2010-05-06
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 290 petitioners praying that the decision to build a secure care facility for high risk behaviour people on Lowther Road, Bees Creek, be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming to standing orders, from 185 petitioners relating to the secure care facility on Stuart Highway, Bees Creek. I move the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arnhem and Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the whole of the today’s sitting day for the members for Arnhem and Greatorex. It is signed by the government and opposition Whips.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various acts and regulations that fall within the Justice portfolio. The acts amended in this bill include the Criminal Code Act, the Land Title Act, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the Retirement Villages Act, the Retirement Villages Regulations, the Sale of Lands (Rights and Duties of Partners) Act 2010, the Sentencing Act, and the Unit Titles Act.
The Criminal Code is amended to clarify the meaning of section 177, pursuant to amendments made over the past few years. Section 177 of the Criminal Code is the offence of: acts intended to cause serious harm or prevent apprehension, and it carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is clear from the maximum penalty it is a very serious offence. What makes it such a serious offence is it applies when an offender intends to cause a particular result, such as serious harm. The offence of causing serious harm, at section 181 of the Criminal Code, carries a lesser maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment because a person is guilty of that offence even though they did not intent to cause the serious harm.
Sometimes, it is very difficult to prove an offender intended to cause serious harm. However, if the prosecution charged someone with an offence under section 177, then the offender should not be able to evade just penalty only because the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the offender intended to cause the harm. The jury should be able to come to an alternative verdict that the offender is guilty of the offence of causing serious harm.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought to the Territory government’s attention the current wording in section 177(a) means it does not operate as it is intended. The current wording provides, if the prosecution does not prove any intent to cause serious harm, then the only alternative guilty verdict the jury can come to is that the offender caused harm, even if the injury sustained by the victim amounted to serious harm. The maximum penalty for causing harm is only five years imprisonment.
Section 4 of the bill amends section 177 of the act by omitting and substituting subsection (a) with a new subsection (a), the purpose of which is to reinstate the previously existing alternative verdict of serious harm to a charge under section 177.
Section 44 of the Land Title Act relates to the issuing of certificates as to title. Pursuant to section 44(1) the Registrar-General may only issue such a certificate to the registered owner of the lot of land. Further, pursuant to section 44(2), if the lot is subject to a registered mortgage, the Registrar-General may only issue a certificate if the mortgagee consents to the issue of the certificate. This is interpreted as meaning that, if there is more than one mortgagee, consent must be obtained from all of them before the Registrar-General may issue a certificate under subsection (1). This process can be very inconvenient for lawyers and conveyancing agents responsible for preparing conveyancing documents. It also adds to the cost of a conveyance.
Section 6 of the bill amends clause 44 of the act by omitting and substituting subsections (1) and (2) with new subsections (1) and (2). The new subsection (1) will allow legal practitioners, as defined in the Interpretation Act, and licensed conveyancing agents acting for owners of land to sign applications for the issuing of the certificate containing the indefeasible title for a lot.
Pursuant to the new subsection (2), where there are two or more mortgages over a lot, the Registrar-General will only require the consent of the first registered mortgagee in order to issue a certificate under subsection (1).
Since the Public Interest Disclosure Act commenced on 31 July 2009, a number of issues have been identified which require amendment. Pursuant to section 53 of the act, there are strict requirements of confidentiality that may operate to prevent any disclosure of confidential and identifying information by persons acting in an official capacity. However, those requirements do not extend to persons who are not acting in an official capacity, for example, persons interviewed in connection with a disclosure. Thus, there is nothing to prevent such persons from disclosing information that may have come to their knowledge during the course of an interview, or from the fact that they were interviewed. This can destroy the efforts of the commissioner to maintain confidentiality and protect a discloser’s identity.
Clause 9 of the bill amends the act by omitting the words ‘other than identifying information’ from section 53(2)(a) and (b)’. This will allow for a disclosure of confidential information, including identifying information to be communicated, provided it is necessary for exercising a power or performing a function under the act, including for a report or a recommendation. An example would be a chief executive creating a file.
The current act does not provide for the disclosure of confidential information by the relevant chief executive in circumstances of emergency. Instead, the relevant chief executive must seek approval from either the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures or the discloser prior to taking any action. So, for example, if the relevant chief executive of an agency receives a disclosure that employee X is stealing drugs, it is arguably an offence to contact the police, or to take immediate disciplinary action against the employee, if to do so would reveal the content of the disclosure.
Clause 10 of the bill amends the Public Interest Disclosure Act so that it is not an offence for a person to disclose confidential information if the disclosure is made in response to circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency. There are a number of criteria that must be met in order for this protection to operate. These are that the person disclosed in the information must reasonably believe that the circumstances of the emergency exist, and that disclosure is the only reasonable way of dealing with this emergency.
There are requirements for making a disclosure. The discloser must notify the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures within 48 hours of making the disclosure and, in that notification, must set out the reasons why the disclosure was appropriate.
Pursuant to section 46 of the act, the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures may delegate any of the functions or powers conferred on him or her under the act. However, legal advice from the Solicitor for the Northern Territory suggests that no such power of delegation exists with respect to the relevant chief executive. As a result, the chief executives must, arguably, personally undertake all administrative tasks that relate to public interest disclosures that are made to them. This includes the typing of documents, the opening of files, photocopying, etcetera. This is contrary to the policy position when the legislation was introduced.
Clause 11 of the bill inserts a new section 54A into the act which provides that responsible chief executives for a body or public office can delegate any of his or her powers or functions. The delegation power relates to the following powers and functions under the Public Interest Disclosure Act:
receive disclosures under section 11;
Clause 10 of the bill also inserts a new section 53B into the act, which provides that the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures may, in certain circumstances, direct that a person not disclose confidential or identifying information.
The final amendment to the Public Interest Disclosure Act by this bill is to section 5 of the act. That section outlines what constitutes improper conduct. At present, pursuant to subsection (1)(a)(iv) a breach of public trust may constitute improper conduct. The placement of the letter ‘a’ between the words ‘of’ and ‘public’ tends to suggest the type of trust being referred to is a financial one. This was not the intent of the legislation. The type of trust that section refers to is the trust of the public. To remove any doubt as to the type of trust referred to in that section, section 8 of the bill omits the words ‘a public trust’ and substitutes them with the words ‘public trust’.
Section 36 of the Retirement Villages Act provides for land intended to be a retirement village for a notation to that effect to be registered on the title. However, there is nothing in that act or in the Land Title Act that provides for the removal of the notation in circumstances where all concerned agree that the land is not, or is not going to be, or is not to remain, as a retirement village.
Clause 13 amends the act by inserting new Section 36A which establishes a process for the removal of restriction notices concerning retirement villages from the land titles register.
Clause 15 of the bill amends the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act to provide that the act is not applied to contracts or proposed contracts for the sale of land if the buyer is a related person by virtue of a de facto relationship. This exemption already exists in relation to spouses. This corrects an anomaly in the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act 2010 and removes, prior to the commencement of that act, an inadvertent distinction between married persons and persons in a de facto relationship.
The Sentencing Act is amended to rectify a drafting oversight which affects the operation of Section 78BA mandatory imprisonment for certain violent offences. Section 78BA of the act provides that, where an offender commits an offence to which that section applies, if found guilty, the court must record a conviction, and must order the offender serve either a term of actual imprisonment or a term of imprisonment that is partly, but not wholly, suspended. The offences to which the section applies are a number of violence offences which are listed in Schedule 2 of the act. Item 2 of Schedule 2 purports to include an offence against Section 188 of the Criminal Code - common assault and aggravated assault. However, at present, Item 2 of Schedule 2 of the Sentencing Act reads: ‘An offence section 188 of the Criminal Code …’. It should read: ‘An offence against Section 188 of the Criminal Code …’.
The result of this has been that a magistrate formed the view that they can not invoke the power of Section 78BA of the Sentencing Act. While the Department of Justice does not necessarily accept that this view of the law is correct, it is patent that there is a practical need to both correct the grammar as well as clarify the meaning. The schedule to the bill amends Item 2 of Schedule 2 of the Sentencing Act to ensure that Section 78BA of the Sentencing Act may operate in respect of an offence under Section 188 of the Criminal Code.
The Unit Titles Act is amended so that it is clear that applications under Section 10 for the subdivision of a parcel of land can no longer be made under the act for new developments. This is because the Unit Titles Schemes Act applies to all new subdivisions of land into units, except where the land being subdivided is already a unit or lot that is subject to a title under the Unit Titles Act.
Clauses 19 and 42 of Schedule 2 of the Retirement Villages Regulations are amended to include references to Unit Titles Schemes Act. This corrects an error in Section 185 of the Unit Titles Schemes Act 2009 which referred to residential tenancies regulations when it should of referred to the Retirement Villages Act. Accordingly, Section 185 was a nullity having no substantive effect.
The amendments contained in this bill do not in any way alter the policy or intention of this legislation but, rather, improves the legislation by providing certainty to previously ambiguous provisions to ensure clarity and consistency with other legislation.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
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 Northern Territory Financial Transaction Reports Act, the NT act, is part of a national scheme to combat organised and serious crime, including major drug dealing and terrorism financing, by monitoring suspicious financial transactions, both nationally and internationally.
Financial institutions and organisations called ‘cash dealers’ that deal with large amounts of money are required to report suspicious transactions to the Australian Transaction Reports Analysis Centre, known as AUSTRAC. This was done under AUSTRAC’s governing act, the Commonwealth Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988, the 1988 Commonwealth act. The Northern Territory passed its own complementary legislation, the NT act, which provided for the giving of further information to Northern Territory police in relation to suspect transactions reported to AUSTRAC under the 1988 Commonwealth act, and for the giving of information in relation to other suspect transactions. All other jurisdictions passed similar legislation as part of the Commonwealth scheme.
Under section 5 of the NT act, the police can request further information from cash dealers in relation to information that the cash dealer has communicated to Austrack. For example, if a bank has reported a suspicious transaction to AUSTRAC, the police can then request the bank to give further information, for example, copies of bank statements, deposit slips, etcetera, pursuant to provisions in the NT act. This is an important investigative tool in the fight against multinational and serious organised crime, and the financing of terrorism.
AUSTRAC, however, now has a new governing act, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the 2006 Commonwealth act. This new Commonwealth act widens the definition of cash dealers to include other entities which also deal with large financial transactions such as bullion providers, gambling institutions and solicitors trust accounts. There are now 20 000 reporting entities, including the 12 000 cash dealers, that used to report under the 1988 Commonwealth act, and approximately 8000 new reporting entities brought in under the 2006 Commonwealth act.
Since the 2006 Commonwealth act was fully implemented in 2008, the 8000 new reporting entities are required to report suspicious transactions to AUSTRAC under section 41 of the 2006 Commonwealth act.
The cash dealers of the 1988 Commonwealth act had the option, up until March 2010, of continuing to report under the 1988 Commonwealth act, or, reporting under the 2006 Commonwealth act. As from March 2010, they must all report under section 41 of the 2006 Commonwealth act. This means that without Northern Territory legislation to take account of the 2006 Commonwealth act, the NT police and police in other jurisdictions for that matter, will not be able to request the further information needed to investigate the suspicious transactions reported to AUSTRAC that are necessary in the fight against organised crime.
The purpose of this bill is to bring the NT act in line with these changes made to the Commonwealth legislation. The other states are in the process of developing new legislation along the lines the NT is introducing today. Queensland has already introduced a similar regime.
The Financial Transaction Reports Amendment Bill 2010 updates the NT act to include the reporting obligations under the 2006 Commonwealth act, and keeps the NT up-to-date in the Commonwealth legislative scheme. This bill continues this government’s partnership with the Commonwealth government in the ongoing fight against serious and organised crime.
A serious loophole has also been plugged, with the removal of subsection 3 of section 7 from the NT act. Subsection 3 of section 7 removed the requirement for reporting financial transactions if that report was going to incriminate a cash dealer in an offence. This subsection confused the issue of which offence is being committed under which act, and which offence requires the privilege against self incrimination.
The purpose of the NT act is to require the reporting of financial transactions. If a cash dealer breaches his or her reporting obligations by not giving further information when requested by police, the dealer breaches the NT act. That is one offence, and that offence carries a penalty of 85 penalty units or two years gaol.
If the dealer does not report a financial transaction under the NT act because it may incriminate him or her in another separate offence, that is a different matter. The dealer may then rely on the privilege against self-incrimination for the other offence and not report the financial transaction, but will be prosecuted for not reporting under the NT act. Police and prosecuting authorities would then gather evidence in the usual manner to prosecute the other offence, be it money laundering, tax evasion, or drug offences, and the offender will have the normal procedural protections in relation to that offence. The NT act only penalises the dealer for not giving information he or she is obliged to give under the NT act; it is not forcing him or her to give evidence in a separate matter.
Repealing this provision removes the anomaly of having honest financial institutions being required to report financial transactions, but dishonest ones not being required to report. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia with this provision. This bill demonstrates the Northern Territory government’s continuing commitment to the battle against serious crime.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend Northern Territory law consequential to the enactment by the Commonwealth of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 known widely as the PPS Act. The bill implements the Northern Territory’s obligations under an intergovernmental agreement signed in October 2008 and, more broadly, the National Partnership to Deliver a Seamless National Economy 2008, to reform laws covering securities over personal property which is, essentially, anything other than land. Under the intergovernmental agreement, the Commonwealth has enacted the PPS Act providing for a national register and national laws covering securities over personal property. This will replace some 70 to 80 state, territory and Commonwealth acts that deal with such securities. It is proposed that the PPS Act will commence functional operation in May 2011.
The PPS Act will govern the registration of personal property securities. These securities are agreements and arrangements under which items of personal property such as a motor vehicle are used to secure payments of money – for example, a loan - or the performance of an obligation.
The PPS Act arose from a reform process instituted by the Standing Committee of Attorney’s-General (SCAG) when it considered a discussion paper in 2006. It resulted in the intergovernmental agreement signed by the members of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 2 October 2008. Under this agreement, the Commonwealth agreed to enact the PPS Act and to operate a national register of personal property securities interests. As the Commonwealth does not have comprehensive constitutional power to enact such a law, the Australian states also agreed to make appropriate referrals of power. The ACT and the Northern Territory agreed to make laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the PPS Act. For the Northern Territory, the main task is to provide for the repeal of the current laws relating to personal property securities.
A Commonwealth register will be created under the PPS Act to replace all state and territory registers of security interests in personal property. For the Northern Territory, this will mainly involve registers held under the Registration of Interest in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act, the Instruments Act, and the Cooperatives Act. The register under the PPS Act will operate online. This single, nationally accessible register will replace a myriad of electronic and paper-based registers operating throughout the states and territories and the Commonwealth.
The PPS Act also provides for a uniform set of legal principles governing personal property securities. Again, this single set of principles will replace an array of different laws operating both within jurisdictions and nationally. The new law is based on laws that currently operate in North America. The underlying purpose of the reform is to make consumer and business finance simpler and more efficient, both locally in each jurisdiction, and nationally.
In summary, the PPS Act creates a single national scheme governing the creation, registration and enforcement of security interests in personal property. This bill makes consequential amendments to Northern Territory acts to implement the PPS Act and to facilitate the establishment of the national register.
I will now summarise the key provisions of the bill. Broadly, the bill provides for:
the closure of Northern Territory registers, in particular, the registers held under the Registration of Interests in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act, the Instruments Act and the Cooperatives Act.
insertion of provisions into various acts that provide for the issue of statutory licences that those statutory licences are not transferable, thus clarifying that they are not personal property for the purpose of the PPS Act, and are not capable of being used as security.
In regard to statutory licences and the Personal Property Securities Act, as a general rule these are being declared by the bill as not being personal property if there is already an appropriate Territory register for the interests, or if Territory law provides for ministerial consent or other limitations on dealings with the licence or similar interest.
In essence, these statutory licences often exist for regulatory functions. They do not exist for the purpose of creating marketable personal property. Other statutory licences that are granted on the basis of a person’s personal qualifications, for example, fit and proper, or perhaps educational or other standards, are, for the removal of any doubt, taken outside of the Personal Property Securities scheme by declaring them not to be transferable to another person. The states and the Australian Capital Territory have, or are in the process of, enacting legislation of a similar nature to this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Tobacco Control Act 2002 and the Tobacco Control Regulations. Tobacco use continues to be the number one cause of preventable death and illness in the Northern Territory. One in five Territorians dies as a direct result of tobacco use, and the rate of smoking amongst Territorians is well over double the national average. Smoking is considered as the single greatest contributor to the 17-year gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous life expectancy. The Tobacco Control Act was introduced by this government in 2002 to reduce the harms caused by tobacco by discouraging people from smoking; protecting people from environmental tobacco smoke; and supporting those that choose to quit.
At the time of its introduction, it was the most contemporary and comprehensive legislation of its type in Australia. The act was broad in its approach by regulating supply through a retail licence scheme, establishing smoke-free areas to protect against environmental tobacco smoke, and through restrictions on the advertising, display and promotion of tobacco products.
However, since the introduction of the Northern Territory’s tobacco control legislation, all other Australian jurisdictions have introduced new or amended legislation to regulate tobacco supply, use and advertising. As a result, the Northern Territory currently has the weakest legislation in the country which is reflected by the consecutive awarding of the Australian Medical Association’s ‘Dirty Ashtray’ to the Northern Territory for the past five years, Australia’s highest smoking and commensurate levels of tobacco-related diseases and morbidity in the country.
