quick time, and the projections held in this document are unreliable given the circumstances of what is occurring, particularly with interest rates.
I look forward to the Treasurer’s response, particularly on the issues surrounding the projections of the superannuation liability and the nett debt situation, including the ratio issue that I raised earlier. If she does table that, I would also like to know the date when those calculations were made by Treasury. I look forward to what the Treasurer has to say on this particular issue.
The only thing which will keep this government at a $50m deficit this year is a cash income from another source. So far, the only light on the horizon is the Commonwealth government’s credit card. Being a fiscal conservative in the true sense of the word, I am nervous about credit card expenditure. Whilst I accept the necessity of it from time to time, the fact is that a job created today is generally created at the expense of a job not created tomorrow, because you are paying back credit card debt. Nothing in this world is for free and, if the government wants to rack stuff up on the credit card in the current environment, I understand that there are good fiscal arguments to support that position. If the federal government wants to rack up expenditure on the credit card, I understand that there are reasonable and good fiscal arguments to support that position. However, I am mindful that the chant and the mantra that this is all for jobs is only half the debate – and is true in the Northern Territory, as it is true for the federal government. We are more service deliverers than economic managers in what we do as a provincial government, or as a state government. However, having made that observation, we too are capable of racking stuff up on the credit card, and that is exactly what this government will be doing to the tune of at least $200m in the next 18 months.
I am mindful that is $200m which will have to be paid back, and of the fact that our income sources are being reduced over that period. I am careful to point out that, whilst that may have an affect on jobs and investment in the short term, it will also have an affect on jobs and investment in the long term. A job which is created now is being done literally at the expense of a job which may be created in the future ...
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not. What a lot of rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, what are you going to pay it back with?
Ms Lawrie: What a load of rubbish, really. What part of economic growth do you not understand in terms of jobs creation?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: I understand it very well. I understand this much: you have to pay back these loans; the government has to pay back these loans. What are they going to pay them back with - air? The fact is these loans have to be paid back, and money paid back on a loan is not money which is available for other purposes. For the Treasurer to sit here and say, ‘No, no it is not. It has nothing to do with it’. For her to simply argue that you pay back loans with nothing – well, that is errant nonsense and, for the first time since starting this debate and being the shadow Treasurer, I am genuinely irritated with this minister. I can tell you the Treasurer is living in la la land if she thinks there is going to be no effect by increasing the debt of the Northern Territory. That effect will be real, and the only reason it does not touch this particular Treasurer is because it will not be her who has to pay it back, it will be another government on another day. Her attitude is so typical of the Labor Party in relation to this sort of thing; rack it up on the credit card - just rack it up and to hell with the future.
Ms Lawrie: Says the CLP who left us in debt.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: That is an outrageous position, and for her to be so precious about it and dismissive of the future demonstrates that she has not a care about the future of the Northern Territory. That tells me her only interest is in her own self-image and her own presentation as the Treasurer of the Northern Territory right now.
It is a disgrace that the Treasurer is so dismissive of debt. It is the reason we are racking up more debt on a daily basis in the best of times. Do you think that we are going to reduce debt in the worst of times? Not a chance! The worst of times means that our debt to income ratio will start to go up, and go up substantially. The worst of times means that, when I am out of this parliament and when she is out of this parliament, we, as a jurisdiction, will still be paying off the debt she has saddled Territorians with.
They complain about a black hole, well, their black hole is substantially bigger than any black hole they have ever been presented with. I find it disgraceful that this Treasurer is so dismissive – so dismissive of the future of the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I sat here listening very interestedly to the contribution by the member for Port Darwin, who continually talks the Northern Territory economy down. I believe he is completely out of touch with the business community and the real challenges we face.
The bottom line is that the Northern Territory’s fiscal position is very strong, despite what the member for Port Darwin says. It is strong. We are coming off the back of six surplus budgets, and I know this government has the confidence of the business community. Furthermore, it is heartening to hear the confidence expressed by the business community in the future of the Northern Territory, particularly given these difficult times. It was very evident at the summit which was held last Sunday afternoon where it was expressed by a number of speakers. They reflected on the poor fiscal position and outlook in other states within Australia, but the relatively and comparatively good outlook in the Northern Territory, particularly in the construction sector. The biggest challenge for us is to find capacity, and manage the capacity issues around the industry to meet all the projects that are on the horizon: we have INPEX on the horizon, the stimulus package, record capital expenditure by this government. Since we came to power, our infrastructure spend has been at record levels and greatly appreciated by the construction sector. I believe it is a matter of capacity; it is a matter of managing the projects on our horizon. I have every confidence in our Treasurer - both as Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure - that she has a mind for the timing of these particular projects.
The member for Port Darwin made a lot about bleak confidence – ‘faith in assertions’, I believe were the words used by the member for Port Darwin, in relation to both the Treasurer’s Mid-year Financial Statement or report, and also what is emerging day-by-day almost, because of the world economic crisis.
I remind members on the other side that it was this government that introduced the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, which was in response to the fiddling that went on by the opposition when they were in government, around budget estimates, particularly around elections. I believe although there might be a divergence of views, that the fact we introduced it ensures a well-informed debate, with everything out on the table. I really applaud that. I know the shadow Treasurer is not going to agree with all the figures and he can point to discrepancies in the figures. Those who read The Financial Review know there is a debate within the economic community about forward projections. Economics is not an exact science and there will be differing views about outlooks and different rates that are at the base of budget assumptions.
I listened with interest the other day when the member for Port Darwin was talking about the three degrees he has. I know he has a Bachelor of Arts, and also a Bachelor of Laws from the University of New England, but I am very interested to know what the third degree is. I am interested to know if it is in economics, and what school of economics it came from …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am just asking the question.
The Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act is a cornerstone of these debates we are having here. It was introduced by this government in response to what happened around the last CLP budget, when they were fiddling around the forward estimates. Economics expert, Professor Percy Allan, came in and found the CLP black hole about budget assumptions - I believe it was $130m - that were completely off the planet. There was the sale of NT Fleet, and a whole range of other aspects; also the way in which it wound back the budget estimates around police, education, and health coming into the 2001 election.
This government has openness and transparency in the debates around our budget and our budget forecasts. I commend the Treasurer for her publication. She will debate the issues raised by the member for Port Darwin today. We are in a period of unprecedented stress in both the global and Australian economies and, as I alluded to before, we have had six successive cash surpluses in our budgets and our budgets have been employed very well. The member for Port Darwin talked about the GST windfalls. There is no doubt - and this government is not backing away from the fact - that significant GST revenues have flowed to this government, however, we have employed those surpluses in spending on health, education and police - all areas that had the screws put on them by the previous CLP government.
Through my experience in the Health portfolio and also the Transport portfolio …
Mr Tollner: Yes, we know about your experiences, too.
Dr BURNS: Just listen; you might learn something. I know the federal government was having surpluses as well, but it was doing it at the expense of the states and territories. What they were doing in health was ratcheting back the 50:50 contribution which had existed for some time around hospitals. At the end of the Howard years, the Territory was paying 60% and the Commonwealth government was paying 40%; government had to outlay more money from those GST revenues into those areas. In transport - what happened with Tiger Brennan Drive? There was an agreement for a 50:50 contribution. As prices escalated, and we knew they were escalating - the price of steel and labour was escalating - the Commonwealth government steadfastly refused to pay their fair share of the 50% and …
Mr Tollner: You are incompetent.
Dr BURNS: I remember the member for Fong Lim saying with Jim Lloyd: this is going to happen and that is going to happen and, within a day, there was a retraction from Jim Lloyd in relation to Tiger Brennan. What has happened with the Labor government? There has been a commitment of money that was never forthcoming under the previous Coalition government ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Members, cease interjecting, please.
Mr Tollner: You are hopeless!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the question was asked, and I have answered that question in relation to the way in which this government has deployed extra revenue within the Northern Territory. What does the opposition want? Did they not want us to spend more money on education? Did they not want us to spend more money on police? Did they not want us to spend more money on health? What is their position? It is about as garbled and as mixed up as their position on the stimulus package ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I can answer the minister. Quite simply, what the opposition wanted was an outcome ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat, please, member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have thought the building of Tiger Brennan Drive would be an outcome …
Mr Tollner: Spending money is not an outcome!
Dr BURNS: That is an outcome. It just stalled under you …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The member for Solomon completely stalled – could not advocate; could not seal the deal …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Talking about confidence in our business community, it was my pleasure on Saturday night to attend Ray White’s awards night. Ray White, in the Northern Territory, has amalgamated with the South Australian operations and Mr Nick George, who owns that business and an associated loans business, is working together with Ray White and offering people finance. I found out on Saturday night it is the third largest non-bank home lender in Australia, so it is a significant player in the market. The Leader of the Opposition was there
Mr Nick George talked about confidence in the Territory economy; he talked about ongoing confidence in the Territory economy compared to other states and territories in Australia. In conversation with him, he reiterated that. He has a very strong view about the future of the Territory and how he, as a very successful business person, wants to be more involved - and is becoming more involved - in the Northern Territory.
That is in stark contrast to the doom and gloom coming from the member for Port Darwin. They need to get out more. The Leader of the Opposition probably needs to be communicating more with the member of Port Darwin and say: ‘On Saturday night I went here, and this was said …
Mr Mills: You would be surprised what was said on Saturday night.
Dr BURNS: There is a lot of confidence out there and you, shadow Treasurer, should be reflecting that.
Mr Mills: Do not go there.
Dr BURNS: It just points to a lack of communication on your side.
There is a rapid deterioration in the international and national financial environment in recent months - everyone knows that. The Territory cannot avoid entirely the impact of the global financial crisis. However, we have a plan, a strategy - unlike members opposite, unlike the disarray of the team in Canberra with poor old Julie Bishop. She has moved on and Joe has taken over the portfolio. I have to say I personally like Joe Hockey. He has a big challenge in front of him as Malcolm Turnbull spirals out of control in the eyes of the Australian public for the woeful way he handled the whole issue of the economic stimulus and …
Members interjecting
Dr BURNS: You know what? This lot followed him. Maybe it is because he has a nice suit, but they are following him down the downward spiral. I heard today that 63% of the Australian community supports the economic stimulus package. These people here are in the minority and, federally, they lack support.
We have good fundamentals and, as Business minister, I will support the ongoing efforts of the government and the Treasurer to maintain our low tax policy. I have a graph here which shows accumulative tax savings that this government has delivered to business since 2001 - over $230m. That is because we are the lowest taxing jurisdiction in Australia on small business. Fact. There are further cuts to come. Not only that, in our support for homeowners and all the things government has brought in, there are substantial savings within our community. I will table that. Maybe members opposite might want to have a look at it, and have a little think about it.
I support the Treasurer in her statement. I agree with member for Port Darwin on one thing: things have moved on since that report was tabled. However, the Treasurer has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, that we are flexible; we are moving to address this issue. We have the confidence of business - small business and large business - and I do not think the opposition does. I believe business takes one look at the member for Port Darwin and what he has to say; it is all gobbledegook and it does not make sense to anyone apart from the member for Port Darwin.
Madam Speaker, I am confident our Treasurer - I know our Treasurer - has the confidence of our business community. Therefore, I commend the report and the Treasurer’s response to it.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Minister for Business, for his contribution. He is out and about and listening to the business community, and is very aware of the confidence that exists across the business sector in the Territory’s economy and how we are tracking.
No one is under any illusion that these are the most challenging of economic times for any jurisdiction anywhere in the world. I am consistently on the record as saying, as the Treasurer of the Territory; we will not be immune from the global financial crisis or the economic downturn. However, that being said, we are the best placed in our nation to ride out the tough economic times we are in now, and all will be in for some time ahead.
Here we are this morning debating the mid-year report I tabled in November and, as the Minister for Business pointed out, under a greater transparency and fiscal integrity regime that it took a Labor government to introduce. I know the member for Port Darwin likes to make much of ‘You cannot trust the Treasurer’s figures and you cannot trust the Treasurer’s estimates’. I can say …
Mr Tollner: I think he was referring to you, actually.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, he was referring to me as the member for Karama – I will pick up on that interjection from the member for Fong Lim, who is a fool.
I can say …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Ms Lawrie: Oh, I withdraw – they are sensitive.
Mr ELFERINK: If Mrs Robinson is offensive, then surely that sort of language is very offensive. Four-letter ‘f’ words - very rare.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, if you would mind containing yourself.
Ms LAWRIE: I point out on page 2, that the mid-year report appears under the Under Treasurer’s certification. Cast any aspersions about me you like, but the reports I table as Treasurer come in here under the Under Treasurer’s certification. It ill behoves you when you are casting aspersions …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I made the point very clearly that this document was probably redundant in the current financial environment. At no point did I say that the Under Treasurer was untrustworthy. That is what she is alluding to, and she has no right ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order. Resume your seat. If you wish to make a personal …
Ms LAWRIE: There is no point of order. No. You made it very clear throughout your speech that assumptions contained within the report …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, resume your seat.
Mr Mills: Have some decorum, for goodness sake, if you want to be the Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Lawrie: No, I do not, actually.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, please resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, if you wish to make a personal explanation, then approach me at the end of this debate. Treasurer, please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The shadow littered throughout his flights of fancy queries about the assumptions Treasury had made within the mid-year report. The government is on the record - I am on the record - saying that a lot has changed since November of last year; there is no doubt about that. In just two-and-a-half months, the global economy has significantly worsened. We are all aware of that, but this mid-year report provided a snapshot in time, an overview of the Territory’s updated financial position which included the money flowing through from the Commonwealth in the form of GST payments and Specific Purpose Payments, our SPPs, and based on a revised estimate in the Commonwealth Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the MYEFO.
I have already provided this response to the member for Port Darwin, and I will provide it again. The difference between the mid-year report and the MYEFO numbers regarding GST is because - and I have said this before - we have used Northern Territory population estimates which are higher than the Commonwealth. This is the case in every report. I have said that on the record, yet you continue to query: what is the difference, why is there a difference? We have repeated it again and again; it is based on population estimates. It is very simple, not difficult to understand, but the member for Port Darwin likes to fantasise about why there is a difference.
In November, I reported to this House that, based on the revised estimates, the Territory was facing a deficit of $47m in 2008-09, as the global economic downturn was affecting the wider Australian economy, resulting in reduced GST revenue as consumption levels in the southern states slowed. In view of the rapidly changing international and national environment, the federal Treasury released a further set of estimates in the updated economic and fiscal outlook earlier this month, setting out a revised fiscal strategy and a revised economic outlook, forecasting a federal deficit over the budget and forward estimates period, with the expected receipts for the Commonwealth revised down by around $115bn - down a further $75bn since its MYEFO. Like many leading economies in the face of eroding revenue and a deteriorating global economy, Australia is now facing a deficit of $22.5bn in 2008-09, and $35.5bn in 2009-10. However, the Commonwealth government has committed to returning the budget to surplus as soon as revenues allow.
Following the federal Treasury’s advice of falling GST revenues, the Territory Treasury revised our fiscal position and, like most Australian jurisdictions, we will move into deficit. We are predicting here to hold that deficit at around $47m in 2008-09, and we are predicting that to worsen to an estimated $150m in 2009-10. However, unlike other jurisdictions, our own source revenues are holding up well and we expect that this position will be maintained over the forward estimate periods.
As an example of how the assumptions of the member for Port Darwin and the Deputy Opposition Leader can be so far wrong - and I say assumptions - they both assumed during debate this morning that our mining royalties are not holding as predicted. In fact, what I predicted in the mid-year report is that we would see an increase in mining royalties. They both assumed that is wrong. I can report that mining royalties in the mid-year report were predictably up by $88m due to the effect of the long-term contracts already in place ...
Mr Elferink: Up by $88m, or to $88m?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Up by $88m. These additional funds in the mid-year report have now been received. They were trying to paint a picture that our predictions are so far wrong because we do not understand what is happening in the mining sector. Well, they are wrong. We have already received the increased mining royalties that we had predicted.
It is very important to be clear that this is a temporary deficit I have announced for the Northern Territory. This is a result of the global financial crisis, which is affecting national spending levels and, in turn, reducing the national GST collections which go directly to state revenue. The GST is about 67% of our total budget revenue.
However, our local economy is holding up well, and certainly better than other state jurisdictions. The Labor government, through strong economic management, has delivered six consecutive surplus budgets. This is what places us well to ride out the toughest years of this economic cycle. While Australia’s economic growth is expected to slow to 1% this year, our economy is faring much better and we are predicting a forecast of 4.5% growth this year, and Access Economics is forecasting 4.7%.
The member for Port Darwin made much of his assertions and he queries those predictions by both the Northern Territory Treasury and Access Economics. This Kellogg’s packet shadow Treasurer asserts he has a greater grasp of the economy than the experts. He spoke of our trading partners, the downturn in growth - a significant downturn in growth - of our trading partners. Regarding the exports commentary in the mid-year report, what he did not pick up on - which he should have - is that it mainly relates to LNG exports. These LNG exports are not slowing. Indeed, as we are seeing through the strength of our mining royalty receipts, a number of other exports - for example, manganese, bauxite and alumina - are also still quite strong.
I speak regularly to the Treasurers of other jurisdictions and they are all facing falling revenues, falling consumption levels, and low growth. I speak regularly to Territory business leaders and they all tell me they would rather be here than in any other place in Australia. Confidence is the key when we are facing the risk of a global depression - and the Territory remains confident. More Territorians have jobs, our population is growing and there is strength in our local construction industry and property markets. Key indicators show the Territory is out performing the nation in private consumption and will continue to enjoy strong population growth. The labour force participation rate is 73.1% as of January 2008, compared to a national average of 65%. The unemployment rate trend, 4.2% as of January, compares to a 4.6% national average. Retail trade growth, 12%, year-on-year growth, compares to the 4.4% national average year-on-year growth.
The federal stimulus package will deliver around $450m to $500m for the Territory economy and significant infrastructure over the years ahead to support jobs. The member for Port Darwin made much of the fact that, at COAG, I estimated $200m in infrastructure. If he wants to go to the actual detail of that media release, rather than seek to go on his flights of fancy, he will read that I was quite specific in the components of that $200m which are the components around education infrastructure, housing infrastructure and the component for roads and rail. What was not included in that was the pull-down into the Territory economy of the direct payments and tax breaks for businesses. If you look at all of those and what the package amounts to, as well as significant Defence housing, in total you are heading towards the $450m to $500m mark. As I said yesterday in the Chamber, if you factor in what we are yet to know, which is our secondary school pool of secondary schools in the class of need, that figure will get higher.
Bear in mind these investments into the Territory economy, made directly through the Rudd government stimulus package, were rejected by the CLP - rejected out of hand. Their man in Canberra voted against it. He did not stand up for Territorians and say: ‘We will take that, but give us another slice because I am in a position, with the power of one vote, to negotiate for more’. He kept his head down, kept his tail between his legs, and voted with his Liberal mates in Canberra. He put the Libs in Canberra ahead of the needs of Territorians, to their eternal shame. We will continue to remind you of that.
We know that the stimulus will have a significant impact on our economic pipeline for the here and the now. As the Chief Minister has said, it will take us through these tough two to three years. Indeed, that is exactly where the stimulus package falls. What do we know is on the horizon for the Territory’s economy? The INPEX investment. It grows more certain. We know INPEX has moved to the front-end engineering and design stage and they have commenced community consultation regarding the possible site for a workers’ camp - $12bn-odd onshore investment; a total $23bn-plus package of investment for the nation.
Access Economics did not factor this investment into their economic forecast for the Territory where they had an averaging out of around 2% growth over the five-year forward estimates. Bear in mind that INPEX, which would represent the single biggest private sector investment in the Territory’s history, is fundamentally our best insurance policy, aside from the economic stimulus which will tide us through the tough times. The INPEX investment and the INPEX project is the best insurance policy we can have against the impact of the global financial crisis. Who was it? It was a Labor government that went out and secured that project, stole it from Western Australia. It was a Labor government that had the foresight to go out and aggressively pursue the INPEX project and to work hand-in-hand with the …
Mr Elferink: Like the CLP never did anything with gas?
Ms LAWRIE: The CLP’s Leader of the Opposition was out there peddling letters into letterboxes saying what a bad project it was going to be.
These are tough economic circumstances and we have seen governments around the world moving into deficit in order to keep economies afloat. The shadow made much of this Treasurer not caring about debt; that I would rather go into debt and I do not care because someone else is going to have to deal with the problem. What a load of rubbish. There is not a Treasurer in the world who would want to go into deficit by choice ...
Mr Elferink: But do not be so flippant.
Ms LAWRIE: There is a global financial crisis, you idiots!
Ms Purick: Oh, you have noticed. About time you noticed.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, we are not idiots.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw ‘idiots’.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
There is clearly a global financial crisis, which is the reason why we are seeing significant reductions in revenue - that is, in GST - coming as a result of the slowdown in the southern states. We have a choice: slash spending, slash jobs, pull back on infrastructure spending and stay in surplus - as the CLP would have us do. Or, we maintain spending in those key areas of growth requirements across the Territory - areas that my colleague, the Minister for Business, quite appropriately pointed out where we have put significant spending – health, education, law and order, and record infrastructure.
In roads alone - the opposition have all of a sudden discovered roads. All of a sudden, the opposition is starting to mention roads. Well, hallelujah! I say as the Roads minister, because they have not paid attention to them in the past. The CLP spent $80m on roads. There will be $270m spent this financial year under a Labor government. We are the ones who are out there improving the road network which we inherited as a legacy of disrepair, and the woeful state of only 23% of our road network sealed.
Mr Elferink: Rubbish!
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin. There was 23% of our road network sealed under the CLP, and we are out there with the largest road spend in the history of the Territory. I make no apology whatsoever for putting increased budgets into the core areas of service delivery in which Territorians, quite rightly, expect to see improvements - not just in the urban centres with our head in the sand and forget the bush, which was the method of the CLP. Proudly, a Labor government spends across the Territory, across all our regions, across our remotes regions, for all Territorians. We make no apology for that.
The great Kellogg’s economic expert opposite would have us think that you do not worry, you slash jobs, you rein in your spending and you stay in surplus during tough economic times. Well, I will use a couple of commentators who just might know what they are talking about and whose advice I would take rather than listen to the advice of the member for Port Darwin.
One is the International Monetary Fund. Ray Brooks is the Division Chief of the IMF Asia Pacific Department, and he says increased government spending has already helped cushion the blow and more is needed, even if it results in a budget deficit. I quote him: ‘It would be unwise to stop going. The budget has to go into deficit in these circumstances’. The head of the IMF is calling on governments to roll-out stimulus packages to avoid another Great Depression. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF managing director, has stated: ‘Loss of confidence is now the central problem. Governments and central banks should credibly commit to measures sufficient to eliminate the risks of a repeat of the Great Depression’. This is at the time when IMF is forecasting global economic growth to flatline at just 0.5% this year as the global recession deepens.
The shadow Treasurer is calling for cuts to services and jobs to avoid a temporary deficit …
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time of 10 minutes for the member to finish her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am happy to support the motion if she actually answers one of the questions.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. May I remind you, member for Port Darwin, that when the Speaker is putting a question you are not to speak.
Ms LAWRIE: If he had been listening, I have already answered two of his direct questions. The first was the question on the difference in figures between the MYR and my MYEFO on population estimates. The second was the issue of royalties and, therefore, economic growth figures, and how we can sustain the 4.5% prediction, and Access Economics’ $4.7% prediction. However, he was not listening there either.
I will continue. The issue of deficit is not one any Treasurer likes, in fact, good Treasurers do their utmost to avoid deficits. I hope to be in the category of a good Treasurer. Time will tell, but I can tell you it is not easy in the midst of a global financial crisis and economic downturn, juggling the aspirations of a Treasurer for surplus, and the needs of Territorians for a continued spend by government. I will put the Territory before my own personal desire not to break the Labor record of consecutive surpluses. I do not want to be the first Labor Treasurer to break those consecutive surpluses but, guess what? I care more about Territory families out there who rely on jobs to pay their mortgages, to pay their rent, to get their kids clothed, fed and to school, than I do about whether or not I would be the first to go into deficit.
We will do what we need to do to ensure we keep a robust economy, and we continue to create and maintain jobs for Territorians who, very clearly, are seeing the effects of the global financial crisis and the economic downturn. Yes, sadly, I am predicting moving our Territory budget into a temporary deficit. I will put measures in place to ensure that we come out of it as soon as we possibly can, because we know that whilst we are in a low economic cycle, revenues will recover as the economy improves. I am happy to debate the issue of the Treasurer’s Advance when we get to the Auditor-General’s November report - which was a direct question from the member for Port Darwin, which he flagged. I will debate that in the next debate so we have something to actually debate.
Regarding the superannuation liabilities, again and again I have said - the member opposite wants to ignore it – this is the reality of super liabilities. They are long-term. The actuarial advice – again, an expert compared to the Kellogg’s man - is to use long-term bond rates for forward estimates, not the current bond rate. The current bond rate is used for the current year only. Changing the bond rate regularly will result in significant and unrealistic volatility. We are using 5.7% as the long-term rate. Averaged over the last 30 years, that is more realistic than looking at the last six months and projecting forward. Changes in the bond rate really only result in changes in book value at a point in time. It has no effect on the actual payments. That is a requirement of accounting standards only ...
Mr Elferink: Ah, it is a book entry.
Ms LAWRIE: I have said it again and again, but the member for Port Darwin does not like to hear it. Government debt is falling. This is a sector which is supported by our tax revenue. Debt to corporations is rising, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, but that is because they invest in revenue-generating infrastructure; for example, Power and Water. This is how businesses operate. This debt will be paid off over time through revenue from those businesses. Using any spare GST so the Power and Water Corporation does not have to borrow seems like double accounting. This would be money from the GST that is already included in our accounts.
The worsening of the global economic situation will affect the Territory. As I have said repeatedly; we are not immune. Economic forecasts are changing rapidly. However, what we do know is governments must act swiftly to stimulate the economy, to stimulate growth and support jobs. All governments are being affected by investment losses, and many are facing temporary deficits as they support their constituents through the maintenance of essential services and ongoing commitments through infrastructure spending.
This Territory government is absolutely committed to supporting Territorians and Territory businesses through the tough period ahead. The Territory’s budget will continue to be managed prudently. The Territory Treasury’s conservative investment strategies will be maintained - conservative investment strategies - which is why we have lost far less than everyone else.
Mr Elferink interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: If only I could say to him ‘come in spinner’.
For example, while the Australian Stock Exchange suffered losses to the value of 28.6% at the end of December 2008, the Territory’s prudent approach saw the Territory’s total investments drop by only 4%, and the long-term investments held in the Conditions of Service Reserve returned minus-18.38% over the same period.
Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that this government will continue our strong fiscal strategy principles, despite the global economic challenges we face. It is due to our economic management that we are well positioned to ride out the toughest economic cycle of our times.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Parliament House Public Tour participants. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s November 2008 Report
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the great disappointment of my life is I did not get to ask the final question which I was about to fire at the Treasurer. However, I have the opportunity to ask now. Treasurer, how is it when you stand up in this place and say, through your Mid-Year Annual Financial Report, that you are going to get a drop or a reduction in GST revenues of $56m, and the federal government says, through its Treasury, it is going to be $64m? How is it when you say in your Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement the remnants of the Treasurer’s Advance is $6.4m, when the Auditor-General says it is $4.1m? How is it that in your last reply on the debate immediately prior to lunch, you miscalculated mining revenues to the Territory through royalty payments by a factor of 100%? Why should we trust you in anything you say when you make such …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I did not say I miscalculated mining royalties by a factor of 100%. He is not listening in the House. What I clearly said is that in the mid-year report we estimated there will be an increase of mining royalties of up to $88m. We had already been predicting $88m, and we have received it. So do not lie and put words in my mouth.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, please resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, you may continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Here is a little mathematics for the Treasurer of the Northern Territory. When the budget says $88m is what we are going to earn, and then I make an additional $88m, that is $176m. If you look at your own half-yearly report that is what it says. Budget Paper No 2 said from mining royalties we are going to get $88m. In the mid-year report, she said they are going to get $88m more ...
Ms Lawrie: That is right.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. That is a 100% mistake. That is what it is. The Treasurer stands up in this place and has miscalculated the revenues from mining royalties by a factor of 100%.
The Auditor-General, in this report, said that the Annual Treasurer’s Financial Statement is wrong on the issue of the Treasurer’s allowance. The federal Treasury says she is wrong. We rely on what the Treasurer says. The Northern Territory business community, which they have been banging on about for the past few days, relies on the things they say. That reliance is very important, which is why the Treasurer, even more than the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, has to be the most sober they can possibly be in relation to the pronouncements they make.
The fact is there are major errors. When the Treasurer said immediately prior to lunch: ‘Well, we can explain the difference between the MYEFO, which is the Mid-Year Financial Economic Outlook produced by the federal government, and our own budget books. It is because we calculate population differently’. Well, based on what, Treasurer, ABS statistics? Where do you get your population figures which are different to the federal government’s population figures, and how does that affect what we are given?
It is not the Treasurer who determines what we are given as a result of GST income; it is actually the Commonwealth Grants Commission. They do the calculations and they determine what we get, not the Territory Treasury. If the federal government is saying we are not going to get $64m, the Northern Territory Treasury can sit there and hold their breath until they are blue in the face – and there will be no difference to the attitude of the federal government in relation to this matter.
Therefore, the question remains, and the question is quite simple: what is the actual shortfall that is going to occur as a result of the changes in the GST revenues? Is it going to be the $56m that the Treasurer claimed, based on population statistics which are being interpreted in a different way by the Northern Territory Treasury, or is it actually going to be the $64m that the federal Treasury said we are not going to get? It is all very good for her to say: ‘We calculate population differently’. The fact is we will either get $64m or $56m or a number somewhere in between. It is up to this Treasurer to come clean and tell us exactly what the figure is. Do not sit there and talk about the niceties of how it is interpreted. How much money are we, or are we not, going to get?
In more recent times, I had a debate with the Treasurer on this particular issue; that is, the correctness of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement in relation to the Treasurer’s Advance. I asked her to confirm that it was a $6.4m leftover in the cash tin on the tail end of the Treasurer’s Advance, and she said: ‘Yes, absolutely, $6.4m. No doubt about it, that is the figure’. Why then, would the Auditor-General, on page 31 of the November 2008 report the actual amount of unexpected money in the Treasurer’s Advance was $4.173m? They do not agree. I expressed my reservations at the time I raised this issue with the Treasurer, and I got a bucket of abuse tipped on me for having the audacity to challenge the wisdom of the Treasurer on this particular issue.