In July 2008, this government reviewed the scope and impact of tobacco control legislation across all jurisdictions in Australia, resulting in a commitment to significant reforms the Tobacco Control Act, and announced by the former Minister for Health. These reforms will ensure the Northern Territory legislation is comparable with other legislation in Australia, provide improved protection to staff and public from environmental tobacco smoke, reduce young Territorians access and exposure to smoking and tobacco products. These goals were considered to be strategic to reducing smoking rates in the Northern Territory.
The Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 will achieve better health for Territorians by taking further steps to protect employees, and the public, from environmental tobacco smoke; reduce children’s exposure to smoking and tobacco products to prevent their uptake; and to support smokers who choose to quit. The amendments will also ensure Northern Territory tobacco control legislation is comparable to protections in place in other states and territories, and will indeed put the Northern Territory at the forefront of tobacco control in Australia again.
The first step towards improving the legislation in the Northern Territory was to lift the exemption on indoor smoking bans in licensed premises to give effect to a complete ban of smoking in all enclosed areas. These changes were successfully implemented on 2 January 2010 and brought consistency for all indoor public areas. Apart from protection for patrons and staff socialising and working at these premises, the smoking bans have also provided a more enjoyable smoke-free environment for patrons, especially families.
I will now indicate the amendments in the bill which provide for the second stage of the important tobacco control reforms. The bill proposes amendments to three key parts of the act and regulations. First, smoke-free areas: the introduction of a ban on smoking in all public outdoor eating and drinking areas, with some exempt areas for licensed venues. Second, displays at point-of-sale: the prohibition on the display of tobacco products at the point-of-sale. Third, licensing of tobacco retailers: the introduction of an annual licence fee and greater powers to impose licensing conditions on retailers.
The current legislation provides limited restrictions on smoking in outdoor public areas, which are limited to outdoor public venues with fixed seating, such as sports stadiums, public transport waiting areas, such as bus stops and some education facilities. The new smoke-free area provisions will prohibit smoking in all public outdoor eating and drinking areas from 2 January 2011. This will provide improved protection for staff who service those areas, and the public that use them, as well as act to discourage people from smoking, and support those who have chosen to quit. The 2 January 2011 commencement date also ensures all affected businesses have more than eight months to make necessary changes.
The bill’s smoke-free amendments will see the introduction of a ban in all outdoor eating and drinking areas such as cafes, kiosks and restaurants. Outdoor or alfresco eating and drinking areas provided by cafes; the tables and chairs in front of local takeaway shops, or the outdoor seating areas of fast-food outlets will not be permitted to allow smoking. The restrictions will also have the effect of prohibiting smoking in non-licensed sporting or public grounds where an on-site food service provides food or drink to be consumed at that ground.
Limited exemptions to these smoke-free areas provisions will be provided to liquor licensed premises so that pubs and clubs can designate an outdoor smoking area or OSA. An OSA will provide a space where Territorians can still have a smoke and drink at the end of the day. However, OSAs will be subject to conditions maximising protection to staff, patrons and children, and to promote a de-normalisation of the smoking culture.
The OSA cannot be more than 50% of the outdoor eating and drinking area, although licensed premises are not required to provide such areas. There are guidelines on what is permitted in an OSA. For example, meals cannot be consumed or served in them, and entertainment is limited. This will reduce the need for staff to service the area and expose themselves to environmental tobacco smoke. The bill also ensures that where there is an OSA, it provides amenities and facilities no better than those in the smoke-free outdoor areas, with the intent non-smokers will be able to access and enjoy the fresh air in outdoor areas that are at least equal to, or better than, any smoking area the venue chooses to provide
In order to assist industry make any required changes to their premises, the bill provides for exemptions from these restrictions until September 2011 where building modifications will not be possible prior to 2 January 2011. We have taken a flexible and consultative approach to these amendments to ensure the hospitality industry can implement the reforms in a sensible manner. I thank the Australian Hotels Association and members of the Good Health Alliance NT for their considered input to the bill, and their continued support for these reforms.
The bill makes provision for exemptions from the outdoor smoking restriction for major public sporting or cultural events. This will ensure that the introduction of the new restrictions is not undermined by the problems that would be experienced in enforcing the restriction at large outdoor events that attract high numbers of patrons across large areas. In considering the exemption, the minister will have the power to impose any conditions necessary to provide reasonable measures to protect employees and the public from environmental tobacco smoke.
There is also provision in the bill for the owner-occupier any property to voluntarily accelerate or otherwise implement outdoor smoke-free areas by designating all or part of the property to be a smoke-free area under the act or regulations so that such areas are enforceable. This approach is one of the most contemporary in Australia, and not only supports industry in the implementation of the bill, but demonstrates the commitment of government to provide legislative support for tobacco control initiatives in remote areas. Shires, businesses and community organisations will now be able to take a leadership role in introducing smoke-free areas with the full support of this act.
The outdoor area smoking restrictions reflect the public desire to separate smoking from eating areas and introduce further restrictions on smoking in public places. They are intended to provide better health outcomes for increased protection for hospitality staff that service outdoor eating and drinking areas, as well as the public that use these areas. Smoke-free areas have been demonstrated to be one of the strongest public health policies to discourage people from smoking, support smokers trying to quit, reduce the harm caused by smoking, as well as deter young people from taking up the habit.
The second area of reform focuses on display and point-of-sale restriction. The bill proposes amendments to prohibit the display of tobacco products at a point of sale. This will mean retailers in the Northern Territory will be required to cover their displays or keep products under the counter. Tobacco products will no longer be an image that children associate with sale counters at their local store, supermarket, or service station. By removing tobacco products from view, it will also support smokers who have chosen to quit.
It is well established by research that tobacco manufacturers use the display areas to market and promote their respective products to the consumer, as well as children, in an effort to encourage the uptake of smoking. The bill includes provision that will require all tobacco products to be kept out of sight of the public. This will apply to ordinary tobacco retailers and specialist tobacconists alike. I understand this could be seen as a strong measure, however, I cannot emphasise enough the importance of protecting our young people from the harm of smoking. Reducing the likelihood of them taking up smoking through a prohibition on display of products is something we must do.
Indeed this approach is reflected by last week’s announcement by the Australian government that all tobacco products will soon be sold in plain packets. This is not a ban or a tax on the sale of cigarettes. Tobacconists can use display areas for other suitable promotional and gift type items.
I recognise and applaud those supermarkets and remote stores that have already taken this step and are showing leadership by demonstrating healthier stores in our community.
The third reform area is licensing. Changes to the licensing arrangements under the act will see the introduction of an annual licence fee of $200, and improve the ability of the Director of Licensing to impose and enforce conditions on tobacco retailers. The reforms will allow for the Director of Licensing to be able to act against new tobacco products designed to attract and encourage smoking by children and young people, such as fruit and confectionary flavoured cigarettes. Included in the bill is a new offence provision to allow for breaches of any licence condition to be enforceable. The revenue generated from the licence fee will support government activities to support quit attempts and to promote tobacco cessation services.
Finally, high roller rooms in casinos can be declared by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing and exempted from the smoke-free requirement. Currently, gaming machines are not permitted in a high roller area. The bill proposes amendments to the regulations that will enable gaming machines to be located in the high roller area. This is consistent with the majority of high roller rooms in other jurisdictions that permit smoking.
Overall, the changes provide for considerable strengthening of the current act and regulations, and continue the legacy of this government to act on the rates of tobacco-related death and disease in our community. Researchers have calculated tobacco use costs the Australian people more than $31bn a year in health and social costs associated with tobacco-related disease and morbidity.
If this approach is translated to the Northern Territorial on a per-capita basis, the resultant cost to the Territory economy is more than $310m per year. This is, obviously, a conservative estimate, given the challenges and costs of providing healthcare in remote and regional areas, and our very high rates of smoking. The Territory 2030 strategic plan sets ambitious targets for reductions in smoking prevalence. These targets will not be achieved without the introduction of new smoke-free area provisions and supply controls.
I, and the current government, have demonstrated through the introduction of the Tobacco Control Act in 2002, and now this amended bill, that we are committed to reducing tobacco-related harm. I am particularly committed to the emphasis on supporting those who have chosen not to smoke, or to quit, through the provision of smoke-free areas, as well as ensuring protections afforded to the more vulnerable in our community.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 5 May 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support Budget 2010-11. Budget 2010-11 not only delivers more services now for the health and wellbeing of Territorians, it responsibly invests in our future through a record infrastructure spend. We have a record Health and Families budget of $1.16bn, and we look forward to Territorians receiving better patient care and more responsive child and community services so our society is safer.
Budget 2010-11 supports business and industry, and the Territory’s long-term plan for sustainable primary industries and fisheries, both recreational and industry, and responsible mining and energy sectors. A strong economy in 2010, with low unemployment, low taxes, and an abundance of natural resources, will continue to encourage investment in these sectors which are key drivers for our economy.
Budget 2010-11 also supports our great Territory lifestyle. Fishing is our most popular pastime. The additional infrastructure and investment in boat ramps and access roads supports our continued enjoyment of recreational fishing.
I now turn to my portfolio areas. This year is the first year I have had responsibility for both Health and Families portfolios, including Child Protection. These areas are vitally important to this government, and we are committed to bringing about real and lasting changes to improve the lives of Territorians.
The shadow Health minister, the member for Greatorex, publicly claimed last week he believed we have the worst health system in the nation. Unlike the CLP, the Labor government is proud of our health system and the professionalism and effort of every one of the 5700 employees. The CLP has no plan or ideas for the health system; they are only interested in continually running it down, insulting and offending the dedicated health professionals who are the front line, caring and helping all Territorians, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The member for Greatorex also claimed we have some of the worst primary healthcare in the nation. Again, he demonstrated no understanding of the quality care provided in the 84 community-based health centres throughout the Territory by experienced nurses, Aboriginal health workers, and allied health professionals and doctors. This care is turning around the years of underfunding and neglect when the CLP was in government, and is now producing real improvements in critical health outcomes such as three-year improvement in the life expectancy of Aboriginal women, Indigenous infant mortality rates falling by 35%, anaemia rates for Aboriginal children falling by 20%, cervical cancer rates falling by 61%, dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women and by 92% for Aboriginal women; and patients on renal dialysis survival rates are now equivalent to the rest of Australia.
In Budget 2010-11, the Henderson government is, once again, demonstrating our commitment to a healthy Territory; one that goes to improve the health and wellbeing of all Territorians. I am proud to announce we are increasing the Health and Families budget, continuing the precedent set when we first came to government. The budget for the Department of Health and Families in 2010-11 from all funding sources will be $1.16bn. This is an increase of 139% since 2001-02 under Labor’s governance, with $110m boost this year. In addition, this government has approved new capital projects in both the 2009-10 and 2010-11 programs. In total, new infrastructure projects of $113m have been added to the 2009-10 program, and additional projects amounting to $39.3m will commence in 2010-11.
Across the agency, we usually observe some fluctuations in revenue with the cessation of some Australian government funded programs. This year we note this revenue has decreased by $10m, and this has been reflected in those outputs which have high proportions of externally-funded programs. It is expected new agreements will be negotiated in the coming year to maintain service delivery in these programs.
In this budget, we have not included any of the additional projects funded through the National Health Reform Agreement recently signed at COAG. As specific agreements are formalised over the course of the year, I will advise the House and the budget adjustments will be made. However, I can tell you now that it will mean a $222m boost to the Health budget over the course of the next 10 years, with $55m committed for the transition period from 2010-11 to 2013-14.
I now turn to some of the specifics of the Health budget. In Budget 2010-11, every one of our five public hospitals gets an increase in funding. It is worth listing, and listening to, what Budget 2010-11 provides for our hospitals. $292.8m for Royal Darwin Hospital, up 161% since 2001, a massive $47m boost from last year; $129.2m for Alice Springs Hospital, up 140% since 2001, an additional $11m since last year; $28.6m for Katherine Hospital, up 102% since 2001; $20.5m for Gove District Hospital, up 85% since 2001; and $12.5m for Tennant Creek Hospital, up 105% since 2001.
Let me explain what this funding means for our hospitals. In 2010-11, we estimate there will be about 440 000 attendances at our hospitals, that includes inpatients, outpatients, appointments and emergency department attendances, roughly double the entire NT population, with half of them - 220 000 patients - walking through Royal Darwin Hospital doors. This increased funding goes to provide more services and more health staff on the front line to care for these patients.
This budget delivers $9.5m ongoing to fund our 95 extra hospital nurses. We have engaged these nurses to ensure the quality of care in our five hospitals with safe nurse to patient ratios. By mid-March 2010, there were 1975 nurses in the Health Department, up from 1322 in 2001, an increase of 653 nurses. Similar increases have occurred with the medical workforce. We now have 170 specialists and 362 doctors in the Health Department, up from 272 doctors in 2001 - over 200 more doctors.
We are strengthening the workforce in pathology this year with $620 000 for extra staff at Royal Darwin Hospital to provide extra services, and to ensure service standards maintain national accreditation. One of our key workforce strategies is to grow our own and we pursue that on several fronts, such as the partnership with Charles Darwin University and Flinders University with the first full Northern Territory medical school due to commence in 2011.
I am pleased to announce this budget will fund $0.5m for increased academic, vocational and technical educational programs for school-based apprenticeships; the future workforce.
Budget 2001-11 provides major funding for Health infrastructure. $43.5m has been provided to upgrade the emergency standby power infrastructure at Royal Darwin Hospital, and an additional $2.6m to provide interim emergency power generation. $3.8m has been provided to build six new two-bedroom units on the grounds of the Gove District Hospital, which will make it easier to recruit staff to the region.
We have also finalised negotiations with the Australian government for two significant infrastructure programs. At Alice Springs Hospital, the new emergency department will be built, with the Australian government providing $13.6m to boost the $6m provided by our government. This will provide a modern 35-cubicle facility that is consistent with current standards for emergency management, doubling the current emergency department’s capacity.
On the Royal Darwin Hospital campus, the Australian government has provided $18.6m to construct a 50-bed patient hostel. This will provide an accommodation option for patients who require access to hospital services but do not require constant medical supervision. This will greatly benefit regional and remote Territorians.
Budget 2001-11 also delivers in the regions, with a new $4.5m health centre to be built in Millingimbi, and $800 000 to upgrade the Borroloola Health Centre.
There has been much attention recently about renal services, particularly in Central Australia. Again, this government has demonstrated a commitment to delivering services close to where people live by negotiating a tri-state agreement with South Australia and Western Australia. We have delivered a new 12-station facility in Alice Springs at Gap Road operated by Nephrocare, with a capacity for an additional 48 patients.
A further $1.7m will enhance services to clients in Tennant Creek, with the expanded renal facility expected to be operational in late 2010. Construction of a new satellite renal facility in Katherine will also commence this financial year at an estimated cost of $2.8m.
Despite the best efforts of members opposite to undermine and thwart us, the Henderson government has delivered the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, in partnership with the Rudd government, providing excellent radiotherapy care for all Territorians. In Budget 2010-11 we will provide $7.2m for the full operational support of the centre, including expanded chemotherapy, additional specialists, therapy support staff, and a fully refurbished 26-bed patient accommodation at Stuart Park.
I now turn to the Northern Territory Families and Children’s Services budget. I have said before, there can be no greater priority as a government than to protect our children. Budget 2010-11 demonstrates the Henderson government’s commitment to boosting child protection services, supporting frontline workers, and delivering now for families and children. In 2010-11, the budget will increase by over $80m to $135.5m. That means an additional 76 child protection staff employed as part of the $14.7m funding boost, the single largest boost to improve our child protection system in the history of any Territory government.
An additional $100 000 will be invested into youth services to increase the capacity of the Family Support Centre to work with families in Palmerston. We will deliver additional staff to every Family and Child Services office across the Territory, and also provide support to families and foster carers. This significant investment strengthens the child protection system while we await the recommendations of the independent board of inquiry in June. It builds on the extra 112 child protection support workers funded by the Labor government since 2002-03, as well as tripling of the child protection services budget since 2001, continuing the reforms commenced with Caring for our Children and Closing the Gap.
Specifically in 2010, the following initiatives will commence: $6m to support out-of-home care, provide greater support for foster carers and improve therapeutic services for our children; $3m for additional child protection officers and associated support staff; $1.5m to continue development and funding of culturally secure Aboriginal child protection and family support services in regional centres; $850 000 will be provided for additional child protection workers across the Territory for therapeutic services and residential care.
Under the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan, $1.5m will be provided to operate two supported group homes for children and young people, and $600 000 to provide after hours response services to youth on the street.
As part of the Palmerston Youth Action Plan, $450 000 has been provided for more family support services and crisis accommodation. This will increase to $1.3m in the 2010-12 financial year.
In Mental Health Services, I am pleased to announce a major new initiative with $930 000 for the 24-hour mental health hotline. This hotline will help people with a mental illness get appropriate treatment sooner by providing six new mental health professionals for the triage service. For people presenting at a health centre or emergency department suffering from a suspected mental illness, the health staff will be able to call the hotline and receive advice about treatment and referral options on the spot.
This government will continue with the implementation of appropriate 24-hour secure care facilities to support at risk young people and adults with disabilities and complex behaviour. An extra $9.4m is provided to continue the roll-out of secure care facilities in Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals and communities, and $2.3m to enhance services. The facility will provide safe and controlled therapeutic environments for clients to learn and develop their skills for living in the community.
The government is committed to supporting the most vulnerable members of our society. We have engaged the process of reform with adult guardianship in the Territory, and we are providing an additional $200 000 this establish a statutory office of the public guardian.
I now move to my other portfolios of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. My department of Resources is focused on a sustainable and productive primary industry sector, sustainable use of fisheries resources, and the responsible recovery of minerals and energy resources.
Fishing in the Territory is more popular than anywhere else in the nation, and makes such an important contribution to our great Territory lifestyle. We have the highest level of boat owners in Australia, and we attract a huge number of fishing tourists to the Territory, and we are continuing to invest in ways to makes fishing even better - some could say we are luring a huge number of fishing tourists to the Territory.
We are continuing with our fishing infrastructure program and have committed over $1m during 2009-10 to improve facilities for anglers. This builds on the $3.2m boat ramp facility completed at Hudson Creek; a $670 000 pontoon at Dinah Beach boat ramp; installation of toilets at Corroboree Billabong; upgrade of the boat ramp at Saltwater Arm; upgrade of the boat ramp at Leaders Creek, and $4m to upgrade the boat ramp infrastructure at Elizabeth Creek boat ramp.
A comprehensive survey into recreational fishing has been under way for the last three years throughout the Territory at the cost of $475 000. The survey will provide valuable information to ensure our fisheries remain sustainable and the fishing experiences available today continue into the future.
The commercial fishing sector has not been forgotten, with the Northern Territory Seafood Council receiving a further $180 000 in this budget to continue support for its good work in communicating and representing the commercial seafood industry. Over recent years, this government has removed 15 commercial fishing licences and closed rivers such as the McArthur, the Adelaide, the Finniss as well as Bynoe Harbour. The government also closed Darwin Harbour and sold back the coastal net fishery following the removal of nine commercial fishing licences. On top of these initiatives, the government has a commitment to buy back a further three commercial barramundi licences in the term of government.
An important component of the fisheries budget is the ongoing funding support for the marine rangers program in indigenous communities. Fisheries this year has again allocated funding to support this program of $640 000 to meet financial and administrative costs of the eight Indigenous ranger groups that undertake monitoring and coastal surveillance activities. It needs to be recognised the program places an importance on engaging Indigenous Territorians in coastal and marine management issues.
Another initiative performing an important role is the aquatic biosecurity program, which helps to protect the Northern Territory and our fishing and aquaculture industry from introduced aquatic pests. Funding of $322000 has been committed to undertake a comprehensive survey of Darwin Harbour for marine pests throughout 2010-11. The excellent work undertaken by the Northern Territory Aquatic Biosecurity Group was recognised nationally in winning the Environment category at the recent 2010 Australian Seafood Industry Awards.
It is not only in the marine environment that biosecurity is vital. In this budget, $250 000 is allocated to biosecurity within the Primary Industry group to further expand the Northern Territory Emergency Response capabilities through training and the development of information management systems. This is only one piece of the Primary Industry budget picture. The primary industry sector has been increasing in value over the last few years recording a 19.3% increase in 2007-08 and easing back by 14.3% during the global recession, but still worth over $395m to the Territory’s economy in 2008-09. In 2009, we saw over 345 000 head of cattle exported through the Port of Darwin, which included 305 000 head of cattle from the Territory. Similarly, the Territory horticultural industry is dynamic, coming from an estimated $96.4m in 2007-08 to $99.3m in 2008-09, which is a solid result for the industry during a recession.
This budget will see the Primary Industries group of my department continue to work with industry organisations to pursue new livestock trade opportunities overseas, including Vietnam. Currently, Indonesia remains the focus of our live cattle trade, taking over 90% of animals exported. Members will be aware that minister Suswono, the Indonesian Minister for Agriculture, accepted my invitation to visit the Territory to view our pastoral industry firsthand, and to build relations with the newly appointed minister in our key market for Territory cattle.
My department continues its association with the successful Indigenous Pastoral Program which has been allocated $590 000 in the budget. This program has increased cattle numbers on Indigenous properties in excess of 90 000 since 2003.
I now move to the biggest contributor to the Territory’s economy, minerals and energy. This is the fourth year of the $14.4m Bringing Forward Discovery initiative, which combines a range of strategies designed to stimulate mineral and petroleum exploration, and attract exploration investment. Under Bringing Forward Discovery, the Northern Territory has achieved record levels of private sector expenditure on mineral exploration.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show mineral exploration expenditure in the Territory for the 2009 calendar year was a new record of more than $148m, up by 1% on 2008. All other states suffered a significant drop in expenditure over the same period, with total Australian expenditure down 22%, and expenditure in South Australia down 49%. Also, the Territory is still the only Australian jurisdiction with a dedicated China and Japan Investment Attraction strategy. This has resulted in more than $100m of new investment into the exploration and mining industry in the Northern Territory.
Funding of $450 000 is provided for the fourth year of the eight-year $3.7m Alice Solar Cities renewable energy program. In addition, Budget 2010-11 contains $3.1m to ensure compliance with legislation in the mining, energy and exploration industries and to ensure the implementation of environmental best practice; and the funding of $685 000 to boost environmental regulation of mining operations, including the establishment of a Central Australian Mining Team to be based at the Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on this budget. This is a budget that delivers a healthier and safer Territory. It is a budget that protects Territory lifestyle and Territory jobs.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I speak on the Appropriation Bill, the budget bill for the upcoming financial year. I will talk today briefly about my electorate, about Alice Springs, the portfolio areas of Transport, Infrastructure, Regional Development and Indigenous Affairs, and I will touch a little on Housing. I will talk generally on other areas across the Northern Territory.
I believe this is a socialist budget full of government reliance on mistruths. This is a budget that puts the Territory in debt by $1.7bn by 2013-14. It is a terrible start to the financial year.
Before I arrived today I looked over my budget reply from last year and, without a word of a lie, I could repeat exactly the same words, just change the numerical values. For the benefit of the member for Barkly, I will be plagiarising my previous speech.
This is a budget reminiscent of the Melbourne Storm with salary cap breaches everywhere, no more so reflected than the awarding yesterday of a tender for the Elizabeth River boat ramp in the budget at $3 point-something-million, announced yesterday for $4 point-something-million. Day 1 and they are already over by $1m.
I could go on, however let me start with Braitling, Alice Springs, which has been the hardest done by in this budget for a long time. We know this government likes to revote work; it revotes more work than it spends. I will go into those figures later. The $6m commitment for the Alice Springs Police Station is not in the budget. I phoned police officers yesterday and said: ‘Have they done the work?’ They looked around - took them about three seconds - and said: ‘They have done nothing’. It is not in the budget.
I note there is nothing in the budget for the CBD mall revamp, an election commitment from 2008 - consultancies after consultancies, but still no work.
The government is very keen to promote federal government money in their budget. Yesterday’s performance, especially by the member for Johnston, who is not keen to accept budget decreases because government withdraws the money. They are happy to promote they are doing the work, however, they are happy to blame the Commonwealth for withdrawing the money - and no more so than the accommodation park in Alice Springs for 150 people. Government said it was wonderful and it was part of their budget. Well, it is federal money.
I did not see the Mereenie Loop in the budget. I saw the emergency department in the budget this year, after being revoted for the last few years. The Araluen solar air-conditioning - where has that gone? That is another thing which has been revoted - come back in, revoted out, come back in. We do not know where that is at, and it is an indication the Northern Territory government has completely forgotten about Alice Springs.
The $10m headworks for AZRI is detailed and widely promoted as doing something for land release in Alice Springs. It is gobbledygook. Budget Paper No 4 shows they do not plan to do any headworks until April next year. I doubt that will happen. The June 2008 Future Planning Forum paperwork identifies $31m needs to be spent on headworks at AZRI - $21m alone on the water supply - I doubt that $10m will go very far. It is nearly two years since that planning forum; we have not had any land released. We have not had land released in any of the other areas identified in that forum. I believe this is a government and a budget of spin and nothing else. This is $10m which will not be spent; this will be revoted - mark my words.
In the Barkly region, there is no provision in the budget for a new doctor for the Tennant Creek Hospital. There is nothing about birthing services, air services, or improved transport for Barkly. We hear the member for Barkly, the Minister for Transport, talking about the nuclear waste dump in the media. I am certain that is important to women who are giving birth at Borroloola or Robinson River.
This is a very light budget for regional development; a negative budget for regional development. I am very interested to know how many regional development staff actually live off the Stuart Highway. How many regional development staff in senior positions are men? No disrespect to women, however, in many areas the need to talk to Indigenous men to promote regional development is an important factor - many of those people will not talk to women.
How can the Minister for Regional Development say the government is supporting the region after the two biggest killers have been implemented? One has been implemented; one is about to be. The first was shire council reform, taxing pastoralists, trying to get them off their land. That is not supporting the region; that is killing the region. Removal of the voice of people in the bush with the introduction of shire council reform, and the ability for people to have self-determination has been completely eroded. That does not develop regions. I have had constant phone calls from mining companies around the Territory in relation to the 2% mining tax …
Dr Burns: You have been returning a few as well by the look of it; more than your fair share.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: … on top of the 40% mining tax by the federal government. People at Newmont Mine are very concerned about this new 2% tax, so much so that it might bring forward the end of the life cycle of the mine. From a regional development perspective, we know those mining companies put infrastructure into the bush, into communities, employ people. We should be embracing mines, not attacking them like the Treasurer and the Prime Minister - the great Kevin Rudd - are doing in the Territory.
Our two biggest industries are mining and tourism. What do they want to do to our biggest industry, mining? They want to attack it; they want to close it down. A 40% tax, and then these lunatics on the other side want to put a 2% tax on it. This budget is not fit for the Territory. The 2% increase up to 20%, and the federal one, 40%. This is an attack on mining! This is an attack on the Northern Territory! This is not good for the Northern Territory. It is not good, in budgetary terms, for the Northern Territory; not at all.
Moving to transport, there will be price increases, through the insurance component, for registration. Truck registrations will rise. While the government says it is the lowest-taxing jurisdiction, these things go through on the side without telling anyone - without pronouncing it. This will have an effect on the economy of the Northern Territory, as will the mining tax.
It is important to look at what is in the budget for infrastructure. We have seen what was committed to last year and what they have spent. They spent $748m, and have revoted $842m. They are passing on less than what they spent! What sort of budget is it when you announce a record $1.3bn budget last year, however you only spend half what you say? This time they are saying $1.8bn. Why not take it further and say you are going to spend a trillion dollars and roll it over for the next 100 years. That is what you are doing.
It gets worse! Going through the budget you find things to be done this year, however they will not happen. A key thing is work at the port - construction of a new conveyor belt, the reclamation of land, and the creation of a hardstand area on that reclaimed land. More than $50m has been set aside in three budgets and the work has not been done. We have spills occurring in our port. Action needs to be taken on our port. They say: ‘Oh, we are doing all this work on our port - it is in our budget’. The $50m-plus makes up part of the $1.8bn, however at the back of the budget, under committal target dates for major capital projects - and building a new conveyor belt, reclaiming land and creating a hardstand area is a major capital project - it is not in there. You are not going to do it!
Surprisingly, at the Property Council budget breakfast yesterday the Treasurer said work will not commence at the port unless we find more contractors to use the port. Why is it in the budget? Where is the money in the budget? Where is the money allocated for work at the port? It is not sitting in the Port Corporation’s budget. Where is the money?
It is false and misleading to put these things in the budget when you have no intention of doing the work. It escalates your number to $1.8bn, however you are not doing the work. You could look at the list of revoted works - Numbulwar police post, Yarralin Police Station, Gapuwiyak Police Station, Ramingining Police Station, Epenarra police overnight facilities, Alice Springs Police Station, as I mentioned, is completely off the page; upgrading cyclone shelters and building new ones, off the page.
The Barkly prison camp was supposed to be done last year, rolled forward to this year. Department of Education revoted works from $77m to $137m; Department of Housing, $185m, including the Bellamack Seniors Village of $10m - now down to $9m. What have they spent that $1m on? There is nothing out there at all.
Department of Health and Families revote of $149m, including the Alice Springs Hospital’s fire protection and air-conditioning remediation works. Never mind the fact the poor nurses have to walk out the gate at night and nearly be attacked outside the Memo Club car park. $90m to upgrade the Alice Springs emergency department.
Last year there was $1.3m in the budget to build a new sobering-up shelter at Tennant Creek, and $1.3m to build a sobering-up shelter at Katherine. Last year we saw that money being taken from Tennant Creek and given to Katherine so Katherine had $2.6m, much to the disgust of the federal government’s department of Health, I am advised. We know it has not been built, and we see in this year’s budget it has been reworked down to $1.3m in Katherine, and nothing for Tennant Creek. Where did the $1.3m go? That is a pertinent question for estimates! Has it gone on consultancies and planning in the way this government operates and mismanages its funds? Is that where it has gone? Where is the money the federal government is allocating to the Territory government for this?
Do not be surprised if we see in the federal budget $2.7m announced for a sobering-up shelter in Tennant Creek, much to the Commonwealth government’s disgust, because it will only cost $1.3m to build. The Northern Territory will take $1.4m in fees to build a $1.3m sobering-up shelter. That is what we will see. Hopefully, my comments today have stopped that, and we get the right money going to the right people.
A new health centre at Milingimbi and Wadeye, the Palmerston Super Clinic still being worked on, and Royal Darwin Hospital. I have mentioned the Palmerston boat ramp which blew out on Day 1 of the budget.
The Palmerston Water Park, not doing the work for $5m, it is now going to cost $13.6m. This is what happens when you delay works. Lands and planning revoted works $203m, aerodromes, Bellamack subdivision, Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools. $20.5m for Stokes Hill Wharf. It is mentioned in the budget; it escalated it to $1.8bn, however the committal target dates for major capital projects are not there. There are no plans to do it; no plans at all to do the work. It is crazy. This is an inflated infrastructure budget which will not deliver on projects it mentions. It does not have time frames for work to be done - that is how false it is. Port Corporation revote to $58.353m. That is absolutely ridiculous.
In today’s paper there is an article about the Tiwi Islands. This is something missing from the budget, and I note the member for Arafura is listening intently. We heard, in Question Time on Tuesday, the minister for Planning and Construction and Infrastructure, in response to a question from the member for Macdonnell say roads on the Tiwi Islands are local government responsibility. I note the article by Ben Langford saying two Country Liberal party politicians were at a Tiwi Islands Land Council meeting.
The member for Katherine and I were at that Tiwi Islands Land Council meeting, which I believe was in February. We were not present last Friday where they said: ‘Enough is enough; we are not dealing with the Northern Territory government’. The Tiwi Islands took on a self-determining responsibility over the Blue Mud Bay decision, the issuing of permits, and how inter-tidal waters are used on the Tiwi Islands. It is their right. We want people to self-determine. We want people to come to the negotiating table with something.
We attended the meeting in February; we did not talk, we listened to what was happening. They were happy to have us there. Whilst conversing with public servants from the Chief Minister’s department, they said: ‘We want action on our roads and we will negotiate with you’. There was no way that could happen then. They said: ‘If you do not come back with roads money by the next meeting we are taking it all off the table’.
I, and the member for Katherine, did not attend the meeting last Friday. No one from the Country Liberals attended. I am unsure if anyone from government went. They made that decision and good on them; they have the right to make that decision. It is a failure by the Northern Territory Labor government to secure the fishing rights of people of the Northern Territory, people of the northern suburbs …
A member: A broken 2008 election promise.
Mr GILES: A broken 2008 election promise. Whether they are local roads or not, the Country Liberals support the Tiwi Islanders in economic development.
Next Saturday is the official opening of the Tiwi College - a college where $15m was allocated by the previous Education minister, Julie Bishop, because the Northern Territory government would not come to the table. It is quite ironic the previous federal government built the college and the current federal government is going to open it. I hope Julie Bishop turns up.
It is sad you still cannot properly get to the college in the Wet Season because of the dirt road. I have driven on it many times. We hear the government say: ‘It is a local road; we cannot do anything about it’. This is in their growth town area! It should be a priority! This should be one of your flashy media releases saying: ‘This is what we are doing for roads; this is what we are doing for infrastructure. We are not rolling it over; we are not taking out squillions of dollars in project management fees’. That is what should have happened. That is what this is about. That is what the Territory budget should be about.
I repeat: the Country Liberals support the Tiwi Islanders in self-determination, economic development, and their roads.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I will bring it back to a great concern I have - I believe the Northern Territory government, in their administration of capital projects, is broke. I believe it is broke. I believe it has taken too much money in administering projects. In particular, I look towards the Construction Division, a separate division within the Northern Territory government. I take on board the Treasurer’s comments that most of the figures from the budget were at the end of March – I do not have a specific date, but I take it on board.
She has an estimate of $79m income in project management fees for Construction Division. It says: ‘The Construction Division responsible for working collaboratively with government client agencies to identify infrastructure requirements to design, procure and manage construction projects Territory wide and oversee maintenance of government assets’. They do the government’s job of constructing and managing things.
In their operating statement they had $78.8m in sales of goods and services, with a total income of $79m. Their expenses include $28.7m, which went on employee expenses with a staff of 393, and purchase of goods and services of $46.4m - $46.4m! What would that be on? Would that be on consultancies? I wonder! On designers and planners? I wonder how we are getting value for money in the management of our projects …
Dr Burns: You tell that to all the engineers and architects in this town. You say it. You do not know what you are talking about. You never have! You are a fool!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Leader of Government Business!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask the member to withdraw that last comment.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Braitling, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to remind members opposite of Standing Order 51, please.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I remind all honourable members on both sides of the House of Standing Order 51, and I ask members to cease the interjecting, please. Thank you, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I go back to that point on page 279 of Budget Paper No 3: $46m for purchase of goods and services. There is an article in today’s paper talking about my travel. It is my job to travel around the Territory, to represent the people of Braitling, and to travel to Darwin instead of walking. I would not want to drive because you might get a speeding ticket like the member for Barkly. I have to travel for my job, and I do my job as efficiently and effectively as I can. However, $46.4m - should someone not be asking whether that is value for money? $46.4m for consultancies - that is highly questionable.