Well, it would appear that the Auditor-General also has a problem with this particular set of numbers. It is up to the Treasurer to start delivering books and reports to this House which get the approval of the organisations that have something to do with the Territory budget. One of those organisations is the federal Treasury. Another one of those is the Auditor-General’s Office and the Auditor-General himself.
I find it incomprehensible that we find ourselves having to question the Treasurer’s numbers. When I say: ‘Please explain these issues’, we get these ethereal little discussions about counting population numbers; but what we do not get is an explanation.
Who do I trust? Where can I take some comfort? So far, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Auditor-General was wrong in his assessment of the Annual Financial Statement, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest that the MYEFO was wrong in its assessment of the GST revenues for the Northern Territory. However, I turn to the budget papers. I turn to Budget Paper No 2 for own source revenue. I asked the question about how the own source revenue was going, and I was told that mining royalties - in spite of MRM and GBS Gold closing down, and the lower production rates coming out of some of the other mines - are going to double. She said: ‘Look at the gas and look at the rest of the comments in the mid-year report’. I did look, and the assertion is there in the Treasury documents that mining royalties again doubled from $88m to $176m – a mistake of 100%. The Treasurer might get all churlish and bent out of shape that she did not use the term 100% ...
Ms Lawrie: Correct.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I will describe it in the Treasurer’s own words, ‘We had $88m projected, it is now going to be $176m, up by $88m’. That is a 100% mistake, by the way ...
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not a mistake. You do not understand estimates, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes it is. It is a miscalculation. If your projections are so unreliable, Treasurer, why should we rely on anything else you say?
Ms Lawrie: You do not understand it.
Mr ELFERINK: I understand perfectly well when you start a financial year, you have to do projections, and you have to do those projections out from the beginning of the financial year. I well understand that there will be margins of error in those projections because nobody in Treasury, not even the Treasurer herself, is clairvoyant enough to know what is going to happen in 12 months’ time. I can tell you now, if she did have that level of clairvoyance, I am sure the Conditions of Service Reserve would not be down by 18% as a result of her playing the stock market with our superannuation savings. So, Madam Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer does not play the stock market. I have explained to the shadow before that we have a Treasury Corporation which has a great deal of expertise. In fact, if you see their results compared to other results, they have done extraordinarily well in extraordinarily difficult times ...
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, There is no point of order.
Ms Lawrie: I congratulate them.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please direct your comments through the Chair?
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If she had gone down to the Commonwealth Bank she would have gone 7% in the right direction.
Ms Lawrie: Get it right. Do not tempt me.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, in defence of the Treasurer, nobody had that foresight. When you are putting a budget together, you have a rough idea as to what is going to happen in the 12-month period. To be out by as much as 100% on a projection is an unusual result, to say the least. When you see the federal Treasury disagreeing with the Northern Territory government, and the Auditor-General disagreeing with the Northern Territory government, one has to become a little concerned as to the numbers the Treasurer is bringing into this place. She will try every trick in the book to obfuscate and obnubilate her way through this issue.
The fact of the matter is one of the stunts she pulled just before the lunch break is she whipped out the Treasurer’s Mid-year Report and said: ‘Well, look, Jennifer Prince, the Under Treasurer, signed this’. Are you accusing her of something? Are you accusing her of being a - what did she say? I am just trying to remember, Madam Speaker, exactly what she said. She accused me of attacking the Under Treasurer. It is all too common that we see ministers from the opposite side of this House hiding behind the coattails of their senior public servants and blaming them for the utterances and statements and the things that happen in this Chamber. We have seen it with the former Health minister, who twice ran the defence of ‘my department lied to me’. We have seen it with other …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The former Health minister did not do that. The member for Port Darwin is on flights of fancy here – flights of pure fantasy.
Madam SPEAKER: Unfortunately, I was distracted by something else. I did hear you saying the former minister had lied about some things.
Mr ELFERINK: No, I did not say that at all, Madam Speaker. I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, on two occasions the former Health minister ran the defence of being misinformed by his department. That is bureau-speak for lied to. If the government is at all worried about anything, and bent out of shape, the fact is they have this habit of suddenly shoving a public servant out the front every time they are under the pump.
It is the Treasurer who is responsible for what comes into this House. It is the Treasurer who has to cast her eye on the material that is brought into this place. It is the Treasurer who makes these pronouncements, yea or nay. I continue to harbour reservations about the utterances from this Treasurer because to be wrong as often as she is, to have an excuse and a reason for this problem or that problem is no longer satisfying. It happens all too often that we have to come back for clarification and seek guidance from the Treasurer in relation to some of the things she has said. I am becoming extremely concerned about some of the things that are happening.
Last week, we heard the government make it clear that it was a package of about $200m coming from the …
Ms Lawrie: Wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: See! This is it. All of a sudden, that assertion is wrong. Last week, the package was $200m …
Ms Lawrie: Read the media release. Infrastructure. I was very clear and you are misleading again.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: The package was $200m and this week it is $500m.
Ms Lawrie: You are misleading again because you cannot handle the truth. You cannot …
Mr ELFERINK: Let me tell you something: you did not know what you were signing up to, Treasurer. You did not know what you were signing up to.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Resume your seat. Honourable members, Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the affect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Honourable members, there have been a lot of interjections. Treasurer, you will have an opportunity to respond later in debate. Member for Port Darwin, I would like you to direct your comments through the Chair, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is clear they did not know last week what they were signing up to. Do you think they would have been talking about a package of $200m if they knew that $500m was in the pipeline? Not a chance on earth.
The member for Fong Lim is quite right: they went down south and they had their bellies scratched and they thought, ‘Oh, $200m is fine. We will take the $200m. That is cool’. Guess what? It turned out to be more than that. Well, good luck to them, it turned out to be more than that. The fact is that they had signed up for something they did not have a clue about. And on Friday, I believe it was, out came the media release that it is actually $450m. The government never mentioned that figure in parliament. All of a sudden, it comes out by media release. That is why I am starting to gravely doubt the capacity of this Treasurer and this government to be honest with Territorians.
I hear the allegation that the CLP is talking down the economy and is being negative about the economy. It is the duty of members of this House, both in government and on our side of the House, to be honest with Territorians about what is happening because what we say is actually relied upon, particularly words from the lips of the Treasurer. People make their fiscal plans based on the things that the Treasurer says and produces. There are clear points of difference between her and other Treasurers, clear points of difference between her and the Auditor-General, clear losses being incurred by her investment proposals in the area of the Conditions of Service Reserve, and the liabilities we carry are much worse than our own Treasury predictions of a few years ago.
I refer members to the comments made by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, about where the superannuation liability was going to go and where it has ended up. We have a Treasurer who has no capacity to restrain the expenditure of her Cabinet, and her own mid-year financial report says $33m of extra Cabinet decisions were listed in the financial report - $33m. How could you possibly not, through the budgeting process, know you are going to spend $33m extra dollars as a result of Cabinet decisions? How can you just not know that?
What happens is they suddenly have this idea: ‘Oh, we need to do this and we need to do that. We are going to create this package’. None of it is budgeted for because none of it is planned for. That really is the essence of why the Treasurer is so far out every year between what they put in the beginning of the year, what they say is going to be in the budget papers, and what comes out the other end. They are worlds apart. When they realise they are in trouble, what is the trick? They go and rely on SPPs, which are the Specific Purpose Payments from the federal government, and you wind back your own budget allocations.
I refer the Treasurer to her own Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report dealing with the Department of Health and Community Services. You can see the budget allocation gets smaller over the years, despite the fact that the department spends more. You track it through the money trail back through the transfers of excess allocations, and money is taken out of Health and similar amounts are being shoved back into the Central Holding Authority ...
Ms Lawrie: Transferred back in. You know that - transferred back in to the Department of Health.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: Transferred back into the Central Holding Authority so it does not appear in that budget, so you can roll it over into next year’s budget …
Ms Lawrie: You know that. You have been given that answer time and time again.
Mr ELFERINK: You have been caught out with your hand in the till, Treasurer – caught out with your hand in the till.
Ms Lawrie: Stop misleading.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 49: the member for Port Darwin well knows that he should be directing his comments through the Chair.
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I refer to Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, there have been a large number of interjections. I ask members to contain themselves, please. Member for Port Darwin, continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the Treasurer has had her hand in the till last financial year and ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This clown has no idea the Treasurer does not have a till, let alone put her hands in one.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The term used just then by the Treasurer referring to this member in that way was unparliamentary. I wish her to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that, Treasurer.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the reference to ‘clown’ in relation to the member for Port Darwin
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You made some rulings in the last few days in relation to insinuations. Obviously, the shadow or Leader of Opposition Business - whatever he calls himself - has made an insinuation about the Treasurer. I ask him to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: I would allow it but, member for Port Darwin, you need to be very careful about what you are saying, bearing in mind Standing Order 62.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Why would the Prime Minister of this country say to the other jurisdictions: ‘You cannot use this extra money as a result of the stimulus package to offset against your own budget’, if it had not been happening in the past? Why? Because other state governments have been doing it and the federal government has wised up to it. That it what …
Mr Mills: Labor wiser to Labor.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is a very good point. I pick up on the interjection. It is a Labor government saying: ‘Do not do it. We know what you guys have been up to. You guys have been supplementing your budgets with our SPPs. That is not quite how the arrangement is going to work’. ‘Let me tell you,’ says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Treasurers nationally, ‘if you try to do that, by gee, there is going to be a price to pay’. It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister should say so. Why would he be saying it? Because state-level governments have been doing exactly that - offsetting their own expenditure by shrinking their allocations and then using federal money to plug the hole ...
Ms Lawrie: Does not understand Health, does he?
Mr ELFERINK: I understand it a lot more than you want me to. These are the sorts of things the states have been up to, and the paper trail speaks for itself. She can sit there and whinge about it as much as she likes, but the truth of the matter is that the federal Treasury has wised up and they will be policing it very closely.
I find it astonishing this Treasurer continues to say we are talking down the Territory when, what we are actually trying to be is, honest. We are asking the government to be just as honest.
The package, in the short term, will be good for business in the Northern Territory - no doubt about that. However, there is a price to pay in the long term; that is, in repayments of debt that comes with using the credit card. For these examples trotted out, one after the other, from different areas - federal Treasury - are you suggesting the federal Treasury is making this stuff up? No, I am not suggesting it. Am I suggesting that the Auditor-General in this report which we are talking about now is making that stuff up? No, I am not suggesting it. But, someone is wrong. ‘There is an explanation’, said the Treasurer and she muttered something about population numbers being factored in, in a different way.
The truth of the matter is there are differences that are starting to occur. These differences should not occur. There is a uniform presentation framework, a structure by which this stuff is presented to us. We have liabilities out of control. The liabilities we are carrying now are going to get worse - much worse - in the current financial environment. We get these cooing, reassuring words from government saying it is all squeaky clean; it is all going to be sweetness and light.
When is the debt going to be repaid? This is another example. Immediately prior to the lunchtime break she said: ‘Oh yes, all that extra nett debt which is being carried by corporations is going to be paid off by the corporations’. However, if you look into the forward projections for the non-financial public sector, they are actually going to be spending more than they earn, indefinitely - to the end of the projections. There is no point where they are actually going to have a plus sign on their nett debt situation on the balance sheet, and on their cash statement. At what point is this government-owned corporation going to be in a position to start paying off its debt successfully, if it continually returns deficits from now until the end of the projection period?
Those are important questions, because it is not Power and Water which, ultimately, carries the can in this instance. Who carries the can are the Northern Territory Treasury and, ultimately, the taxpayers of the Northern Territory and, by virtue of the way the GST works, the taxpayers of this country. The Treasurer would like to paint a picture that all is sweetness and light but, in her urgency to paint the picture of everything being sweetness and light, cracks are starting to appear. They are very serious cracks because they are caused by other organs such as the federal Treasury and the Auditor-General in this report today.
I continue to express my concern about where the government of the Northern Territory is taking us based on good solid grounds and on the reports the Treasurer herself brings in here, compared with other reports such as the reports of the federal Treasury and the reports of the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory.
This Treasurer needs to start explaining to Territorians why we are in more debt than we have ever been; why we are going to be in $200m more of debt in the next 18 months; how long the temporary budget deficit is going to be; and how exactly and by what vehicle we are going to start repaying this amassing debt and these amassing liabilities. Whilst I accept the argument that the superannuation liability is projected forward over many years, the fact is that it is growing - and growing and growing. I take very little comfort from her arguments and her suggestions. Those numbers are not healthy - they are not healthy any way you interpret them.
If the Treasurer is more interested in spinning this and giving us a spin version, a fifth floor version, rather than an accurate version which we can rely on and which will not be questioned by other bodies, then, Madam Speaker, I look forward to that day.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, we are debating the Auditor-General of the Northern Territory’s audit of November 2008, which audits the TAFR, and also audits the Indigenous Expenditure Review. I note the shadow did not touch on that at all. I also note that whilst the shadow made much of his flights of fancy, he did not mention at all that this is the first time we have received an unqualified audit from the Auditor-General - a matter of much rejoicing in the halls of Treasury to receive an unqualified audit from the Auditor-General.
He likes to present a case of how we can trust the figures, because we really cannot trust the figures because the figures keep changing. Yet, when we receive an unqualified audit of the figures from the Auditor-General, there is no mention of the fact, no mention of reality. He prefers to stay in his flights of fancy - because they truly are flights of fancy.
I also note in the Auditor-General’s comments, he said the Territory really is setting a standard for other jurisdictions. I refer members to page 5 of the Auditor-General’s overview. He talked about the second audit outlined in the report of the 2008 Indigenous Expenditure Review, and said
- The review is the second of its type. The previous review had been published in 2006. The Territory is the only jurisdiction to have published this type
of information, and it may prove to be a benchmark for other jurisdictions.
It is a significant comment from the Auditor-General about opening up the books on Indigenous expenditure that the Territory government has done - something that would be of national interest, I would think, and something that our own Auditor-General, a very independent and fair man, indicates can set the benchmark for all jurisdictions.
The Territory can hold its head high that we are going where no one else has dared to tread. It took a Labor government, a Labor Treasurer, the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, to take us there. I am absolutely committed, as the Treasurer of the Territory, to ensuring we continue to undertake Indigenous expenditure reviews so we can genuinely see where government expenditure is occurring for Indigenous Territorians who, we recognise are significantly disadvantaged particularly in our regional and remote areas and, also, where revenues are received for Indigenous-related expenditure.
The Auditor-General, fundamentally, in his unqualified – for the first time in years – report, has given the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report his tick of approval. The TAFR differs from previous years due to the adoption of a new accounting standard that is whole-of-government and general government sector financial reporting. This was introduced in 2008-09 and it is to be in place by that reporting year. The Territory, along with Tasmania, has taken up this standard up earlier and we prepared our 2007-08 accounts on this basis.
The audit goes through the Central Holding Authority appropriations and Treasurer’s Advance. I know the member for Port Darwin would rather stay in the realms of fantasy over this, but I will take him through it anyway. The Appropriation Act sets out the purposes for which the appropriation can be paid from the Central Holding Authority. These purposes are: output appropriation; capital appropriation; Treasurer’s Advance; interest, taxes and administration; and employee entitlements. The appropriation is a cash concept and it lapses on 30 June each year.
Throughout the year, appropriations are monitored and adjusted formally through parliament via sections 19 to 21 of the Financial Management Act, depending on the adjustment type. These adjustments are reported in the unaudited section of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report which sets out the final appropriation for each purpose as at 30 June.
As Treasurer’s Advance is an appropriation purpose - not a concept the shadow seems to get - it also has a formal balance at the end of the financial year. This formal balance was $6.223m. The Auditor-General, in his November report to parliament included a table, Table 6, setting out the allocations by the Central Holding Authority for 2007-08.
This has been explained to the member for Port Darwin; I will explain it again. He has taken a different approach from the TAFR unaudited section in that he has identified actual payments on the CHA cashflow statement for all appropriations except Treasurer’s Advance, and compared these with the original appropriation. The Auditor-General has then calculated the remaining TA as a balancing item at an amount of $4.173m. Both schedules are correct. It is simply …
Mr Elferink: So how much money was actually in there?
Ms LAWRIE: He never wants to listen. It is simply that one calculates the formal variations actioned under the FMA throughout the year up to 30 June, and the other compares an actual outcome on an accrual basis, including post-30 June entries against budgeted allocations. Both methods show a different result every year since the commencement of accrual accounting. The latter highlights complexities which arise from an accrual budgeting framework in that entries can occur subsequent to 30 June, which may affect the categorisation of payments on the cashflow statement.
Accordingly, in order to ensure that actual payments by 30 June are in accordance with approved appropriation limits, a report post-30 June but prior to accrual adjustments occurring, is kept for audit purposes. Based on this report, as at 30 June 2008, Central Holding Authority payments on the cashflow statement were within the capacity of each appropriation purpose and the unexpected balance of Treasurer’s Advance was $6.223m.
The member for Port Darwin has cloth ears. This has been explained to him by representatives from Treasury. It has been explained to him in this Chamber before, by me. I have explained it yet again, and I bet he will continue to undertake flights of fancy around this question. He is the only one undertaking these flights of fancy.
In another flight of fancy, despite having written answers to his question on notice and having a discussion with Treasury officials and with me, is about the transfer in and out of $30m from the department of Health. It was explained that we have received a lot of very late payments from the Commonwealth in 2007-08 financial year, and we transferred $30m out of the department of Health because there was no way they could spend it by the end of the financial year. However, we transferred that allocation back into the department of Health in the 2008-09 financial year; there was no nett loss from the department of Health; and they have the $30m to spend this financial year.
That does not matter; in the fanciful mind of the member for Port Darwin. He does not want to listen; that is the way he operates. He rambled off the statement and started to ramble along the lines of Kevin Rudd being on to the behaviour of the states and territories because they play with the Commonwealth money and pull back on their own expenditure, and that is why he, the Prime Minister, has put these requirements and sanctions into the stimulus package.
This is a government which stands strongly on its record of going for our fair share of the GST revenue - which the opposition likes to call a windfall, which then makes you realise that they would actually prefer New South Wales, Victoria, perhaps Queensland, to take those GST payments from the Territory. We get our fair share of GST revenue and we have had a strategic approach, since Labor has been in government, of also pursuing increases in SPP payments, which are tied grants or tied payments. You do not have the same flexibility in the expenditure of the SPPs, but they do provide a sounder footing for revenue coming in, insomuch as they are, by their nature, of some year’s duration. Most of them tend to sit around the five-year duration point. They provide for another area of growth in funding to a small jurisdiction significantly reliant on Commonwealth government funding, such as we are.
An example is: he would like everyone, having listened to him, to think we have been taking money out of our Health budget because the Commonwealth has been increasing payments. He clearly did not hear the contribution from our former Health minister who, prior to lunch, explained as an example, the ACA SPP and what had happened to Health payments under the Liberals in health agreements, where instead of the ratio being a 50:50 payment to fund important services such as hospitals, as had previously been the arrangement under Labor government, Johnny Howard and his mates spent their time in Canberra cutting …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The use of the names of members of other parliaments, or former members of other parliaments, is something that has really upset the Treasurer. Now she finds herself, perhaps inadvertently, doing the same.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to withdraw. The former Prime Minister, who is no longer a member of parliament, lost his seat at the last election - so little regard did the constituency of our great nation have for the man and his behaviour.
Their method of dealing with funding arrangements in critical areas such as Health, for example was, instead of a 50:50 split, which by anyone’s assessment is a fair split between Commonwealth contribution and state or territory contribution - bearing in mind the Commonwealth takes a larger share of taxes; that is revenue, and a larger revenue take from Australian’s pockets anyway - the 50:50 cut is what you would reasonably expect as a minimum. But, no, the Liberal government decided to actually pare back. You can look at the SPP arrangements across all those major agreements. Health is but an example, you could look at disability, education and training. However, let us deal with Health for a moment.
It went from a 50:50 split Commonwealth and state/territory contribution to a 60% state/territory contribution and a 40% Commonwealth contribution. I know there is a significant reduction in the matching requirements. We know it did not keep pace. We know that the growth normally built into agreements such as this, the indexation, was ridiculously low. Health indexation grows at anywhere from 9% to 12% depending on who you want to buy into the argument of Health indexation. This was sitting around 5% and below for these payments under the Liberal government. Whichever way you slice it, it was woefully inadequate.
As a result, we had jurisdictions with less of a revenue base, such at the Territory, putting more money in than the Commonwealth was taking out. I wanted to take up that issue with the shadow who seems to be the champion of the men in Canberra lately which, if you listen to all his economic arguments, is: ‘Do not take any extra revenue from Canberra, Northern Territory, because you really should be leaving it there’. One would question who he wants to have that revenue - New South Wales, Queensland or South Australia?
I tell you, as Territory Treasurer, I will be down there every chance I get. I will be running the argument in every forum I can that the Territory gets a bigger slice - whether it is GST, SPP payments or, in fact, national partnership payments which is, of course, what our economic stimulus package from the Commonwealth government is. It is every bit our due and, in fact, we need more. We need a lot more to deal with the legacy of disadvantage we inherited when we obtained self-government, when the Commonwealth handed over the responsibility to the Territory.
I make no apology for being a sycophant to the people in Canberra. The shadow would have us say: ‘No, no, do not give us any extra GST revenue. Do not look at increasing those SSP revenues to the Territory’. As we saw, shamefully for the CLP, they said no to a significant national partnership proposal put forward by Rudd which was, of course, the economic stimulus package.
Another flight of fancy of the shadow, the member for Port Darwin, is that he likes to think that in my media release on 5 February when I was in Canberra at COAG and when the Chief Minister was signing up for a significant economic stimulus gain by the Territory, I pointed out there would be an estimated $200m for new infrastructure in the Territory. Again, the shadow does not like to deal with the reality. I was dealing specifically with infrastructure; I specifically talked about education, housing and roads.
An NT journalist could back this up. I had a phone conversation with the NT News journalist who was the only one who asked the question: ‘Why $200m? Was that figure based on infrastructure?’ I told him, of course, the Territory is going to benefit more from the stimulus package in that we have payments direct to people; we have the tax breaks which will be of enormous benefit to business; you have to add into that the figure for Defence housing. As you add each component of the package together, you get a far higher figure than $200m, which is just a conservative take on the education, social housing, roads and rail part of the package. I explained that to the Northern Territory News journalist. He understood it. It does not matter how many times I explain it to the member for Port Darwin, he does not seem able to understand such a basic concept. It is very surprising, given it is explained in very plain English.
We had a debate earlier today about where the Territory economy is tracking. Every year, Treasury makes what are undoubtedly conservative estimates. I am on the record, as Treasurer, saying they are conservative estimates - and so they should be. We are not in the business of inflating our estimates so something looks good. We will always, whilst I am the Treasurer, deliver conservative estimates; because that is the way we are best placed to make decisions about the future growth of the economy and, in fact, where we determine to put government revenues into government expenditure.
Given the conservative estimates, the mid-year report was an opportunity to revise estimates down because of the impact of the global financial crisis. Instead of, say, the 6.6% economic growth that the Territory had predicted, when Access Economics had been predicting 7% growth, we used the mid-year report to revise down economic growth to 4.5% as a Treasury prediction. Access Economics came out some time later and said they would be predicting at 4.7% economic growth for this financial year. Yet, we had the Kellogg’s packet shadow Treasurer, armchair economist deciding today that Access Economics and Treasury would be wrong. Well, I am looking forward to the debates we will be having in this House later in the year to see just who was wrong.
As I said, whilst we face an unprecedented shift in the economies of the globe and an unprecedented economic downturn in our nation, and while our nation is one of the few left standing and not predicting significant recession, this jurisdiction in the Territory is the best place to ride out the global financial crisis and the economic downturn. We are predicting the healthiest of growth figures. The strong fiscal management of successive Labor governments and Treasurers has meant that we have delivered six surpluses in a row. What that means is we have driven down debt; debt has been falling. So, we are well placed to move into temporary deficit during the tough times, to ride out the tough couple of years ahead because we will not pull back on our spending …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It appears the comments made by the Treasurer are straying a long way from the subject at hand.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. There is a certain degree of latitude around this report.
Ms LAWRIE: The Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear this but, if he sat here and listened to his shadow Treasurer, his shadow Treasurer went to the issue of the deficit in his remarks; his shadow Treasurer went to the issue of the debt in his remarks; his shadow Treasurer went to the issue of the economic stimulus in his remarks. Every comment I am making is in direct correspondence to what his shadow Treasurer said in his remarks in this debate.
He does not want to hear the truth about how well placed the Northern Territory is to ride through the toughest times …
Mr Mills: The truth? You do not know what that is.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: The global financial crisis is the toughest and we know we are facing the toughest economic times since World War II here in our nation. The OECD has said Australia is better placed, that we are one of the few developed nations which are unlikely to slide down into recession. We have seen what our trading partners have to cope with. We have seen the extent of the economic stimulus packages that governments around the world have had to bring forward. We have seen the extent of the response by our own federal parliament in their economic stimulus package. We have seen also that, despite the worst economic times for our globe and for our nation, the Territory is the best place to ride it out. It is not by accident that we are best placed. It is strong financial management which has delivered growth across the services sector and the important core services such as health, education and police - the record after record infrastructure budget.
It was a deliberate decision of the Labor government when we came to government in 2001 when economic growth was flatlining, when economic growth for 2001 was 0% …
Mr Mills: Before the GST.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Zero percent. It was a deliberate decision taken by the Labor government to climb back to economic growth through construction expenditure …
Mr Mills: What did you build? A railway? A port?
Ms LAWRIE: That is why we have poured money into our key infrastructure ...
Mr Mills: A road? A bridge? A dam?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, please cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They cannot help themselves. The opposition all of a sudden discovered the roads and the port. I have sat here as minister responsible for those areas for a couple of years, and you do not get questions in Question Time about roads and ports from the opposition. They sit on their backsides and they wander around all sorts of other subjects. I am so glad they have finally woken up to the importance of infrastructure in developing our great Territory. I am so glad they have finally realised the legacy we inherited - the absolute neglect of our bush roads. We took the roads budget of $80m in 2001 to $270m this financial year.
I am fighting for every dollar I can get out of Canberra – for $1.65bn worth of roads that we need to spend here in the Territory, because, quite clearly, getting product to the marketplace helps our economic growth. The flights of fancy from the opposition are simply that.
The Auditor-General, for the first time in years, has given us an unqualified audit report on the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report. The Auditor-General also said that we, potentially, set the benchmark in our nation for our Indigenous Expenditure Review - something the CLP would never have done. It would have never opened the books to Indigenous expenditure in the Territory. I could talk about what the Public Accounts Committee discovered in the way the CLP constructed their budgets. When we came to government in 2001 …
Mr Mills: Nine years ago.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection; it is nine years ago. May we never forget, as a jurisdiction, the dangers of politicians artificially presenting figures in budgets for political gain. May I never, as a Treasurer, ever forget that. That would never be able to occur under this government, because we introduced the Financial Management Act to ensure that such artificial presentation could never, ever occur again.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report, for the auditing for parliament of both the TAFR and the IER. I sincerely congratulate the staff of Treasury for receiving their first unqualified report, which was met with a great deal of justified pride in Treasury. I commend the Auditor-General’s report to the parliament.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Paper – Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Note Paper – Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08
Continued from 26 November 2008.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, in making comment on the Ombudsman’s Report 2007-08, I note that comments have already been made on this matter by government, and much of what has been said we can agree with.
We recognise the very important role the Ombudsman has to play. There have been issues brought to this Assembly and the community in recent times which would not have occurred in the manner they did if it was not for the role of the Ombudsman. We, as legislators, participants in the parliament, should always be grateful for this important role which was the subject of much discussion in the significant review of the act which occurred last week. With that in mind, we recognise that what we are commenting on now is emanating from the act prior to the significant change of last week.
The view of opposition is that the Ombudsman’s Office should be supported in its role of promoting an effective, internal complaints resolution process across all agencies. It is a very important role to be genuinely supported so there is that capacity for complaints to be lodged and to be resolved. That needs ongoing, vigilant support from government to be true to its charter: to govern in the best interests of all Territorians. We recognise there was always difficulty in drawing that line and providing that unqualified support. Territorians should have confidence that there is an avenue within an agency where they can raise initial complaints which will be dealt with fairly and openly in the first instance, with the Ombudsman as the last resort. We need to constantly maintain our efforts so that citizens feel included and they have the capacity for genuine issues to be genuinely addressed.
Complaints in this report are down from 2006-07 but the initial approaches, interestingly, are up. The majority of the increase had to do with areas outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Does that tell us that citizens are becoming more desirous, interested or aggrieved and need to find a place where they can go to be heard if there are more complaints being attracted to the Ombudsman which are falling outside the jurisdiction? That may well be something to consider. Why is that? Is it simply a matter of people not understanding the role of the Ombudsman? Or is it a matter of an increased level of aggravation, concern and disquiet? These matters, I am sure, would weigh on the mind of government and parliamentarians to find which one of those two is the case. Perhaps it is a combination of both.
The three top agencies for complaints and main inquiries were Police and issues to do with police procedures, abuse and rudeness even, in one case, and arrests and procedures surrounding that. Another issue was with Corrections: prisoner’s rights, grievances and administrative acts. It must be a very difficult role working as the Ombudsman and bearing responsibility for the genuine and perhaps frivolous in some cases, issues which are brought to the Ombudsman’s attention.
As local members we know we are the front line in many cases. People are unsure what they should do about something, but they know darn well that they can come to the local member and talk about things. Some things are very difficult to get a handle on and to find out how you can assist. How much more would that be for an Ombudsman? As a local member and representing, I am sure, the views of all 25 local members, I admire the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman’s capacity to go as far as possible in carrying the concerns of citizens.
Another area was Local Government, Housing and Sport. There did not appear to be a breakdown, but 19 of the 21 complaints were directed to Territory Housing. I note that these matters will probably stay with us for some time. As a local member with a large contingent of public housing, we know that there are, on many occasions, issues which arise and need the attention of authorities that are independent of government or agencies.
There were general issues concerning programs, service delivery, practices and procedure, fees, and so on, where 4% of the complaints resulted in a change of practice or procedure; the same margin as the previous year. One hundred and forty-one recommendations were made and 135 adopted by the relevant agencies. I am sure the relevant agencies would be able to account for that.