That is where I believe the problem is. Go through this budget and look at infrastructure projects. As the projects roll from one year to the other, where they have been spending money on planning, designing, getting things done, consultancies, the budget go down. You can see where the money is going, and it is not on the ground where it is supposed to be. I have spoken ad nauseam in this Chamber about that. It is similar to the 11 visits by consultants to Maningrida as part of SIHIP without anything happening. What is that money doing? How is that helping people?
It is very interesting when you take on board - what is the program called, member for Fong Lim - the bungled housing?
Mr Elferink: I think that was SIHIP, missing the ‘I’s.
Mr GILES: SIHIP, that is right. SIHIP …
Mr Tollner: They sent the super minister in to fix it.
Mr GILES: Super minister has gone in to fix it. He did so well in Health, he is now with SIHIP, after the member for Daly, who built the bridge at Daly River from his 2005 election commitment - fantastic job. Like the election commitment to build a bridge over McArthur River; that is going well, too. I note that receives a mention in the budget, too – to escalate that $1.8bn.
I look with interest, and cast aspersions towards the member for Nelson. I also look in disgust towards the bush members opposite, the member for Johnston, the member for Daly, who was the previous Housing Minister. In 2008-09, $33.3m was spent on Indigenous housing. In this financial year to the end of March, as advised by the Treasurer, $136.6m has been spent on Indigenous housing with SIHIP. The total of those two years to March - some 21 months - is $169.9m rounded to $170m, spent on SIHIP, going by these figures. Going on other paperwork, they have spent $174m, but $170m. The minister for Housing said yesterday, there have currently been 155 refurbishments undertaken throughout the Northern Territory, and seven houses built. For $170m, we have had seven houses built - seven houses - and 155 refurbishments.
There have been reviews, concerns and inquiries. We saw the member for Macdonnell walk out, and the member for Arnhem come and go. Let us look. Refurbishments are estimated to cost, on average, $75 000 each. My argument is $75 000 is not value for money for refurbishment when the shire can do it for $25 000, and the standard is better than the alliance contractors. A simple calculation will tell you 155 refurbished houses at $75 000 each equals $11.625m. Seven new houses at an average estimate by government of $450 000, would total $3.15m. The total of those two is $14.775m, however, the government has spent $170m. Their own costings say it should cost $14.775m, even if you add on the 8% administration fee. Where is the money?
Yesterday, the minister for Housing said there are currently 115 refurbishments under way, and 80 houses in the middle of construction. If we provide the benefit of the doubt to the government that they paid for these works up-front, the 115 refurbished properties at $75 000 each - which is a rip-off - would cost $8.625m, and the 80 houses at $450 000 each would cost $36m.
The 80 houses currently in development, the 115 refurbishments currently being undertaken, the seven houses in two-and-a-half years that have been built, and 155 refurbishments that have been done – total $59.4m; they have paid $170m. Where is the missing $110m? How dare these people ask us to support this budget when $110m is missing from one program? How can we support that? How can we support a budget with $110m missing? Despite the fact they say they are going to build conveyor belts, reclaim land, build hardstand areas at the port, nothing is happening.
Despite the fact they have missed out the Mereenie Loop Road, despite the fact they have done nothing about the headworks at AZRI, despite the fact police stations are not in the budget, despite the fact the mall for Alice Springs is not there, despite the fact there is no doctor or birthing service at Tennant Creek, no air services, or sobering-up shelter, or the $1.3m for Katherine, or the dodgy letter the member for Karama sent about $3m to duplicate the road to Leanyer Recreation Park saying the CLP did not want the project to proceed - which we have not spoken about - despite all that, where is the $110m? I ask the question: where is the $110m?
Page 279 of Budget Paper No 3 mentions purchase of goods and services for the Construction Division of $46.4m. I wonder if some of that money has gone there. I wonder how many consultants, and people from Queensland, have taken our money from the SIHIP project, keeping jobs from Territorians, keeping jobs from businesses in the Northern Territory, taking money from our economy. I wonder what is happening there. I wonder how those people feel. This money is supposed to be going on the ground, and the government will say: ‘It is all going to Indigenous employment expenses’. Wrong, because we know the federal government provided tens and tens of millions of dollars to the Northern Territory government, or to the SIHIP alliances, to employ and train Indigenous people. They are setting up labour hire companies employing people. We know how that works. It is not the employment, it is not the project design consultancy fees; they can do it cheaply. It is not quality, because they are handing houses back at Ali Curung with no septic tank lids so kids fall in the septic. They are making tenants pay $88 to reinstall air-conditioners. Where is the $110m?
How can I support a budget like this? This does not support anything. It does not work for the regions when the mining royalty tax is 20%, and the federal government is pushing it to 40%. It will close mining companies down. Yesterday we saw one mining company pull out of the Northern Territory - pull out! McArthur River and Newmont have great concerns about increased royalties. These are a tax on our regions. This is where we should be developing the Northern Territory.
I did not see anything in the Regional Development budget about power supply to Ali Curung to support the development of the Centrefarm operation. I did not see anything in the budget about the road to nowhere off the Stuart Highway which goes into the bush. I did not see a graph which illustrates the revote by this government. They like to talk about infrastructure spending. This looks like the budget they showed for infrastructure. They said an increase in infrastructure; this is the revote budget; it looks the same. As our infrastructure budget goes up, the more we revote.
This budget is an absolute disgrace. I wonder how we move forward, particularly with the SIHIP project. That missing money - what do we do? I wonder how we move forward in Regional Development.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The Deputy Clerk has advised me the time has expired.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause for a minute.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move the member be given a further 10 minutes in order to complete his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A smart budget would have spoken about Regional Development and how we would work better in partnership with our federal colleagues; how we would link staff in regional locations; the relationship between Regional Development and growth towns; how we could complement government business managers in the bush to undertake a regional development role with Regional Development Australia partnered with the Northern Territory government. That would be a smart approach, instead of everyone living on the Stuart Highway.
That would be a smart approach to Regional Development, but do we see that in here? No, we hear the Minister for Regional Development: ‘Blah, blah, blah, we support the regions’. There is nothing in there. We hear much about A Working Future, and we saw the flyer from the minister for Housing about a record spend in housing. It was all revoted works or federal money. We saw education - all revoted works or federal money.
This is the government of spin. They like to promote the money the federal government gives them to do their job, however they cannot take the medicine when they do not do the job themselves, or when the federal government takes the money back for non-performance. The monitoring of Montara is a perfect example.
I put the question again, and would be very keen for the minister for Housing to explain to Territorians where that $110m has gone. I am very keen on his colleagues explaining to the Country Liberals how many police you could put in the northern suburbs for $110m; how many teachers you could have across the Territory for $110m; how many nurses you could have. Could you have birthing services in Tennant Creek with that $110m? I would like to know, for $110m, how many pastoral roads you could fix.
For $110m we could have two new power generators for the Territory so the lights would not go out while the member for Daly, the Minister for Essential Services, manages that. For $110m we could have two 25-storey apartment blocks, going by Sunrise Towers. For $110m we could have the Wonarah phosphate mine; 1.1bn tonnes of phosphate reserves. For $110m we would have an airborne early warning control facility at Tindal and still have $50m left over. For $110m we would have most of the gas pipeline from Darwin to Jabiru. For $110m, on the Darwin median house price of $540 000, we could have built over 200 houses. Not SIHIP houses, real houses. We could have much with that missing $110m. The point is with the $110m, this government does not know how to manage.
This is a maladministered program. This was supposed to have infrastructure, now we see, through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, the federal government is giving the Territory government money - over millions, over hundreds of millions of dollars - for the infrastructure component of land servicing and essential services. When Mal Brough announced this it was supposed to be included. We have had seven houses built in two-and-a-half years and spent $170m. Answer that question. How does that work?
For $110m we could have nine Palmerston water parks. We could have one in the rural area. I ask: how can the member for Nelson - and I am not personally attacking him - continue to support this government? He stated if he thought a program was being misadministered, he would withdraw his support. This program is being misadministered! $110m has gone missing from the face of the earth. No one knows where it is. Maybe the minister for Housing does, but he will not share it with us
I call on the member for Nelson to advise parliament where that $110m is. If he cannot justify $75 000 for a single refurbishment, which should cost $20 000, $450 000 for construction of a new house, expenditure in each community and, more importantly, where that $110m has gone, he needs to reconsider his agreement with the Chief Minister. That is $110m of Northern Territory taxpayers dollars, and we are sick and tired of seeing money maladministered.
We are also sick and tired of seeing people from the communities with nowhere to live, coming into town, living in overcrowded conditions, committing acts of antisocial behaviour, drunk and fighting on the streets, living in the long grass. This is not what we want to see. We want to see a moderate environment where we help everyone. We help people into housing, we help people into jobs. This is pilfering money from a program designed to help those most in need. People in the northern suburbs are sick and tired of this. They are quite prepared to put their taxpayer dollars into programs assisting people get from the bottom to the top, but they do not want to see money wasted, and this is money being wasted. They want to see more police, but are quite happy in a housing program to help people get started. They do not want to see it being wasted.
People in the northern suburbs want to see roads built. We have heard about the $3m for the Vanderlin Drive to Leanyer Recreation Park. People in the northern suburbs would prefer to see roads from Lyons all the way to Vanderlin Drive, and McMillans Road to the Stuart Highway. They are foregoing that.
We have vital projects like SIHIP, where $110m of Australian taxpayer’s dollars, Territory taxpayer’s dollars, Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs taxpayer’s dollars has gone missing. This is a very important point because it cuts right to the heart of the Northern Territory government and how it manages its programs.
I am only focusing on one particular area but BER is exactly the same. Go through documents from the Department of Construction and Infrastructure by the minister and see how much money went to each project. Then ring the school and say: ‘How much did it actually cost?’ You start scratching your head! ‘How much did the Territory government get?’ And you start scratching your head. It is an issue of value for money.
I do not believe these people know the cost of things. I do not believe they understand how much it really costs to buy goods, buy a service. It is ridiculous that they are in charge.
In conclusion, I find it hard to support this bill because money has gone awry. I cannot find money in this budget, particularly on SIHIP, and particularly when you see items on the infrastructure budget which are not on the list to be done this year. How can they be there? You look for the $55m-odd for the port, and ask where that money is. Looking at the budget, it is not sitting in the port account. How can you support this budget; there are some serious questions?
The mining increase in tax from 18% to 20% is an attack on our region, as are the rates on pastoral properties.
Alice Springs has been hard done by; Braitling has been hard done by in this budget. I do not think there is a compassionate person on the other side – pork-barrelling their own electorate, and not looking after the whole Territory as they should be. They talk about A Working Future; I believe it is just spin.
I rest my case. I believe I have well prosecuted the need for the government to come clean on its $110m black hole in SIHIP - $170m spent in two-and-a-half years and seven houses built. No wonder the member for Macdonnell walked out. I rest my case. I do not commend this bill to the House. I have serious reservations about supporting it.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Appropriation Bill and the Treasurer’s statement on Budget 2010-11.
Budget 2010-11 invests in Territory 2030, the Henderson Labor government’s strategic plan for our future. Budget 2010-11 delivers now for Territory families with record spending to boost hospitals, schools, community safety, and housing. We are investing in our future. The biggest investment in infrastructure in Territory’s history, and the lowest small business taxes in the country are creating and protecting Territory jobs.
Turning to my portfolios of Natural Resources, Environment, Parks and Wildlife, Heritage, Sport and Recreation, Climate Change, and Information Communication and Technology, Budget 2010-11 delivers $135.7m for the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport through nine output groups, eight of which I am responsible for.
I am delighted and proud to announce $600 000 will be delivered under the 2010-11 budget to establish a cash for containers scheme in the Northern Territory by 2011. Efforts to reduce waste in the Territory will be further complemented by the introduction of legislation this year to ban lightweight plastic shopping bags across the Northern Territory. These are positive ways Territorians will achieve one goal of the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy: to reduce the volume of rubbish sent to landfill by 50% by 2020.
Budget 2010-11 delivers $6.1m for environment and sustainability outputs to provide advice to government, industry, and the community in relation to environmental protection and sustainability issues. In light of recent incidents at our ports in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, and Groote Eylandt, the Northern Territory government has boosted environment and sustainability by a further $1m. The package includes licensing of additional high-risk activities, with particular attention paid to the Darwin Port: $400 000 for an audit and review of all port operations across the Northern Territory, and the provision of an additional $800 000 to NRETAS to employ more environmental compliance officers to police the new licensing regime.
I am determined to ensure a culture of disclosure and compliance with the Territory’s environment protection laws and regulations. The Territory government has provided $1.5m for the Environment Protection Authority to implement stronger powers recently introduced by government in Budget 2010-11. This includes an additional funding boost of $500 000 in Budget 2010-11 to deliver additional resources, including more staff to support the EPA’s new expanded role in monitoring and protecting the Territory’s environment.
Madam Speaker, $15.8m will be invested in our parks and reserves conservation management programs. The second stage of the $1.8m, three-year Territory EcoLinks initiative is funded under Budget 2010-11. This supports the Territory 2030 commitment of a comprehensive set of environmental protected connected systems across 20% of the Territory’s land mass by 2030. This government intends to establish a wildlife corridor extending more than 3500 km from Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory to Port Augusta in South Australia.
Budget 2010-11 also commits $3.8m on parks joint management programs to establish equitable partnerships with local traditional owners to manage, maintain and protect the biodiversity of a park or reserve, while at the same time serving the needs of visitors and the wider community. A total of $36.7m will be spent on our 87 parks and reserves in Budget 2010-11.
Highlights include $1.8m as part of a $3m upgrade over three years to deliver upgrades at the Territory’s first park, Howard Springs Nature Park, renewing the park with cooling off pools and a high class viewing platform for visitors to observe wildlife, including the park’s famous barramundi and turtles. Budget 2010-11 provides $2.1m for a visitor centre at Wangi Falls, one of the Territory’s most popular natural environments in Litchfield National Park, in my colleague, the member for Daly’s electorate. I am pleased to announce Budget 2010-11 provides $11m for the Territory’s biological parks, including support for the Alice Springs Desert Park, Territory Wildlife Park, the operation of Window on the Wetlands, and the George Brown Darwin Botanical Gardens.
In Budget 2010-11, $45.7m has been provided to fund natural resource management. $32.8m is allocated in Budget 2010-11 to formulate and implement assessment, monitoring and evaluation programs for land, coastlines, native vegetation and biological diversity.
Budget 2010-11 continues the $3.3m funding over four years, commencing in 2009-10, to reduce feral camel impacts by 90%. Feral camels have a major impact on the environment, particularly in Central Australia. Feral camels affect pastoralists and their properties and impact on stock fences, infrastructure, and food and water resources. They also contribute to climate change, and are a major problem for the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.
$300 000 additional funding has been allocated for crocodile management under the Northern Territory government’s Be Croc Wise campaign. This funding will see the continuation of the public campaign of Be Croc Wise, which I am sure all members have seen on television. The message is being taken to schools, with more than 10 000 schoolchildren having attended Be Croc Wise talks conducted by my department. It was an absolute pleasure to be at a recent session at Nightcliff Primary School with the local member.
This budget also funds Bushfires NT - $950 000 in Budget 2010-11. Bushfires NT staff, volunteers and brigades are on the front line protecting Territorians from the dangers of bushfires. We are investing in their resources to create a safer community, and I thank them for their work on behalf of all of us.
Budget 2010-11 invests $1.2m into providing a flood forecasting service to minimise risk to life and property in the event of flooding.
Budget 2010-11 delivers a further $11.5m investment in Water Resources for measuring and assessing surface and groundwater resources.
We all know the importance of our heritage in the Northern Territory. Budget 2010-11 sees $2.8m invested in conservation of the Northern Territory’s heritage assets through advice, assistance and regulation. Budget 2010-11 allocates $1m for repairing and maintaining government-owned heritage assets throughout the Northern Territory. A further $200 000 is provided through the NT Heritage Grants Program and, in 2010, for the very first time, applications will be welcomed for funding supporting events connected to heritage places.
Budget 2010-11 delivers a total of $22.5m towards Sport and Recreation. The creation and maintenance of sporting facilities in the Territory remains a cornerstone of government’s commitment, with $8.5m for a water park in Palmerston, making a total commitment of $13.5m for this election promise.
There is also $4.2m overall for the Arafura Athletics Stadium, a centrepiece of the Arafura Games. A further $1.25m has been allocated to finalise the $4m election commitment at the Hidden Valley Motor Sports Complex. The total sport and recreation grants pool increased to $10.5m in 2010-11 for grants to sport, peak and local governing bodies, as well as grassroots organisations. The highlights include $3.7m to peak sport and active recreation bodies; $2.3m to shires to provide sport and recreation officers, facilities and programs in each shire; and $980 000 to the Freds Pass Reserves upgrades.
Budget 2010-11 includes $2.4m for national and international sporting fixtures in the Northern Territory. This includes a Super-15 Rugby Union pre-season match, featuring the ACT Brumbies competing for the Territory Cup as part a new three-year deal worth $900 000. There is the staging of the bi-annual Indigenous All-Stars AFL game, as well as two home-and-away AFL matches in Darwin, and the NAB Challenge pre-season game in Alice Springs, as part of the new five-year agreement.