A couple of the significant investigations were women in prison, and the report made mention that recommendation 48 of the CAYA report into Correctional Services be adopted within two years of the Ombudsman’s report. It is important to note the report was released in March 2004. Therefore, that is something which needs to be watched.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those words we, once again, reinforce our view that this is such an important office. It needs to be understood and we need to ensure that our citizens understand the role of this office and that we, in this position as representatives of the community, provide the level of support that is required so citizens have that opportunity available to them if the need arises. We commend the work of the Ombudsman and his report.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the comments the Leader of the Opposition made in his response to the Ombudsman’s report. As was discussed when the new Ombudsman Act was passed recently, the Ombudsman is a very important part of our democratic processes. If you do not believe that then you should be required to read this book. What the Ombudsman does is not only help those who feel they have been disadvantaged by government’s decision - which could include councils or government departments - but the Ombudsman can also criticise the government in areas the Ombudsman thinks the government should do something about. The Ombudsman has the role of looking at some of the bigger issues which, if you look through here, you will find. As well, the Ombudsman has the role to go out and promote that role.
A couple of examples where the Ombudsman has highlighted issues which she thinks the government needs to do something about, can be seen on page 6 of the Ombudsman’s report. She said:
- Over the last 18 months the Ombudsman has been given the task of inspecting records of NT Police to report on compliance with the various checks and balances
enacted to protect the rights of citizens when surveillance devices are used and when telephone communications are intercepted. A report to the minister was
tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 18 August 2008 which outlined the extent to which NT Police were not complying with the requirements of the Surveillance
Devices Act.
She notes the report was not the subject of any debate or question. This gives us an opportunity to ask the government what was outlined in that report and whether there was a response from either the government or the police regarding issues raised by the Ombudsman which needed to be dealt with. If they have not been dealt with, why not?
Further down on page 6, the Ombudsman also reiterated the concern raised in the debate surrounding the introduction of the new act. The Ombudsman said:
- It is of concern to me that NT Police have asked the minister and the Cabinet to approve a provision to be inserted in the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act
amendments which would remove a person’s right to have access to the records of the investigation of a complaint about police conduct made by that person.
The request is that such records be exempt from disclosure without the need to explain the reason they are considered to fall within the exemptions under the
Information Act. The proposal is contrary to accountability, transparency in government and the rights of those who may have a grievance about police conduct.
The minister needs to answer that in his response. It appears the Ombudsman disagrees with the government, but we need to place it on record that the Ombudsman has raised these serious concerns about accountability and transparency and the rights of those who have a grievance about police conduct. The minister needs to explain why he does not agree with the Ombudsman’s point of view.
In relation to education and promoting awareness of the Ombudsman’s role, on page 7 the Ombudsman clearly stated that: ‘little activity increased public awareness of the Ombudsman service occurred’. Another important issue is rural people, remote communities - people who normally would not know about the Ombudsman - need to be educated about the important role of the Ombudsman. A person’s injustice 500 km west of Alice Springs is no different to a person’s injustice in Darwin city. All people in the Territory should have full knowledge of their rights under the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act. It should be a requirement of the government to ensure that public awareness is an important part of the Ombudsman’s service, and provide enough funds and means for that to occur. If that means travelling across and around the Territory, then so be it. I would not like to see the report next year saying: ‘little activity to increase public awareness of the Ombudsman service has occurred’ - because that would be a failing.
The Ombudsman highlighted a number of cases dealing with the work she does, including issues of prisoners. We all know that, generally speaking, a prisoner’s only way of having a complaint dealt with, unless it is internally, is through the Ombudsman’s Office. There were issues about Power and Water, where two people living on one block shared the meter, and one person did not pay the water bill, and the other person did, so they shut the whole lot off. It always raises a question for me: if Power and Water can put two electricity meters on a block, why can they not put two water meters? I just do not understand the logic behind their refusal to do that. Hopefully, it would stop that particular issue occurring again.
There is an article here about some damaging e-mails at TIO. Even though the Ombudsman had a look at it, in the end, the Ombudsman does not have any power over the TIO, so all that she could do is advise TIO to look at it.
There was, again, an issue of defaulting with Power and Water. This was to do with a complainant who was put on a credit agency list because they said she had not paid her bill. When she tried to remove it, there were many complications in getting her name off the credit agency list. There were some issues about who would take her name off, was it Power and Water’s responsibility or the credit agency? Eventually, after some negotiation, the Ombudsman found ways to fix the problem. She said:
- I commended PWC for its positive proactive approach to improving its services to its clients, and is another good example of where a matter can be
resolved informally and expediently, resulting in an improvement to an agency’s administrative process and benefit to its clients.
Which is exactly the role of the Ombudsman: not only to fix the problem, but to talk to those agencies and see whether they can improve their processes.
There was the issue of a juvenile assault at one of our schools, and a long, drawn-out problem with one of the parents asking for an apology. Eventually, after a long investigation and mediation, a result did occur. It probably did not satisfy everybody completely, but I believe everyone walked away satisfied with what happened, although hey may have had some little gripes about it. Again, the Ombudsman was able to work with the department of Education and look at ways of improving their systems so it does not happen again.
There was an issue about the council removing a sign which was advertising a business in one of the streets in Katherine. The complainant was unhappy that he was losing business because the sign had been removed by the council. The Ombudsman looked at that and tried to work through the issues.
There was a particular case which I will highlight as well. This is in relation to page 44 of the Ombudsman’s report with regard to cell mates. It had to do with someone who had been drinking too much being put in a cell with someone who had not long before been part of a problem - that issue was eventually sorted out. However, when you read the report it makes an interesting statement. It says:
In accordance with section 128 of the PAA …
It has to do with the Police Administration Act.
- … a member may take an ‘intoxicated person’ into custody, more commonly referred to as ‘protective custody’. ‘Intoxicated’ is defined under section 127A
of the PAA as meaning ‘seriously affected by alcohol or a drug’.
The law treats the taking of a person into protective custody as an ‘arrest’; this is because when a person is taken into protective custody they are effectively
being restrained and cannot leave as they choose. As such, the police have a duty of care to persons taken into protective custody, just as they would for
someone they have arrested for committing an offence.
I will go down to section 8.3 where it says:
- The NT Police Custody Manual states:
Police cells should only be used as a last resort for the custody of intoxicated persons.
She went on further to say that:
- Police policy is quite clear however that the police cells are only to be used as a last resort. The fact that police made no effort to contact the parents until the
end of the maximum period of custody was of concern given the fact that it would have been easy to get contact details (phone number, home address etc)
from the police database.
What concerns me, and I have discussed this before, is whether, via a sleight of hand to some extent, for public drunkenness, which is not a crime, we basically pick up people who are drunk and put them in gaol. Also, because they come under this section, I believe there is not a great amount of paper work; you might have to record they were put there, but you do not have to fill in the paperwork as if you were dealing with a criminal offence.
The other thing that concerns me is this must be taking up a lot of time for police and police infrastructure. We have Night Patrols. There has been much talk about Night Patrols and Day Patrols. If we are not really, technically, arresting people for a crime, should we be looking at whether Night Patrols are not more than just a feel-good patrol, or should we be giving them more powers to pick up intoxicated people? If you take the law as it is, being drunk in a public place is not an offence. Should it be their job, basically, to take over some of the role of the police? The police might be far better chasing people smashing windows and pinching cars, and taking them to the parents first, if that is needed, or to the home of that person, or to a detoxification place.
All I am saying is, it seems to highlight the fact that police spend a lot of time dealing with these matters when, technically, being drunk in a public place is not a criminal offence; we bring it under this section of the act about protective custody. It would be interesting to know why we cannot put more effort into the patrols, get them to do that, and lighten the load of the police. I am sure the police do not really like doing this all the time. It must be very demoralising picking up drunks night after night, when we are really looking for enough police on patrol to fix up break-ins, vandalism, or getting kids off the street and home. I make that point and I am interested in the minister’s response.
There are a lot of other issues, anything from dogs to overzealous policing - you name it. Of course, then you get to a part of the Ombudsman’s role that we forget sometimes. It could not be any better highlighted than in the Ombudsman’s report on women in prison. I visited the women’s prison twice about four years ago and, I must admit, regardless of whether you think people in prison should have a hard time, I thought the women’s prison was pretty woeful. Obviously, the Ombudsman is someone who has more time to look at the detail involved in women in prison, as she has shown in her report. She, basically, summarises that report in her annual report.
We have had the Ombudsman’s full report before parliament, and it certainly raises quite a few issues. Even though the Ombudsman has raised that report, it would be good for this parliament to hear from either the Minister for Correctional Services or the appropriate minister …
Ms Carney: Someone in government, even.
Mr WOOD: Yes. What have you done in relation to the Ombudsman’s report? I imagine the Ombudsman, if nothing is done, will report back to this parliament with a special report showing us what has or has not been done. It would be good if the government got in before the Ombudsman did, that would look a little embarrassing.
In relation to other issues, even dealing with the Dental Board in relation to a complaint; the Ombudsman has such a varied job and it is such an important job. I do not need to be convinced of the role of the Ombudsman. Anyone who picks up this report would realise it protects the weak in our society, those who have suffered injustices, and it also protects the government. It is not only about people putting in a complaint. Sometimes complaints are unfair on the authority; sometimes complaints are unfair on the council, people have their own axe to grind, and it may be totally unfair. The Ombudsman is able to, at least, look at these issues and improve the processes if they are failing.
Overall, this report is a great indication and example of the role of the Ombudsman and I congratulate her for her report. I hope some of those issues I raised will be responded to when the government sums up.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to follow the member for Nelson. I propose to comment on the Women in Prison Northern Territory: Report of the investigation into complaints from women prisoners at Darwin Correctional Centre, 2008.
I share the member for Nelson’s concerns and propose to deal with some of the matters raised in the Ombudsman’s report from my position as shadow minister for Justice.
Before getting to those, however, I am sure all members will join with me in thanking the Ombudsman, Carolyn Richards. The Ombudsman’s role is, as we know, an incredibly important one. It is well-known around the traps that the Ombudsman’s and Auditor-General’s reports often create dramas for governments. That has always been the case, it will always be the case, and it should be the case. Unless you have these independent arbiters, we know that governments are famously bad at holding themselves accountable. We look to mechanisms such as the processes of the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman so that, in this case, the Ombudsman can give a voice to complaints which come before her in relation to government departments and performance of government in the implementation or operations of those departments. Those people have a voice.
This Ombudsman’s report quotes various examples of complaints made by Territorians, the length and breadth of the Territory and, in that respect; unfortunately, it is the same as many other Ombudsman’s reports. I am not so nave as to suppose that, particularly given the way modern politics are, there will ever be an Ombudsman’s report with very little in it. Congratulations to the Ombudsman and her team.
I have read the Women in Prison report. I suspect I am one of the few people - probably the only one in this House - who has read that report. I wept; it is a dreadful report. I read it from cover to cover. I do not have it with me, it is a big report and is in my office in Alice Springs. It was just dreadful, and it was long overdue - CLP, ALP, does not matter - it was a report that needed to be done and it is very powerful in both its contents and recommendations.
Looking across the Chamber, I look at the new minister for Corrections and encourage him to read that report. It is not an easy read but, as minister for Corrections, you should read it. It says a lot about prison, women, the Northern Territory, and a lot, minister - through you, Madam Deputy Speaker - about what needs to be done to improve things for women prisoners in the Northern Territory. I believe all members of parliament should read it. Because I do not have it with me and I could not look it up on the Internet in the sense it is such a big report, I would not have been able to print it out in time for my comments this afternoon. But the Ombudsman summarised the report on page 54 of her annual report where she said:
- It also found a lack of resources, poor planning, outdated and inappropriate procedures and a failure to consider women as a distinct group with specific needs.
This has resulted in a profound lack of services …
… discriminatory practices, inadequate safeguards against abuse and very little in the way of opportunities to assist women to escape cycles of crime, poverty,
substance abuse and family violence.
It says much about prisons, women and the Northern Territory, but it also says something about this government.
There were a total of 67 recommendations arising from this report. I understand notwithstanding regular meetings between the Ombudsman, Correctional Services staff and so on, only one recommendation has been implemented. If that is the case - and this was information I received reasonably recently - but if I am mistaken in that regard, then I look forward to a minister advising the parliament as to how many of those recommendations have been implemented.
This report came out some time ago - probably more than 12 months ago, from memory. It was the type of report that should have rocked politicians, particularly those in government. I do not recall one ministerial report, let alone ministerial statement, about this issue. That is to the eternal shame of this government. We often hear in the course of debates ministers say they look forward to advising the House in due course, keeping us all up-to-date. Frankly, something as important as this was worthy of a debate in some form or another in parliament. Yes, the report was tabled in parliament, but I do not believe we had a debate on it. Sadly, it says a great deal about this government.
I urge members, particularly women members on the other side, to look at this report. You will be shocked. Many of you will become angry and dismayed at the contents. I look forward to hearing from someone in government, at some stage, why it is that only one recommendation has been implemented. The recommendations made by the Ombudsman were extensive.
It is interesting, given the announcement last week about a new Corrections facility and we have a matter of public importance later tonight about the new gaol. Putting aside people’s support or opposition for the new gaol, I have not seen anything in the announcements in the media releases last week, or anything from government, about what they propose to do in this ‘whiz bang’ new facility about addressing some of the problems for women prisoners such as: the profound lack of services, the discriminatory practices, the inadequate safeguards against abuse and so on; all of which have been identified by the Ombudsman.
I can roll with the punches in modern politics just as well as the next person, but I ask you, minister - through you, Madam Deputy Speaker - as a new minister, is that reasonable? I do not think so. Put your political baggage to one side and ask yourself, as a human being, as minister for Corrections, whether you reckon in all the public pronouncements in the last week or so about a new gaol, whether it is conscionable not to refer to some of the matters referred by the Ombudsman about women prisoners in the Northern Territory. I do not think it is, quite frankly.
I sincerely hope, minister, that sooner rather than later – although I appreciate you are new in the portfolio - you are able to come into this parliament and say: ‘This is what I am going to do about the recommendations. I am going to ensure that those who work in Corrections implement these recommendations. I am going to ensure that, as a member of Cabinet, I will argue and lobby as hard as I can to get sufficient resources …’ - much of it is a resourcing issue as well – ‘… to address these recommendations’.
At the very least I encourage you, minister, to keep an eye on this and ask what is happening because, from where I am standing, next to nothing is happening. There may well be stuff behind the scenes, granted, but the Ombudsman’s report about women in prison was a document tabled in the parliament. Therefore, I believe it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be ongoing public discussion about it. Sadly, there is not. I hope you can do better in that regard. That was really the main issue I wanted to talk about in my capacity as shadow Justice minister.
I note the government has separated the portfolios in the reshuffle last week. We have been calling for – I do not know long – probably seven years for government to separate Corrections and Justice. When the CLP was in government they had a minister for Corrections and - I think they called it something else – in essence, a Justice minister. We did not think it was a smart move to combine them. I am pleased, and I know prison officers are as well, they have now been separated. However, it still is, nevertheless, the same department. In my perfect world, and that of many others, there would be two separate departments.
Accepting that I cannot get everything I want, I am not altogether displeased that there is a separate minister for Corrections, because there can often be a conflict between Justice issues and Corrections issues. Sometimes a minister for both, around the Cabinet table, will have differences about resources and issues and so on, so it is prudent to have them separated with two separate people. I wish you well in that regard.
Corrections is important. It is not only important for us to think about Corrections from a law and order point of view, but we have prison officers in the Northern Territory who work tirelessly. I have many of them as constituents in my electorate. I know the sort of work they do. I know it is often thankless and it is often tough. However, they really do a great job.
I wish you well, minister, but urge you to really pick up the baton on the Women in Prisons report.
Finally, I take this opportunity, once again, to thank the Ombudsman for her report and wish her well for the next 12 months.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Ombudsman and her staff for her comprehensive examination of agencies in her 2007-08 Annual Report. The Ombudsman fulfils a very important role within government. Her work helps to ensure government agencies meet necessary levels of transparency and accountability. I am proud to be part of a government which is the most open and accountable in the Territory’s history. We have implemented freedom of information laws, introduced whistleblower protection, introduced a members’ code of conduct, and expanded the parliament sitting schedule.
The Ombudsman’s report includes three case studies involving Correctional Services. These were situations where a protection prisoner complained he had been refused a request for a special one-hour contact visit; a prisoner had difficulties accessing information from his file; and a prisoner complained that the superintendent had cancelled a medical direction for a special diet. I am pleased to report to the Assembly that, where recommendations were made by the Ombudsman, they were accepted and acted upon promptly by the Department of Justice. In all instances, the Ombudsman was satisfied with these outcomes and did not need to take further action.
I also thank the member for Araluen for her wisdom and advice. I assure all members in the House of the new era in Corrections delivered by the Northern Territory government. The new era represents a whole new focus on education and rehabilitation. Not only will the new correction facility deliver a state-of-the-art, innovative and secure environment, it will deliver better outcomes for rehabilitation and education. It will also specially cater for reintegrating prisoners back into our community.
The member for Araluen has a lot to offer here, and I welcome her advice. I urge the member for Araluen to also share that wisdom with the members of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, and encourage him not to oppose the development of the new correctional facility which represents this new era in Corrections.
I conclude by thanking and commending the Ombudsman for her report.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also thank the Ombudsman for her work and that of her staff. The office does provide an important service to the people of the Northern Territory, as do all the other Ombudsmen around Australia. We certainly cannot do without them.
While this report does not detail the complaints made about Territory Housing, and resolutions reached by the Ombudsman’s Office for those complaints, I am, obviously, not really happy with the number of complaints. They dipped last year, and were around a similar number in 2005-06. Obviously, any sort of complaint that is made does concern me and we would like to resolve them.
It is important, in relating complaints, to recognise the type of service that Territory Housing provides. Territory Housing manages over 5200 properties, with well over 10 000 tenants, throughout the Northern Territory. Territory Housing is a provider of last resort. Many of the clientele have, obviously, not been able to access the private market, or have previously been in the private market. They have a lot of complex needs that, perhaps, the private market cannot or will not cater for. So, Territory Housing offers a wide range of services and caters for a wide range of people with very complex needs. It does that in a very challenging financial environment.
As I highlighted yesterday, Territory Housing and other housing providers throughout Australia had their funding cut by 24% in real terms over the last 10 years of the Howard government. Having their budgets cut by a quarter made a difficult job even harder. They are always trying to provide and deliver a better service in a more effective way, and this government has tried to assist in that. We have boosted the funding to Territory Housing by 61% since 2001. We are looking at expanding our public housing stock - 15% of all the major land releases will have affordable housing - 5% public and 10% affordable. We have the development at Parap and also at Bellamack with the senior’s village, which will cater to both new stocks in a more appropriate manner, and more of it.
We are also working with the federal government with the stimulus package, which will deliver at least $65m in social housing. We will certainly be bidding higher than that to get more of that stock built. We are also working very closely with the non-government sector, both in an efficiency way, so we cater for those clients we share, but also enabling them to leverage into private investment if they so choose.
Territory Housing also has in place a complaints management framework which allows tenants to appeal decisions made regarding their tenancies. The Territory Housing Appeals Board is chaired by Vicki O’Halloran, who is with Anglicare, and is well respected. We also have representatives from across the community including industry representatives, Territory Housing, tenant representatives and public sector and community agent representatives. The appeals board is a fairly diverse board for all complaints that are made. The board plays an important role in providing an open and accountable review process regarding Territory Housing policies and decisions. I thank them for the work they do; it is very professional and they deal with, obviously, some tricky complaints. Territory Housing tries very hard when dealing with a complex clientele base, both from tenants and from people outside the Territory Housing client base as well.
The other area is the Power and Water Corporation which, in the 2007-08 financial year, received 11 complaints. This is a reduction on the previous year which may be attributed to a formal complaints management process being implemented. Power and Water has employed a full-time Complaints Manager, who is the first point of call with complaints. Having visited their offices and spoken with that person, looking at those complaints has been a tool to continuously improve the service they provide. They are not just addressing a complaint, they are learning lessons about why the complaint was made and about changing the way they do business so they can continually improve service to their clients. The manager is working very closely, quickly, and fairly with those complainants.
I also understand that Power and Water is working more closely with the Ombudsman and her office and they will be having a more direct relationship in the very first instance.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Ombudsman for her report. Within my portfolios, we will try to do as much as we can to have fewer complaints next year.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support this document by the Ombudsman. It is a very interesting document to read and, at times, some of the stories are hard to even believe and fathom. However, it is a reality that things occur and there is a need for people to be able to express their concern about organisations, or things which have gone wrong in their life, that they need to raise a grievance against. This is the means; this is the vehicle by which the public can deliver those complaints and have them dealt with in an unbiased manner.
I fully support the Ombudsman in her approach to delivering these reports. They are not always in favour of everyone. Some people are found to have misled things, some people are supported in their complaints, and there are processes to be followed from there. It is a very important role the Ombudsman takes, and she does a very good job. There are times when there is stress on the staff, and the staff does a fantastic job.
There are parts within the report that talk about police complaints which, overall, were down this last year, which is a very good sign. It is a good sign that staff members are doing the best with the facilities they have, and the public, in general, are very accommodating for the position they are in.
Interestingly enough, the complaints about Correctional Services are down from the 2005-06 statistics - which is also another good sign - although they were up slightly from 2006-07.
I find it interesting there is a complaint about Arts and Museums. I would like to look further into that, as that is in my portfolio. It is a bit of strange area to have a compliant about. Maybe the person did not like the artwork displayed.
Housing continues to be a problem, and to have 19 complaints on housing is a concern. I accept that members opposite have talked about this. We need to continue to look at this and ensure the public understand this is the vehicle by which they can vent their grievances and have them assessed independently. For that, I fully support the Ombudsman and her position.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to the Ombudsman’s Annual Report to the House. As everyone says, the Ombudsman performs a vital role in regard to providing an independent oversight and outlet for complaints by members of the public in regard to decisions and actions taken by government officials and our police force. it is a very important role the Ombudsman plays.
I will pick up on comments made, I think, by the member for Nelson. It is a position where the Ombudsman protects the ordinary person, the little guy, so to speak, in regard to decisions taken by government officials. We expect the Ombudsman to do the job without fear or favour, and she does. It has been a time of significant reform. During this session of parliament last week, we passed a new Ombudsman’s Act, the first time the Ombudsman’s Act has been significantly amended and put into a contemporary setting since self-government. I am sure that legislation will do the Territory proud as we move forward in opening up transparency and accountability of government, government agencies, and the police, across the Territory.
Looking at police matters: of a total of 407 complaints handled by the Ombudsman, the agency with the most complaints was the Northern Territory Police with 274, 28% of which were in relation to police policy and procedures. As minister for Police, I am pleased to note that improvements in the average time taken to resolve complaints against police during 2006-07 have been maintained during 2007-08. In 2006-07, 79% of complaints were closed within 180 days, compared to 76% in 2007-08. This is very similar.
The Ombudsman has also demonstrated there has been a substantial amount of progress made in upgrading the case management complaint system which is to the benefit of the community. Overall, the Ombudsman has shown that, whilst there will always remain issues which need to be addressed, by and large, our public sector works hard to provide good service.
I pick up on the comments by the member for Nelson. He talked the identification in the report that so much of police work is alcohol-related in taking people into protective custody. He asked whether that would not be a job better done by Night Patrols. An enormous amount of work our police do is alcohol-related. In Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine, around 80% of all police work is in some way or other alcohol-related. That is why we have to work so hard as a government to reduce the consumption of alcohol in the Territory and the totally disproportionate role it plays in contributing to crime and antisocial behaviour. That is why we continue to try innovative approaches to reduce alcohol consumption.
We, as a government, and with the Commonwealth government-resourced Night Patrols, have dedicated Aboriginal community police patrols in the Territory. We have established the First Response Patrols to get to people early in the day to try to get them to rehabilitation programs, other medical assistance, or return them to their communities. I agree with the member for Nelson; it is an ongoing battle and a disproportionate amount of police time is taken up in dealing with low-level but highly-visible alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, which impacts on our broader community.
I also comment, along with my colleague, the member for Barkly, the new Corrections minister, in regard to what I though was a passionate speech by the member for Araluen about the report the Ombudsman made on the Corrections service and the women’s prison. I can say the previous minister oversaw significant improvements; I am not sure in regard to which specific recommendations to the women’s prison at Berrimah. I had the opportunity to visit the prison with the previous minister just after Christmas.
In regard to the rhetoric of the political debates which have ensued in regard to the new Corrections facility, or any sort of public commentary that, somehow, our Corrections facilities in the Northern Territory in Darwin and Alice Springs are some sort of holiday camp, is absolutely without any foundation whatsoever. It was my first visit to Berrimah gaol, and I was quite taken aback and surprised as to how overcrowded that facility is, and the lack of education and training facilities within the walls of that particular prison. I had an opportunity to visit the women’s prison, and observed the same.
Then we have this absurd debate going around that prisoners do it well because some prisoners, who behave very well and are role model prisoners, have a portable DVD available to them; as if it is some sort of luxury existence and somewhere people would want to go to for a comfortable life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly believe that a custodial sentence, in part, has be a punishment for the crime that has been committed and should be at a place where most people would not want to spend any length of time. However, that does not mean to say that it should not also be humane and have a real focus on rehabilitation outcomes to assist people to change their behaviour so they are not readmitted. We are going to have this debate. We had a very tempered, very passionate, very well-considered and articulated position put by the member of Araluen tonight. I have to say, for the most part, I agree with what she said.
Then, you had the political rhetoric coming out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition when he said - and I believe the language he has used in the House this week has been that we should not be building what I think he called - a ‘comfortable new prison’ for people sent to gaol instead of a new hospital in Palmerston.
The prison we will build will not be a comfortable new prison, but it will be a prison that will deliver better education and rehabilitation outcomes, and will certainly deal with the issues raised by the Ombudsmen in her report and pick up on those recommendations. There is no way those recommendations can be implemented in full within the current construct, confines and design of the existing women’s gaol.
Let us hope there is a debate in the party room on the other side, recognising the fact that we do need a new Corrections facility. It does need to be contemporarily designed to have the capacity to pick up the recommendations by the Ombudsman in her report, but it will have to deliver better rehabilitation outcomes than we are achieving at the moment within our existing Corrections facilities here in the Northern Territory.
Let us move away from the rhetoric of this debate that prison in the Northern Territory is some comfy, soft, mollycoddling type of reward for behaviour as it currently is because, patently, it is not. If anyone was to read the Ombudsmen’s report in regard to the conditions in the women’s prison …
Mr Chandler: Give one good reason why you cannot build it where it exists
Mr HENDERSON: I am sure you have not been out there, member for Brennan, and I am sure you have not read the report either. That is what we are committed to do, as my colleague has said, in a new era of corrections.
I remember going on Radio 8HA in Alice Springs, the current presenter had a letter, I suppose - I am sure he did have a letter - from a prison officer in Alice Springs, basically making the assertion that the Alice Springs gaol was like five-star hotel accommodation that everyone wanted to go back to, such was the wonderful experience you had whilst you were in prison. It was outrageous and quite mind-boggling correspondence. Again, there is political rhetoric out there that prison in the Northern Territory is some really soft option, a five-star hotel that people would willingly want to go to and give up their freedom in the outside world. Nothing could be further from the truth in regard to our prisons in the Northern Territory.
I commend the Ombudsman on her report. I thank her and her team for the work they do on behalf of all Territorians. I am sure we will continue to have debate about Corrections in the Northern Territory. I know it is hard, but it is an important debate to have because all of us here want to reduce the rate of reoffending and improve rehabilitation outcomes. If there is one thing we can agree on, let us try to get that right, not play politics with it. At the end of the day, if we do improve rehabilitation, if we do reduce the amount of reoffending, Territorians as a whole will be much better off.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
TABLED PAPER
Members Telephone and Travel Expenses 2008
Members Telephone and Travel Expenses 2008
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to paragraphs 5.3 and 7.9(c) of the Administrative Arrangements of November 2007 for the provision of travel, motor vehicle, communications, postage and childcare entitlements for members of the Legislative Assembly; the annual schedule containing payments for each member for travel at government expense, and for satellite and mobile telephones for 2008.
I also table a letter dated 16 February 2009 from the Chief Minister containing a schedule of ministerial mobile phone expenses for 2008.
MOTION
Print Paper - Members Telephone and Travel Expenses 2008
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Primary Industries Review
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory’s primary industry sector makes a significant contribution to our economy. It is currently estimated at around 2.2% of gross state product. Further, the sector is currently facing a number of challenges and opportunities, primarily driven by national and international factors, which are likely to impact on the future development of a range of primary industries in the Territory.
Against that backdrop, it was extremely timely that the Primary Industry Group within my department was reviewed thoroughly last year, with findings and recommendations presented by the independent consultant just prior to year’s end, and a new structural arrangement for the group put in place from earlier this year.
The primary industry sector has been increasing in value over the last few years, recording a 16% increase in 2006-07, and a further 7% increase to be worth $414m to the Territory’s economy in 2007-08. The importance of primary industries cannot be overstated. Not only is it a major contributor to the economy, but it is the industry that manages the majority of the productive land in the Territory, providing jobs in remote areas, ushering in regional development, and allowing a far greater geographic spread of population than would otherwise be possible. On a global scale, the primary industries sector feeds the world’s population.
Primary industry in the Northern Territory falls in three broad categories. These are pastoral, horticultural and agricultural, and all are profoundly affected by our changing climate. I will delve further into climate change later. However, at the recent Primary Industries Ministerial Forum, it was determined a new approach to the way we view and respond to drought is now required. The basis for this improvement has two principles: first, that both the role of farmers in natural resource management and in maintaining vibrant rural communities be recognised; and second, the importance of maintaining and supporting the natural resource base through times of drought and climatic change.
It was agreed that having accepted those two principles, specific measures are now required to deliver these specific outcomes. These include:
income support and safety net measures available to farming families facing financial hardship, regardless of the cause,
including time limited and capped concessions for on-farm and liquid assets;
assistance for farm businesses to prepare for future climatic change and drought, including supporting farm planning and business
training and to implement risk management, natural resource management and drought preparedness strategies;
improved research and development, including seasonal forecasting; and
assistance for farming-dependent communities to prepare for droughts and other hardships, and to improve the health of rural communities.
Now that these principles have been agreed, we can move forward with the process of delivering a revised, comprehensive drought policy.
In attending the Primary Industry Forum in Canberra last week, I sought an assurance that the exceptional circumstances arrangements will remain unchanged for those producers to the south and east of Alice Springs who are currently receiving assistance for existing drought declared areas. I can inform the House that pastoralists in Central Australia in exceptional circumstances declared areas will continue to have access to support under the current rules.
Our pastoral industry was worth $205m in 2007-08, up 6.4% from 2006-07. The cattle industry remains the largest contributor to the rural industries sector, making up 39% of rural industry and fisheries estimated production value in 2007-08. The flow-on effects from the cattle industry, particularly transport and retail trade, are major contributors to regional economies throughout the Territory.
The rangelands area of the Territory is ideally suited to breeding cattle which meet specific requirements for feedlot markets, both interstate and in South-East Asia. Areas in the Top End and Douglas Daly regions also provide the ability to rapidly grow young cattle at times during the year when other areas of the Territory are less productive.
In 2006-07, around 57% of Territory cattle turned-off was exported, while the remaining 43% were destined for interstate markets. The majority of cattle consigned to interstate markets are generally feeder cattle for further growing prior to slaughter and sale in domestic and international markets. The industry is expected to grow significantly in coming years.
Based on producer estimates, carrying capacities across the Territory are expected to grow through investment in station infrastructure and more refined management practices. The increase in carrying capacity is due, in the most part, to the use of improved pastures and the development and implementation of best practice land management systems. A Best Practice Manual for Beef Cattle Production is currently being developed by researchers within the Primary Industry Group for each of the four Territory regions. The manual, covering beef cattle production in the Katherine region, has been well received by industry. Productivity improvements in the cattle breeder herd will also increase the overall efficiency and profitability of the pastoral industry.
This predicted growth in the industry is necessary to accommodate the estimated increase in demand for our cattle in South-East Asia. Indonesia currently imports around 600 000 head of cattle per year, with half of those cattle coming from the Territory. Austrade predicts that the Indonesian market for live cattle will grow to one million head per annum in the next five years. At present, most of the beef products from the live cattle trade to Indonesia are consumed in Jakarta and other main centres in Java. As disposable income levels of Indonesia’s middle class continue to rise, they will look to buy more expensive forms of protein – particularly beef.
The challenge that we face in the Territory is to grow our market share, given the likely rise in demand for live cattle throughout Asia. If northern Australia is unable to meet the increasing demand expected in Indonesia, feedlotters may seek alternative suppliers – most likely from West Asia. Cattle from West Asia are unlikely to meet the standard that the Northern Territory currently supplies and are not supported by rigorous quality assurance programs, but will be sourced from lower-cost producers.
Obviously, we must look for new markets for our livestock as a risk management strategy. In this regard, I travelled to Vietnam last year, together with industry members, to investigate the potential of a new market for live cattle. This builds upon an earlier visit by the then Chief Minister to examine opportunities for Territory businesses. I am pleased to report the Vietnamese companies that we met are currently investing in feedlot infrastructure with a view to begin construction in March. This bodes well for a new market for Territory live cattle.
It is vital that we explore ways to grow the pastoral industry in a sustainable manner. The challenge of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions aside, we believe that production can lift from the current turn-off of around 550 000 head of cattle per year to close to 1m. Much of this gain will be realised through increased efficiency of production, but also includes opportunities for bringing Aboriginal land back into production. This is being achieved through dedicated programs such as the high-profile Indigenous Pastoral Program.
The Territory’s agricultural sector, incorporating broadacre dry land and irrigated cropping, pasture seed and hay production, is poised to grow. The value of production in 2007-08 is estimated at $23m, an increase of around 20% from 2006-07. This growth was mainly due to increases in the hay and fodder crops grown in the Katherine and Douglas Daly regions and used for the live cattle export industry. One of the major expansions currently under way is the further development of the peanut and maize industries. These crops are grown in rotation with one another in Katherine by the Peanut Company of Australia. Current plantings of peanuts and other broadacre crops such as maize and sesame are in the order of 700 ha, with the company outlining its intention to further develop incrementally subject to relevant government approvals.
Underpinning this substantial development in broadacre farming has been significant practical research and field trials involving agency staff and facilities at the Katherine and Douglas Daly Research Stations for more than a decade. This expansion is likely to continue to drive jobs and economic development in the Katherine-Daly region.
The rapidly emerging forestry sector is also of importance to the Territory. Approximately 30 000 ha of Acacia mangium, destined for use as paper pulp, has been planted on Melville Island by Great South Plantations Ltd. In more recent times, approximately 6000 ha of African mahogany have been planted in the Douglas Daly region by four managed investment scheme companies. The current intention is to use these trees for their timber. It is likely that these plantations will expand by approximately 2000 ha per year, with the first harvest likely to occur in 2015. These semi-arid tropical plantations are a world first on this scale. My department is assisting in identifying the best genetics in African mahogany for timber production, which will be critical to the long-term success of this industry.
Similarly, the Territory’s horticultural industries are dynamic, contributing 29% to the total value of Territory rural industries and fisheries production. The value of horticultural production for 2006-07 was $145m, an increase of 52% from 2005-06. The reasons for this increase can be linked to a rise in mango production due to biennial production cycles of mango trees – an increase in production every second year – and substantial increase in the value of vegetable and melon production. Horticulture continues to expand, driven by market niches arising from out-of-season production when compared with other horticultural areas throughout Australia. The diversity of horticultural production is vast in the Territory. We produce substantial amounts of traditional fruits like melons, mangoes, cucumber and citrus; but also less mainstream products such as Asian vegetables, rambutan, dragonfruit and other tropical fruit. Our nursery and garden industry is also a significant employer, and turf production is increasing.
The horticultural industries are primarily driven by Dry Season production under irrigation. Because of this, access to water and improving irrigation efficiency in a sustainable way is of paramount importance. Indeed, the overall sustainability and production efficiency of the industry is being driven by both economic necessity and market demands for clean, safe and environmentally responsible food production.
While I am on the topic of environmentally responsible production, let me be clear about the situation with the Ord River Irrigation Area. The Western Australian government, in partnership with the Commonwealth government, is moving ahead with the Ord River Irrigation Area expansion on its side of the border. It should be noted that this expansion is on the Weaber Plain and includes several infill areas within the existing development. It will take this stage, plus one or two more, before the development and, hence water supply, will reach the Northern Territory border. Obviously, as the development is moving from west to east, the Primary Industry Group of my department will be monitoring the project to examine opportunities to develop it into the Northern Territory. Future developments into the Northern Territory will be, ultimately, dependent on infrastructure developed over time on the Western Australian side of the border, and overall water availability.
A high-level meeting was held just last week between Commonwealth, Western Australia and Northern Territory government representatives. At that meeting, it was agreed representatives from the three jurisdictions will meet again in the near future to ensure collaboration in examining opportunities for the medium- and long-term development of the Ord River Irrigation Area. With input and assistance from colleagues across the Territory government, the Primary Industry Group will continue to lead this effort for the Territory.
We live in challenging times. There are two great pressures facing Australia’s agricultural industries: climate change and globalisation. I will talk about how the Primary Industry Group is preparing to deal with these challenges in a minute. First, however, let us be clear about the challenges themselves and what they mean.
Climate change brings four major challenges we have to deal with: water temperatures, longer and deeper droughts, more extreme weather events, and biosecurity risks where we will see increases in the occurrence of pests and diseases.
I mentioned previously the Primary Industries Ministerial Forum I attended last week. At that meeting, we endorsed the principle of a strengthened partnership approach for managing biosecurity. Ministers agreed to work together so as to implement reforms which will further strengthen Australia’s biosecurity system and provide substantial benefits to our industries, communities and natural environment. This means that we are looking to a formal agreement on a national biosecurity system by the end of this year. This proposed agreement will cover: stronger science and risk-based approaches; an improved working partnership across the biosecurity continuum - which is to say offshore, at the border, and onshore; agreed cost-sharing arrangements covering all relevant sectors; improved information sharing arrangements and systems; collaboration in optimising application of all available government investments in biosecurity services; consultation on national priorities for major new investments; arrangements for consulting on certain policy decisions and operational matters such as appointments to the National Biosecurity Commission; and increased Commonwealth responsibility for ballast water.
This spirit of cooperation in biosecurity arrangements bodes well for the Territory, as we are the closest and, often, first point of contact with Asia. You can be assured that my department is making a major contribution to such planning. Territorians well remember the outbreak of black striped mussels in our marinas, the exotic fruit fly infestation and controls over the movement of fruit and vegetables, and the eradication of the grapevine leaf rust from the Darwin, Palmerston and the rural areas. More recently, Northern Territory departmental officers provided assistance in combating the equine influenza outbreak in New South Wales and Queensland.
Other challenges ushered in by climate change include the impacts of a changing environment and the Australian government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme and associated policies. Climate change must be considered in the context that Territory agricultural industries are already designed around significant inter-annual and intra-annual variations in climatic conditions. Growth of the agricultural sector is reliant on matching appropriate land and water resources in responding to market demands. Soils and land systems suitable for agricultural production are fragmented throughout the Territory. These factors, taken together, will continue to direct and, in some cases, influence future expansion of agricultural production in the Territory. It is against this reality that the ongoing research and development work of the Primary Industry Group is so important.
The Australian government has signalled that agriculture, fisheries and forestry will be included in an Emissions Trading Scheme by 2015. The issues to be considered include the point in the supply chain at which the obligation for emissions will be applied and the process chosen to estimate emissions. For the Territory’s primary industries, the beef industry will be considered for inclusion as the beef, sheep and dairy industries make up most of Australia’s agricultural emissions. Forestry is to be included on a voluntary basis from the start of the scheme for those plantations established after 1989. Again, the details are still being developed.
On the other hand, globalisation carries its own set of challenges: more opportunities for pests and diseases to reach our shores in a world where we trade far more than we used to, and in which people and goods cross borders in ever-increasing volumes. An additional issue is the increased community interest in the perceived effect agricultural development may have in relation to maintaining a healthy environment. This community concern is primarily based on historic development practices in southern Australia, particularly the Murray-Darling. This community concern has been heightened by the current, growing, national interest in increasing agricultural production in northern Australia.
As great as these pressures are, they also present a range of opportunities. These include the chance to become more productive and competitive while maintaining a healthy environment. We are also well placed to supply cattle and food crops to domestic and international markets. I am sure you will all agree these are important and pressing issues, the emergence of which has prompted my department’s Primary Industry Group to reassess the way it does business, its priorities, and how it interacts with industry.
My department has had in place for some time a system of rolling reviews and, under this scheme, a review of the Primary Industry Group was undertaken late last year by the consultant Walter Turnbull. The review sought to better align the department’s Primary Industry Group with government and industry priorities following concerns the agency was not well equipped to respond to merging national and global issues. The review also took into account the views of the various industry sectors, the challenges I mentioned earlier posed by climate change and globalisation, and the need to ensure the delivery of services to the various primary industry sectors was as efficient and appropriate as possible.
Now the review has been delivered, its recommendations - which I will talk about in some detail shortly - have to be cross-checked and discussed with industry and other stakeholders. As we move forward, the ramifications of each of the recommendations are discussed with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association, the Northern Territory Live Export Association, and others. This process is vital, as we want to ensure we get the appropriate strategic advice from industry to ensure our new programs deliver what both industry and the government require.
The review proposed 16 recommendations, all of which are in the process of being implemented. Key among them is the development of a policy statement and strategy on the government’s vision for Primary Industries in the Northern Territory. Once the policy is articulated, the department will align its strategic and business plans, programs and services to take account of the government’s vision in consultation with staff and industry groups. While many of the recommended changes have, or are in the process of being initiated, the policy statement outlining the government’s position and policy on primary industry will be presented to parliament at a later date, after detailed consultation with industry has been conducted. This consultation process is, by nature of the size of the Territory and the number of industry groups involved, one which will take several months to complete.
The review also recommended a formal stakeholder engagement forum be established to allow for better communication between industry associations and the department. I am pleased to say that work on the Primary Industries Consultative Forum is well advanced.
Another recommendation covers the need for an overarching Primary Industries Research Strategy. This is to have a minimum three-year horizon with an annual review aligned with the government’s budget cycle. Work on this has commenced with industry consultation under way; the recent mango workshop held earlier this month being a good example of strong beginnings.
The implementation of these recommendations will better prepare the Primary Industry Group to meet the challenges ahead and will ensure that it is better organised to deliver the outcomes expected by the government and industry.
In addition to the recommendations of the review, the Territory government took the decision to base the leadership of the Primary Industry Group in Alice Springs in recognition of its regional importance. As a result, the Executive Director of Primary Industries and his support staff are now based at the department’s Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs.
The review and associated reorganisation has given the Primary Industry Group the chance to take a fresh look and redefine its purpose and future strategies, strengthen its policy development and extension services functions, continue its market development work, and strengthen its commitment to Indigenous employment. There will be an increased emphasis on ensuring the work undertaken on the department’s research and demonstration farms is in line with industry expectations and priorities.
Key among the review’s recommendations was a reorganisation of the department’s Primary Industry Group. A new division called Plant Industries has been created incorporating the crops, forestry and horticulture division, as well as those diagnostic services which support plant industries. This new division allows a more holistic focus on agriculture, horticulture and forestry, incorporating both extension and research and diagnostic services into the one division. In addition, the Plant Industries Division is now responsible for those research and demonstration farms which primarily focus on plant-related research; namely, Berrimah, Katherine, Ti Tree, Coastal Plains and Arid Zone Research Institute.
To better deal with current policy issues and intergovernment relationships associated with sustainable development, the Primary Industry Services Division has been strengthened. This group, Policy and Services, will continue to manage the confronting agenda of nationally significant issues with additional expertise.
The Pastoral Production Division will continue, but with the added responsibility for the research and demonstration farms at Beatrice Hill, Douglas Daly, Kidman Springs and Old Man Plains.
The Berrimah Veterinary laboratory is now part of the Biosecurity and Product Integrity Division, reporting to the Chief Veterinary Officer. That arrangement, together with robust, risk-based biosecurity planning, will strengthen the Territory’s biosecurity preparedness and response capabilities.
As I stated previously, the world is changing, and my department’s Primary Industry Group has been reorganised to assist it better meet the challenges of the future. There is a high public expectation today with regard to the environment, animal welfare, new crop and pasture varieties, water use, and land management practices. For the department to be able to meet these expectations there is a real need for better science and education, more focused research, and the ability to develop management practices to deal with climate change and globalisation issues.
With all these issues and challenges, clearly what is required is a Primary Industry Research Strategy. We are now committed to developing such a strategy which will be inclusive of government policies, nationally agreed priorities, and the needs of local industries. In consultation with industry, this strategy will take into account the best use of the department’s research and demonstration farms and will be reviewed on an annual basis. To complement the research strategy, an extension services strategic framework will be developed. Again, this will be done in consultation with industry partners.
My department, with its new regional development responsibilities, will strengthen its capacity and capability to embrace the challenges of Indigenous employment, and this will flow strongly into the refocused Primary Industry Group as yet another plank in its heightened responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, I am sure from what I have outlined, you and honourable members present today can appreciate the sense of excitement and purpose which now drives our Primary Industry Group. I am sure that you, like me, will look forward to its performance into the future.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House this afternoon. It is an important issue for Territorians. Primary industry has long been a cornerstone of the economy of the Northern Territory, and it is nice to see that there is - if I can take the minister’s words on face value - a renewed energy in focusing on primary industries. I also take this opportunity to thank the minister for providing me with the opportunity to receive briefings from the Fisheries Division and also a tour of the Berrimah Research Farm. I am looking forward to touring the other primary industry facilities in the future.
Minister, I am pleased that you, through your government, seem to have quite a strong focus on the primary industry sector. I do not ever doubt your sincerity, minister, and the interests you have in, and importance you hold for, primary industries.
However, I do have a couple of grave fears. One fear is rooted in the history of the present government. Much of the feedback I receive from primary producers and industry groups is that the current government has, unfortunately, dropped the ball in respect of primary industries. I will speak about that in more detail shortly.
My next fear is twofold. You have been handed the poisoned chalice – the Health portfolio. You now have a ministerial workload that can be summed up as enormous. My fear is - and these fears are shared across some parts of the NT - that you will simply not have the time to give primary industries the due care and consideration it needs. A number of people have told me that one of two things will occur: either plenty will get done because you will be in a position to just rubber stamp because the department will be doing everything for you and you will not give those decisions due care and attention; or that nothing will get done because of the enormous workload you will be bearing. These are issues which have been brought to me by people across different parts of the Northern Territory. I hope you will be able to assure people that neither of those scenarios will take place. I sincerely hope the focus you have on primary industries is heading in the right direction. From what I read in the statement today, minister, all the words seem to be right. I just hope it will all be put in place and deliver some real outcomes for the people of the Northern Territory, particularly those involved in this sector.
I was pleased to see a review of Primary Industries had been conducted and, having read through the report, I was a little saddened to read - and I quote from page 1 of the Executive Summary of that report:
- Over this period, the relative importance of primary industry to the NT economy has declined as the NT economy has expanded significantly, particularly in
relation to the growth of the minerals and energy sector.
That is a statement from the report which backs up the sentiment of people around the Northern Territory; that the government has dropped the ball on primary industries. However, having said that, the next paragraph in that Executive Summary went on to say:
- However, the primary industry sector has continued to grow with new crops being produced (eg Asian vegetables), and the forecasts indicate continued
growth of the horticulture industry … The NT pastoral industry has achieved double the national productivity growth over the last 27 years.
That is very good news in anyone’s language. Therefore, notwithstanding anything that might have stood in the way of horticulturalists and pastoral people, they have managed to overcome those and continue to grow their industry at double the national figure. To our people in the primary industry sector, I send my congratulations and say well done.
The minister’s statement this afternoon does contain a lot of positive news about the state of the industry overall. It is great to see continuing improvement in both the number of NT cattle being exported, along with corresponding increases in the dollar value of those exports. That is good news, but we cannot rest on our laurels in relation to that. As you know, with the very unstable global economy and the Australian dollar bouncing around all over the place, the value of our exports heading overseas is seriously affected.
I note the report raised a number of issues the NT will need to look at into the future. They include: climate change; sustainable development; availability of land for primary industries development; water management; rising fuel and transport costs; increased focus on biosecurity; providing appropriate infrastructure to support the development of the industry; the continuing focus on animal welfare from lobby groups; increased focus on food quality and safety; priorities for Indigenous development; focus on regional development; increases in commercial forestry; and difficulties in recruiting and training staff. Indeed, as the minister pointed out, 16 recommendations came from the report which are very broad recommendations. If they are properly applied to the specific areas of need as reported, and are accepted by the government and implemented, they will go a long way to addressing many of the identified needs of the primary industry sector.
There are a few specific areas about which I will speak. There is a strong perception within the farming community that outreach services have been pared back by the Primary Industry department over the past few years. Producers report to me they rarely, if ever, see a representative from the department visiting them on their blocks. I believe in the past there had been a great deal of involvement from the department with on-site trials, research and development. What is being fed back to me is some of those things are becoming a distant memory for a lot of people on the land. I notice in the statement today, minister, that you mentioned outreach staff. I am sure the pastoralists and the horticulturalists would like some assurances from you that they will start seeing staff from your department back out on their blocks and farms.
A concern in relation to that which has also been raised with me is the implementation of the recommendations of the Walter Turnbull report. Some believe there will be an increase in staff to accommodate the implementation, but they will be at the expense of people who are actually working on the ground. I hope that will not be the case.
I pick up on one of the other matters mentioned in the review in relation to availability of land for primary industry development; it is in the context of the Douglas Daly Region. Up until recently, as we all know, there was a moratorium on land clearing in the Daly. We, the Country Liberals, have said publicly – and we stick by it - that we would lift that moratorium and allow decisions to be made in respect of land clearing applications based on the science and merits of each application.
To her credit, the minister for Environment, the member for Macdonnell, has worked with the people of the Daly region and taken advice from the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and, in a sense, lifted that moratorium by imposing restrictions that land clearing applications for areas over 200 ha must be approved by the minister for Environment. I thank the minister for Environment for taking the effort to touch base with Territorians on that very important issue.
However, I am also advised there has been a raft of new requirements imposed on the application process. My advice is the new requirements on applications make the process almost impossible to achieve and prohibitively expensive. I do not know if the Environment minister is aware of this situation with applications. It seems the applications have so many requirements that it will cost each applicant thousands of dollars per application to meet those requirements. On top of that, the application takes a very long time to complete. One primary producer I spoke with said she is giving up on the application. This lady is an articulate, university-educated woman, and she says it is too hard.
The feeling amongst primary producers is this new application process - and it is a cynical view - I am yet to be convinced one way or the other - was designed so people would say: ‘It is just too hard’ and throw their hands in the air, effectively keeping the moratorium going because there will still be no land clearing happening in the Daly. I provide that information to the Environment minister because I know she is keen to get on top of this issue. I leave it with her.
The point, as it relates to the ministerial statement today is: while the report suggests the government will need to consider the availability of land for primary industry development, yet if the process of obtaining the necessary approvals is so difficult and obstructive, then how can the government facilitate more land being available? That is one of the basic tenets of all primary industry production - to have land to put it on. If the department of Planning or the Environment department cannot facilitate that, then the whole process is going to come to a grinding halt. There seems to be a terribly disjointed approach to this issue. I am asking the government to aim for a far more collaborative, interdepartmental approach to the issue, so that Primary Industry are talking to Environment and they can share the problems and issues they have. After all, if we are going to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations of the report, then the departments will need to be talking to each other to solve the problems that stand in the way.
Speaking of interdepartmental collaboration, roads and infrastructure also need to be a priority focus. It is great to hear the news from the minister in his statement that our production figures are on the rise - that is excellent. I urge the ministers of this government, however, to start thinking and planning for the infrastructure that will be needed; for example, when our cattle production doubles or triples some time in the next 10 or 15 years. These are things we need to be looking at now, so we can start planning for roads and staging yards. It is nice to hear the minister for Infrastructure talk this morning about new East Arm port expansions. Those are the types of things we could use now, but they are the type of things we will most definitely need in the years to come. It takes time to get those things happening; you need to start that planning process now. I urge the government to jump on board quickly and start to progress it with some real action.
There needs to be much consideration given to the concept that the NT holds the status of being the food bowl of Australia. However, much has to be done to achieve that. The government will need to consider how we overcome one of the greatest difficulties the rural sector faces at this time: how do we stem the flow of people away from the primary sector and turn it back to people flocking back to the land? There are many things we need to consider. It is all about lifestyle, and people who move onto the land having the prospect and chance of making a good living and setting themselves and their families up for the future.
The type of things we need to consider are health service provision for people on the land; that is having services that can actually be accessed by people in the bush. We also need to consider the provision of education services. When I say education, I do not necessarily mean schooling in the traditional sense for children. As time goes by and technology grows and expands at a faster and faster rate, technology is going to be one of the ways to improve crop yields and animal production. There needs to be a push to get that technology into the bush and teach people how to use it. There needs to be programs in place which will facilitate educating people on the land in relation to new technology. Examples of that new technology include remote watering and bore monitoring and sensing. They are just two of the examples. We need to consider telecommunication services for people out bush. That goes to the lifestyle of people living in the NT. We need to spend time to think about the services we will need to have in place to entice people back to the bush.
There needs to be consideration given to many of the side issues affecting profitability, including sustainability, environmental issues and the cost of those, and access to energy and the cost of that. Consideration needs to be given to the use of renewable energy and how that might be facilitated in the bush. What about the costs associated with transport, fuel prices, driver compliance, and fatigue management? All these things add up to increase the costs of the primary producer, and hurt their bottom line.
I will touch on the issue of the Ord River Stage 2 development, which the minister mentioned in his statement today. There are a few things about the Ord Stage 2 that I would like to point out. It is nice to see the government is finally on board with Ord Stage 2. Just after lunch, I was speaking with a Senator from Queensland. He told me the Northern Territory government, up until as long as 12 months ago, did not even want to discuss the matter of the Ord development; they were in denial and really were not interested. I cannot fathom why they would have been like that; I imagine it was because they feared all the up-side was going to Western Australia. It is nice to hear they are finally on board with this. However, the problem is, of course, we are now years behind Western Australia as far as the planning process goes. It would have been nice to be keeping pace with the Western Australian government on this issue so we are in a position to work, rather than wait for all their infrastructure to be built and then take advantage of it so we can start doing something on this side of the border as well.
There is about 32 000 ha of land affected by this Ord Stage 2. Half of it is in Western Australia and about half of it is in the Northern Territory. I notice the minister mentioned water in the Ord - if it was not mentioned in the statement, perhaps it was in a question during Question Time earlier today - there is heaps of water there. I do not think any further studies need to be done on it. My advice is there is sufficient water for 10 megalitres per hectare to cover both the Northern Territory and the Western Australia side of the development. My understanding and advice is that the channel which is going to be built to provide water to Ord Stage 2 will be wide enough to accommodate progress on the Northern Territory side as well.
I guess it is symptomatic of how we have seen the government operate in so many facets of their government, but they do not seem to have a very long-term or strategic view of things. This is a long-term project. There needs to be a strategy put in place, and it needs to be considered as important because food is the staple; it is the bottom line. If mining turns down, okay, we can do without a bit of steel; if tourism turns down, that is sad too. However, we all need to have food and it must be considered the very highest priority. It will not be long before most food production in Australia, if not all of it, will be above the Tropic of Capricorn. There is increasing pressure placed on water-abundant parts of Australia to become hefty food producing areas because of the drought and the water problems we are seeing in the southern states.
On drought, I notice the minister mentioned in his statement they were looking at issues in relation to drought. A large part of Australia is in drought at the present time and it is good to see they are considering a plan to work on drought - not so much prevention - preparedness for drought, rather than having to deal with people who find themselves in drought. It is certainly much easier to prepare people for it so they have contingency plans. I welcome that comment from the minister in relation to drought.
The Emissions Trading Scheme is another area which is going to significantly impact the primary industry sector in the Northern Territory. There are predictions of a 20% increase in the cost of freight, crop contracting, chemicals, and up to a 200% increase in the cost of electricity when an Emissions Trading Scheme is introduced. This will significantly affect, along with all the other things I mentioned earlier, the bottom line, the profitability, of arable farming land in the Northern Territory. This is something that needs to be very seriously considered. If we are going to attract people back onto primary producing land, then there needs to be some sort of incentive, or at the very least no penalty, to pay for moving out onto the land.
The last thing I want to touch on is the government’s move to transfer the department of Primary Industry to Alice Springs. I am lost as to the reason why. I have had a briefing on it and I still just cannot quite grasp the sense in moving the CEO of Primary Industry to Alice Springs …
Mr Wood: From Howard Springs he went. He had to pack up.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes. Well, to Alice Springs, yes.
On one basis alone: the cost of transporting the CEO of that organisation back to Darwin, Lord knows how many times a month or a week is going to affect Territorians. We have said the government is irresponsible in their spending and this will be another example of fiscal irresponsibility; it will cost Territorians big money. The far more sensible approach would have been - and I will be accused of being Katherine-centric, but that is fine - to Katherine, which is the hub of the vast majority of primary industries in the Northern Territory. There is significant horticultural capacity around Katherine, as well as cattle. It would make more sense to move the CEO and the department to a place like Katherine, rather than all the way to Alice Springs. It seems to me to be a veiled attempt to satisfy the platitudes of the people in Alice Springs. The government will say: ‘Look what we did for you; we have given you the department of Primary Industry down there’. Yet, it really does not make a great deal of sense to do that.
The minister’s statement this afternoon was quite comprehensive; there is quite a bit in there. It is titled the Primary Industries Review and it covers things rather broadly. I encourage all members to pick up a copy of the Walter Turnbull review and have a look through it. It contains much interesting information that is relevant to primary producers in the Northern Territory. I encourage the government to seriously look at primary industries as the most important industry we have in the Northern Territory. It does not contribute as much as other industries to our gross state product; however, we definitely need to have primary industries as a high priority.
We need to ensure we start with the basics in primary industries and get people back to the bush. Those people need to be satisfied they are going to have a good life in the bush. The Northern Territory is an interesting place; it was founded on the hard work and toil of primary producers and we should not forget our roots in that regard. With the downturn in mining we are seeing at the moment at McArthur River, to name just one - of course, we are going to have a shot at them - the fact that the Northern Territory government has done little or nothing to push the federal minister for Environment along on that issue is incredible. It still beggars belief. I would be camping on his doorstep if it was me.
It is expected there will be a downturn in tourism this year. I believe other tourist destinations in Australia are starting to feel the bite of that already. I sincerely hope the tourism sector remains strong, as I do the mining sector. However, the global financial crisis will bite on people. The focus needs to come back to the basics. We need to have food on our table. We have abundant land and water and we have an ideal opportunity to progress primary industries to their fullest extent. It is something that we need to do, and we need to start planning now.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to add my support to the minister for Primary Industry’s statement on the changing face of this sector of our economy. As a member of a bush rural electorate, and having devoted my working life, before politics, around Katherine, Timber Creek, the VRD, Kakadu and Tennant Creek, I am only too aware of the value the primary industry sector contributes to the Territory economy, and to the social fabric of the Northern Territory.
As the minister noted, in straight financial terms this sector generates 2.2% of the gross state product. Since coming to parliament, I have had numerous meetings with the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association. Most recently, I met with Roy Chisholm, the President of the NTCA and also Luke Bowen, the Executive Officer of the NTCA. It is good to see Luke here today, and also the former Executive Officer, Stuart Kenny, who is now with AAco in Queensland.
In that meeting, Luke and Roy again reminded me of the value of the sector and how its influence is much broader than sheer economic terms. In a place like the Northern Territory, it is very difficult to work in this industry; there are the vast distances and remote populations, but it is those areas which generate wealth and income for those people so they can have livelihoods. The communities can be sustained, as well as those regional towns where people buy a lot of produce, and so create jobs. It has a multiplier effect through the whole of the Northern Territory.
The pastoral industry was worth an estimated $205m in the Territory in 2007-08 financial year, and the largest component came from the cattle industry. With a number of cattle stations in my own electorate, the strength of the Douglas Daly region introducing young cattle for the export market overseas, and for breeding with interstate cattle, I applaud the minister and commend him for harnessing the potential of growth in this sector.