We have the National Rugby League game to be hosted in Alice Springs next year involving the North Queensland Cowboys as part of an $890 000 three-year agreement. There is a National Basketball League pre-season competition at Marrara Indoor Stadium involving all NBL clubs, and a game in Alice Springs, and also the WNBL game involving Perth Lynx in Alice Springs this year. There is a $200 000 funding package each year over five years to assist the NT Thunder compete in the Queensland Australian Football League (QAFL) competition, and $50 000 to assist to the Territory Storm netball team to compete in the Australian Netball League. $3.4m has been allocated for the Northern Territory Institute of Sport to support athletes through its individual scholarship programs and the squad programs.
ICT initiatives are assisting the Northern Territory government move towards goals set out under Housing the Territory, A Working Future, Healthy Territory, Smart Territory and Growing the Territory, as well as progressing Territory 2030 priority areas of knowledge, creativity and innovation.
The Department of Business and Employment budget for 2010 includes $5m in Northern Territory funds, and $3m in Australian government funds, as part of a three-year, $15.5m funding package to support national partnership agreements in conjunction with the Department of Health and Families, and the Department of Education and Training. A further $7m over three years from the Australian government will provide for advanced services in Territory growth towns, including video conferencing, tele-health for clinicians to seek remote expertise to diagnose patients, and e-learning initiatives for students and employees.
The Department of Business and Employment will coordinate implementation of a $2.2m national partnership agreement fund in conjunction with the Australian government, the Department of National Resources and Environment, Arts and Sport, and the Department of Housing, Local Government, and Regional Services to develop a plan to deploy public Internet access and video conferencing to the Territory growth towns. Over three years, 40 of our remote Indigenous communities will have access to free public Internet, mainly through their local library or resource centre. I am extremely proud of the very effective and efficient budgetary measures, and the outcomes this government has achieved in the area of ICT.
The $34m Northern Territory Climate Change Policy provides 40 targets and 118 concrete actions by which the Northern Territory government is fighting climate change. Budget 2010-11 provides a comprehensive investment in our future through the delivery of $7.2m to support businesses and households take action on climate change. Budget 2010-11 includes $2m funding for renewable and low emissions energy at Alpurrurulam in the member for Barkly’s electorate, also part of a $4m contribution by Northern Territory government towards $14m of renewable and low emissions energy in remote communities.
A further $250 000 has been included in the 2010-11 budget for the Centre for Renewable Energy. The centre will be established at the Charles Darwin University this year to support our growing green energy sector into the future. The $6m Government Energy Efficiency Program, or GEEP, supports the green fleet policy and the Energy Smart Building Policy, assisting larger government energy users, like our hospitals and schools to make energy efficiency upgrades. Budget 2010-11 also supports the government’s Green Fleet Policy. $4m will be spent over two years for the Green Heart of Darwin project. The Green Heart of Darwin project includes walkways and cycle paths linking our great recreational activities to some of our great sporting precincts. There is $720 000 in Environment NT grants to community groups, organisations, and schools. Budget 2010-11 continues to support ecoBiz NT through $700 000 to offer advice and rebates of up to $20 000 to Territory small- to medium-sized businesses to become more energy efficient.
The Northern Territory government is proud to support world-leading establishment of savanna burning offset markets in the Territory, providing $200 000 in Budget 2010-11 to ensure the survival of the North Australian Fire Information website, a critical support to the emerging savanna burning offset market. Budget 2010-11 delivers a critical investment of $700 000 to rehabilitating and protecting the Mary River freshwater wetlands and carbon stores from rising sea levels, and to reduce saltwater intrusions, protecting fishing and saving biodiversity.
In addition to being minister for all those portfolios, I am also Minister for Central Australia. I am also the member for Stuart, living with my family in Alice Springs. As a Centralian, I acknowledge the many initiatives and projects - particularly the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan, Planning for the Future, and the transformation of our town camps - I, as the lead minister, am driving to have real outcomes for Central Australians.
Budget 2010-11 invests in Central Australia’s future and delivers key projects which will secure and create jobs. It provides now for Central Australian families, and builds on this government’s significant investments in the Centre - investments which have created, and will continue to create, local jobs and drive the region’s prosperity. Budget 2010-11 delivers more than $560m to improve schools, hospitals, housing, and infrastructure in Central Australia. We are investing in better hospitals, with $38m to upgrade the Alice Springs Hospital. We are investing in better schools, with $8.27m for school upgrades in Central Australia. Equally as important, a decision which has already been warmly welcomed by local business is our investment in land release, and provision of $10m to fast-track headworks for housing at the AZRI site in the new suburb of Kilgariff.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you have much more to say?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: You do. Then we will go to the suspension for lunch.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the Commonwealth Day Message 2010 from Her Majesty the Queen dated 8 March 2010:
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent 2010-11. The Statement of Corporate Intent is the annual performance agreement between the corporation and the shareholding minister on behalf of Territorians as owners of the corporation.
As members are aware, Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first government owned corporation, GOC, on 1 July 2002. The 2010-11 SCI is the corporation’s ninth. Consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI being tabled today, on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information no private sector business would be expected to release.
The 2010-11 Statement of Corporate Intent contains plans for the largest ever capital and maintenance investment program in the corporation’s history. $1.215bn of capital investment will be made between 2010-11 and 2014-15, to ensure reliability of service and to meet growing demand. In relation to repairs and maintenance, $311m is projected to be spent over the SCI period. As highlighted in Budget 2010-11 papers tabled this week, the Territory government has undertaken a $112m debt to equity swap with the Power and Water Corporation. This is reflected in the general government sector balance sheet. Debt to equity swaps, and vice versa, have occurred on a number of occasions with government business divisions – GBDs. Most notably is when GBDs are formed to ensure an appropriate capital structure, consistent with similar corporations, is maintained.
In the case of the Power and Water Corporation, $56m of debt to equity swap was provided when it became a government owned corporation in 2002, to establish a debt equity structure similar to other utility authorities. This latest debt for equity is again to maintain an appropriate capital structure for Power and Water Corporation as the corporation delivers the largest-ever capital program to position the Territory for growth. This investment is important to improve reliability of supply and respond to growing demand on the power network, and forms a key part of this government’s strategy to grow the Territory.
The financial sustainability of Power and Water Corporation is maintained. Power tariffs remained at previously announced levels, which are at mid-range levels compared to other jurisdictions. As the 2010-11 SCI will be considered by the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, I will not go into any more detail now.
In accordance with section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I table Power and Water Corporation’s 2010-11 Statement of Corporate Intent.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be referred to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for examination and report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion, I thank the Treasurer for bringing this matter on. It was my understanding these documents were not going to hit the table until later today; I acknowledge her courage. However, it brings to mind some answers which were given in February this year - and I wish I could lay my hands on them now – by the minister in relation to, specifically, the current financial position of the Power and Water Corporation. At that time I was accused, by the minister, of scaremongering for suggesting the taxpayer may carry some exposure to the current circumstances of the Power and Water Corporation.
Unfortunately, due to a conversation being held by the Leader of Government Business, I was not able to hear everything. However, it is my understanding the bailout package now for the Power and Water Corporation is $112m. This is the debt to equity swap which was referred to only four times in Budget Paper No 2 and, indeed, only four times in all budget papers. For a $112m impost, that is a very light number of comments.
It concerns me the Treasurer has worked so hard and assiduously to deny there were any problems. The Treasurer has worked very hard to point out there was a profit operating this year. She made much of the fact there was a dividend holiday given to the Power and Water Corporation; that the taxpayer has pushed capital grants into the corporation, and now we are taking over $112m, if I heard correctly, of the Power and Water Corporation’s debt.
It ill behoves this Treasurer, and this government, to continue to demonstrate such a slippery approach to the people of the Northern Territory in the way they provide information. If, two or three months ago, I was scaremongering because I was concerned the taxpayer was going to pick up the bill, what is there to be scared of? Now my fears have crystallised into a reality, and it is a $112m reality.
I remind honourable members of the balance sheet of the Power and Water Corporation as at 30 June 2009, a year ago, and I note the borrowings of that organisation had reached $559m. To put that in the context, the nett debt of the Territory government right now - it will change in the next couple of years because of these borrowings - is only $900m. When you compare that to a single organ carrying a borrowings weight of $559m, having to then pay for several generators which have been brought forward in the budget process, it was obvious this organisation would continue to struggle to service its debt.
I raised the question in February and said: ‘Goodness, gracious me, Treasurer, how is it all going to play out? Will it mean we will be paying more for our power and water tariffs?’ The Treasurer did not rule that out until last week when I raised it in relation to the …
Ms Lawrie: Not true. I have consistently ruled that out.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … debate we were having on the Auditor-General’s report from February 2010. I again raised the issue, and finally she said it would not cost Territorians any more in tariffs. The fact is, what we are creating at the moment is a system of dual tariffs, because Territorians will now be paying for the Power and Water Corporation through a dual tariff system. The first tariff will be when you pay your power bills, which have gone up by 25% in the last two years, and moreover, there will be an increase in tariffs through taxation.
Ms Lawrie: No, we are not taxing.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. The $112m …
Ms Lawrie. Budget 2010-11 tax cuts.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … they have borrowed to bail out this organisation …
Ms Lawrie: Budget 2010-11 tax cuts.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Where is that $112m going to come from, your personal income? The Treasurer can only spend tax money on this. Territorians will pay this through taxation, and they claim to be great governors of the Northern Territory when in fact they continually mislead Territorians about the …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us talk about the way this Treasurer conducts herself in relation to informing Territorians …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member opposite is going to accuse me of misleading, then do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Do you want me to?
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely, bring it on.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as you well know under standing orders you can only do that under substantive motion, otherwise I ask you to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory says all sorts of things whenever she …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I have said that you either need to …
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it for the sake of getting on with this debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us look at the way this Treasurer informs Territorians. Yesterday in this House, the Treasurer said: ‘Western Australia did not have any debt back in 2008-09 when it was a Labor state’. That is what she said. I will quote from the 2008-09 Budget Speech by the West Australia Labor Treasurer, Eric Ripper. ‘The government’s nett debt, the equivalent of its mortgage bill, will increase to $11.4bn over the next four years’. She said they were not carrying any debt in 2008-09; Eric Ripper said they were. He should know - he is the Treasurer of the Western Australia parliament. She will say anything. In February she told Territorians there was no problem with the capacity for Power and Water to cover its own expenses yet, a few months later, she is racking up $112m of taxpayers’ funded debt to pay for the circumstances of the Power and Water Corporation.
She said recently in this House in the year to March, $913m – and she has corrected it to $919m now – $913m had been paid out in relation to infrastructure expenditure. Surely we would have been a little surprised to discover the whole of the infrastructure spend for the financial year 2009-10 was only $748m. How could the year to March add up to $913m? To clarify the situation afterwards, she said: ‘I am talking about the year March to March’.
If you say to any accounting firm, Treasury, any economist’s office: year to March this much was spent, the automatic presumption will be the financial year to March. With slippery words and totally - I cannot say the word I want but it is a three letter word starting with ‘L’ – however, I can tell you she is absolutely dishonest in the way she approaches Territorians.
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not.
Mr ELFERINK: She has the audacity to say we are talking from March …
Ms Lawrie: I am looking forward to estimates.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … to March. What Treasurer answers questions in March to March years - only when it suits her to say whatever she wants; and she is so misleading in the way she answers questions. It is like trying to grab an eel in a bucket of Vaseline. It really is. Nailing her down on any of these issues is difficult because she changes the goal posts. Treasury systems around this country …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I want to point out the 2008-09 actual for WA was negative nett debt of $2.6bn; they had received more revenue than expected.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: I also point out, and lay on the table, the 2009-10 budget overview, which is the year afterward - the nett debt from the budget overview paperwork from WA …
Ms Lawrie: You are stumbling.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am stumbling because I am making this up as I am standing here. Do you know why?
Ms Lawrie: Making it up as you go along. That is what you do.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Because I am sitting here with these papers in front of me. Without any notice you drop …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please pause. I ask you to address your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: … this paperwork on the table, expect us to speak with any …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Misleading the Chamber. Our Whip notified the opposition Whip of the bringing forward of the tabling statement for the Power and Water SCI. There was notice to the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask she withdraw that. She has accused me of misleading this House. She either does it by substantive motion, or not.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to withdraw, but he got it wrong, again.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. You used the same language yourself, member for Port Darwin, and it was wrong of me to allow it through. You may resume.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. Yes, I am standing here because we do not get any notification of this. They just drop it on …
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr ELFERINK: … the table and then move that it gets farmed off to the committee in two weeks time to look at, hoping no one will pick it up. Yes, occasionally I stumble while I am speaking because I do not have a prepared speech. What I have on my side is the truth - something you are utterly unfamiliar with.
Sometimes I feel intimidated by this House, and by the forces of Treasury that support the Treasurer. However, the thing which really intimidates me more than anything else is the truth. Whilst this Treasurer’s lips are moving I will never be so intimidated that I cannot rise to speak in this House.
I draw members’ attention to her Stateline interview of April 2007 where she said, in relation to land release - and this is the way she conducts herself to Territorians …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance: we are talking about the Power and Water Statement of Corporate Intent. Has he anything to say about the Power and Water Statement of Corporate Intent, or is this a personal attack on me he normally launches when he is way out of his depth?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, resume your seat. There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, while there is some latitude, I ask you to endeavour to stick to the subject of the debate, please. You have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The way she presents herself to Territorians is at the heart of this debate, and to make that case I have to demonstrate it. She says this is a personal attack.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I have just tabled the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. I have not given a statement of my view, as Treasurer, of the Territory economy, etcetera. It is the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. It is not for petty, pathetic, political football. Stick to the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. Please resume your seat.
Member for Port Darwin, I remind you again this is a statement directly in relation to the Power and Water Corporation. Could you please direct your comments to that subject? Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as I have already identified, I am asserting the minister, by doing what she is doing in the way she is doing it, demonstrates a predisposition towards the public of the Northern Territory, which is indicative of an attitude which I consider to be unhealthy. That is a serious suggestion to make, which must be supported with evidence. I am providing evidence to that end, which relates to how this Statement of Corporate Intent has found its way into this House.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to that response to my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker …
Mr ELFERINK: Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin, and resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: I have the call. You have given me the call.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have a point of order from the Treasurer.
Mr ELFERINK: She has not said it is a point of order. Is this a point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order - absolutely a point of order!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please resume your seat. Your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: I have consistently called the point of order on relevance. We are talking about the Power and Water’s Statement of Corporate Intent. The government-owned corporation will be referred to the Estimates Committee, where it will undergo full and thorough scrutiny by the member for Port Darwin, and other members of this Chamber, quite appropriately so.
Trawling through what he thinks of me as a person, and his views on me, and calling me unhealthy, have nothing whatsoever to do with the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer, resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, please resume your seat as I have asked. I am going to seek advice from the Clerk. We seem to be in a roundabout here.
The advice I have received, member for Port Darwin, is you are to restrict your comments directly to the Treasurer’s response to the Power and Water Corporation statement. Any other remarks you wish to make would be more appropriate in another debate, possibly the adjournment debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling. We will return to the comments made in February 2010, which related to questions about the Power and Water Corporation.
The Power and Water Corporation is an organisation which has been allowed by this government to run down, both financially and physically. Whilst they want to pass the blame to other people, they have continued to allow the organisation to run down to a point where it has to come back to government and ask for a $112m bailout. Then, immediately after Question Time, which is earlier than I expected, they drop this Statement of Corporate Intent on the last sitting day of the two week period, as just another document hitting the table and hope no one would notice.
They flagged this in the budget papers in its most shallow way. It was expressed only four times in Budget Paper No 2 - no other budget paper. There was no explanation on the equity for debt swap. There was no explanation of what was being swapped; no mention in the second reading speech for the Appropriation Bill by the Treasurer of the $112m debt acquired by the Northern Territory taxpayer. Only after Question Time on the final day of sittings, to refer it to a committee at some date several weeks away the Statement of Corporate Intent.
The Treasurer will sign the Territory taxpayer and general government sector up to a $112m debt and not mention it in her budget speech. She wonders why I question her motives and the way she conducts herself as Treasurer.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as we have already ruled and discussed, I ask you to keep your comments to the statement of intent …
Mr ELFERINK: I am taking about the statement of intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your own observations as to the Treasurer’s ability …
Mr ELFERINK: I am talking directly in relation to the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe, whilst you are, you are digressing, and we have already called on that.
Mr ELFERINK: No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am on the verge of dissenting from your ruling. I am talking directly about the Statement of Corporate Intent and the way it has been delivered to this House. I cannot allow myself to be muzzled by the Chair of this House. I can tell you, if you insist on that ruling, I will dissent from your ruling. The Statement of Corporate Intent has surrounding it an approach by government which has been far from transparent, open and honest. The Statement of Corporate Intent …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. If it were true you would have put it on the table yesterday. You would have put it on the table before Question Time, where reasonable scrutiny would be allowed.
Ms Lawrie: It is always tabled on the last day of sittings, and you know that.
Mr ELFERINK: This document …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I have referred the Statement of Corporate Intent to the Estimates Committee for full scrutiny. It is always tabled on the last day. Our government Whip notified the opposition Whip of the tabling.
A member: During Question Time.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please, Treasurer. Member for Port Darwin, I am going to seek advice, once again, from the Clerk.