It was good to have that interaction with the NTCA. They highlighted the potential we still have in the industry with respect to cattle exports. I am trying to remember the figures: 80% of cattle go out through the Dry Season, and the 20% remaining is restricted over the Wet Season because of access. Hopefully, the extra money this government has put into roads will boost the ability to get cattle out to the port during the Wet Season, thus allowing them to grow their businesses and get greater yield to the live export market. It is encouraging to see the targeted growth potential in Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Vietnam. I know much work has gone into that, and it shows the great foresight that both the minister’s department and the industry has applied in catching that live cattle market in Asia.
There are dangers, and the people involved are working very hard for the quality we produce. Other countries are not. South America, although they have the largest herd in the world, I believe quality and disease prevention are some of the things they lack. Australia needs to be very conscious of maintaining the quality and integrity of our herds.
In my electorate, I have always been quite impressed with the Indigenous Pastoral Program within the department. It certainly has helped many traditional owners, who have land trusts, to develop their properties, many of which were formerly used as cattle stations. The people have a fond memory of those times in the cattle stations, although they were hard and, sometimes, cruel. The old men I speak of a time when there was a lot of pride in what they actually did, and they look at it as an opportunity for the young people to actually have jobs and do something they will be proud of.
However, it is a balance and it is a choice of traditional owners to choose to use their land in that way. It also is a type of industry which can be very challenging with respect to the management of those properties. Typically, cattle stations are run very dictatorially; there has to be one boss and his or her word is the only way to go. Obviously, there is a lot of work that happens and I know the Pastoral Unit actually does that around the government’s arrangement for those cattle stations.
Amanbidji Station is a great former Durack property in the north-west VRD. I do not claim to know a lot about cattle properties, but I have taken very good cattlemen out there from time to time. They were virtually salivating at the pastures and the potential for cattle on that property. It has taken a long while, but now, I understand, there is consolidated pastoral and other interests working with that property to get it back into production, with local jobs being created. When you consider that 50% of the land across the Northern Territory is covered by Indigenous Territorians, this area has huge potential for economic growth. I hope the minister provides continuing support in that area.
Primary industry is, of course, not all about cattle. The Territory grows a diverse range of produce from mangoes and melons, to cucumbers and Asian vegetables in the rural area. The Vietnamese community has a great number of properties in the rural area, and they produce much of the produce you see in the local markets here, which is quite diverse. In Katherine, as the minister alluded to, the peanut industry has a foothold, and I wish it all the best of luck. Daly River has a bit of history of peanut farming, which has been mixed. However, I hope it goes well in Katherine.
Horticulture production in 2006-07 was valued at $145m. I am pleased to say that growth in the sector is being supported by hay and fodder crops in the Douglas Daly region. Malcolm Bishop does a great job on his property there; he is quite a big grower and he also works other stick farms around other parts of the Territory. He has done a great job of being a leader in fodder crops, as well as the initiative of sending fodder crops over to Korea, at one stage, just to test that market. It is great to see there is growth in that area.
Also, the Douglas Daly Research Station does good work there. Things are changing in the Douglas Daly with, as the minister mentioned, the mahogany tree plantation; it is really changing the face of the Douglas Daly. The research station is adapting to those changes, and I commend all the staff there and the great work they do, and the great community that they support.
I pick up on the comments by the Primary Industry minister about the challenges of climate change for our primary industry sector. This government is well aware of the need to balance growth in our primary industries with the need to protect the environment for future generations. While we invest significantly in facilities such as the Douglas Daly Research Station and in targeted missions to grow our cattle industry, it is not at the expense of the environment. It has been my experience that the modern pastoralist is an environmentalist. They are business people, and the soil, the water, the creek lines, the buffer zones, and riparian areas are all assets to their business and they understand that very much in today’s terms. They look after every bit of that because, if they do not, their business will go down the drain, basically. They, obviously, are there to produce crops or cattle, or whatever it might be, but they do look after those areas.
The Daly River is a pristine river. The work the departments of Environment and Primary Industry have done in balancing the growth in that area is the right way to go. It was this government which set up the Daly River Management Advisory Committee to do the water studies, the water management plans. That is the way to go. We are not going to follow what we have seen down south where they did allocations and then studied later. We will get the studies done first and then allocate based on that and do annual allocations, because that water supply has to be there into the future, and it will protect those business interests in the future as well.
Our primary industries include agriculture, horticulture and pastoral, and cannot succeed without investment in our roads. As a bush member, I spend a lot of time off the bitumen, and I am proud of this government’s commitment to improving remote roads across the Territory. In Budget 2008-09 we committed $271m to improve remote roads. That is on top of the $386m the Australian government invested in Territory roads, including $52m for community, beef and mining roads over four years. In the Katherine region alone, an area I spend a lot of time in, more than $13m has been committed to upgrading the remote roads - roads that keep the primary industry sector connected to the major centres and to markets interstate and overseas. To highlight a few examples: $2.2m has been earmarked to upgrade stream crossings on the Daly River; $4m has been allocated for new gravelling access roads to support horticulture development; and a total of $32m has been allocated for four bridges along the Victoria Highway.
This government recognises the importance of the primary industry sector - a sector which contributes to the economy and to regional and remote communities. We will continue to invest in that area, because it certainly is an industry which keeps giving every single year. The mining industry is beneficial for the Northern Territory, but we do have booms and busts. However, the pastoral industry, the horticultural industry, and the agricultural industry keep producing every year. It is something we are very aware of.
On a point from the member for Katherine, the Douglas Daly area is in my electorate, and I have communication with that community on a regular basis. I have not heard any complaints about the process for the new land clearing arrangements. I had a meeting there on the day that announcement was made. The minister and her office are working very hard to help, in a balanced way, those applications to proceed. I am sure that that is happening in a very sensible and appropriate manner. I do not accept it is impossible to get the applications through.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement on primary industries. It is about time we saw this kind of statement from the government on economic drivers in the Territory that is not about gas.
There is much in the statement, minister. If the government is serious about primary industries, then they will ensure the management of the changes proposed are outcomes and result-focused and not bogged down in processes. Change for the better will also not work if government is indifferent. To date, I have not seen too much real interest in the primary industries of the Territory by this government. Agreed, minister, your work is admired and you do work hard at promoting the industries in your portfolio of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. However, sadly, I do not believe that you are backed up and supported properly and fully by your own colleagues.
I hope this statement is serious, for far too long now we have seen all talk and no action from the government when it comes to primary industries. First, this government wants to chop up and sell off Berrimah Farm when it is well-known in the industry that some of the top paddocks have some of the best soils in the whole of the Top End. - a valuable resource for research and trialling of pastures and, perhaps, new pastures. The buildings are to be demolished and people relocated, but are not sure where.
How long has it been since there was an open day at Berrimah Farm, either for industry people, scientists or just the general community? We should have heard the alarm bells ringing when the title of the farm was changed from Berrimah Research Farm to just Berrimah Farm. Over the last eight years, we have seen a downgrading of the sites’ capabilities and research aspects of the farm, and that is not good. Research is fundamental to the resolution of problems of sustainable production and conservation in the Territory. It will also provide the objective data to show that climate change, for example, is or is not having the effects predicted. For some time now, primary industry research has been an easy target for managers to attack in pursuit of predetermined budget reductions - or to use that wonderful misquoted title - efficiency dividend.
It is worrying to me to note that even in the few developing areas of the Top End such as the Ord River, research is minimal and that which exists is not directed at environmental issues such as salinity detection or nutrient problems in an irrigated environment. A great deal of modern research in the Territory has been undertaken by the university; for example, Cooperative Research Centres and the CSIRO. While much of this research work is sound and good, at times it wanders off into the academic wilderness. Good scientific research will provide the data desperately needed in the Territory for the development of rational - and I stress rational - policies by government. This research and data should, and can, come from the department of Primary Industry.
This government has shown the fundamental misunderstanding of science by expecting definite answers to specific problems in a short time span. With few exceptions, it just cannot be done; we just have to get used to it. Science is not like that and we should all know this. The research needed to solve Territory and environmental problems today and into the future needs to be multidisciplinary and long term, to encompass the range of seasonal conditions experienced in a tropical monsoonal climate of the Top End, and the desert arid climate and conditions experienced in the Centre. Research must examine not only production viability but also a full range of sustainability parameters and environmental effects. By way of example, research should examine a crop or pasture production system, with emphasis on production levels, nutrient inputs and effects on the soil, the rates of carbon accumulation, soil improvement or stability, and the effects on soil profiles, water tables and drainage. This latter part is more important in irrigation systems.
Multidisciplinary research means multi-organisation. Ideally, this way of scientific operation will be well led if meaningful results are to be achieved. Our research capabilities in the primary industries area needs to be improved and expanded and properly supported by government and industry, where and when possible and appropriate.
I turn my attention now to the statement which, in theory, should be a good news story. In parts, it is a good news story. However, it is strange that in the statement there is talk about reviews and more policy, and not much talk on substance such as practical activities on the ground, research in the laboratories and in the field, and work on developing new crops, pastures or farming industries.
Let me elaborate a bit more. Yes, on a global scale, primary industry does feed the world’s population, but this is mainly directed at beef production. Let us be clear, it is predominantly beef production and not smaller-scale primary production. However, having said that, it should be noted that the Territory’s production does not even feed the Territory’s population. All our cattle are exported and we import our meat back into our shops at higher prices.
We cannot provide local meat as there is no abattoir in the Top End any more, or even in the Centre. This government is not interested in fostering a new one any time in the near future. We had a piggery that supplied the majority of pork into the Territory markets. The piggery also provided general abattoir services. It is closed and this government did nothing to keep it open. I do not mean hand-outs or commercial step-ups; I mean working with the industry to keep that abattoir open. It was not interested. We do not have chiller rooms anymore in the Territory. Chiller rooms are a private enterprise and they are mainly servicing the wild pig or wild boar market.
Our wild pigs are highly desirable in Europe, particularly in central Europe. That will be one area I will be taking up with the minister and the department, because it is a niche market and it has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way to our economic development.
This government talks about providing assistance to farmers in trouble from climatic adversities. That is all well and good and I do not have a problem with that. However, there is no serious talk of how to improve farming activities so when there are climatic issues, the industries are best placed to respond.
Cattle exports are by far our biggest export, and most go to the Indonesia market. I note the minister has made a trip to Vietnam. I applaud him for this. However, one swallow does not make a summer, and a bit of rain does not mean the Wet Season has started. Minister, you and your government need to make regular trips to Vietnam and to other Asian countries so that, if there are any issues with exports to Indonesia, we do not have the situation of cattle loaded up on a boat with no place to go.
The statement references the desire to increase cattle numbers from 500 000 to 1m. From my knowledge of cattle production, and from talking to the industry, this will take upwards of 10 years. I referenced previously that a large number of cattle stations on the Barkly were de-stocked this year - something upwards of 15 to 20 cattle stations - because of drought conditions.
What will happen in the meanwhile, whilst we are trying to get stock numbers back up? What government should be doing is looking seriously at the Douglas Daly area where the carrying capacity could be increased through good management of improved pastures. The soils of the bioregion of the Douglas Daly catchment area with potential for sustainable use for improved pasture production, crops, or forestry are estimated to be 400 000 ha, much smaller than the overall area. Even with full development using standard conservation principles and procedures successfully developed decades ago, the overwhelming majority of the Daly River catchment basin will remain in native vegetation. Areas in the north, such as those found on the Stuart Plateau, Port Keats area, and nearby, could be improved and utilised for high-density grazing through improved pastures. Where is the research into these areas and potential industries?
I applaud the emergence of crops such as peanuts and maize in the Katherine region, but these are not broadacre crops. I urge the minister to refer to them correctly and that is: specialised farming. A broadacre crops description conjures up an image of vast miles of paddocks. Peanut growing is not done that way at all. I do not want people to misunderstand exactly what is going on there, so that there is no resistance to any expansion of that industry.
The statement also references the research at Douglas Daly Research Station has been going on for a decade. That is not true. Research has been undertaken at that research institution since the 1960s, and was started through CSIRO research. The facts need to be checked properly, and we need to know what research has been undertaken there, so we can be confident that future research will be appreciated and utilised in association with new research.
Forestry does offer hope from expanding industry in the Territory and, yes, Acacia mangium is a good tree for coastal areas. Work should be done on other areas, or possible areas, for this valuable crop. It is a coastal tree crop, and could be grown successfully in the Port Keats region. However, once more, there does not seem to be any research into areas where this tree, a valuable crop, could be grown and expand the industry, particularly in areas near Aboriginal communities, as much of this land is Aboriginal land. Government needs to identify and select land now - not in five years time and not in 2030 - for the mahogany timber production. Mahogany trees are slow-growing; however, they too are a valuable resource. In conjunction with the acacia trees, we need to get them moving quickly, so that all can benefit.
The horticultural industries are far bigger than described in the minister’s statement. It is disappointing there is no reference to the cut flower industry or the herb industry, to just name two. We have pages on policies and reviews but, when it gets to the real guts of primary industries, we get a small paragraph. I do not think this is good enough. When the statement talked about access to water, and improving irrigation efficiencies, it did not talk about where the water is going to come from in the future.
I have seen no real evidence of planning for the future of Darwin’s water supply. Yes, the Darwin River Dam wall is being raised and, yes, this may result in increased capacity. However, the question I ask now is: will this be sufficient to meet the demands of urban development, rural development, and an increase in industry development?
Currently, the Power and Water Corporation has a licence to extract 12 000 megalitres of water per year from the bores of Girraween, but only takes 3700 megalitres per year. What would happen if the full licence was taken up to feed Weddell, Darwin and more industry projects such as INPEX? I will tell you: it will detrimentally affect the Howard Springs East aquifer, and people with bores will lose or have poor water supply. Residents in areas such as Howard Springs, Humpty Doo, Girraween, Herbert and surrounds will be affected. However, we do not see this government caring in regard to this aspect - not at all. There is no planning for water supply other than ‘Let us just keep extracting more from the bores’. If we are to get a new dam - and there is and has been talk about a new dam - it needs to start now, as it will take up to 10 years to fill a new dam to design yield - 10 years, that is in 2019 it would nearly be ready for use after settling the water, clearing, cleaning, purification and after the infrastructure, or in association with the infrastructure, is in place to move the water to where it is needed.
Regarding the Ord River Scheme, Western Australia and the Commonwealth are getting on with the business to expand the scheme, but the Northern Territory does not seem to be doing much, just sitting on its collective butt watching, doing nothing. Previously, there was a large amount of research done regarding Stage 3, around 1970 to 1972. Is the government not taking up that research and findings and using it towards further research? The Weaber Plain around that area leads into the Keep River system, some 70 000 ha that could be used for production. If this is to become a reality, we need to act now, not just sit and watch other state governments and the Commonwealth doing things; otherwise we may well miss opportunities.
Climate change is referred to as a global challenge and, indeed, it is. However, what this statement overlooks are the local challenges to primary industries such as quality roads to get product to market, freight costs, airline schedules, and the infrastructure for handling growing industries. These challenges must be acted upon as well as bigger issues such as climate change. Climate change had, until the advent of the global financial crisis, become the political cause clbre, where worst-case scenarios were being fervently promoted by the environmentalists, fringe interest groups, and some scientists mindful of the next year’s funding. The loss of Kakadu Wetlands, for example, was widely claimed to be a potential major consequence. The irony of this, of course, is that if a worst case scenario climate were to be realised - as unlikely as this may be - the loss of Kakadu wetlands would be of little consequence, compared to the potential loss of Australia’s agricultural capacity.
Different scenarios are predictions and, while constructed with powerful computer systems, they do require rigorous scientific analysis, experimentation, and observations to be confirmed or denied. This work needs to be done with the relevant department, which is the department of Primary Industry. Staffing levels and programs need to be improved, particularly in the scientific areas, to ensure we are prepared for the challenges that arise from climate change, and which will also assist work on the lessons learnt in past agricultural projects so such mistakes are not repeated and research is not lost.
While I agree the inclusion of the biosecurity reference is very important - I do not support it taking over a year to get on with action and implementation. We should be doing it now. What we have here is another committee being set up. Twelve months is a long time, and we could have a major problem on our doorstep, if not in our gardens, while the committee deliberates over its terms of reference. I say, just get on with it, and get on with it quickly. Again, I urge the minister to ensure the program with sentinel sheep and other species is not lost or downgraded, and find it a little disappointing that these aspects were not mentioned in the statement.
Emissions trading is a can of worms, a Pandora’s Box, a large box of tricks which is going to cause a lot of grief and angst in the pastoral industries. The scheme picks up the pastoral industries in 2015 and the biggest issue is where the supply chain will be obliged to pay for the emissions from the cows, goats or sheep, as the case may be.
How are they going to manage a cow’s farts? Who will count them? Will they be divided into different categories depending on what they eat? Will it be based on the weight of the cows or type of feed for the cow? As you know, cows from a feedlot are more odoriferous than their free-ranging paddock cousins. We do not know if we will see the situation when we buy a steak, we have to pay an amount to cover the emissions from the cow which so happily gave up its life for the table.
This statement makes no reference to carbon sequestration, nor does it show that government is working with industry or the community to get the best deal for carbon credits for plantations established after 1989. Why can we not have it before 1989, which may bring benefits to the Territory?
Towards the end of the statement, the minister talked about more policy statements, strategy and vision, and 16 recommendations. If this review is good, meaningful and important, why have we not seen more detail on the recommendations – the main ones? I do not mean the three that are taken up with developing a policy statement, vision and strategies. My fear is that some of the recommendations may refer to the chopping up of the sections, divisions and programs, and I would not want to see this happen. If this is the case, all will be lost and we may as well pack up our bags and go to live in New Zealand. There is no reference to time frames for the recommendations, so we could see things taking a very long time. Yet again, we see the scientific people being bogged down on peripheral matters at the expense of their core business.
The review talks about setting up a stakeholder forum. It is unclear to me. Does the government just want one forum? If that is the case, then it is not going to work, all the stakeholders brought together in one forum. If the minister means multi-engagement, then the word ‘fora’ should have been used. I recommend this, as nursery people do not have a lot in common with crocodile farmers.
I am a little confused and unclear also about other buzz words: ‘an overarching Primary Industries Research Strategy’. Where does this fit with the proposed government strategy on the government’s vision for primary industries as detailed on page 19? Which is it, and how do those strategies relate to each other? The mango workshop mentioned, which was held earlier this month, was not an initiative of the government; it was an industry initiative, as that industry was fed up with government dicking around and showing no direction for their industry and its future. To claim that it was a government initiative is clearly just wrong.
When I first received this statement, I thought it would be a ‘leading light’ document. While I said at the beginning there is a lot of good in it, and I commend the minister for that, it also has a lot of holes and omissions. Government needs to focus more on what primary industry is all about and not get distracted by issues which do not add value to the industry, do not contribute to an expanding industry base, and are not in step with modern day practice of scientific research.
I commend the staff of the department for working under a cloud of uncertainly at the moment in regard to Berrimah Farm, and acknowledge and appreciate their work - individually and collectively - at times, it is cutting edge research, as shown with the identification of the disease affecting farmed crocodiles.
If the minister is serious about primary industry and is going to work hard at that portfolio, then I ask that he takes on some of the issues I have raised here tonight. I would be more than pleased to talk him through some of these matters, and with the industry people in my areas.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on primary industries, because it is a really important industry in the Northern Territory. I want to reflect on the cattle industry and the relationship it had all those years ago, and still has in small ways, with Indigenous people.
The cattle industry gave employment opportunities to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. They supported one another, they cared about their children, and they looked after their children. The wives of the station owners would teach my people how to cook and clean, and speak English and look after their children. And, of course, there was that huge employment opportunity for Indigenous people moving to the east, west and centre of the Northern Territory, working in places such as Narwietooma Station, Derwent Station, Jervois Station and Huckitta Station on the eastern Plenty. There was a buzzing relationship there.
The people we talk to today who have come out of the pastoral industry are the people we know have good literacy and numeracy skills; it was through the interactions they had around the campfires while they were having bully beef and billy cans of tea. It was the communication and the contact they had with one another that allowed our people to broaden their understanding of where the station owners were coming from, and that they were really just friends and wanted to give the Indigenous people the opportunity to raise their family where there were employment opportunities. We can still see that through the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. There are huge opportunities for Indigenous people to get back to that employment possibility of working in the cattle industry.
So many of our Indigenous children have now lost the skills their grandfathers and fathers had, of how to muster and brand cattle and ride horses and bulls. People in the Gulf region, the Borroloola region, still follow the rodeos. In my electorate at Harts Range and Alcoota, they still go across the border to Queensland and follow all the rodeos. They are a breed who still has cattle handling skills instilled in them. They are really rodeo and cattle people. I know a lot of those people live in the Barkly region as well; you can see them walking around with their big 10-gallon hats and their boots. They live and die for the cattle industry. There are also non-Indigenous people like them as well, who live and die for the cattle industry, and that is so good.
I believe the minister has been really productive and has a vision of the possibilities of encouraging Indigenous people to go back into that industry. It is a huge industry in the Northern Territory, and an industry that we, as a government, wholeheartedly support because we know that these people are the backbone of building our nation. They built the Territory along with non-Indigenous people and their families, and their history is bred into this country of the Northern Territory. They are part of the rivers and the landscape we talk about, and you can see it in their grandparents.
However, as the member for Daly was saying, you have a very differently educated group of pastoralists in the younger generation nowadays, where they have foremost in their minds the environmental impacts and aspects of the environment. They have incorporated that with what their grandfathers and their fathers did. The impression we always seem to have of the pastoral industry is: they just love to clear land and get rid of the vegetation. We have a new generation, new blood, who have the environment foremost in their minds. They know that the buffers on the creeks and along their fencelines are very important to the environment, to the bird and the mammal life that we have and enjoy so much in the Northern Territory. These people are so aware of that.
I went to the Daly Douglas for a whole day and sat around talking to these people – not just to hear what these people were telling me, but to feel it. I could feel the passion these people have for the environment. I had great pleasure just sitting around the whole day talking to these people. Some were people older than all of us in this Chamber. Some people were in their 70s and 80s, and some only in their early 20s and 30s, and they were very much about farming the land, looking after the environment, but also knowing they have to get productivity from the land. I believe there is a balance. You can see the balance there. All of us in this House, especially the minister for Primary Industry, have on many occasions spoken about the balance of productivity, supporting the industry, and ensuring that we look after the environment.
I want to get on to my portfolio and talk about the environment. You can see by the clear policies driven by this government that we are not going to make the same mistakes we have seen in many states across this country. All you have to do is go and have a look at South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Fly over, and starting from 100 km to 200 km out of the cities, see the bareness of the country with just little squares with borders around them, where there are buffer zones. The whole country has been cleared. The ramifications of all that is what we see in the Murray River. They are starting to go back and redevelop policies they should have had 20 or 30 years ago to preserve the environment and ensure they leave the environment as beautiful as it was before they destroyed it.
This government has that in mind. We want to leave what we, as adults and Territorians enjoy today in the Northern Territory, for our children and our great grandchildren. We want to ensure they enjoy the beautiful rivers, our beautiful bird and sea life. We want to ensure all this is there for many generations to come, so that our grandchildren can enjoy what we enjoy today and enjoyed when we were young.
It is very important to have a vision of productivity in the Northern Territory, because we are only a small jurisdiction compared to other states in our country. However, we know the productivity of horticulture and the cattle industry is primary in the Northern Territory. We take great pleasure and pride in talking about all these industries.
It is an absolutely wonderful statement, minister, you have brought to this House today because it is a very important industry.
I go back to those remote Aboriginal communities of 30 years ago. We cleared enough land to do farming, but not masses of it. We had piggeries and rodeos and we enjoyed that life because we could get food and vegetables from the gardens and we killed the odd pig every now and then to feed the community. It was a real thriving industry we had then in most of our communities in Central Australia. Yuendumu was huge; Kalkarindji was huge as were Papunya, Hermannsburg, and Areyonga. You can still see the relics of the past in some of these communities if you drive around and have a look at what we had. Those possibilities were brought to us by the relationships we had with the pastoral industry.
When I was a baby and my oldest brother was five years old, my parents lived and worked on Mt Liebig Station, which was on the eastern Plenty. Our parents were nomadic workers so wherever they went, as children, we went as well. We supported our parents while they were working for four, five, or six months at a time at all different stations. You could see they were proud people back then.
Regarding the issue the member for Katherine raised about the Douglas Daly and how the land clearing application forms are too hard, I take this opportunity to place on the public record that my department has been working with these people. My office upstairs has been in contact with Luke Bowen, and we are working things through with them. We take our jobs very seriously and we want to help these people. If I did not care about these people, as the Environment minister, I would not have taken the day to spend in the Douglas Daly and sit down with them and really nut out the issues they have. I want to give these people support. My office is looking at all the issues which have been raised; it has known about this for a couple of days, and my Chief of Staff was on to it straightaway.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the statement that has been brought by the minister to the House, and commend it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the statement, and comments from the member for Katherine and the Environment minister, the member for Macdonnell, in relation to the environment and the way we should develop the Territory. Environment and development can be complementary. Over the last few years we went a little political to the extent that we were scared about development, and although we used the excuse that we were protecting the environment, there was a fear there would be a backlash from certain groups. If we are dealing with the issues fairly and using the right science, the arguments of the people who have those fears - whether they are philosophical or otherwise - should be matched by the government using the science that its own research has shown can allow development in some areas, as long as certain conditions are put in place.
Getting back to the statement, I must admit I picked this up last night and said: ‘Yes, ministerial statement Primary Industries Review’. It is not until you get to page 18 that the minister talks about the review. It could have said ‘statement on primary industry in the Northern Territory, pages 0 to 18; and the review from there to page 22’. It is a little disappointing because I knew this review had been issued. Considering there are 16 recommendations and the minister talked about three, I thought there might have been more emphasis on the review rather than an overview of the current situation with primary industry. Whilst I appreciate many of the comments the minister made in his statement, it seems to me this statement should be about the review, and yet the review gets the smallest share of this statement.
Some comments made in the statement in relation to production seem to be at odds with sections of the review that I have. Minister, I hoped that, maybe, when the statement was made today we could have received a full copy of the review. All I received was this Executive Summary. I rang the Horticultural Association and asked if they had any more than this, and they said: ‘No, that is about all we have’, and they had input into this review. However, I would have thought a few copies of the review for members of parliament would have been a good way for us to ensure this debate was a little more in-depth.
In fact, what I found interesting is the section called Technical Annual Report 2007-08 attached to this. It talked about estimated growth value of plant industries; I presume it is in the Northern Territory. It talked about Katherine and other areas and said:
- The estimated gross value of plant industries in 2007 was $111.1m. Compared with 2006, this reflects a 32% decline in production.
It went on and talked about fruit production where there was a 29% decline in value compared with the previous year; a decline in yield for mangoes from 18 115 tonnes in 2006 to 15 425 tonnes in 2007; a melon production decline between 2006-07; a banana and table grape production decline of over 60%; in one case, citrus production doubling in the Katherine region; and vegetable production declining in 2007, a 46% decline compared with 2006. There were some increases in the vegetable industry in gourds and snake beans. It noted:
- The value of pasture, field crops and fodder produced was $14.7m, reflecting a decline of 22% compared with the previous year.
It went on to talk about the trees on Bathurst and Melville Islands. It talked about the nursery industry and about cut flowers.
When I turned over to page 5 and read on, there is no page 6. I have part of a review that is a bit hard to review because I do not have the whole review. I have an Executive Summary. However, what concerned me about those figures, minister - and I hope there is an explanation – is that the figures you have quoted are from the 2007-08 annual report for Primary Industry. I am hearing all these things in your own department’s Technical Annual Report which is part of Turnbull’s Primary Industry Function Review.
It said the value of horticultural production for 2006-07 was $145m, an increase of 52% from 2005-06. That could give you the impression that things are moving up. However, these figures here, minister, appear to be telling me the complete opposite. I am not sure why those figures are markedly different, but I hope there is some sort of explanation for it.
I believe, as I have said before, that this department is the poor cousin when it comes to the Northern Territory. It used to be the shining light; the one we were all very proud of. I hope it can come back to that. I am not knocking the minister; I believe he is passionate about his portfolio. I know from the way he has worked in this House with other portfolios, if he gets the job he will go full slather with it. In these economic times, we should start to push primary industry - not push it in a reckless way. It is a bit like the Chief Minister saying we are getting this money from the stimulus package - are we going to cut a few corners here and there? There is no good cutting corners if it comes back to bite us in the future.
The minister for Environment just talked about problems with the amount of land clearing which occurred down south. You have to be very careful comparing down south with up here. Much of the land that was cleared and we look at now as being an overkill, was done in the soldiers’ settlement period where government stipulated, as part of conditions for freeholding that land, you had to clear just about every tree off the property. Even later, in recent times, some property owners had to clear a percentage of the bush before the government would give them the freehold title. I do not think that is the smartest idea in the world, because it does not take into account the environment of the area.
I had a note, minister, that the Technical Annual Report was not attached to Turnbull’s report, but it is the technical annual report for the Northern Territory for that period. Therefore, I take that back. However, I am still interested to know why these figures do not match the figures in the annual report. There is a big gap between what is here and what is there.
You ask people who know about the soil types in the Daly River, for instance: ‘How much land could you possibly clear for irrigated agriculture?’ It is actually very small. There is no small land in the Daly catchment, there are heaps that are rocky, suitable for making some pastures but, overall, it is not a huge amount of land that can be actually cleared for horticulture production. It might look big, but if you put it in context with the whole of the Daly River catchment, it is not very large. That is not to say we should not have good clearing guidelines. There is a belief out there that people are clearing massive amounts of land on the boundaries of the river. I would never support that. However, when you read the report regarding why the Daly is silting up - and it was very silty when I was down there – it is saying it is simply because we have had increased rainfall.
Anyone who knows the bush knows that when you have fire in the natural bush, and then you get pouring rain in the first big rains, all that topsoil in the natural bush gets washed into the rivers. If you have ever seen the Daly at the beginning of the Wet Season, it has this big red plume going out into Anson Bay. Considering there is very little land cleared near the Daly River, it is obvious where that has come from - it is natural erosion caused by natural processes. Many people have forgotten there are natural processes and that is how you have rivers in the first place, and that is how you get siltation. We should not try to exacerbate nature unnecessarily and create problems. Nature itself can deal with those; we should just look after the land properly and deal with that.
I believe irrigation is certainly the way for the Territory to go when it comes to cropping. One of the problems with the Douglas Daly settlements, when they first came into being, was farmers were told: ‘You get 60 inches of rain here’. But what they did not tell them was you might get 35 in September, then you might not have anything until about mid-January and, then, you might get the other 25. By that time, the crop is dead. If you want certainty when you are growing, you really require a uniform rainfall, and the only way to guarantee water for those types of crops is to have irrigation. Of course, with irrigation you require water, and with water you require the scientific knowledge to say how much water you have for irrigation.
There is work being done. There are water allocation plans, but there is not a lot of discussion about that in the statement. I believe water allocation plans are an issue which needs to be fully debated in this parliament. One of the producers in Mataranka rang me up and said under the new guidelines for water allocation, basically, if she owns a block of land and is irrigating a part of that block of land, her water allocation is quite sufficient for that block. If she wants to cut a piece off that block of land and sell it to someone else, the water allocation is finished. So, she then does not have a water allocation anymore, because that is the rule. I am not sure of the sense behind that. It highlights that we need to discuss some of these issues more. What effect will water allocation plans have on areas like mine? We have horticulture in the rural area. We also have domestic bores and we have the town supply being pumped out of the rural area.
I know the government is talking about what affects the water allocation plans have on horticulture in the rural area. That is an area, I believe, the minister - I do not know whether he has touched on it, and I did not see much in the report - needs to look at, and alternative ways of storing water. There are large amounts of land that could be developed away from the Daly, but we need to look at ways to store water in the Wet Season so we are not affecting Dry Season flows and, somehow, be able to maintain that water in those storage areas for the Dry Season.
That will not be simple because evaporation is enormous in some parts of the Territory, and it is difficult to retain that amount of water. I believe they are issues that, if we are to move ahead, we will have to find some innovative ways of developing our cropping - especially our irrigated cropping.
Regarding the Ord River, the minister said something positive about it at least. I have been reading the details of a media conference the Prime Minister had when he visited Kununurra on 16 December 2008. One of the journalists was referring to development and asked the Prime Minister:
- …do you wish this was taken on by the Northern Territory government? (and then he says ‘inaudible’) development on their side?
I know enough about Commonwealth-state relations not to preach beyond the state line. And the state line is over there.
[Laughter]
But you know, Ord 1 is here in WA. Ord 2 is here in WA. Ord 3 – we’ll have some discussions with our friends in the Northern Territory and,
of course, the WA state government about its long-term feasibility as well.
But the government embraces ambitious plans for the nation’s future. Ambitious plans for farming. Ambitions – ambitious plans for what can be done here…
Developing the Ord certainly has the Prime Minister’s support. At least he has been saying he would be willing to talk to the NT government. They are putting in big money; I believe they are putting $195m into the Ord. I believe we need to be there saying: ‘Okay, we are interested. We know we are the third cab off the rank’. Let us ensure the impression put out there is not: this is Western Australia and too bad for the Northern Territory. I believe we need to be out there, because this is an area where irrigated cropping can be done because we have stacks of water. We have to keep the Ord River as a major opportunity to develop the north.
The member for Katherine made comments about the departmental move to Alice Springs. I am one of those who believe that was a silly idea. It was not just a silly idea; I believe it was a political idea, and I understand that governments are not just about straightforward things like science or common sense; they are about politics. Perceptions are important when you are in politics because you want to get into power next time around. If this will convince the people in Alice Springs that you are doing the right thing by decentralising government, I am not sure you picked the right department.
The member for Katherine, I believe, was dead on; Katherine should have been the place. I could have lived with that because it is a centre of our horticultural development and it has mining, agriculture, and it is also fairly central to much of the pastoral work. It is not central in the sense of the whole Central Australian region, but if you combine horticulture, agriculture and pastoral, Katherine is probably the closest you get to being the centre of where the main development is. Plus it has a big research station, which is important.
Touching on research stations, the minister has spoken about changing the research stations. I am interested to hear why, for instance, the Douglas Daly has moved away from some of the cropping it used to do. I remember going there and seeing sesame flowers on the Douglas Daly. They used to have large peanut crops at the Douglas Daly Research Station and it concentrated on some of those cropping areas which should still have some potential in the Douglas Daly region. I understand you have to focus on specific areas to try to get maximum efficiency; however, I am interested to know why the Douglas Daly has gone from being pastoral rather than having some cropping there as well.
There are many issues the minister raised. The big ones are climate change and emission trading. Even I do not have a proper understanding of some of these issues and where they are going to lead us. The Prime Minister mentioned them when he was speaking in Kununurra. I do not know what the ramifications are but, if we want to develop our economy we should not be putting too many more taxes and charges on it, because that is going to make it harder to develop the north.
To turn to local issues; there are some areas which have been constantly producing in the Northern Territory, and one of those is the nurseries. We have had nurseries in my area for many years who have just rolled on - no big fuss – and kept exporting their plants to Western Australia and interstate. There is Darryl South’s nursery and Jeanny’s Nursery in Howard Springs - they export all the time. There is the Girraween Nursery in Howard Springs - another wholesale nursery. Many of them, like the Howard Springs Nursery, supply the local markets like Coles and Woolworths, but they also export. They sometimes do not get quite as much recognition as the bigger crops, but they are very important.
Also, of course, the cut flower industry has developed from a lot of experimental work. It is a major area when it comes to developing the horticultural industries in the Northern Territory.
Finally, overall, the minister’s statement is good. It is a general summary of where primary industry is in the Northern Territory at the moment. We have to do our best to improve it, to expand it - to expand it in a sensible way. Sustainable development is very important. If we want more cattle to go overseas, then we need to question whether the land can support higher densities of cattle. It is no good ruining the land just to fulfil markets. We need to ensure we look after the land. We can do a lot more experimental work, not only in cattle production but, also, horticultural production.
I was going through the drawers in my house the other day cleaning out miles of horticultural notes from when I worked at Bathurst Island and Daly River, and there were all these notes on Taiwanese ...
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I was close to summing up. Thank you, member for Stuart.
I was going through the notes and there were descriptions of Taiwanese cabbages and cauliflowers. Someone in the department used to go over to Taiwan to look at varietal trials and they would bring some of those seeds back to the Northern Territory to do trials. I am not saying we should be growing cabbages and cauliflowers, but there was a period where we were not just working for what the industry wanted - and that is important - but we were leading the way in areas no one else was bothering about. We went off on a tangent and tried to grow crops that, if we could find a niche in the market, we could supply elsewhere.
That is what horticulture in many parts of Australia is about. You do not grow a crop 365 days of the year, you will grow a crop at this time because it suits the market there. Then, it gets too hot and you have to try another crop because of the variation in climate. I believe we have a lot of potential to develop horticulture.
I have mentioned before that horticulture is the way to go when it comes to our prisons. When we talked about prison farms the other day, the Chief Minister said, slightly cynically: ‘Oh, we will be growing vegetables’. Well, I have Diploma in Horticultural Science - this is not a serious comment; I am not really upset by it but, to some extent, it is the Chief Minister putting down my trade, which is a very important trade; that is, growing vegetables. There is nothing wrong with teaching people how to grow vegetables, not only for health reasons and providing food, but it is an important skill. If you tell me you can just put a seed in the ground and a cabbage will come out and you will be eating it in three months, I will tell you that is not going to be the case, because the caterpillars will have eaten it, or the termites will have decided to have a go at it or, if you have not watered it, it is probably dead. There is a lot to understand before you can grow vegetables well.
I believe we should be promoting these types of things in our prisons. If we had five prison farms – they do not have to be gigantic to grow vegetables - from one end of the Territory to the other, you have five opportunities for producing fruit and vegetables from five different climatic regions in the Northern Territory, which can be moved up and down according to wherever you live. Work camps might be able to do some of that, but if they are moving in and out of town, it is possibly not the way to go because you need a regular workforce to manage a prison farm.
I believe vegetable farming still has a long way to go in the Northern Territory. We lost much of our vegetable production with the decline of market gardens on communities. As the member for Macdonnell said, she can remember when there were all these gardens everywhere. So can I; I ran some of them and they are not there now. There have been a few attempts. Some intellectual types moved in who thought you could just grow vegetables for a community of about 1000 people from a book that said ‘permaculture’. That is fine; that is a good way to go; however, some of these ideas do not suit the area in which you live. They might suit a back yard for a couple of people, but are not always applicable when you are trying to grow a large amount of food for a large number of people. Again, you need to develop systems according to where you live and the climate.
In summing up, I thank the minister for his statement; there are many issues in there. I could have raised the great issue of cotton. The Katherine Research Station produced cotton. It did the work. It said if you grow it in this manner, using GM cotton, you will not affect the environment. In fact, the funny thing is we are promoting peanuts and mangoes and, if you read the report, it says peanuts and mangoes will have more spraying and use just as much water as cotton. However, cotton is politically unacceptable; it has nothing to do with the science, it is just not politically acceptable. Yet, the Katherine people - our own department under a Labor government - showed that if you do it the right way, using the right techniques, you can grow it.
The problem we have is, we sometimes live in the past. Cotton was a disaster in Kununurra - an absolute disaster. It killed fish - you name it, they did it - they did all the wrong things. No wonder they now have trouble convincing people it is good. I am not saying cotton will be grown because it will be up to some private industry to say there is a commercial benefit in growing it. However, I would hate the government to say to me it cannot be grown because it is environmentally disastrous, when their own figures and scientific reports on the research they conducted at Katherine over seven years showed that, done the right way, it is no different to any other crop.
We need to keep our minds open. We need to look at alternative ways of growing things. We need to look at alternative crops. We need to be innovative. We still need to develop sustained agricultural and horticultural industries. We have the knowledge. We need to be able to go forward. The Territory will one day, perhaps along with the top end of Western Australia, be the food bowl of Australia. When times are tough, as the member for Katherine said, we still have to eat. We still have to eat and horticulture and agriculture is the way to go.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. Let us hope, from now on, there is more emphasis on the importance of agriculture, horticulture and primary industry in the Northern Territory.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of the minister’s statement on the Primary Industries Review. I begin by acknowledging all the work which has been done by the Primary Industries Group within the Department of Regional Development and Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. The minister and I, obviously, share the agency, the one department, and I understand some of the issues that have been raised in the review.
I support the minister in his passion, and his enthusiasm and drive for the portfolio he holds. As we all know, he has travelled extensively throughout Vietnam and Asia promoting the industry and doing the good work, along with many of our representatives of primary industries, selling the Territory to our Asian neighbours. I believe there is no dispute in the House this afternoon about the drive and enthusiasm of our minister.
As the Minister for Regional Development, I am only too aware of the commendable work this group and the department do, as they work in partnership with the sector to promote industry growth and to ensure access to market the Territory produce we have talked about this afternoon.
My colleague, the member for Casuarina and the minister, said the importance of primary industries cannot be overstated, and I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. As the minister said, it is an industry which manages most of the productive land in the Territory and, consequently, is a driving force behind regional development and the creation of jobs in remote areas.
As I told the House last week, if there is one objective above all others in Regional Development, it would be simply jobs. With this in mind, I was particularly interested to hear the minister’s analysis of the Territory’s pastoral industry. The minister said it was worth more than $200m in 2007-08, and is forecast to grow significantly in the coming years if the Territory can increase its share of the live export market.
The minister and the member for Daly mentioned the Indigenous Pastoral Program in the context of bringing Aboriginal land back into production. The Indigenous Pastoral Program is the Territory’s success story. It began in 2003 with a memorandum of understanding signed at Kalkarindji, in my electorate of Stuart, by four key stakeholders: the Territory government; the Northern and Central Land Councils; and the Indigenous Land Corporation. The basic aim of the program is to return inactive Indigenous properties, such as Mistake Creek and Loves Creek, to pastoral production. It also trains Indigenous Territorians in station hand skills and teaches good land management principles.
Last week in the House, I touched on some painful chapters of the Territory’s history. I spoke of the conflict between white and black Australians as pastoralists arrived and acquired vast tracts of Aboriginal land. Obviously, the couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head, is the Coniston massacre and the Gurindji walk-off at Wave Hill Station, both in my electorate of Stuart. I spoke of how Aboriginal people then became the backbone of the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory, of the mechanisation of the industry and the subsequent reduction of Aboriginal participation in the cattle industry.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program scheme is part of the government’s efforts to turn the situation around. I understand the program is now working on 18 properties, six of which are run by owner management, while the other 12 are leased to outside pastoralists. The program works not only to bring the land back into production, but by providing jobs for young Indigenous Territorians. Dozens of trainees have gone through the program, and I understand the retention rate is well over 50%. From my own experiences in my electorate of Stuart, particularly with some men from Willowra, I understand how successful the program is and how much they really do get out of it.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program is a model of cooperation. As well as the four key stakeholders I mentioned earlier, it also involves the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. I place on the public record my acknowledgement of their hard work. I also congratulate all those pastoralists who are making use of the program to bring land back into production, providing jobs for young Territorians, and increasing our cattle herd.
As Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy, I also pay particular attention to the Territory’s pastoral industry. As I said, we had the mechanisation of the industries in the 1960s and 1970s, but what we are seeing now is the computerisation of the industry.
You can start with the RFID tag, which contains the animal’s details. The tag can be read by a radio frequency ID reader and the information can then be downloaded. Then you have the technology associated with remote management such as walk-over weighing, which is a solar powered system which collects animal weights whenever they access water. There is also automatic drafting which is a pneumatic powered technology which can draft individual animals based on various characteristics including gender, mass, and age. There is also SAND, a telecommunications technology which incorporates video screening to allow monitoring of remote cattle yards and watering points. That sound we can hear is a couple of thousand Territory stockmen turning in their graves, but that is progress for you, I suppose.
In Central Australia, the department’s Primary Industries Group is working collaboratively with Desert Knowledge and CSIRO on the innovative 21st century pastoralism project. This project explores high-tech mechanisms to improve efficiency and profitability for Central Australian pastoralists. It is not surprising that the industry has been enthusiastic in embracing this project. In my travels in the electorate of Stuart, there is no doubt - and I believe the members for Daly and Katherine touched on it - talking to pastoralists, the key issues for them are education, health and roads.
The member for Daly touched on the road situation. I have also travelled thousands of kilometres through various road networks such as the Victoria Highway, the Tanami Highway, the Buntine, Buchanan and Sandover Highways, just to name a few. Roads are an integral part of the Northern Territory, and are vital to the pastoral industry. That is why it is important that we acknowledge the significant amounts of money this government has contributed to improving our road network and beef roads. $52m over four years is a significant injection and I am sure the pastoralists out there welcome the extra money being committed to the roads.
The other topic I would like to touch on is the education aspect, particularly the work of our School of the Air programs, both in Alice Springs and Katherine. I had the pleasure of visiting the Katherine School of the Air some time ago, looking at how technology is also touching the lives of many of the kids out in the remote areas and pastoral leases. In particular, the IDL system allows students and teachers based in Katherine to communicate with each other via videoconferencing.
In closing, as I said before and will say again, regional development is everyone’s business. I am very pleased to be here this afternoon to support the minister and his statement. Once again, I acknowledge the great work he has done for many years in this portfolio. He is a minister who is passionate, enthusiastic and has a lot of drive. He has gone overseas on many occasions selling the Territory very well, along with the industry. I look forward to working with him, particularly in the horticulture areas, which I have not touched on yet. In my electorate, particularly at Ti Tree, there is potential, minister, as there is at Pine Hill and the research farm. There are employment and training opportunities for local Anmatjere men - and women, I might add. There are some women’s courses currently occurring at Centre Farm. Linking employment and training is also vitally important.
I was interested in the Executive Summary of the review which said:
It is also recognised that the expectations of the community of the NT government have also evolved and increased during this period.
This has included a significant focus on Indigenous issues through the initiatives arising from the government’s Closing the Gap policy.
That is correct. As I said, employment and training are vitally important in primary industries and horticulture, and it is vitally important to the Northern Territory and the people of Stuart.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the minister in the very near future.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I also support the statement by the minister for Primary Industry. Minister Vatskalis spoke about the great contribution primary industries really make the Territory. This contribution is no more apparent than in my own electorate. As the member for Barkly, I am particularly aware of the challenges and rewards faced by those who are working on the land to produce Territory-grown products which are exported around the world. I will talk about the Barkly briefly, as that is one of my passions: representing the Barkly and sharing the Barkly with the members of the House and the people of the Territory.
We will go for a little walk through the Barkly from the beef and reef of the Gulf, from the prawns, crabs, fish and the beef cattle to some of the best pasture land in the world, to the live export of cattle from the Barkly Tablelands; to the new horticulture projects that are expanding at Ali Curung. The member for Nelson would be very happy to hear about the watermelons and pumpkins on the south side of the access road and the planned pomegranates for the leaseholds on the north side of the access road.
The Barkly electorate has increased in size and goes right to the Roper River. We have horticultural projects representing mangoes and fruit growing which adds to the level of diversity the minister represents in his statement. The diversity of product and of regions enriches the potential of the Northern Territory in the future. Things have not been easy for pastoralists in the Barkly over the past few years, and the member for Goyder mentioned this briefly. Until very recently, the Barkly and greater Central Australia were in drought. Minister Vatskalis pointed out that warmer temperatures and longer, deeper droughts will become more common across Australia due to the effects of climate change. The other effect of climate change will be more extreme weather patterns which, again, we have seen recently in the Barkly with the floods. Droughts and floods make for tough times, and tough times are what primary producers are used to.
I also commend the minister for the scientific diversity encompassed in the statement, reflecting a new way forward for the Territory and keeping pace with innovative industry standards which will protect and develop the Territory. I welcome the comments from the minister in relation to the collaborative approach the Territory government is taking to work with other governments to develop stronger science and cost-sharing arrangements to reduce the impact of the expected changes in climatic conditions.
We are also working hard in other areas to support primary producers. As the Transport minister, I am committed to supporting the industry by ensuring all primary industry producers have access to well-maintained road networks. As a government, we are taking this responsibility seriously, with a record $271m roads budget targeted at improving remote roads. This is the highest roads budget per taxpayer in the country. In addition, the Australian government has committed to investing $386m on Territory roads, and, recently, an additional $9m through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Roads are the lifeline for many primary producers and, in turn, are essential to the economy of the Territory.
Under the capital works program, the major roads projects this financial year include: the Victoria Highway, with construction of four bridges at a cost of $32m; continued sealing of the Tanami Road, which is an important road for pastoral producers and the mining sector; the Buntine Highway, sealing and widening - $4m; the Plenty Highway - $4m; spending $4m on Pine Hill to support horticultural developments; $3.5m on the Maryvale Road; Santa Teresa Road - $2m; Daly River upgrading stream crossings - $2.2m; Fog Bay Road - $1.5m; Sandover Highway - $1m; the Port Keats Road - $1m plus $9.95m plan; the Central Arnhem Road - $1m; the Arnhem Highway - $800 000; Kintore, Papunya and Mt Liebig Road - $750 000; the Finke Road - $500 000 and the Outback Way - $500 000. That represents a great diversity, as well, in representing regional Northern Territory and supporting the primary industries sector.
In addition, the department has also been working to repair flood damage across the Territory, with a particular focus on the Barkly and Victoria Highways. Under tough conditions, people have been working around the clock to get these flood-damaged roads fixed as soon as possible.
I was pleased to hear of the changes to the structure of the Primary Industry department which minister Vatskalis spoke about earlier, particularly the renewed focus on regional areas, and I look forward to seeing primary industries in the Territory growing and developing. As Transport Minister, I will be actively involved in supporting the industry.
As Corrections minister, I look forward to discussing with minister Vatskalis and his Policy and Services Group, the opportunity of Corrections’ working parties providing a boost to primary industry producers. I believe there will be some fantastic opportunities for work parties to provide direct assistance to regional communities. Initially, it may involve simple projects like painting community grounds or structures, but supporting the lifestyle of primary producers is an important part of supporting the industry. As we progress through the trial stage of work camps, I am optimistic the Barkly community will find many ways work parties can help the community and, in turn, our primary producers. As work camps are established across the Territory, they will have the capacity to provide support to all aspects of the primary industry.
Just as importantly, the training and experience prisoners will receive will provide them with skills necessary to enter primary industry jobs on release, or near their own communities. Prisoners will undertake certificate courses in mechanical maintenance, equipment use, occupational health and safety, stock work, and animal control. They will be encouraged to gain skills in areas determined to suffer labour shortages in certain primary industry categories. As we enter a new era in Corrections, we will also be working towards developing primary industries across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I support the statement by the minister for Primary Industry, and agree we have some exciting times ahead. I will be working closely with minister Vatskalis to offer our Primary Industry Group my total support.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I thank very much all the members for their contribution. I appreciate their concern. Many thanks, in particular, to the member for Katherine for his concern about my increased workload. I do appreciate that. However, I remind him that previously I had the portfolios of Business and Employment, Asian Relations, Defence Support, Tourism and, of course, Primary Industry and Fisheries and Mining. I am not afraid of hard work.
The reality is I am fortunate that this is my second round as minister for Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines. I was fortunate to have actually asked, in the first round, for a review and restructure of the Mines department. That has already been a restructured and works like clockwork.
However, when I came back to the portfolio this time, I realised we had to go back and have a look at what the department does, why it does it, whether it does it well, whether it does what the industry wants or what the bureaucrats want. That is why I asked for the review, which was conducted by a private consultant who, after he received his terms of reference, went out and spoke widely to the community, the industry, and the people in the department. As a result, we have refocused the department with regards to research: why we do research, and where the research should be focusing. Is it focused on what people want to do for their PhD, or what jobs a farmer wants to do for his mango farm, his potato farm, or his onion farm? The research has to have a purpose, and the purpose is to assist the industry to grow and prosper.
Also, there has to be regional focus. Should it actually be concentrating everybody in an office in Darwin? Our major production does not happen only in Darwin, it happens in Katherine, Ti Tree and in Alice Springs. We believe the person in charge of pastoral properties should be in Alice Springs. That is the reason we now have a branch of the department in Alice Springs, in particular, in pastoral properties.
As I said before, another of my issues was the lack of extended services. I recall meeting with industry and they told me that, many years ago, people from the department would visit farms. I was surprised and dismayed that people were not doing that any more. That does not only happen in the department of Primary Industry, it happens in many departments. People used to go out but, all of a sudden, they came back into the office and rely upon e-mail, telephone and other means of communicating with the industry. I believe face-to-face communication is vitally important, and this is exactly what we are doing. I have a commitment from my Chief Executive Officer that extended services will be reinstated.
Some people might say: ‘Okay, this is what you say, but what does the industry think?’ I was very surprised a few weeks ago at a function to be stopped by a pastoralist who congratulated me upon the review and the restructure of the department. He said: ‘This is the first time we have seen people coming out. This is the first time we feel really confident the department is going to do what the industry wants’. That was very pleasing.
With regard to roads, I do not have to repeat what my colleague, the member for Barkly, said. This government, since we came to power, has put a lot of money into roads. We have done this work in consultation, especially with the pastoral industry. We asked for a list of roads with priority. We were given the list, and we delivered. Today, I received another list from the pastoralists, from the Cattlemen’s Association, of the roads they want to be maintained and upgraded; the reasons why, and how many thousand head of cattle go through those roads. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Transport, will take this list into account before he allocates money for the maintenance of roads.
I am very keen to see the experimental farms maintained as much as possible; however, some of them have passed their use-by date. Some others though, have become more important because of the climatic change; for example, Coastal Plains. That is very important because we can do research we could not do before on other farms. The Katherine one is very important. Kidman Springs is very important. In Kidman Springs, we have managed to produce and breed cattle we have not bred anywhere else in the Territory. We continue to breed different lines to improve the bloodline of the cattle so we have better exports to other places. I have visited Kidman Springs and I was very impressed with the work they are doing.
I enjoy travelling around the Territory and I enjoy the company of pastoralists and horticulturalists. They are real people. I am fascinated how they do what they do because, to tell you the truth, I am not that kind of person. I would not be able to be in isolation on a station, or work so hard on the land; and I admire them for that. I had to drive miles and miles to visit Napperby Station when I was in Alice Springs, and I have given a commitment that this year, when we go on the show circuit, I will personally drive to different stations from Alice Springs, from the Barkly Highway, as we move up to Darwin - and I will do it. It is easy to fly in and fly out; the difficult part is actually spending time in the car and going on the roads they use and see the conditions they live in. I enjoy that and appreciate it, and I believe they appreciate it too.
My commitment to the industry is well-known. I am very enthusiastic about the industry. I believe the industry has a great future; that is why I strongly support the industry. On many occasions I have expressed my concern about having only one market for our cattle industry. That is the reason I have not visited Sabah in Malaysia, or Sarawak in my own time on private holidays. I used that trip to visit Vietnam. The results we have from these places are very positive, with the most positive response from Vietnam, where people on the ground, are establishing feedlots. People from the Territory’s Cattlemen’s Association and the Exporter’s Association have visited to assist them. We believe Vietnam will be another emerging market in the next few years, where middle-class income is increasing.
Regarding the availability of land, I believe more land must be opened up. I want to work with the pastoralists, but I am always concerned about the mistakes we made in the past when Tipperary Station was opened. They cleared the land, they utilised part of it, and the rest disappeared down the Daly River. That should never have happened. I am very concerned about how things are done and why they are done. I recall the criticism from the previous member for Katherine; she was all for wholesale clearing of the Daly. I totally disagree with that. If we are going to clear land, we have to do it gradually. We have to see how we are doing it, what the consequences will be to the environment, and what will be the outcome of the clearing. Do we get our money’s worth if we clear a hectare of land? Can we utilise it? I do not want to clear land for the next three years; I want to clear land and maintain it for the next 100 years. Land is very important. I do not want to repeat the mistakes they made down south.
The other issue raised was open days for the farms. There are open days. I visited Katherine farm on Open Day and I had a great time; I went to Douglas Daly farm and had a great time, too; I went to AZRI in Alice Springs and had a great time. However, there are no open days at Berrimah Farm because there is not much happening. There are no cattle there as there were 10 or 20 years ago, and there is no production there anymore. What we are doing at Berrimah Farm is mostly testing. We have a laboratory and we are checking for diseases which, to a lot of people, would not mean anything. Plus, people would not be able to get in because of quarantine, especially in the area where they test for viruses. Berrimah Farm was an excellent farm 40 to 50 years ago; it was far away from residential areas. Today, the value is not in Berrimah Farm, the value is in Katherine Farm, Coastal Plains, and AZRI in Old Man Plains and Kidman Springs. These are the farms today which have become very important.
Regarding the abattoirs; there is quite a problem with abattoirs. It is not that we do not have the facilities - we have. Some of them are moth-balled. The problem is we do not have guaranteed supply. If pastoralists can sell cattle at $1.85 live weight and put them on a boat and send them to Indonesia, I do not believe they will be prepared to sell for $1.25 to an abattoir. Every person I spoke to about abattoirs in Katherine told me that if there is no guaranteed supply they are not going to open the abattoirs because they are not prepared to - and they cannot - pay somebody $1.85 live weight as it is today, and make a profit. I fully understand that.
We have an abattoir which is currently operating, in Alice Springs. Mr Garry Dann operates it - selectively, it does some killing. He uses it for cattle and camels because of demands from niche markets. There is also an abattoir in Batchelor; however, it needs extensive upgrading by the owners in order to meet today’s standards, especially export standards.
The problem with abattoirs is not that there is no government support, we try to help the people in Katherine, but the reality is that we can help as much as we can, but they cannot afford to pay the price people get for their cattle on the boat. As long as there is demand from Indonesia for our live cattle export, this is what is going to happen, especially in the northern part of the Northern Territory. Our growers in the Territory are focusing mainly on the South-East Asian market, rather than the Victorian market. To tell the truth, it is probably our fault because we have never marketed the quality of the meat of our Brahmin bulls down south. We can change tastes, and we have to market that, but we have not done it very successfully.
Regarding increased cattle production, yes, that has increased but we cannot put a lot of pressure on the land. The pastoralists themselves are telling me they cannot put a lot of cattle in some areas because different areas will carry different numbers of cattle. How we can increase cattle production is by opening the vast areas of land currently owned by Indigenous interests. We have already started doing that. We have pastoralists who actually rent properties from Indigenous people, such as the Underwoods at Riveren Station, who have an agreement to lease a vast parcel of land from their Indigenous neighbours. The agreement incorporates the contract that if they need to do repairs, fencing, or work on the station, they will hire people from the Indigenous community.
We can overcome the problem of land because the reality is 50% of the Territory is Indigenous land. There are vast tracts of land that are very productive and we can bring them back into production. Elsey Station is a very good example; it is owned and run by Indigenous people. They do the training and people put their cattle there for agistment. So, we can do it and we can increase the capacity of the Territory, not in five years but, if we put our mind to it, very quickly.
Forestry is an exciting project. To tell you the truth, 14 to 15 years ago when I came to the Territory, if somebody had told me we would have mahogany or kauri trees in the Daly River, I would have laughed at them. Now it is a reality. The mahogany trees, yes, they are slow growing, but the return from mahogany is enormous. Currently, it would take thousands of dollars per cubic metre to bring them from Africa, and we can actually produce good quality mahogany timber because we have done our research. The department has been involved for many years in research, and we can do it. The other thing I have no problem with is growing trees for pulp. Why should we cut down old forest trees to send to Japan to become paper when we can have this crop growing and, every three to four years, cut it down and renew it? This is a good way to produce trees to be utilised for today’s needs, especially for paper.
Water is going to be an issue. We see what has happened in the Murray-Darling. It is a significant issue for the future and we have to treat it very carefully. With regard to the member for Goyder’s point about the water supply for Darwin by raising the Darwin River Dam wall by 1.5 m, we can increase the capacity of the dam by 20%. In addition to that, Power and Water has identified and acquired Marrakai, a big area, for a new dam and land in the Adelaide River area for another dam. They consider these will not be necessary for the next 20 years, so they are not going to the expense of creating new dams that will not be used for the next 20 years. That may change, though, and may have to be progressed earlier than that.
However, instead of spending all this money, we can reduce our water consumption by simply recycling effluent. In every state in Australia, thousands of litres go into the ocean every day, with minimal treatment. At the same time, in Western Australia, Perth sends water to Kalgoorlie in a pipeline 500 km long. This was done at the beginning of the 19th century.