Member for Port Darwin, I remind you, once again, to keep your comments to the Statement of Corporate Intent and the comments delivered by the Treasurer in her statement, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I will abide by your ruling, but with this one observation: never in this House has the Chair inflicted itself so completely into a member’s speech in an effort to muzzle him ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. The Chair has sought advice from the Clerk every step of the way, and you have seen that. Do not be a grub.
Mr ELFERINK: The Chair makes the decisions, not the Clerk.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I have taken advice from the Clerk. This document has been tabled. You are able to speak to it. You are able to speak to the Treasurer’s comments. This is also a document that is going to the Estimates Committee which, as I understand, is why it was tabled at this particular time. You have the call, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If the Treasurer did not want to hear these comments - which she clearly does not - why would she have a motion before this House after Question Time on the last day of sittings?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it that is a rhetorical question, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could resume your comments, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On page 16 of this document, the debt to equity swap is not limited to a $112m bail-out of the Power and Water Corporation - not at all. In the following year, you can add $41.7m to that particular bail-out. In the year after that, you can add another $63.8m to the debt to equity swap arrangement. Off the top of my head, you are getting very close to about $215m bail-out of this organisation. Small wonder she did not want to talk about it. Small wonder she did not mention that.
Ms Lawrie: Happy to talk about the facts, not your strange wanderings.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Treasurer, cease interjecting please.
Mr ELFERINK: Small wonder she did not mention it in her budget speech. Small wonder it barely rates a mention in any of the budget papers.
Ms Lawrie: Four times.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, four times. I will pick up on that interjection. If you read those budget papers, Madam Deputy Speaker - and someone has stolen my Budget Paper No 2 - it talks about debt to equity swap, but those debt to equity swaps are not described in any way. They are merely referred to as debt to equity swaps. I will find a reference to demonstrate how low the quality of information is in these documents in relation to the debt to equity swaps.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those mentions are only that. There is a debt to equity swap - that is it. That is all it says in Budget Paper No 2. However, the obvious question is, and I asked it last night, how much? How much will it cost, because that is the one which underlies the actions of government, and we never get a reply in relation to that. All we got was: ‘Oh, it is in there; we have mentioned it’. She says it is mentioned four times. It is mentioned four times - no detail, no detail whatsoever.
Budget papers, documents, 600-odd pages long, I would guess, looking at the pile they make. And four mentions - four mentions in the lot, and no description. No description or explanation as to what it means and how much it is going to cost. We only get to see that in this particular document now.
This Treasurer has not covered herself in glory regarding the information she has given about the Power and Water Corporation. Not two months ago, in February, she was saying: ‘There is no problem, the organisation is profitable …’
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, he is wandering off on a tangent of personal attacks when it is about a Statement of Corporate Intent. It is a scrutiny referral in going to the Estimates Committee and poring through the numbers, and he is doing this out of pure ignorance. The February debate he is referring to is before the new generation strategy was adopted by the board, and the debt to equity swaps go directly to the new generation strategy. He knows that. He has been told that. He is making it up as he goes along.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. You can resume your seat …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the basis of those …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: … there is no real point of order. Member for Port Darwin, if you can just please keep your comments …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the basis of what I have heard from the Treasurer, she had no idea. This is the minister who owns the Power and Water Corporation, and in February her answer was the honest and truthful answer that it was a profitable organisation turning off a $51.6m profit; there were no problems and everything was sweetness and light. In February she had no idea coming down the pipeline was a $200m problem …
Ms Lawrie: I will send this political rant to Andy Macrides.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: There was a $200m problem coming down the pipeline and she was utterly ignorant of it. She did not know. I find that incomprehensible and unbelievable, and that is the point …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, cease interjecting!
Mr ELFERINK: … I am trying to make today, it is unbelievable. You just cannot believe it! You cannot believe the owner of the corporation would not know it was in trouble to the tune of $200m. That is what has happened today, and she is asking us, and Territorians, to believe in February she was saying everything was sweetness and light and it was a profitable organisation, and she had no idea.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Again, I go to relevance. He is verballing. I never use the phrase ‘sweetness and light’. As people know, I am not a sweetness and light person. I will readily admit that. We are talking about a Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. I respond to the Treasurer’s point of order by saying two things. Treasurer, you have the opportunity, if you wish, to approach the Chair regarding a personal explanation and, as the mover of the motion, you have right of reply and therefore the opportunity in closing debate to make further remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can well understand why she is trying to shut me down. I can well …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Mr ELFERINK: No, no, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am responding to the constant interjections. How many points of order have we had so far in this debate - 15, 20? What other debate gets 15 or 20 points of order called? Only debates she does not want to hear.
I will get back to what I was saying. She said in February this year, as the Treasurer of the Northern Territory owns the corporation, she had no idea this was coming down the pipeline. If she is not being dishonest, she is not competent to hold the position, because no owner could take a corporation to that point and not know it was occurring - and that is the nub of this issue. The fact is, she did, and that is evidenced by the way this report has come before the House.
This government has not been forthright with Territorians regarding what has been happening with the Power and Water Corporation. I have asked question after question in this House, raised the issue time and time again, and repeatedly received reassurances all was good. It turns out all was not good, and we now know it is worth $200m, and the taxpayer cops the bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, my comments will be brief regarding this document and the motion, and have nothing to do with the financial aspects of the document. All I want to comment on - I have found this before with the Power and Water Corporation, I get disappointed that there is scant regard to their environmental performance as an organisation, and the risk assessment done regarding their environmental management and performance. I am also disappointed I never see reference to their safety management systems, or their safety performance, or anything regarding incidents which have occurred.
Mr Knight: It is in there. It is the lowest in the country almost. Read the document.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: This may not be the appropriate document, however I believe as a major organisation with a large number of hazards in their operations, whether it be power, water or sewerage - and we know alarming incidents have occurred within the operations, most notably the Mt Bundy …
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Business and Employment, cease interjecting.
Ms PURICK: … explosion in which two workers were seriously burnt and, only by the good grace of Our Lord, were not killed. I heard presentations from Power and Water regarding that incident and the subsequent impact upon the two workers. It was very concerning the safety manager, superintendent, about six years or seven years ago, said when he first joined the organisation he believed they were starting from zero and was very surprised - and this is a long-standing person who had come from the safety industry - he was shocked and surprised they had not killed or injured more people in the past. Sadly, they have lost people with sewerage operations.
I would encourage the organisation to be more forthright with information regarding the organisation’s environmental performance, what are their management systems, their quality systems, and how are they striving for best practice across the different components of their organisation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, my comments too will be based on a quick view of the document. I would like to make a few quick comments, and one is in relation to page 7 where it says:
On a regular basis, I receive complaints about the cost of private people putting in services, and it is an area which needs some investigation. Power and Water seem to be the be-all and end-all when you need permission to put electricity services into a subdivision or, in the case of a plumber who came to me recently, they have the power to say yes or no, for instance, to an extension of a water pipe.
I have raised this with the minister; it is of concern. Power and Water is putting an extension to a water main in Howard Springs at the moment; it is quite a substantial contract. A local plumber who owns several industrial sheds simply asked the contractor: ‘What size copper pipe are you putting over to the sheds?’ They said 25 ml copper, which is standard size. He asked Power and Water: ‘Can I upgrade that because the industrial sheds might need higher pressure as a requirement for fire safety?’ He asked if he could put 50 ml copper in. Bearing in mind the contractor is there already and would have dug the trench, put the sand in, put the 25 ml pipe in, covered it up, and it would have all been to specification. My understanding is Power and Water said no, they would need an engineering plan. This beggars belief as there are specifications for laying water pipes and you would think a qualified plumber could lay that according to the specifications rather than drawing up expensive engineering plans for 20 m of pipe. He was willing to pay for the extra tapping saddle, the extra pipe, the extra gate valve or globe valve, whatever it was to put on the other end, and probably the extra metre. He was told it would cost $15 000. This is 20 m; it is probably from here to where you sit, Madam Deputy Speaker in 50 ml copper in a trench the contractor was already going to dig, and he was told $15 000.
I worry that Power and Water uses its monopoly influence to set any price. They see people and developers as the goose that lays the golden egg. I have known people who might only be subdividing three or four blocks of land and are required to put very expensive transformers on the power line. I am not saying those transformers are not needed, but what can happen is the developer has to pay for the whole transformer which is beneficial to a number of people in the area. Recently people were asked if they wanted a public water connection along their road. They were quoted $19 500, and very few people took up that offer because the size of the pipe Power and Water require is to take it further than just the subdivision.
There has to be more balance. People pay for the infrastructure, however they do not have to pay for the infrastructure required to take a water main down the road. That is where Power and Water put in their contribution, and people needing the water put in their percentage of the contribution - that would be much fairer. It needs to be reviewed. There is always a danger when you have a monopoly situation, especially, if they have the power to say yes or no, that people can get squeezed unfairly.
It is interesting to note that Power and Water, I understand, has a monopoly over water. I am not going to give names and addresses, but I know a person who wishes to supply water to a number of rural blocks through the use of a common bore and a water tank. He has had difficulty getting approval for this because under the Utilities Commission, I understand that Power and Water is the only one allowed to sell water. I am looking at that and have questioned the government about it. It concerns me that if someone wished to sell water, or set up a system where the residents became part of a strata title system where they could manage the water in that subdivision themselves, they are not allowed to do so. My understanding is the developer has been told no, yet he has no chance of being connected to the town water supply. There is a precedent to this; the Southport subdivision near Berry Springs, where government has put in a low tank and a bore, and people are able to collect water themselves.
Water can be distributed to people who are not connected to the system. It is another area that needs to be looked at. If Power and Water is not willing to run a water main to this property surely that person, if he is willing to put in the infrastructure, should be allowed to so that that subdivision can go ahead. The reason for the subdivision being developed with a major bore and tank is environmental. I believe NRETAS is saying if every block of land had a bore on it there would be too much demand for water. This person has put forward this plan as a way around that, and to reduce demand on the environment.
There are other issues Power and Water will have to look at in the future. I am interested to hear more debate on the future dam. That may have to come up for debate quicker than we think. I am interested to know whether the Power and Water bores - when all the scientific analysis has been done over bores in the rural area, especially the Howard River East bore field - does have an effect on the Howard River itself. I have heard a rumour that is the case. Power and Water may have to move some of their bores or reduce their production, I am not sure. The water allocation plan is being developed for that area. The Power and Water bores are limited - that is, there are no more bores to be drilled - or they are told to reduce their production - they do have a licence up to a certain amount. I know Power and Water has already instigated plans to lift the level of Darwin River Dam to increase the water volume by 20%. There is an item in the budget for Manton Dam - about $74m. The reality is they are mid-term solutions to what, eventually, will have to be a longer-term solution; that is, the building of a second dam for Darwin, especially with the possibility of 40 000 to 65 000 people living in Weddell, and Cox Peninsula being developed under the Larrakia Land Corporation.
There needs to be more discussion on this. I would like to hear the latest Power and Water forecast on the need to upgrade infrastructure. In relation to them using water from the rural area, it has always been a bone of contention for many people that the reason Howard Springs does not run like it used to, or bores run out of water in September/October, is because Power and Water uses much of the water.
We need to ensure the science is there. The reality is I do not believe Power and Water can keep taking water out of the Howard East aquifer. They, like the rest of us, will be limited, because the environmental constraints will mean we cannot take any more water out of the Howard River and Howard Springs. Some of the lagoons connected to the aquifer are important areas of recreation and enjoyment in the rural area. None of us want those significant environmental reserves or facilities, in the case of Howard Springs, affected by the overuse of water.
The water allocation plan is a key to the amount of water Power and Water can pump out of the rural area to mix with the water from Darwin River Dam.
I was not expecting to talk on this area, but the rural area is known for its extractive minerals. Most of Darwin is built on sand from Howard Springs; 10% of the water we drink has come from the Howard Springs area. These matters are important from a rural area perspective. Darwin River comes from the rural area; Manton Dam was built in the rural area; and the proposed new dam, if built, will possibly be at Adelaide River. It is an area of concern for rural people.
We know Darwin needs water, however, how will it be planned, what is the scientific basis of what is happening, what proposals are Power and Water putting forward in relation to the conservation of water? I am concerned when I see the planting of shrubs and trees at Coolalinga, which was originally designed as a native garden, under a fully irrigated system with mainly exotic plants. Some kind person decided they were better in his or her garden and recently took most of them away.
Government needs to set some policies. It plants trees along roads, it does landscape designs for public areas, and I include local government in this discussion. If you want to reduce the amount of water used, keep it where we need it. You need it for football ovals, you need it for lawns - we are not knocking lawns altogether. We can put in native plants that do not need much water. I can give you a classic example. I planted some shrubs and trees on the corner of Howard Springs and Whitewood Road. They have had one Wet Season of rain and no irrigation after that. The only thing that destroyed them was the wayward slasher of a contractor working for the department of Transport who wiped them out. We planted them again; they will not have irrigation. I can guarantee, even though it is hot, dry and gravely, those plants will not require water. We need to promote that more, not just for habitat and parochial reasons that native plants in the Territory are good - it saves water. That is what we need to promote.
I thank the minister for tabling the Statement of Corporate Intent. I would have loved more time to read it, but with the budget, the CTC, and several other things, one cannot get to read everything. I certainly will read it, and it may be the source of some questions for parliament, as long as we get them answered.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding in this Chamber today regarding my tabling of the Statement of Corporate Intent and, indeed, the tabling statement. What I did today has occurred ever since the government established the Estimates Committee – that is, refer our government-owned corporation, the Power and Water Corporation, to the Estimates Committee.
As shareholding minister of Power and Water, on behalf of the taxpayer, I ensure their financials, the Statement of Corporate Intent, is brought to the Chamber prior to the estimates sittings in June, and put on the public record so all members of parliament and the public have the opportunity to read the Statement of Corporate Intent, scrutinise the Statement of Corporate Intent, seek any advice they wish to on the Statement of Corporate Intent, and then it comes before the Estimates Committee for detailed and further scrutiny.
I believe, under the changes to the Estimates Committee, the Power and Water Corporation will be scrutinised for five hours, which is an increase. It is not before the Chamber today to be scrutinised on the spot, discussed on the spot. In fact, we are following normal procedure to put it on the public record, have it sit on the public record for a month, and have it come before the parliament’s Estimates Committee for full, appropriate and thorough scrutiny, direct questioning to the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation, Judith King, a very fine woman and great Chair of the Power and Water Corporation Board, and the CEO of Power and Water Corporation, Andy Macrides.
This is not a document I, as Treasurer, have cobbled together and put before the parliament, want to rush debate, done and dusted this afternoon; that is it, bury it, all over, red rover. It could not be further from the truth; that is the fantasy of the member for Port Darwin.
This document is generated from Power and Water, no pun intended, which is signed off through all the appropriate checks and balance processes within Power and Water. It then comes to me, as shareholding minister, and the minister responsible for bringing it before this House. I seek advice from my Treasury officials before signing it off and bringing it before this House.
This is not something, as the member for Port Darwin would have us believe, I have put together under some veil of secrecy regarding Power and Water. It is not that at all. This is about open and accountable scrutiny of the government-owned corporation - the Power and Water Corporation.
As to the timing of the tabling statement, it is normal for it to be done on the last day of sittings, prior to the Estimates Committee sittings in June. That is the convention.
The other conspiracy theory cobbled together today by members opposite regarding the timing of tabling the statement, I will happily put to rest on the public record. Prior to the start of Question Time my office advised that a Stateline interview with ABC television had been organised for me, as Treasurer, to discuss the budget I handed down this week, for 4 o’clock this afternoon. I thought this may be an issue because often mid-afternoon in parliament is the papers/statement section where I would be required, as the shareholding minister, to table the Statement of Corporate Intent for Power and Water, with the tabling statement.
Not wanting to miss the important task I have as Treasurer, and indeed members of parliament and parliamentary staff would understand the concerns which would arise for everyone, I sought advice about bringing this matter forward to ensure it sat on the public record, quite appropriately, without the chance of me missing that opportunity because I was in the midst of an ABC Stateline interview. I was advised the appropriate thing to do was, when there was no question before the Chair post-Question Time, table it then. I was then not delaying to some other time the tabling statement for Power and Water’s Statement of Corporate Intent.
In fact, it was the earliest opportunity to put this on the public record so I could not be accused of holding this until late in the evening, because following the Stateline interview, I have a commitment, as the Treasurer, to give another budget presentation; one of the many presentations I have been giving all week to external stakeholders.
That is why I asked the Government Whip to communicate with the Opposition Whip as soon as we received advice, at the start of Question Time, that I could bring this on when there was no question before the Chair. We could then have a few more hours of scrutiny today; bearing in mind we have a month of scrutiny, bearing in mind we have a five hour scrutiny process before the Estimates Committee of the Power and Water Corporation itself. There was no conspiracy. That is why this matter was brought forward in today’s orders - because I have a Stateline television interview commitment as Treasurer.
Going to some of the issues raised - and the reason I will respond to them is I am growing increasingly concerned corporations are being used as a political football; and they should not be. Power and Water Corporation is a government-owned utility. We are too small a jurisdiction for competition to be real yet. We have done the regulatory amendments a government would need to do to open up the jurisdiction to competition. That became live and active as of 1 April 2010. That being said, our government inherited the Power and Water Corporation. We have made it a government owned corporation and given them as much independence from government as we could, bearing in mind the taxpayer ultimately owns it.