We can reduce our consumption of water by using smart water devices such as the dual flush system, which our scientists say saves enormous quantities of water. By simply changing a device which normally uses 10 litres-a-pop down the drain, now it uses four litres. But if you want a thorough flush, it uses 10 litres. By using these smart devices, such as changing the shower rose, you can reduce water consumption by 80%. There are ways to reduce water consumption. Of course, here in the Territory where it rains every day in the Wet, we do not care about water. I have seen people hosing down. If you go south, you do not see anybody hosing; they do not even water their gardens with a hose. There are ways to actually overcome the problem of demand for water.
The other big issue is emission from animals. There is already a lot of debate about animals’ emissions. I respond to the member for Goyder’s concern, regarding how you evaluate where the emission comes from. We are trying to find ways by changing the diet of ruminants, by providing different feeds so they process it differently in their stomachs. We have a very good example with kangaroos; they have a different digestive system and produce less greenhouse emissions than cattle. That is simple science. It will not be long before ways are found to reduce emissions from animals, but it will be a debate that will continue in the future.
The Ord River, for me, is a nation-building project. That is why I am interested in it, and why I initiated the discussion with Gary Gray and my colleagues in Western Australia. I believe the Ord River has the potential to become the food provider for Australia and the world. It also has potential to benefit the Territory, not from food production, but through exports. The closest port to the Ord River is Wyndam, which is very tidal - you can go in and out several times. When I told them that Katherine is only 400 km away from the Ord River, and has a railway line to southern markets, their eyes lit up like Christmas trees. The other thing is that the Darwin port can export produce to other countries.
So, the Ord River is the next very exciting thing. It is going to be very expensive and I do not think that we can do it ourselves but, with assistance from the Commonwealth, we can do it. In previous discussions Western Australia wanted the Territory to contribute to the construction of a canal of sufficient size to bring water to the Territory. The good news is, now they have dropped that demand. They are going to create a large sized canal which will stop 10 km short of the Territory. My next discussion will be with the Commonwealth and Western Australia regarding how that will benefit the Territory, and how we are going to get involved in the Ord River.
Mine is an exciting portfolio. I have argued before that we have the capacity to provide Australia and the world with niche products. We cannot compete with southern Australia producing massive amount of melons, cucumbers and everything else, but we can produce off-season and niche products that have large demand in Australia. We are one of the biggest suppliers of Asian vegetables to Sydney and Melbourne. With our proximity to Asia and similar weather, and the fact that many people here are from Asia and are involved in the horticultural industry, we have high-quality products that are in high demand in the southern states.
I have one last comment. The member for Nelson mentioned a discrepancy in the figures I mentioned and the ones in the report. He had the Information Sheet, NT Plant Industry Profile 2007 from which he quoted some figures but, from the top of this table …
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you. I am not going to take 10 minutes.
The member for Nelson questioned the difference between my figures and the figures quoted in the report. However, I point out that, on top of the table it says:
- Please note 2007 figures are down due to the lack of statistical returns from growers.
We asked growers to provide us with information, and many did not return the information, so the figures are down.
Overall, Madam Speaker, Primary Industry is an exciting portfolio. I believe we have a unique opportunity here in the Territory because of our weather, and the availability of land and water, to become a big supplier to the rest of Australia with tropical fruit, Asian vegetables, cut flowers - some of our flowers are in high demand because they are different - and live cattle export to Indonesia and, hopefully, Vietnam. My next target will be Korea and China. I look forward to a bright future for the industry, and I thank members very much for their comments and support.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Prison Facilities
Prison Facilities
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Goyder.
- Madam Speaker,
I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance: the demolition of the current Darwin prison with the
building of a new prison on a new site at the cost of over $300m of taxpayers’ money and, despite eight years of being in government,
there is no coherent nor comprehensive plan by the Northern Territory Labor government to address the alarmingly high rates of
re-incarceration and disgraceful rates of literacy amongst prisoners in the Territory.
It is signed by the member for Goyder.
Is this proposed discussion supported? I call the member for Goyder.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I propose for discussion this day the following definite matter of public importance: that the demolition of the current Darwin prison, with the building of a new prison on a site which we now know to be at Noonamah, at the cost of over $300m - not $300m, but over $300m - of taxpayers’ money when, despite eight years in government, there is no coherent or comprehensive plan by the Northern Territory Labor government to address the alarmingly high rates of re-incarceration and the disgraceful rates of literacy amongst prisoners in the Territory.
The current Berrimah gaol is young by comparative standards with gaols across the country. It is not an old gaol ...
Mr Knight: Have you been there?
Ms PURICK: Yes, I have actually been to the Berrimah gaol. I actually recall when the old Darwin gaol was operational. I recall the current Berrimah gaol being built, and when the Don Dale Centre was opened.
There have been recent improvements by government in regard to the low-security and medium-security sections. They have been spending money on this gaol over the last five to six years. I know from maps I have studied and from contact I have had with the people associated with Correctional Services, that there is adequate room on that land for expansion.
The location of this Berrimah gaol is on and in an industrial area. It is bounded by industrial properties on Anictomatis Road. It has the Stuart Highway on one side, Wishart Road on the other side, and Berrimah Farm and industrial areas on that side. It is in an industrial location, which is where it should be. It should be close to those services which are required to service a gaol.
What I believe has happened, when the government announced they wanted to chop up Berrimah Farm, ditch all the work of the researchers and the scientists over the last 20 years, move them to different places, and have it as a residential facility, they suddenly realised: ‘Oh dear, we have a big gaol right next door to where we want to build all these houses. We know people will not like this and people will not buy the land. If they do buy the land, then it will be at low prices. So, let us move the gaol’. It was not whether we should look at the Berrimah gaol and at expanding, changing, or redeveloping the Correctional facility; I believe it was a knee-jerk reaction. It was made on the spur of the moment. Someone brought it to their attention that next door to these 600 or so residential lots would be a major Correctional facility.
The government has taken well over 12 months to announce where the new gaol location will be. I will come later to what I think about the location. They announced it was going to be in the vicinity of $300m – or, I should quote: ‘over $300m’. How have they arrived at that figure? Where are the sums to say this gaol will cost $300m and, if not, it could cost more? Sometime later, after the announcement that they wanted to build a new gaol - and do not get me wrong, I do not have an issue with improving the Correctional Services facilities in the Northern Territory - the government then decided they might have a private partnership in regard to the building and development of the new gaol.
Well, what is it? What is this new gaol going to be? Is it going to be a fully-funded Northern Territory government facility, or is it going to be a government/private partnership facility? There has been no detail as to what this new gaol will entail. We do not know whether there is going to be – well, I presume it will be high-security - low or medium-security. We have had no information with regard to the juvenile detention centre, currently called the Don Dale Centre. Will it include the women’s facility? Will it have the remand centre included at this new location near Noonamah?
Will it actually have a mini-hospital? An important question, given its location. The area they are proposing for the new gaol is some 45 km, if not a little more, from Royal Darwin Hospital. It is a long way down the track. People in the rural area already suffer from not getting quick and prompt treatment in regard to injuries and accidents, for no other reason than the distance they live or working from the hospital and the time it takes to get there. Are we are going to have a hospital parked way down the Stuart Highway, then down to Weddell, by some 10 km?
There are questions but no answers at this stage. I believe the planning of this proposed new gaol has been poor at best, and abysmal. The government promised the new gaol would not be near any residential areas. I have a map of the proposed new gaol, and I am sure members have seen this map and, perhaps, the public has seen this map. Perhaps they have not, judging by the phone calls and people coming into my office who do not know exactly where this gaol is to be located. It is next door to rural residential …
Mr Knight: It is 2 km away.
Ms PURICK: Member for Daly, it is in your electorate, but it is also just down the road from Jenkins Road, and people live on Jenkins Road. There is an airstrip on Jenkins Road.
Madam Speaker, the only …
Mr Wood: They are going to fly the prisoners there.
Ms PURICK: Pardon?
Mr Wood: They are going to fly the prisoners back and forward to hospital.
Ms PURICK: Oh, that is how they are going to get them to hospital? They are going to fly the prisoners to hospital when they need treatment.
In regard to the location of this gaol, the government, no doubt, was looking at various and alternative options. My question is: where were the other sites for this gaol, and what were the criteria government used in the selection of this proposed site, right next door to Weddell, and right next door to rural residential?
Government has made a big play of talking about the commencement of the Weddell satellite city, with the first sod turning in around five years. I wonder whether people are thinking of moving, particularly to the areas right next door to where this gaol is going to be. They will have, potentially, a maximum-security prison right next door to them. As it is, the residents of Noonamah and surrounds are very concerned with the lack of consultation. There has been no consultation, no information, no public meetings; no ministers, no government officials even considering talking to the people in the area about putting a major facility to the value of $300m-plus there.
There has been, over the past little while, quite a bit of comment and discussion in regard to the development of a master plan for the Noonamah area. That is going to be difficult in regard to the development of the rural area, and the Noonamah area in particular, now the government proposes to put a gaol smack back in the middle of a rural residential area.
One of the other things that government seems to have overlooked is the Darwin gaol and other gaols - and I only speak in this regard to the Darwin gaol - do have a lot of activity to and from the gaol with families, friends, and loved ones visiting. We have the most appalling public transport system into the rural area at the best of times and yet, they are proposing to put a gaol some 45 km down the Stuart Highway, and in by about out 10 km, and expect it to be accessed by prisoners’ family members easily. It is just not going to happen. That is an appalling situation for the families of people who are in the gaol. As I said, we still do not know exactly what components of the Correctional facility will be built near to Weddell. Will it be high, low, or medium security, or will it be juveniles? Will it be the remand centre? If it does include the remand centre, that raises interesting issues as well because there is a lot of toing and froing into the court system. That is going to add additional expense in the delivery of services to the Correctional facility. I wonder whether this has been factored into the equation of building a new gaol. Perhaps that is why they believe the cost will be over $300m. Over as in how much over? Will it be $100m over, $50m over?
The other component about this whole new Darwin prison is that government, by its own admission, has said it will be full by 2016. That is just seven years away. What happens then, when it is filled? What work is being done by this government to keep people out of gaol? Where is the evidence of any diversion schemes? There are none - not that I can see, not that I can find. There are no coherent programs in regard to keeping people out of gaol. There are no comprehensive plans.
The Country Liberals have a plan and a policy. If you go to gaol and you cannot read and write, we will teach you to read and write, so that you have those skills when you leave the facility. If you do not have any skills that can get you gainful, meaningful employment, we will give you the skills.
The minister and the government have talked about setting up a farm, a prison farm or a work camp at Tennant Creek as part of this package. Well, what a surprise being in Tennant Creek. Again, there are scant details. How many people are actually going there? Is it going to be just the people from Tennant Creek, or are people going to come down from Darwin to Tennant Creek? We know that the majority of our population in gaols are people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. Are they going to be moved to these workplaces, or is it just people from Alice Springs who are going there? Does the cost of building the new Darwin prison include the cost of putting this workplace at Tennant Creek?
I have no issue with expanding and improving the Correctional Service facilities in regard to the Darwin gaol. However, is it the best use of money? Is it the best use of taxpayers’ money? What analysis has been done in regard to moving the gaol? Is $300m an accurate figure? The track record and the history of major projects in the Territory, as well as elsewhere, is you can never conclusively pin them down to the original quote or price. Therefore, what plans does government have for overruns, for whatever reason? Again, there is scant detail.
What other sites had been considered, and why were they not suitable? Why is this site the most suitable, and what was the criteria for the selection of this site? A $300m project is a substantial sized project. I ask the minister and the government: given its size and scope, will they be conducting a full environmental impact statement in regard to this new gaol? I suspect not, and that is wrong. It is a major project which will have its own sewage treatment plant, water supply issues, energy efficiency issues, social impact issues, all of which would be considered in an environmental impact statement. I urge the government, if they are going to go ahead with this project at that location, to undertake a full environmental impact statement. I am quite sure there is some migratory bird species that will be impacted by this project being located where it is. I am sure there will be a threatened species located exactly where that gaol is going to be. I believe and I am sure that they should do full environmental impact studies.
It is not surprising that this announcement has come from government because, once again, it is showing it is short-sighted in regard to planning, and this has been a knee-jerk reaction in regard to: ‘Well, we need to get rid of Berrimah because we are going to have a potential subdivision nearby, and those nice urban people will not like the gaol located nearby’.
The government, by announcing they are going to relocate or build a new gaol, has not given any consideration to how they are going to keep people from going to gaol. There have been no coherent or comprehensive plans in regard to keeping people out of gaol, or for having people not reoffend, which is probably the more important thing. Yes, sometimes people run amuck and they do the wrong thing, they make the wrong choices and they end up in gaol. However, the important thing is to keep them from making those mistakes again. This government has not indicated - not to my satisfaction and not to the opposition’s satisfaction - that it has any plans to decrease the number of people going to gaol, or to keep people from repeating the offence they went to gaol for in the first place, or any other offences.
This is a matter of public importance, and I do not think the public is either comfortable or informed in regard to this new gaol: whether this is the best location, whether there are plans in place, other than bricks and mortar, to drop the rate of people going into our gaols. I do not believe this is the end of the story. I know, from the information, contacts and the telephone calls I have had in my electorate office, that people are extremely disappointed. Indeed, they are angry with the way government has treated them in the rural area, particularly in Noonamah. They feel they have been treated with disdain, without regard to what they feel and their rural lifestyle. It is not the end of the matter.
I urge government to seriously look again at relocating the gaol or building a new gaol, and put some money towards looking at the current facility, which is an ideal facility in regard to cost efficiencies and effectiveness - from the point of view of prison officers, visitors, the specialists who need to visit, and service delivery to the gaol, which we have overlooked in this equation.
For people travelling from the northern suburbs to the proposed site will take about an hour by road. The only thing I can say is that they will be going against the traffic going to work, and against the traffic going home from work. That is something for consideration. It will put more strain on the Stuart Highway, which is already at capacity with regard to vehicle numbers; it is double lane but it is at capacity, as I said. I do not believe government has given any real thought to the planning or servicing of this new gaol in this new location.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to reconsider and to keep the gaol where it is. They should give information and funding towards implementing programs that will keep people out of gaols and equip them with the necessary skills, qualities and knowledge to lead normal lives.
I leave it to my colleagues to talk further in regard to this matter.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, somewhat unusually, the government sits and waits, obviously not too enthusiastic about this motion. Why should they be? Because this definite matter of public importance dares to have a go at government and asserts, rightly, there is no comprehensive or coherent plan by the Northern Territory Labor government to address the alarmingly high rates of re-incarceration and reoffending, and the disgraceful rates of illiteracy amongst prisoners in the Territory.
The member for Goyder has raised a number of issues. I wish to discuss something of the history of this Labor government and, by the end of it, I feel certain that even the true believers on the other side will be so utterly persuaded by our arguments they will feel like coming over and joining our team. However, it is always important to make an assertion and then follow it up with some details.
There is no coherent or comprehensive plan by this Labor government to address reoffending rates or the rates of illiteracy amongst prisoners in the Territory, nor has there ever been. There have been attempts, from time to time, little cobbled together bits of information - an announcement here, an announcement there, a couple of ministerial reports or statements every so often - in an attempt to persuade Territorians that the government has these issues in hand. Well, they have not fooled anyone. The government has failed, and has continued to fail to adequately address law and order in the Territory.
We see, under a Labor government, an unprecedented number of Indigenous prisoners and the highest rate of reoffending in the country. The most recent statistics - I think they were from December last year - showed that 70% of male prisoners had been in gaol before, compared to a national average of 55% - a significant increase by any measure. In addition, our gaols are bursting at the seams, consistently over and above capacity, and it has been so for many years. Even those dedicated and loyal Labor voters must be tearing their hair out because they know, as we know, there is not, nor has there ever been, a comprehensive plan by this government to address the alarmingly high rate of reoffending or the disgraceful rates of illiteracy.
Somewhat remarkably, Labor asserts that having people in gaol shows not that more crimes are being committed, but that the baddies are being caught - and lots of them are. It is an astonishing argument, because we say the proper argument or the proper thing to say is: our gaols are full and getting fuller by the minute because more people are committing more crimes. That shows Labor has failed to adequately address law and order. You do not have innocent people, generally, in our gaols; you have baddies who commit crimes. They are the ones in the gaols and, because there are so many under this Labor government, that is why our gaols are full.
Labor has known about the overcrowding for many years, but such is the inertia of this administration that they have really only just got to it. When the former, failed Justice minister made one of those never-never announcements in about April last year, you wonder whether he smelt an election in the air. In any event, he said: ‘We are going to build a new gaol’. Then we saw government dragging its feet. The then minister said a site would be identified in September. It was not. Then, after the election, news emerged that things were not as they seemed.
From nowhere it emerged the government was considering the option of a public/private partnership to build a new $300m gaol. Nowhere in the new minister’s announcement last week, or in any comments made by his enthusiastic but dull colleagues, was there any reference to the public/private partnership. So, it begs the question: where is the money coming from? They say they are open, honest, transparent etcetera. Well, surely, at least in this debate, they will elaborate on this public/private partnership arrangement.
A walk down memory lane is always useful when critiquing the achievement, or lack thereof, of this government. It goes to our assertion that there is not, nor has there ever been, a coherent or comprehensive plan to address, in particular, the high rates of reoffending. Peter Toyne - I liked Peter Toyne as a human being; Peter Toyne was a good bloke. However, poor old Peter Toyne was Labor’s first Justice minister, first Attorney-General. He gave it his best shot, but it does show that it is just a bit here, a bit there. They make an announcement, they try their best to get a few media hits, and then they walk away thinking about how else to make their next media hit.
I remember, in October 2002, in a ministerial report, Peter Toyne talked about the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy. He said the strategy:
- … is also a key element of our Crime Prevention Strategy and our work to reduce the over representation of indigenous people in our gaols.
Further, he said:
- An across-government response to issues identified by communities can be employed, including interventionary, crisis, preventative and educational
programs to deliver short-term and long-term solutions. The Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy is a working example of the success of the partnership
approach we are committed to promoting.
We say clearly, that strategy has not succeeded because of the high rates of Indigenous people in our gaols and the highest rates of reoffending in the nation.
Peter Toyne said - and I remember when he started to talk about integrated offender management. From time to time, every year or so, he would put something out about IOMS. Well, it does not appear that has been very successful, either. Again, in October 2002, he said:
- Another initiative we are working on is the introduction of the Integrated Offender Management System into our prisons. I believe this system could well have
the ability to impact positively on the over-representation of Indigenous people in our prison systems.
He went on and said:
- It targets offenders who present a significant risk of reoffending and coordinates all their contacts and programs, aiming to reduce the likelihood of offending
behaviour recurring. Through comprehensive assessments, a case management plan is developed which establishes personal rehabilitation development goals.
Well, it has not worked. Why has it not worked? Look at the figures – not our figures - significant figures published nationally that show the Territory has the highest rate of reoffending. Should that be a concern to government? Too right it should. Would you think that any government worth its salt would have a coherent and comprehensively planned attack for this? Too right you would. But, alas, this government does not.
In May 2004, Peter Toyne rose to:
- … inform the House of the outcomes of the most comprehensive review of Correctional Services ever to take place in the Northern Territory. $26.5m has
been committed by our government over four years to reform the professional work of prison officers and to drive down reoffending rates in our community.
It has not worked – it clearly has not worked. You never had a plan and, if you did have a plan, it cannot have been coherent, and it certainly was not comprehensive.
He said in May 2004:
- The major focus of these prison reforms will be to fight crime by reducing reoffending by up to 50% with targeted work and education programs, sex offender
and other specialist programs.
Now, this is a ripper. I will not digress, I will stick with quoting. Of course, we have the new Corrections minister and he may want to do his own search of the Parliamentary Record. Peter Toyne said:
- We are embarking on a major, long-term change process which, over the next four years …
… over the next four years, we will see total reforms in our prisons and the way they run.
Yes, 2004. He went on to say:
- Change is never easy and, no doubt, there will be differences of opinion about the right way forward during the implementation period from time to time.
However, I am confident the implementation team will be able to work through these in a productive way and move our Territory prisons ahead.
Well, it does not look as though those reforms were terribly successful either.
In August 2004, Peter Toyne came back into the Chamber - now you will love this, minister, because he said:
- Madam Speaker, today I report on a new era in Territory Correctional Services …
Read your own stuff. This is not the Country Liberals coming up with bits and pieces and merely submitting it to you. This is what the great man himself had to say. This is government, in its first term - and I have always said its best term was its first – when it had a spring in its step, said it was going to save the world. Well, you failed. And you failed because of the figures.
We are, in a sense, flattered that the government has tried to peel off some of the Country Liberals’ policy with respect to Corrections as outlined at the last election. We are flattered, but we believe the government should have taken on all of our proposals. That was a coherent and comprehensive plan to deal with reoffending and educating our prisoners, in that part of our policy relating to prison farms. I know members opposite are familiar with our policies so I do not need to quote great chunks from it.
The prison farm for Katherine was an idea which has received even recent support from associations which one would not expect anyone to say, as a group, are actual supporters of this side of politics. Support came from the North Australia Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) in a media release issued after the member for Arafura became Attorney-General. They said they wanted a meeting with her and they wanted - according to the ABC report - her to address ‘trying to reduce the incarceration rate’. The Chief Executive, Priscilla Collins, said that NAAJA ‘will lobby for a prison farm to be set up near Darwin’ - a prison farm. On the 10 February, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the next group, called on the then new Attorney-General to halt plans to build a new prison at Berrimah. The association’s President, John Lawrence, said - and I quote from the media report:
- … the money would be better spent on building a prison farm and on programs to reduce social disadvantage and improve education.
Note his use of the words ‘prison farm’.
When the Chief Minister rose to his feet on 12 January to help as best he could his new, albeit junior, minister for Corrections, he took the mickey out of prison farms. He said they were about growing vegetables. Two significant things arise: first, it is not about growing vegies and he knows it; and second, he did not take the mickey when NAAJA and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association talked about prison farms. Well, no, he could not do that; that would be getting a natural constituency offside. No, just take the mickey against us in parliament. What it does show is his supreme arrogance and that the Chief Minister, as captain of the ship - albeit for now - just is not prepared to recognise a good idea when he sees one.
What we have seen is a slight twist and a small variation. Government is now proposing work camps - no details, a few sweeping statements, a media release, a few questions in parliament, and a work camp with some people in Tennant Creek. There are very few details. I believe you indicated, minister, that it would deal with a relatively small numbers of prisoners. Our prison farm proposal for Katherine was significantly bigger. There was nothing about how the programs would be delivered, or how the education and other programs would be delivered to address reoffending. You have your media hits, presumably; however, I am sure in a couple of years time we will be here again talking about your lack of a coherent or comprehensive plan to address the high reoffending rates in Territory gaols.
Unfortunately, I am running out of time, so I turn to literacy. Peter Toyne made some references to literacy during the period he was Attorney-General. I believe he was genuinely committed to achieving better outcomes. He could not do it because he was part of a team which did not provide the vision, the resources, or the ability to actually deliver. We should be appalled at the low literacy rates, generally, in the Northern Territory but, also, for the purposes of this particular debate in relation to our prisons.
We were very clear in the election campaign and, frankly, I thought it was a great policy - a really good policy - of the Country Liberals. We said that all inmates will undergo testing to assess their levels of literacy and numeracy. We also said that prisoners who do not meet basic standards will be put through basic literacy and numeracy courses. Our position was clear, coherent, comprehensive and well understood with respect to literacy and, I believe, very well received by many Territorians.
All we got last week was a line or two from the Chief Minister that prisoners: ‘will be assigned an education and training plan’. That is fundamentally different from our very hands-on approach: ‘If you are a prisoner this is what is going to happen to you. We are going to give you the skills’. What was delivered last week was, with respect, very fluffy,. You have attempted to peel off a couple of bits and pieces of our policy, but you really should have taken the whole policy, because Territorians will be better served. There was nothing about business being tested. That was really quite disappointing.
The CAYA report of 2005, I think it was, said in relation to literacy that about 80% of inmates have not achieved public school graduation levels which are necessary to thrive in society, and more spaces are needed. They recommended making literacy mandatory be considered. I have no problems with that; I feel you should. Given our appallingly high rates of illiteracy for people in gaols, you should make it mandatory. I do not have the specific recommendation in front of me, but another recommendation of the CAYA report about which Peter Toyne spoke when he talked about the new era -- the other new era - was the recommendation that programs be delivered with expanded access to education.
Much has been said, much has been written, but you just have not delivered. There has been no coherent or comprehensive plan. I assume, minister, your briefcase or backpack is probably full every night taking home all sorts of things saying: ‘You should read this’, and ‘You should read that’. I recommend to you a report published sometime after the CAYA review and, subsequently, published elsewhere called 123 BIG Mob! concerning literacy in our gaols. That would be a useful tool for you.
I am rapidly running out of time but, in essence, we want government to succeed in this area. No one wants to see our gaols full of prisoners. We should not strive to build more gaols; we should be striving to have small gaols so few people need to be in them. Alas, that is not the case under the Labor administration in the Territory. For God’s sake, and for the sake of all of us, can you please get fair dinkum about a new era and start to deliver a coherent and comprehensive plan to address high rates of re-incarceration and rates of illiteracy?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Goyder for bringing forward as a matter of public importance what I believe the government should have brought forward as a statement on gaols. For too long we have been told there is going to be a new gaol but, unfortunately, we were not told where. Now we have been told where, we have only been told that it was the cheapest option. That is about all the information we have about why this site was picked.
I would like to speak about two issues: (1) why I believe the site of Berrimah gaol should be the place where the new gaol is built; and (2) raise the issues of having less people in the big concrete gaol and more people in alternative forms of incarceration.
A little geography regarding why I believe moving the prison to Weddell is a bad move. You simply have to get hold of this map and have a look from a planning perspective. Forget the ideas the government has about putting housing in here. The prison is surrounded by land that is industrial, conservation, rural living, or East Arm port development land. You would probably get a better look if you got a bigger map. You will see how ridiculous it is to put housing there. There is plenty of land at the Berrimah Farm, if the existing land is 86 ha …
Dr Burns: Not enough.
Mr WOOD: There is 86 ha of land at the existing prison site. That is nearly the equivalent of the land of Berrimah Farm, and the government is intending to sell Berrimah Farm. There is adequate land on the site of Berrimah Farm, adjacent to the Stuart Highway, to put a new prison. You have to take into account there is a $7.2m low-security prison that was completed just two years ago, and I went to its opening. Everyone was very proud and the previous minister for Corrections said he was very proud of it. What are we going to do with that? Bulldoze it? We have Don Dale Centre which has just been upgraded to take more prisoners. Are we going to get rid of that? There is no mention of what is to happen to those two important Correctional Services facilities. Here is an opportunity to have our prison and put even a small prison farm next door. The soil at the top there is quite good for growing vegetables, because it has been a research station for umpteen years, doing research on vegetables.
I need to say up-front that I support the government’s proposal to do something about the existing prison. I visited that prison twice; it is out-of-date. If we are serious about helping numeracy and literacy, then we need a better facility than Berrimah. It has an education facility stuck in an old hall; you need to build purpose-built facilities for education. The remand centre is extremely poorly designed. In the administration block where prisoners come in, walk into an office, strip off their clothes and have a shower - everyone is going past doing their paperwork. Really, it is not the way it is supposed to be - not the way a modern prison should work. It might have been good for its time but, if we are in the business of trying to change people’s lives, trying to do something good for people, then this prison is not the way to go. However, that does not mean that the prison should go.
Why is Berrimah such a good spot for a prison besides having plenty of land? It is 10 minutes from the courts – 10 minutes from here. I will get on to Weddell in a minute. If you look at this map, Darwin is there and that is the distance to the courts from Berrimah. I do another three of those before I get to Weddell. So, in simple plain language: what does the court cost; what does the transport cost? Remand prisoners have to get moved out. People are travelling long distances. No one has convinced me that the existing site including some land next door, which is all Crown land, cannot be used to upgrade the very prison the government and I both agree should be upgraded, without putting it on a piece of country which they had never mentioned. By the way, they never mentioned it in the glossy brochure they put out the other day. The glossy brochure about Weddell said it has 2000 ha, estimated 10 000 blocks of land, private investment in divisions, $740m development cost, affordable housing, buildings, shopping and commercial centres, parks and open spaces. It did not say a new gaol - nowhere. This came out about a week or so before the government decided to announce that Weddell was the place.
I keep putting it in simple, plain language: there is adequate land here to put the gaol. We do not need to put housing here. The government has been saying things like: ‘Well, Harbour Town is going to build there now, so that is all the more reason we should have houses’. They decided houses before Harbour Town. Harbour Town just became a convenient excuse. The land does not have to be used for that. By having the gaol in Berrimah you also have the advantage of maybe helping prisoners get jobs in nearby industries. I visited two prisons in Marysville, Ohio, and the prisoners in the therapeutic community sections of those prisons where allowed to go to work in the local town for a full day. They left at 8 am and came back at 5 pm. Here we have an industrial area and a port; that gives us the opportunity to allow people to get training, on the spot, in industry. It also allows industry to have an area within the prison grounds, which they have to pay rent for, where they may be able to employ people within the prison facility to work in private industry. I believe there is great opportunity there.
And we are going to stick them down next to the mangroves. Some people might say: ‘Well, they are prisoners, too bad’. However, prison officers work there; I am not sure they will want to work in the mangroves with the sandflies etcetera.
I want the government to reconsider. It is big money. Do not put it in a place where you do not need to put it. The government said the other day: ‘We are going to develop Weddell’. I think it is time we moved on, it has been on the cards for 25 years. I said: ‘Let us get the competition going so we can have decent planning and so we know what the town will look like’. You would think that is the way to go. All of a sudden, without any of those conditions of planning, they decide to plonk the prison there. Well, what happened to the planning? This is the present Litchfield map; there is no talk about a prison in Weddell and, all of a sudden, out of the blue, they decide to put a prison in Weddell. When they announced Weddell, there was no mention of the prison.
To me, when it comes to planning, we have done the wrong thing. Sure, let us plan Weddell. Just for the sake of saying that is where the prison should go, you would say to whoever was going to do the design that we need part of Weddell left for a prison. But, no, we will put the prison in first, and then we are going to go off and design the town. That is cart before the horse stuff, and we should really not be going down that path.
Also, there is a possibility we will lose some valuable land for housing because on the map, which I have only been able to get because someone faxed it, and is the closest I have to the new map of Weddell – it is very hard to understand exactly what is happening. I gather there is a buffer around the prison. I have only seen the coloured copy once and when I asked if they could send it to me, it came out in black and white. It has been very hard to get any information. I asked the library if they had a copy of the new site for the prison and I received a copy of the press release, but I could not get a copy of this one. In fact, you cannot get a copy of Weddell unless you go upstairs and have look at it. They are not handing them out. From a planning perspective, it is very important that we look at Weddell at the present time.
I also do not believe we should be locking 80% of our people up in this particular type of prison. Certainly some people who have committed really bad crimes need to be locked up in prison, and we know they should spend a long time being punished. However, we know a lot of Indigenous people have not necessarily committed major crimes - they are not bank robbers - they have done stupid things in their lives, and we know alcohol plays a big factor. So we need to have a range of options.
I mentioned to the new minister for Corrections, who has a very big job, how they have therapeutic communities in Ohio where a group of men or women work together to try to change their lives around as a group. It is different. I recommend the minister goes to Ohio and has a look. It may not be suitable, but it is an alternative way to try to change people’s lives. Education is very important in Ohio. I spoke to women in the classroom there, and they try to get up to high school level before they are released so they have some way of getting a job when they come out. It is the same with the men. That is one style.
I visited the Wyndham work camps, and I congratulate the government for looking at it; it needs more planning. I went to Hamilton Downs youth camp recently. That is not necessarily part of Corrections, but it is another way of trying to get involved in how we handle juveniles who could be at risk. It is part of the total package we need to look at. We do not really want to be handling everybody once they have gone through the court system; if we can beat that by early intervention that would be great.
I am writing to the Minister for Correctional Services in Western Australia to see if I can visit a prison farm work camp about 300 km out of Perth. I still think it is important that we look at prison farms and work camps as part of a total package. We can educate people and give them some skills, whether it is laying paving bricks, mending houses in Tennant Creek, doing fencelines out on a cattle station, or growing vegetables, I do not care. We can try to give people a reason to live, and try to show them that by doing good work; you do not have to get into crime. That is what we should really be doing.
There are no simple solutions, but I agree with the member for Araluen; we have been travelling for eight years. We closed Wildman River down - and I am not picking on the government here - Beatrice Hill and Gunn Point were closed down by the CLP. Both sides, I believe, went backwards when they did that. We need to return to those different methods of trying to help people who are in need. Yes, they are there to be punished. People will say to throw the key away but, if you throw the key away and kick people when they are down, in a lot of cases they will just come out worse. Punishment is okay - no qualms about that. However, if we do not have the other side, which is: ‘We want you to come out a better person, and we do not want you back in here’. That is the overall picture you have to have in dealing with the vast numbers of people we have in our prisons.
We should be ashamed of the number of people we have in our gaols. In a small place like the Territory, we have nearly 1000 in Berrimah and about 500 in Alice Springs. It is packed to the rafters in Alice Springs. You would have to ask whether the planning has been any good. We should not have that many people packed into those prisons.
In summary, I ask the government to reconsider its siting of the prison. And I believe you need to consider the issue of what you are doing to the families of those people who are in this prison. Most of them are Indigenous; many are low-income people. You go past Berrimah gaol and Tivendale Road bus stop at different times of day, and you see who is sitting at the bus stops on both sides - they are Aboriginal people. Their only way to that prison is by bus; they probably cannot afford a taxi.
It is so important in prisons that we do not punish the children. I am sure there is something in the Bible about passing on the father’s sins to the son, etcetera. Well, that is not what we are about. For sure, the person in gaol is there for punishment, but do not punish the family. Hopefully, what you are trying to achieve is when the father comes out he knows he has a family to go back to; he has a wife and kids. In some cases, the only way some of these families can visit their dad if he is in prison, is via the public transport system. We are not going to have a public transport system at Weddell for ages. It is 45 minutes at least by car. We can only get a couple of bus services to Howard Springs these days; I believe one goes down to Noonamah via Bees Creek once a day. It might sound a small thing, but it is a very important thing that people should be able to access the prison, especially for the sake of families. That is all part of good rehabilitation.
I plead with the government: forget this silly idea of housing. We have a stack of blocks of land being developed in Palmerston. The government has been telling us about all the suburbs it is going to develop. It has just said it will turn off Weddell. Why do we need to promote this? You also have Lyons and Muirhead. Why do you need this area? What is the big rush? I believe we need to think this thing through again. I will congratulate the government if it says forget the housing for the time being; this is the proper site for it. There are many difficulties with having housing here too. Do not forget there is an airport; there is industry on both sides. At 5 am BHP moves all its oil rig equipment from Berrimah. I do not know what the people living next door are going to say when the lights are on and the noise is coming from that area. The best use of this land is for the prison.
Please reconsider it. I hate to see money wasted. I would hate to see the idea: well, we are going to build a new prison and it is going to be ‘you beaut’; and you do not take into account all those other things like: the cost of transport, the contact with families, that the prison on its present site is really not affecting anyone. I do not get complaints about the prison here. Why move something that is not a problem when you have plenty of land to do it? I ask the minister: what are you going to do with the $7.2m low-security prison and the Don Dale Detention Centre when you move to Weddell?
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome the fact that this very important matter of public importance has been brought on for debate here tonight by the member for Goyder. I have listened very carefully to the speakers thus far, and there are deeply held views, particularly by the member for Nelson. Also, the member for Araluen made a very good contribution to this debate.
This is an important issue. It is one that, to be honest, government has grappled with for a number of years now. I believe the member for Nelson has at least acknowledged that the Berrimah Prison is past its use-by date and is completely inadequate. We would have to spend a large amount of money anyway to reshape that prison. I will outline later why that is not possible.
There are all sorts of things that government could be spending money on, and you would think the prison is the last priority. I have come to the point where I realise that not only does government have responsibility for building schools, health clinics and police stations, we also have a responsibility to our Correctional institutions, not only the infrastructure, but also - as the member for Araluen pointed out - the important outcomes which come out of those institutions.
No one in this place would deny that the outcomes from Berrimah at present are totally unsatisfactory. Part of that has to do with the infrastructure and the programs which can be delivered within that infrastructure. There is a wider issue here, though - the social determinants of what is driving or leading people to gaol. Those of us who think about these things and have observed for a long time believe it is to do with social and economic disadvantage. It is arrears in education. It is a whole range of issues that, through those social determinants, not only drive adverse outcomes for people in health, but also their interaction with the justice system.
That is why this government - and I probably do not have time in the scope of this matter of public importance - is focused on regional and economic development; about attempting to improve educational and health outcomes particularly for Indigenous people in the bush; trying to address issues associated with alcohol and alcohol abuse. These are very difficult issues to grapple with. However, this government, through our Closing the Gap strategy, policy and funding, believe we are making some difference.
I am acknowledging here this evening that there is a problem – it is a lot wider than the gaol, but the gaol is part of it. I want to place on the public record from the start that the site of Berrimah gaol is inadequate. It is inadequate in area; it is not big enough to hold the capacity of a 1000-bed gaol that we are talking about with this new Correctional facility. Plus there is a forensic mental health facility that is also a proposed ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: If members opposite would show me the courtesy. I listened in silence to what the members opposite had to say; please give me the courtesy of listening.
The other thing about the Berrimah site - and government has looked at this very carefully - is that developing on that site would require a mountain of fill, particularly down the back end of the site. It is a lot more expensive than a greenfield site. We investigated that very thoroughly.
Also, because of the area of Berrimah and its proximity even to the industrial land, the buffer would be really insufficient regarding any residential or commercial development that would go on there. There would be insufficient buffer. That was an undertaking I gave right from the very beginning, as a previous minister, about its proximity to housing. The other point about the current site is it is completely unsatisfactory to have a construction site on an operating gaol. That is the advice we have had from the Correctional Services people.
The current gaol has not only gone past its use-by date in its physical infrastructure. Anyone who goes out there and sees the woeful, pitiful education facilities and other aspects of it, and the gross overcrowding, would realise that it is time for a quantum change in what we are doing in Corrections.
One issue regarding Berrimah is this development needs to happen very quickly. We have already exceeded our prison numbers. From memory, we are in next year’s projections from where we were last year. That is the dire situation we are in. A Berrimah Farm facility would need a staged approach to actually relocate those facilities elsewhere. For that reason also, the Berrimah Farm - apart from the issue of proposed residential development on that site - is also unsuitable.
The member of Goyder asked: ‘What is going to be there? We know very little’. I can tell you, member for Goyder, we have the unsatisfactory situation in remand - which is bursting at the seams now - where there are so many people that some of those remand prisoners actually have to go into the general gaol population. After scrutiny, they are usually people who have been in gaol before. It is not completely satisfactorily; it does happen in other jurisdictions; however, the situation with remand is completely unsatisfactory. Remand, low-security, medium-security and maximum-security will be shifted to the new facility.
Another thing about a complete greenfield site is the efficiencies that will be inherent in the new facility in the numbers of prison officers who need to be present. If you go out to Berrimah now, because it is so higgledy-piggledy and has grown like Topsy, any movement of prisoners within the current facility needs many prison officers to oversee it. In modern Correctional facilities, Berrimah actually has a very high ratio of prison officers to prisoners, and that is unsatisfactory.
The intention is that much of the infrastructure which has been put into Berrimah will be able to be moved out to the new facility. There has been investment in things that can be transported. Even some of the physical infrastructure in the fence security will also be able to be transported and resurrected, if you like, in the new facility.
Regarding crime, we have more police. We have 18 more police stations as a result of the intervention - I acknowledge that - 329 more police officers than in 2001; and laws that are a lot tougher. There is no doubt the community is demanding of government - and the opposition, as an alternative government - to pass laws which show we are tough on crime. It is a major point of debate within this House. There is a public expectation that governments - does not matter what colour - will be tough on crime. Both sides have been accused by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of having an auction, if you like, on who is toughest on crime. There is a community expectation that if people do the crime, they do the time.
I believe the 1000-bed facility will allow us to put more rehabilitation in education skills programs in place. We certainly do not have the capacity now. We want prisoners who cannot read when they go to gaol to be literate when they leave. We want those who struggle with alcohol or drug abuse to get clean and address the issues that made them take those paths. We want those who have no skills to undertake training and to leave with increased job prospects. As has been discussed here - and I think it got a tick from the member for Nelson - are prisoner work camps in the regions. There is, obviously, a very good model operating in Western Australia. I trust the new minister will go over there. Obviously, the member for Nelson has been there and he thinks it is a good idea. Prisoners will gain skills and make reparation to society. Also, being located in the regions, it will give an opportunity for these people in the regions to see the rehabilitation of these prisoners.
I spoke about Closing the Gap. We have had, under Closing the Gap, expanded rehabilitation programs for sexual offenders to break the cycle of reoffending; expanded the elders visiting programs of four communities to now include Lajamanu, Kalkarindji, Yuendumu and Tennant Creek, and discussions are continuing in other centres.
This government has also tried very hard to address alcohol abuse, which is behind so many crimes. As I said before, it is a very difficult issue - a very difficult issue, indeed. However, we are not going to give up on it. The member for Nelson also mentioned youth camps to get kids back on the straight and narrow. I am glad he visited Hamilton Downs because there is good work going on there.
Just to address some of the issues; there were criteria applied to each site. The site area proximity or lack of proximity to housing was a very important consideration. The cost, obviously, was a very important consideration by government. Issues around transport - I can give a guarantee there will be transport to the new site for prisoners’ families to go and visit. There was criterion applied.
How did we arrive at the $300m figure? Well, of course, Treasury is involved. This is something I believe the member for Goyder does not understand. As government moves down this path, Treasury and other agencies give cost estimates. Also, very specialised advice came from people who have developed these sorts of facilities, not only in Australia, but also in the Pacific region and overseas, both in costs and design. There has been some very preliminary design work done and some costing. This is how government works in its capital works program. Of course, as part of those considerations, government is considering a public/private partnership. That is what has happened in gaols elsewhere; that is what is happening in some larger projects already in the Territory, namely the railway and the convention centre. However, a final decision has not been made on that, but it will be based on advice from Treasury.
The hospital was an issue which was raised. When I visited the prison with the Chief Minister, the medical staff there welcomed a new prison where they could have greater space to treat and have consultation with prisoners. They said having a larger facility would actually cut down the need for people to travel into Royal Darwin Hospital. That came without any prompting from the people who are delivering health services at the current gaol.
Regarding the processes, I am advised that all planning and environmental processes will be adhered to. That is very important, and that is an undertaking given by government. We do have plans, as a government, to address these very important issues. This new Correctional Services facility is very important in those plans, and government will be moving forward with it. I believe there is an imperative for us to do it.
The member for Nelson is very passionate in his belief about where the gaol should be sited. He is also very passionate about land use, particularly around the harbour. I certainly take seriously what the member for Nelson says. However, government has deliberated over this for some time. The time for talking, revision and thinking is long past. We need to get on with this project because the current gaol at Berrimah is well over capacity. We need to build this particular facility, and we need to get on with that job. That is the decision government has taken. It has not taken it lightly. There has been much deliberation by me and two of my predecessors as Corrections minister, Syd Stirling and Peter Toyne. Now, it falls to the new Corrections minister to implement government’s decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a difficult decision, but I believe I have outlined tonight why government has taken the decision it has. We have examined all the possibilities, including construction on the current Berrimah site. That was not able to happen. That is why we have gone for a greenfield site. I certainly believe it is time to act.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for raising this matter of public importance, as it allows me in my new ministry to provide further detail to the Assembly of this new development. It is a good place to start. I thank the member for Johnston for giving a very comprehensive summary of the massive body of work that has taken place by government in the lead-up.
Member for Araluen, you can take me, as the new minister, and this House back even further. It does represent this concept of new era. As the member for Johnston has outlined to the House, the time to act is now. I am absolutely honoured and privileged to be part of it. Member for Araluen, you are dead right: the backpack is full and I have been receiving an intensive round of briefings, information and reports to try to bring me up to speed on the massive body of work that has taken place by a government determined to reduce reoffending numbers. This is a positive thing.
Prisons are a fact of our society. They are a necessary institution in our society, and the opposition went through this. As a constituent of the Barkly I watched this process with the development of Berrimah. However, I have now had the privilege of working with experts in the field and there are two elements I am very impressed by: (1) the level of professionalism and knowledge of world’s best practice that we have in the agency; and (2) their enthusiasm and passion to make changes. I will add a third one: my very warm feelings about agency experts and my government colleagues taking me on board to drive this project forward in this new era that will take place now.
Information from the agency, the government, the opposition in very informative debate tonight, the prison officers and my planned visits throughout all our Correctional Services facilities in the Northern Territory after these sittings, will place me well, as a minister, to lead this massive body of work and the change we intend to make. For those people who do not know my background, and there is a bit of irony here, I have been in education for more than half of my life. Funnily enough, the last third of that career represented juvenile justice programs. I have worked in education with disaffected and disadvantaged people in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and the United Kingdom.
When I participated in briefings with our expert agency people and members of government, it is world’s best practice; it is reinforcing what I learnt and what I believe; my very brief conversation with the member for Nelson reinforced exactly that - I can assure members of the House we are on the right track.
The member for Johnston gave a very comprehensive outline of an infrastructure problem – an infrastructure problem which is preventing us moving forward in the reduction of reoffending rates. It is a facility that has gone past its use-by date. Member for Nelson, the member for Johnston has summed it up very adequately; however. I will make the comment that experts in the field advise me that the site at Berrimah is not adequate. A massive reconstruction project taking place in that prison, around that prison, is not the way to go, and the greenfield concept will deliver the best results they are all striving for - results that are shared by all of us in this new direction forward.
The number of prisoners in the Territory has grown, and they are growing faster. The member for Johnston outlined that. However, we have heard what I know and believe; that there are vast numbers of these prisoners who can be rehabilitated. They are low-level offenders who are a representative group of disadvantaged and disaffected people in our community. I have just spent the last 30 years working for such people. Now we have the ability to trial world’s best practice and turn this around and demonstrate to the constituents of the Northern Territory that we are going to make a difference. Member for Nelson, I honestly believe and support the new innovative infrastructure at the new site will allow that.
Member for Araluen, it is known as a multidisciplinary institution. It will allow a cutting edge, innovative concept for men and women. This new concept is a very efficient rotational concept where facilities can be used by different groups at different times with the utmost occupational health and safety considerations for our prison officers.
It is a site, member for Nelson, where families can visit in comfort, in safety and be with people who are going to have the opportunity of life-changing decisions. A correctional facility that we know works in America will allow this. The member for Nelson has seen massive changes and he has told me about the emotion he experienced. I have seen this in the United Kingdom. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to go with us on this; do not prevent it. We are going to make a difference.
The member for Goyder was very informative. I respect a member of an old Territorian family who can provide a new minister like me with much knowledge in this area. I would like to outline for the members for Goyder and Nelson the concept of the work camps. Yes, the first work camp is planned for Tennant Creek. I am proud of that. The government knows that the community of Tennant Creek and the Barkly support that. Member for Nelson, I would like to share with you some information I have received on this intensive journey in the last week-and-a-half.
The recent developments at the Berrimah gaol were planned as relocatable facilities. The first work camp in Tennant Creek is planned as a relocatable facility which will be able to accommodate 24 people. The work camp will be for low-level offenders – minimum security. The prison and work camp will have a focus on education and training. I am pleased to say, from my early discussions, there will be academic streams and trade skills available for educational opportunities. Member for Nelson, I have already had discussions with my colleagues about pastoral enterprises, as well.
We will find ways through this to accommodate individual differences, life plans and opportunities. The work camps will represent a connection with the community. The connection will be two ways. The community will have input into what work and services are done. This represents a two-way approach in justice and the rehabilitation of prisoners; not a one-way punitive street. It will allow for community people to understand more about the reasons for low-level offending. If we can start to address percentage numbers and reduce reoffending, then we are going to make a difference in society. I am excited about this …
Ms Carney: I can tell. It is wonderful.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, member for Araluen. As I said, you have a wealth of experience and I appreciate your input.
The whole of the Northern Territory will come together under this new correctional model. After sittings, I will be honoured to be taken by the very learned and influential people that I know …
A member: Proud of the site.
Mr McCARTHY: I will be on-site, and I will see, talk, and understand.
I would like to finish with a quote from the bush where I have been lately. It is from Bill Harney, who was incarcerated in gaol in Borroloola. I do not think Bill would mind if I mentioned the allegation, member for Araluen, of cattle duffing, and the famous quote. I want to share this with members of the House and with the people I travel with on this amazing journey in the new era of Corrections. Bill Harney said: ‘I travelled the world from the inside of the Borroloola gaol’. Deconstruct ‘I travelled the world’, members of the opposition. It was education. It was an opportunity to be educated to think differently, to change your outlook, to change your life. Rehabilitation comes with education.
Let us target this model. Let us target this new approach. Let us work for it together. I have heard it many times. I enjoy and respect the debate. Let us walk this together. Let us make a difference. Let us go back to the Peter Toynes, the Syd Stirlings, the member for Johnston, and all those people who have participated over the years. I talked to Daryl Manzie on the radio the other day. I remember Daryl Manzie, but I had to come to town to learn about him; I was in such an isolated area, I did not have a radio. However, all these people will celebrate with us in this new era of Corrections, and I will stand by that. I like that term; it represents a lot. It is very powerful.
Thank you to the member for Goyder for bringing this on. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, as a new minister, to speak with passion.
In conclusion, to my colleagues on this side of the House, it will be a ride, and we will change this; we will reduce reoffending rates. The new Correctional facility will be one of the first major developments in an area of Darwin that will represent up to 40 000 people, with town services, parks and gardens, and families. It represents the future of the Northern Territory, Madam Speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, tonight I congratulate the members of the 2009 Jingili School Community Council who were elected at the annual general meeting last night. School councils play an extremely important role in the school community, and the council members do a fantastic job. They have a massive role to play, amongst other tasks, in examining educational policies to be implemented at the school; identifying the educational needs of the community; building links between parents, the community and the school; overseeing the operational needs of the buildings and facilities; determining purposes for expending funds and, of course, fundraising to enable those extras for the school and the students.
Following the AGM last night which, unfortunately, I could not attend because, as members know, we had our inaugural Monday sitting, I am pleased to congratulate: Rhianna Suttie-Gunson on her reappointment as Chairperson of the Jingili School Community Council, together with James Lantry as Deputy Chair; Bridget Riggs, Secretary; Carol Kerr, Treasurer; and other parent members Mike Copland, Josh and Jo Davis, Brigitte Grahl, Tracey Menhonshen, Tara Metcalf, Juanita Gray, Melanie Schofield, Lisa Kay, Karen Edyrane, Leisa Sjaardemma, Jane Fryar and Naomi Wilson.
The community council also had the support of the Executive Officer, Jodie Green, the Principal and, of course, Lorna Dudley as Administrative Manager and Assisting Treasurer, with teacher representatives Kerrylee Pike, Larelle Gilbert and Deniel Sachs from the preschool.
Honourable members will recall my previous adjournments throughout the years in which I have extolled the efforts of the Jingili Primary School community to make it one of the best schools in the Territory. The school does some serious fundraising, not only for themselves but for those less fortunate within their community and also worldwide. You have heard me talk about the really incredible fundraising that has gone on for the orphans of Leu Lau School in Timor, as well as the Student Representative Council and the preschool raising funds for World Vision children in Guatemala and Bangladesh. The school council and Student Representative Council at Jingili are always discussing how they can help people and the difference they can make through commitment and caring. I wish the Jingili school committee all the best for 2009.
I also foreshadow my Walk & Talk with the Pollies and Aldermen activity, which will be held in my electorate on 21 March. As all members will be aware, this is part of a program run by General Practice Network NT and called the 2009 Activate NT Healthy Lifestyle Challenge. The aim of Activate NT is to encourage the community to take a healthier approach to life and promote Darwin as an active and healthy place.
I have volunteered to host a walk around the Jingili Water Gardens on Saturday morning, and I am very much looking forward to having a very interesting time engaging with the local residents in this fantastic way and at a great venue such as the Jingili Water Gardens. I commend Julia Pettigrew, the Activate NT Project Officer from General Practice NT, who is putting this program together.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a letter I have received from The Importer on Stuart Highway, Stuart Park in relation to the bus stop outside the shop. With deep concern I read this letter because, once again, small actions of government have big consequences on small business people around the traps. I urge the Minister for Transport, in his role as the minister for the Northern Territory Bus Service, to turn his attention to this matter, because it is important. It is a small business person who, as a result of government’s decisions, is now being affected. I seek leave to table the letter from The Importer, which is dated 16 February 2009.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the document.
I say at the outset, to Cherie and Lawrence, who run The Importer, that I well understand their frustration. Over the last few years the numbers of clientele who choose to travel on our buses has, sadly, gone somewhat backwards, which is a reflection of the coverage you see in the newspapers of knife-wielding bandits and other thugs punching bus drivers and threatening them with knives. However, before these people get on buses, the fact is they have to wait at bus stops. What occurs at those bus stops is often as disgusting as what happens on the buses, if not worse. I feel for the people who run this business. To have people fighting, urinating, defecating and those sorts of things in front of their business is a matter of great concern.
I note that the Coopers have, in big, bold letters indicated they want that bus stop moved. I well understand their irritation. I ask the minister to turn his attention to this particular letter and get in contact with the Coopers and listen to what they have to say. They will be representative of so many other businesses in town which are, sadly, the subject of the arbitrary decisions of government to place things such as taxi ranks, bus stops, etcetera.
In my electorate, the decision to place the taxi rank opposite the cinemas in Darwin continues to be a running sore because, through the arbitrary decision of this particular government to place the taxi rank in that location, the only achievement is to annoy a lot of residents. It is the same cavalier indifference by this government to the location of other things such as bus stops, which is a matter of some concern. While I appreciate that bus stops need to exist, because people have to find places to catch buses, I ask the government to be more attentive to where and why they place those bus stops in those locations, and what happens at those bus stops.
The government has brought so much attention to their new transport police - for lack of better words – and there is no reason why those transport police cannot attend these bus stops from time to time and find out what is happening there, and make something happen so the conduct at bus stops, not only on buses, improves.
Clearly, the Coopers have an issue. Clearly, the Coopers feel very much aggrieved. I believe they have written to all and sundry on the issue. If the government does not get the message in relation to these simple little things, it only confirms in the minds of many people that the Northern Territory government is more interested in the big things in the world, such as the INPEX plant. Whilst I accept they are important, it is also important to turn your attention to the little things in the world like the small business operators who work very hard to make a few quid so that they can pay this government taxes. For that reason alone, they deserve the ears of the minister.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, last week Nhulunbuy people rallied quickly to work out ways our community could support those who had lost and suffered in the Victorian bushfires. Our community radio station 8EAR Gove FM, which seems to find itself at the heart of every community and charity event, was at the fore of last week’s fundraising, with our Rotary Club and Nhulunbuy Corporation right behind them.
Churyl Shepard, Gove FM’s energetic administrator, along with Libby, Rob, Rabbit, Ian, Bernice and Matthew, organised a radiothon which ran throughout the Saturday, inviting people to phone in and pledge funds. I was very pleased to go into the studio in the afternoon to talk about what was happening at the Northern Territory government level to provide support for those in Victoria. Gove FM then moved to a live broadcast at the Arnhem Club on Saturday night, where raffles, collections, and an auction were held. Special thanks to the Arnhem Club, Nhulunbuy Regional Sports Fishing Club, and Gove Sport and Tackle who donated the prizes for raffling. My husband is the delighted and the very proud owner of some whiz bang new fishing gear.
When I checked with Churyl at Gove FM this morning, the tally had reached $24 000. The sum will go much higher with the annual Rotary Quiz Night being held this Saturday night, 21 February, at Nhulunbuy Town Hall, with all proceeds going to the bushfire victims. In addition, Rotary has generously offered to match the proceeds dollar for dollar.
Another major fundraiser being organised by Kendell Kenway, from Nhulunbuy Corporation, will be held on Saturday, 28 February, at our town hall at the monthly coffee, cake, art and craft morning. As part of the morning, residents have been asked to bring second-hand goods for donation, and I will be part of a team sorting and boxing up goods which have been donated by Wridgways - thank you very much, Gary Dicker. Perkins Shipping has also generously agreed to ship all the goods, free of charge, to Darwin.
For people who want to give their moral support, I have instigated a messages and condolences book which is currently circulating in our community between the local library, schools and churches, so everyone has a chance to provide a few words of support.
I also note that Nhulunbuy Primary School is making their own contribution to the efforts for fundraising as well.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Jessica Cunningham, a Year 11 student at Nhulunbuy High School, who has been selected to be the representative for the Nhulunbuy region at the 2009 Youth Minister’s Round Table of Young Territorians. Jessica is a bright and energetic young woman who I know will be a terrific ambassador and advocate for youth in our region. I met Jessica in my office last Friday for a chat and a chance to compare notes and views, and what the issues are facing young people in and around Nhulunbuy. I wish her well at her first meeting this weekend, 21 and 22 February, and I certainly look forward to hearing how members of the Round Table fare with youth affairs in 2009.
Last Saturday saw the first Barras Swim Club meet for 2009 at Nhulunbuy town pool. It was a huge evening for our swimmers. We had swimmers trying to gain qualifying times to enable them to swim at the Northern Territory Age and Open. We also had new swimmers to the club competing in their first club meet. Well done to you all; there were some great times recorded. Jack Tracy was the superstar of the meet. He knocked a whopping 0.94 seconds off his 100 m freestyle time. Sinead Salisbury knocked 26.73 seconds off her 100 m freestyle time, and Bradley Turner knocked 27.27 seconds off his 200 m freestyle time. Our PBers of the month are Sinead Salisbury and Harry Walker, who both recorded four personal best times at the meet. As one of the timekeepers at the meet, it was really exciting to see the kids swim so well, and there were many proud mums and dads - including me - to see my autistic son, Harry, aged 13, do so well. We just have to work on getting him to learn how to dive.
The Barras club have nine swimmers who have qualified to swim at the NT Age and Open being held in Darwin from 5 to 8 March. Out of those nine swimmers the following seven swimmers will possibly be attending – pending fundraising efforts: Alyssa Petrofes, Ellen Guiney, Gabby Parsons, Holly Sims, Bradley Turner, Liam Staples and Wilson Liu. Loren Waller and Paul McFetridge will be attending as coach and team manager. They are all training very hard and we wish them all the very best of luck.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the hard-working committee of Nhulunbuy Amateur Swimming tonight. I apologise that, as the Deputy President, I manage to get to so few meetings. I thank and congratulate Shane Guiney, Jackie McGrath, Mike and Susan Kestel, Vicki Irvine, Loren Waller, Dave Hoskins and Kiwi Deb; as well as our dedicated volunteer coaches headed up by Loren Waller along with Vicki Parsons, Taku Taylor, Jacci Clark, Luke Hutchinson and Paul McFetridge.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have the honour of putting on the Parliamentary Record an obituary for Mr Teddy Plummer BEM, 1931 – 2009.
Mr Teddy Plummer was born in Tennant Creek in 1931 and was educated at Philip Creek. When clearing and construction of the Warrabri Aboriginal Reserve began in 1954, many Aboriginal men were given training in building construction, both theoretical and on the job. Teddy Plummer was one of the many who showed a particular aptitude for trades skills and became a skilled tradesman working as a plumber on the settlement. Teddy Plummer was a full staff member living in a staff house and in charge of a gang of young men who trained under his leadership and guidance. Teddy Plummer also inherited the ceremonial law responsibility from his late father as a respected senior man of the Waramungu people.
Mr Teddy Plummer was awarded the British Empire Medal Civil on 1 January 1970 for services to the community - a medal awarded for meritorious civil or military service worthy of recognition by the Crown. Teddy Plummer and his wife, May, who passed away in 1970, had a family of seven children: Rosemary, Peter, Edward, Ronald, Robbie, Cliff and Marlene. The references are from a booklet Warrabri Aboriginal Reserve, National Archives of the Northern Territory.
Teddy Plummer was an honourable man of vision in difficult times. As a natural leader, Teddy set a real direction for Indigenous people and his family. Teddy Plummer’s legacy of leading by example will continue to influence and mentor the many generations that will follow him. My sincere condolences go to the Plummer family on the loss of your patriarch and loved one. May he rest in peace.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016