My role is to ensure I work very closely with my Treasury officials, the board, and the senior management of Power and Water Corporation to understand their financial position, and to keep a very close eye on that financial position. Quite appropriately, if they undertake significant capital expenditure, or significant repairs and maintenance expenditure, which, of course, arose out of Merv Davies report, quite appropriately, I then participate in a series of discussions as to whether it is an appropriate path for the corporation to take and what their financial situation is going to be, and how that, then, would be managed. That is simply what has occurred. That is why I have approved a debt to equity swap to ensure the financial sustainability of Power and Water. I have made no bones publicly about the fact it was to support the capital expansion required under the New Generation Program adopted by the board, and approved by our government, for extra turbines at Channel Island for improved reliability, growth and demand in the system. I am aware it has been past practice between the government and GBDs that debt to equity swaps occur. There is nothing unusual about it.
Going to this issue of whether we tried to hide it - we did not try to hide it. It was referred to four times in the budget papers and, on budget day, when asked the question, I ensured the government gave a response to the media about the Power and Water Corporation debt to equity swap. I also told the media, when questioned yesterday, of the actual amounts and advised them very clearly those amounts would be in the Statement of Corporate Intent which would be tabled in parliament. There is no attempt whatsoever by government to hide this. We have been quite up-front. It is simply the imaginings of the member for Port Darwin - he thinks I am trying to hide information regarding Power and Water Corporation. It could not be further from the truth. I have been completely up-front about it.
Going to an issue the member for Port Darwin raised about the budget paper, I want to point out on page 19 of Budget Paper 2 it says quote: ‘A series of debt for equity swaps over the budget and forward estimates period reassessed annually. The swaps will assist with funding the increased infrastructure investment as part of the Power and Water Corporation New Generation Strategy to improve system capacity and reliability while maintaining fiscal sustainability’. Budget Paper 2 is the whole of government paper. The swap is not an appropriation and, therefore, no need to be in any other budget papers. Again, up-front, explained it was about the New Generation Strategy, knowing full well we were happy to provide details when asked. We know it will be scrutinised come estimates time, and the subject of debate in parliament at any time which, of course, it has been today.
I will go to matters raised by the member for Goyder. She said she was disappointed in the Statement of Corporate Intent in environmental matters and Power and Water Corporation. I will refer the member for Goyder to page 10, where the Statement of Corporate Intent details its environmentally sustainable policies, and also pages 20 and 21 where it goes through environmentally sustainable KPI measures. The issue she raised concerning occupational health and safety issues and a safe workplace, I point out, going to the 2009-10 target and looking at lost time injuries the number is 6; lost time injury frequency rates – 3.4, and staff satisfaction index is 81%. I am not the operations minister for Power and Water, the member for Daly would know far more about this than me, however the feedback I am getting from the ETU, the union which represents the bulk of the workers at Power and Water Corporation, is there has been a significant improvement in the attention to OHS in Power and Water Corporation. I know there has been a significant increased diligence in Power and Water Corporation in its environmental requirements, being a good corporate citizen in its environmental standards, and setting in place the relevant and appropriate KPIs a utility such as Power and Water Corporation should have.
I take exception to the comments of the member for Goyder. I do not agree with her at all, and I recommend she seek - if she is particularly interested in this area of occupational health and safety and environmental measures - a briefing with Power and Water Corporation in regard to it. I know, from talking to board members of the Power and Water Corporation and the CEO, Andrew Macrides, they have paid significant attention to this in policy development and actions at Power and Water Corporation for quite a few years now.
I am very disappointed with the baseless accusations bandied around in the Chamber today on the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. Due process is occurring today; that process is convention. It is a case of tabling it so it can be fully, totally, and appropriately scrutinised at the estimate sittings in June. I note, under standing orders, the time for scrutiny of Power and Water Corporation has increased and is now going to be a five-hour period of scrutiny.
Regarding the issues raised by the member for Nelson, he has the opportunity to raise those directly with the Power and Water Corporation at that estimates session. I am aware he has had that dialogue with the Power and Water Corporation on many occasions in the past during the estimates session. When I say dialogue, I think of what the Leader of the Government Business has often said about estimates: sometimes the best value members of parliament get from estimates is the opportunity to have dialogue with the people who have responsibility for sections of government service delivery.
I want to put on record, given the nature of the accusations from the member for Port Darwin today in this debate, my sincere appreciation and thanks to Judith King, the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation Board. She is a woman of enormous integrity and professionalism; indeed, all board members of the Power and Water Corporation Board are above the accusations flung around this Chamber today by the member for Port Darwin. They are upstanding Territorians and Australians. They serve our Territory significantly through their role on the Power and Water Corporation Board. I sincerely thank them and I value and trust their judgment. I am delighted they give their time generously as members of the Power and Water Corporation Board.
I also put on the record my thanks and acknowledgement of the diligence by which Andrew Macrides applies himself to his role as the CEO of the Power and Water Corporation. I recognise it has gone through significant improvements in the last few years. We had the Andrew Reeves report into the financial and commercial sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation which, indeed, the Statement of Corporate Intent is very relevant to. Also, Merv Davies undertook his report into the more operational aspects of the Power and Water Corporation. Those two significant bodies of work have served the Power and Water Corporation well in improving their systems management and financial arrangements.
I know they have had regulatory changes imposed on them by this government in positioning the Territory to open itself up to a competitive marketplace. Rather than being dragged there, they have been quite embracing of change which, ultimately, will lead them into the path of competition. Competition is healthy, and we have always maintained that as a government. I look forward to the day when continued economic growth of the Territory means we will see a competitor in this marketplace. That being said, it would take a significant major user to come on board for competition, the likes of large mines, etcetera.
No corporation can rest on its laurels. The significant challenges ahead for Power and Water Corporation include renewable energy. Challenges will come its way in schemes adopted by the federal government to respond to climate change; it is a utility in the energy provider sector. The work we have been doing with the major energy users group has also been beneficial, and understanding the elements of the power and water business, and being able to separate and greater scrutinise each element of the Power and Water Corporation business from generation to transition distribution to retail has been a great body of ongoing work.
No utility like Power and Water can rest on its laurels, and anyone in the utility businesses has been through fairly dramatic change in our nation in the last 10 years, and change continues. The government did what no other government had the strength to do - we undertook the Reeves review, asking the genuine questions around the financial and commercial sustainability of Power and Water. Reeves recommended tariff increases. Tariff increases had not occurred whether it was the CLP government or a Labor government; they simply had not occurred for about two decades. That, I believe, was a mistake. It took the Henderson Labor government to take the tough but right decision for the financial sustainability of Power and Water to increase tariffs, and we announced those tariff increases last year. Those tariff increases fall across three financial years, and we are part way through that. Prices change as of 1 July this year for power, water and sewerage.
I have said consistently there will be no further tariff increases beyond that. I am committed to that; I am good for my word on that. To say it is a tax by another way by doing a debt to equity swap is arrant nonsense. I believe it is not appropriate to use a government-owned corporation as a political football. By all means have a stoush with the Treasurer over budget, because I have handed it down on Tuesday, however to use the Power and Water Corporation, a corporation which cannot stand here and answer for itself, as a political football in this Chamber today, was appalling, quite frankly.
There are good people on the board, good people working for the organisation, and there are good people in Treasury scrutinising them. There are very good people on the Utilities Commission - which I have expanded to a three-person commission - who are in place to scrutinise Power and Water Corporation. To say today my character as an individual affects the outcome of the Statement of Corporate Intent is about as low as I have seen debate reach in this Chamber. I would hope, at some stage, we see a level of maturity in debate in this Chamber which would well serve Territorians. I look forward to the scrutiny of Power and Water Corporation. I look forward to the scrutiny of the Statement of Corporate Intent which, at five hours, is longer than in the past.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was going to ask if the Treasurer wanted an extension of time.
Ms LAWRIE: I have finished.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, continuing from my contribution this morning, I was talking about Central Australia and this government’s absolute commitment in Budget 2010-11 to both Central Australia and Alice Springs. A decision already warmly welcomed by local businesses is the fast-tracking of $10m to bring forward headworks at the AZRI site for the new suburb of Kilgariff. This is a significant investment now and into the future. I recently mentioned it on 8HA, and it was great to receive support from an Alice Springs local, Steve Brown, who agreed entirely $10m coming forward, fast-tracking development at AZRI, is certainly welcome news. I thank Steve for his support. AZRI has the potential for around 1200 lots over many years. This will help meet the demand for future residential and urban development in Alice Springs. The $10m in headworks will connect essential power, water and sewerage services to make blocks at Kilgariff available to the public sooner.
Budget 2010-11 also delivers for Central Australian families with spending to boost housing and home ownership. In Alice Springs, the Homestart NT price cap has been lifted from $300 000 to $385 000; an increase of $85 000. Together with the increases in stamp duty exemption for first homebuyers, and increases in the Principal Place of Residence Rebate, home ownership will be accessible to more Central Australians.
Our commitment to the Youth Action Plan continues in Budget 2010-11 with $3.47m for Stage 2 of the plan, supporting children and families and making the community safer by reducing antisocial behaviour. The plan includes $1.5m to run two supported group homes for 12 young people; $1.1m to upgrade the youth hub and provide an alternative education program for young people with extreme behaviour; $625 000 to provide an after-hours response to youth on the streets; $250 000 to boost resources in schools to tackle disengaged students.
Many of these initiatives were announced by the Chief Minister, the Police Commissioner and me in Alice Springs recently. Budget 2010-11 also contains record funding to build better schools and recruit more teachers, including an extra 170 teachers for remote schools. $6.42m will deliver upgrades to the Centralian Middle School, as well as establish the youth hub at the ANZAC Hill campus. Acacia Hill School, just around the corner from where I live, will receive $2.8m to upgrade infrastructure, while Hermannsburg School will receive a $1.25m upgrade. $33.4m is being provided for non-government schools across Central Australia, and we are on track to meet our promise to upgrade the Territory’s 74 government primary schools and group schools, including those in the Centre.
This government’s commitment to the Alice Springs Transformation Plan continues in Budget 2010-11. This very important partnership with the federal government is delivering improvements in housing and living conditions, and giving families a safe place to bring up their kids. Budget 2010-11 also includes $2.7m to upgrade a new supported and short-term accommodation facility in Alice Springs. These facilities include the new Alice Springs Accommodation Park which will provide short-term options for up to 150 visitors to town; a 28-unit village at Percy Court to provide transitional accommodation; refurbishment of the Lodge to provide housing for visiting renal dialysis patients, and eight more managed accommodation beds added to the existing Salvation Army facility.
Budget 2010-11 also provides $5.6m to construct a new 18-unit senior village at Larapinta to provide more housing options for senior Territorians and Territory Housing tenants. It will also help free up larger dwellings for younger families on the waiting list.
Our continued investment in Central Australia includes $32m to upgrade key roads to support Central Australia’s growing resource industry, as well as improve access for people living and visiting remote communities. Key roads will continue to be upgraded and sealed, including $2m to seal around 7 km on the Sandover Highway. I am pleased to see that commitment ongoing; it is something as local member I pushed for. It might not sound much to members, but in relation to the Sandover lease and the decentralised model of Utopia with homelands and service centres, it is really important there is a good reliable road between the shire council office, the store, the airstrip and the homeland clinic along that stretch of the Sandover. That will ensure people have a reliable road to get to those important services from their homelands.
A further $2m will be invested to continue the progressive sealing of the Tanami Highway; it is getting closer to Yuendumu. I look forward to the day it is sealed all the way to Yuendumu. The Tanami Highway is a key transport route for the mining and cattle industries, and an important link to a number of communities including Yuendumu, Yuelamu and Laramba. In addition, design works to complete sealing of the inner loop of the Red Centre Way will commence in Budget 2010-11. We are also committing about $21.7m towards maintenance and minor upgrades on key roads including the Stuart, Plenty and Lasseter Highways, as well as the Larapinta Drive and Namatjira Drive links in Central Australia.
Budget 2010-11 invests in our future with better hospitals, better schools and more housing.
Turning to my electorate, I am pleased to place on the public record a number of initiatives and projects funded under Budget 2010-11, particularly with A Working Future and the things we have heard about this week. Besides an enormous amount of dollars going into supporting A Working Future - $980m for infrastructure - and we know to build some of these communities into real towns, we need infrastructure from the ground up. Some issues being funded through the $980m are not new issues or projects to bush areas. They include a regional transport strategy, including bus trials and airstrip upgrades, which is most welcome; major road upgrades, some of which I have already mentioned; more renal services and remote health clinic upgrades, mentioned by my colleague, the member for Casuarina, this week; children and family centres and mobile preschools, which are very important. I am pleased to say under A Working Future and Budget 2010-11 there is $8.1m for child and family centres at both Gunbalanya and in my electorate at Yuendumu.
We can talk about infrastructure building from the ground up, but with our most important asset, people, we need to build our growth towns from the people up. I believe there is no better place to start than providing centres where families provide very important support to other families to build themselves up through family centres. I am very pleased there is money in A Working Future Budget 2010-11 for a family centre to be built at Yuendumu.
With regard to schools and homeland centres upgrades and new police stations, I am pleased to see money going into a permanent police station at Yarralin, in the northern part of my electorate, as well as other communities. It is very important for Yarralin as, with most communities, there are social issues. Often we rely on the communities to work it out. If they are to be real growth towns and provide equal services to communities, law and order and police stations are a very important part of that. I am very pleased Yarralin is going to have a new police station. Also, $2.5m will be used to upgrade the Yarralin airstrip, which is very important to those people living at Yarralin.
During my four years as local member it has been an ongoing issue, particularly during the Wet. The current location of the airstrip at Yarralin makes it very hard to land a plane, and with CASA regulations we often have charter companies refusing to land during the Wet, and at night, because it is dangerous. It is an issue which has been around for a long time - since Peter Toyne’s days as the local member. I am pleased to see $2.5m in Budget 2010-11 to upgrade the airstrip. I would like to work with the minister, and have been to Yarralin recently and talked to some of the elders who have identified a site for the new airstrip. I encourage your department, minister, to work with the elders to put the airstrip in the right spot so we do not have similar problems.
In my electorate I am very pleased to see, within A Working Future, $980m - very important to build from the ground up our infrastructure - our human asset in family centres. In what A Working Future means in my electorate, for the Central Australian region alone we are talking about a significant number of dollars - $65.7m. That is an enormous amount of well needed money. There is $32m for land servicing and essential service infrastructure into those growth towns. In my electorate it includes Yuendumu and Lajamanu and, in the Centre, Ali Curung, Elliott and Hermannsburg.
With essential services such as power and water, an ongoing, long-running issue for my constituents at Yuelamu has been their long-term water supply. They have, for many years, relied on surface water from a dam for their supply of potable water. As we know, Central Australia is often in drought, which has meant people at Yuelamu have had to use bottled water for many years. While there have been health benefits with lower numbers of gastrointestinal issues, $1.9m to secure longer-term potable water sources for Yuelamu is important. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for acknowledging people at Yuelamu, for a long time, had a significant issue with water supply, and believe $1.9m is money well worth investing.
As already mentioned, in Stuart there is $2m to upgrade the Tanami Highway. Also, education and ICT are important. It is great to see continued support for the School of the Air with $3.56m. Many of my constituents, particularly in the pastoral properties and some of the smaller remote communities which are not growth towns, rely heavily on School of the Air to provide good quality education. I recently visited School of the Air in Alice Springs with Senator Conroy, the federal minister for Information and Communications. The roll-out of fibre and the improved wireless and satellite technology is going to do amazing things for School of the Air in the quality of education and packages they can roll-out. It is good to see more money for them. It has been some time since I visited School of the Air in Katherine and there is $3.76m to support the ongoing and great work Katherine School of the Air does for many constituents in the northern part of my electorate.
Regarding roads, $1.2m is to replace the Jasper Creek bridge on the Buchanan Highway. I have been there during the Wet - probably a silly idea, however it gave me a good idea of the road conditions.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that additional time be given for the minister to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, member for Brennan, I will not be much longer.
Regarding the Jasper Creek bridge, it is a really rough part of the Territory, particularly in the Wet. I have driven through there in the Wet, and it is very difficult area. The people at Yarralin and VRD Station rely on that road to get to Timber Creek, through to the roadhouse and down to Katherine. There is $1.2m to replace the bridge at Jasper Creek.
That covers my electorate, Central Australia, Alice Springs, and my portfolios. I place on the public record my thanks to the Under Treasurer and her staff, who do a fantastic job every year in preparing the papers we take for granted. I thank them for their briefings in Cabinet, and my questions relating to those portfolio areas in Central Australia and Alice Springs. I thank them for their great work, and I congratulate the Treasurer on a fantastic budget.
It is probably the most difficult budget we have had to deal with coming from the global financial crisis. The feedback, from the business community in particular – I was at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon recently talking to people about opportunities. We discussed the CDL today; we launched our scheme, and we have told people it is coming. People at the luncheon were very positive about the economy built around green and CDL. I believe it is very positive. I am looking forward to the next 12 months and rolling out these great initiatives. I am glad they have been financially supported in this budget. I thank everyone again.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, first, it would be fair to say budgets must be a hard time for government. On both sides of the Chamber, we want more for our electorates and more for the Northern Territory than we can effectively budget for.
I thank all those hard-working public servants who must have put in many hours pulling all this information together - doing the budgeting behind the scenes to put what we have here in a final document. Well done to all those public servants who work very hard.
In preparation for my Budget 2010-11 reply, I took the time to read over my last year’s reply - my first budget reply. One of the many comments I read from last year gave me reason to reflect on the process, and provided valuable insight into how a Labor administration operates.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, if I could interrupt you for one moment, please. Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the former Prime Minister, Mr John Howard AC. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, as an example of my point, and how a Labor administration operates, I would like to read my closing comments from last year’s reply:
How relevant these words are today a year on, with yet another revoted Commonwealth supported record spend. However, this time we are talking about $1.8bn in regard to infrastructure. Well, we will see. Will that $1.8m be spent? I do not think so.
Before I concentrate of this year’s budget, I believe it is important to reflect on what I said last year regarding a few promises made for Palmerston in particular, and in one case where I promised to eat a lemon if one promise was delivered in Palmerston. As a man of my word, it is important to revisit promises and ensure you do what you say you are going to. In this case, and to help recall my promise, I will read from my speech last year:
It would appear I do not need to consume that lemon because, as predicted, there is no seniors village in Bellamack. I was at Bellamack on the weekend and I can assure you I did not see a seniors village, nor did I see 170 blocks turned off.
Let us look at the water park, first announced as a 2008 election promise, well before land and council agreement had been reached, which was plain and simple arrogance. In the lead-up to last year’s budget, the water park was re-announced with $5m allocated this time. I will refer to what I said last year:
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: Again, I will not need to eat a lemon. Let us talk about the boat ramp - talked about, consulted, and announced more times than those squeezy Sumo truck advertisements.
The government’s own report suggested $5m was required to upgrade the Elizabeth River boat ramp, yet only $4m was in last year’s budget. What did we get? Nyet, nada, nothing - another example of a revoted program. This year the budget only allocates $3.613m for an upgrade costed at $5m just a few years ago. Call me cynical but history tells me anything the government puts off costs the taxpayer more. Tiger Brennan was originally costed at around $26m, delayed because of Labor bureaucracy, or should I say procrastination. The taxpayer will end up paying $110m for a job which should have cost $26m. Why? Because of delays. Delays add costs, and costs in this case rose from $26m to $110m - quite a jump – because of internal wrangling and a failure to make a decision. The sad thing is the poor taxpayer pays for this incompetence - a cost of $84m because of Labor incompetence.
I move on. The water park is a fantastic initiative which I am sure will be loved by Palmerston residents, but a water park comes at a huge cost - do not get me started on the ongoing cost - but cost, nonetheless, should be examined closely because we need to remind Territorians this government promised to deliver a water park in Palmerston for $5m. How can you trust an administration which continually gets it so wrong? What worries me is we are talking about public money; taxpayer’s money, and the poor taxpayer is left to pay for a lacklustre government which has an horrendous history of failing to deliver on time and within budget; relying time and time again on the poor taxpayer who each year is left to pull this useless government out of the money pit.
The average person expects more; they expect accountability, value for money and efficiency, and a frugal approach when using public money. We see a government with a history of failing to deliver within budget and on time; a government which appears to have an attitude of: ‘it is only money’, and ‘to heck with the outcomes just throw more in’; failing to deliver within the time frames promised and, when they do deliver, sometimes years late, it comes at a huge cost to the public. It is not good enough. After a horrid history of budget blowouts, cost overruns and record deficits, we are supposed to believe a project with an original costing of $5m two or three years ago, can now be delivered for $3.6m. I believe it will not, it cannot, and if it is, it will not resemble what was originally promised.
With that it is perhaps, timely to make another promise. I promise to eat a lemon if the Palmerston boat ramp is completed by the end of this year, within budget, and is of the same design as promised at the last election. I would prefer to eat that lemon rather than repeat this story. Why? If I have to eat that lemon next year, it will mean the good people of Palmerston have a new boat ramp, and that will deserve a celebration – a good, old lemon squash to celebrate not only the new Palmerston boat ramp, but to acknowledge this Labor government delivered on a promise - although late, delivered, nonetheless. I am dreaming, I believe, but hope I am not. I would love to see it but I can say this with my hand on my heart: it will not be delivered on time as originally promised, or within budget.
The water park is another great example of how this government can get it so wrong when costing works, costing services and costing or forecasting budgets. A park, nonetheless, if constructed, will be welcome by the residents of Palmerston. The members for Drysdale, Blain and I have been vocal in this House, demanding government deliver on their promise of a water park for Palmerston. The fact it has been budgeted for again this year gives me comfort that a strong opposition can keep a government to its commitments, in check, and drive projects.
Let us turn to this year’s revoted presentation by the Treasurer yesterday. We see record budget, record spend etcetera, etcetera. How can we believe it? How can we believe the Treasurer when we see major examples of revoted works and Commonwealth money being included within a budget to add a little polish? They gloss it up and deflect the sad reality of the poor budget with no real vision, and no real zest to launch the Northern Territory into a strong foundation to manage any future challenge which comes our way.
I expected to see a much tougher budget this year, particularly after the Treasurer had already said as much. I expected a budget which was tight in all areas; a budget which demonstrated sound commercial sense. Sadly, we did not see this. What we have seen is a budget with real potential to drive prices higher in an overcooked market, where the average person will pay for the Treasurer’s and the government’s mistakes.
Looking through the budget papers one area which surprised me, particularly after the last few weeks of countless examples of environmental piracy, was the stripping of the NRETAS budget by nearly $10m. I was even more surprised to see a number of departments had their budgets cut; however, the Department of the Chief Minister had a windfall of about $10m. It appears to me this government, and the Chief Minister, thinks our environment is not as important as the Department of the Chief Minister - the Department of Happiness. Only last week the minister for our environment promoted, through the media, the government would increase the EPA’s budget by $0.5m. Five hundred thousand dollars to help protect our environment! This statement was backed up in the budget papers, including the highlights, where it mentions $0.5m. On closer scrutiny you see the EPA has only been given an increase of $434 000. You, Madam Speaker, and this government might not think $66 000 is much money. I raise this because it openly advertises this government continues to mislead Territorians when it comes to budgets, and they do not feel ashamed or embarrassed by the way they spin the truth.
Four hundred and thirty-four thousand dollars is not $500 000. If this is an example of how this Labor Cabinet budgets, it is no wonder the Territory government is in debt - up the financial creek - and will continue to go further into debt. They will go further up the creek with no plan to right the ship and sail out of the creek. They spend money as if it is growing on mango trees with no regard for taxpayers, with no accountability or respect when it comes to managing budgets and the Territory.
Imagine telling the bank you had a deposit of $0.5m for a property loan and you go to sign the paperwork with $434 000. What do you think the bank would say? They would say: ‘Where the hell is the $500 000?’ No deal. Show me the money’. You cannot tell me Treasury is that blas; the minister for the Environment does not understand the difference between $500 000 and $434 000. If you do not, I have a few bridges I would like to sell you. It is not true, it is not accurate, and it is dishonest to announce you are increasing the EPA’s budget by $0.5m when it is clear you are not. It is disgraceful, deceitful and Territorians deserve better. They expect it and, in the case of the environment, they demand government provide an appropriate level of service which provides real protection for our environment.
The reality is the budget for NRETAS has dropped from $174 640 000 to $165 742 000. Nearly $10m and, if we were really serious about protecting our environment, this is one department that would not have seen a reduction in their budget. If we were serious about crocodile management, this is one department that would not have its budget reduced, and if we are serious about parks and wildlife, this is one department that should not have its budget reduced.
If the Chief Minister is concerned about the environment, crocodile management, climate change, and not focused on his political spin machine, let us see him reduce his department’s budget to ensure NRETAS can do its job. His department has seen an increase of about $10m this year - not a bad windfall. Nothing like leading by example, Chief Minister. I can imagine that speech: ‘Team, we need to find savings across the board. This will be our toughest budget yet. By the way, I will be increasing my spin bucket by about $10m. So, come on, chins up, find me that money’.
As an example of this government’s priorities, having seen one budget line which provides a deeper insight into this government’s commitments, this government’s real persona; that is, the amount of money committed for a crocodile public awareness program of $300 000 for the entire year. Let us look at page 215, Budget Paper No 3 - $300 000 for a one-off Brumbies game. Most people love sport, although I have to admit, while I did play Rugby, I much preferred Rugby League. However, the reality is this government sees an …
A member: What position did you play?
Mr CHANDLER: I played fullback at one stage – hard to believe.
The reality is this government sees an annual crocodile public awareness program only as important as a one-off Rugby game. When I saw this I was horrified. It clearly demonstrates the government, in love with whistles and bells, smoke and mirrors, biscuits and jam, is not interested or focused on basic services.
It was interesting listening to the Treasurer making comments today - interjecting and using the word ‘adjustment’. Is this the new Labor word for decrease - adjustment? Is it true we have a record budget full of increased spending and ‘adjustments’ - not decreased, not reduced spending, just adjustments. I will have to remember that one.
Let us look at how NRETAS will manage now the Chief Minister has decreased, ripped, pillaged – sorry, I mean adjusted - their budget this year. Parks and Reserves is adjusted down by $996 000; Biological Parks is adjusted down by $26 000; Natural Resources is adjusted down by $3.246m; Environment and Sustainability is adjusted down by $952 000; Heritage is adjusted down by $799 000 from a rather small budget to start with. This one is interesting: NRETAS employee expenses down from $64.51m to $60.714m. This government talks about jobs. I expect a drop when over $3m has been removed from the budget. How many jobs does more than $3m cover? Where are they going? Remember, this is a department promising to protect our environment, employing additional environmental police; to protect us from crocodiles in the crocodile exclusions zone. With what? Fewer staff? Are existing staff required to do even more? It seems a little dodgy to me.
I could go on, however you can see the Labor government disregards our parks and wildlife, desecrates our heritage values, pollutes our natural resources and, of course, shrugs off our environment - approximately $10m. All the while, the Department of the Chief Minister sees an increase. That would be an upward adjustment of around $10m. The Chief Minister thinks he is more important than our environment, our parks, our wildlife, and our heritage.
I am fully aware of the reality in the short time I have been a member of the Northern Territory parliament and, therefore, the relatively shortness of my knowledge and experience of the budget processes. I am also blatantly aware of the criteria for how budgets are presented. However, that does not mean I cannot disagree with how they are presented, and how the information is disseminated. I would love to see a budget containing spreadsheets and graphs where comparisons can be made for, say, the last five or 10 years on any budget line, where detail or programs are presented in a way they can be drilled down to help fully understand how a program operates and why a program operates.
Frankly, if government has nothing to hide, why can we not have a detailed budget paper? I am more than positive each department already has this detail. Rather than wasting money on highlights and overviews, which are really nothing more than a hard cover junk mail advertising - the budget papers are interesting in what they do not show as much as what they do show.
I am certainly no financial genius, however I understand the risk of CPI going beyond 3 percentage points I was speaking to a businessman recently who said as long as we are not going backwards, that is, into recession, even a CPI under one percentage point is acceptable to him.. I also suggest, while it is important that government supports and steps in during hard times to prevent a recession, it is irresponsible to over-invest when CPI increases have been indicated above three percentage points, particularly in a market such as housing, which is a critical point at this time, and far out of reach of the average income earner. However, we have a government fuelling the rocket and hoping on rising interest rates to moderate the market.
You do not have to be Einstein to understand the out of control spending by this government, and the federal government, is starting to overcook the market, driving up interest rates. Can anyone else not see this? Are we all blind to this idiotic situation where taxpayers’ money is being used to fuel a fire getting out of control with borrowed money which, of course, taxpayers have to repay. At the same time, it is the taxpayer-funded rollercoaster spending government contributing to a hot market causing interest rate rises. So, guess what? The taxpayer, the mortgage owner, or the renter pays again. For the Treasurer to say the market is moderating, she is waiting or hoping on interest rate rises to moderate the market, is plainly irresponsible and signs of an out of control administration.
We have seen a number of severe environmental challenges in recent weeks involving mining, transport and loading processes. While I appreciate how important mining is to the Northern Territory and Australia, mining practices, in particular, loading and transporting ores, need to improve. It is paramount government has in place detailed strategies to ensure these practices are not only complied with, that enforcement measures are taken for non-compliance. Given mining and transporting ore is not a new thing, I suggest the average person expected government was already doing this. However, it has become evident over the past few weeks it has not. It has been caught with its pants down in regard to protecting our environment. With the recent announcement to increase the number of environmental police - increase the EPA’s budget - I do not see anything else in this budget going anywhere near what is required to ensure we manage the processes effectively, and to ensure our environment is preserved from wanton destruction.
If this government was serious they should have spent the $35m budgeted for years ago for a new conveyor loading facility at East Arm. If they had, we would not have such a serious issue regarding copper concentrate in our harbour. That fact alone borders on criminal. To have budgeted for new facilities but sat on their hands, sat on their bums, while tons of dangerous substances pour wantonly into our once pristine harbour is atrocious.
I also question why this government, in a tag team approach, wants to tax out of existence one of the strongest economic stimulants in this country. From my point of view, any company required to pay more tax might reduce or pull out of an operation. It may continue but cut corners which may negatively impact on the environment in an effort to maintain profitability. I am talking about the mining industry, and the additional taxes this, and the federal government, want to attach. Why does this Territory Labor government, in tandem with their federal counterparts, want to put our mining industry at such a disadvantage through a big fat tax as to sabotage future investment, sabotage job opportunities and, in doing so, sabotage their own income through less tax being paid because of less investment and, federally, less tax being paid by people who would be working in the industry. This industry, by the way, pays well and provides a great deal of income tax generating work. Talk about killing off the goose that laid the golden egg.
The Canadian government has come out and welcomed the news. Why? Is it not obvious? They have all to gain and nothing to lose, particularly with new investment, new jobs and a new income stream for the Canadian government. They can, and will, take full advantage of this ill-thought out plan, ill-thought out tax, on an industry which provides some of the best paying jobs in Australia, with some in the highest tax margins available – all put at risk. As I mentioned, businesses may continue but they may cut corners, and it may be to the detriment of our environment.
In wrapping up, it is obvious this out of control administration has come to terms with the fact they cannot manage their budget. They are borrowing to meet recurring debt, and are now looking at new ways to tax industry, to tax the average person, all because of failed policy upon failed policy. One policy, as we all know, has created a housing crisis of a magnitude never seen before, all the while throwing fuel on a fire in an attempt to look good with little regard to the outcomes and hoping and praying that rising interest rates moderate or cool the fire they are stoking.
In regard to this uninspiring, risky and irresponsible budget I am disappointed, and feel deeply sorry for the many struggling families in the Northern Territory. While we acknowledge the many jobs that will be ensured by this budget, government needs to focus on service levels and the outcomes delivered to the community rather than the amount of money being spent.
I also am deeply concerned this Northern Territory Labor government has such a disregard for our environment that they have stripped the very department charged with protecting our environment of nearly $10m, all the while ensuring the department of spin benefits directly by about the same amount. How can you take this Labor government seriously on protecting our environment and on climate change initiatives? You just cannot. I hope people who care about our environment, care about our future, look hard at this government, look hard at what they have delivered, what they have promised and then ask: have I been fed a lie? Have I been fed a promise over the years that Labor supports our environment, is serious about climate change? I ask you to consider a new alternative, as you have most certainly been let down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, my response to the budget will be dealing more with the micro rather than the macro, which is just as important when debating the budget.
The first area, and one of the most important for many people in the Northern Territory, is housing and land. It is an area where no matter how much the government says it is speeding up land release, have increased land release fivefold - that is a good thing, however it is after the horse has bolted. We are trying to fix a problem from few years ago, probably before the present minister was in parliament, when a section of the Department of Lands and Housing dealing with land release was removed. Unfortunately, someone put forward projections that the growth of Darwin was not going to be as high as thought; those projections were wrong. We have a major problem trying to develop enough land to catch up with the shortfall created some years ago.
Bearing that in mind, it is good to see they are pushing ahead fast. I am interested in what is happening with Zuccoli. The minister has said it is going to be a government development through the Land Corporation, and it will be good to see the price of land turned off there. I saw how much a block of land was in Tennant Creek - I believe we should all pop down there – it is about $16 500. The minister explained it is an old subdivision with the headworks already in place. You do not have quite the degree of headworks required in Tennant Creek as you do for a greenfield site.
One of the key factors in bringing affordable housing into play is to bring the price of land, and the turn-off for that land, to a cheaper price. I worry about how much profit is taken on the sale of virgin land. Land should be the cheap part so people have enough money to …
A member: The government said it makes nothing on land.
Mr WOOD: … and this will be interesting to see because Land Corporation will be bringing a developer into Zuccoli. One of the questions from this side of the House would be the cost of developing a block of land. That is important. That will give us an idea what the market does when land is sold - what mark-up has been put on private land.
It is good to see $10m has been put forward for the AZRI development in Alice Springs. I believe that area should be pushed hard. Alice Springs has the same issues as the Top End - shortage of land. In the budget papers, you see the price of a medium house in Alice Springs has started to skyrocket. Has the minister for airports, Anthony Albanese, given approval to the government for the airport corporation to open up land adjacent to the AZRI land? That will release more land, and the more land you can produce, the more competition, the lower the price.
I mentioned, in Question Time, the $1.95m to progress planning for Weddell. It is an area which has to be done properly. I say to the government: do not forget that about one third of Weddell is private land; whatever you do in planning this land ensure you include that. A number of people own 20 acre blocks on Middle Arm, and their address is Weddell. I have had people say: ‘That is not part of Weddell’. I felt like saying: ‘Go to the council office and see where the rate notice goes’. It goes to Weddell. There are probably 50 blocks of land which are part of Weddell. Any discussion about the future of Weddell has to include those local landowners.
The government is trying to catch up with this shortfall in housing. I have told the government several times there is land in the rural area zoned for housing. It does not have native title on it. There is no indication of that coming forward in the budget. There are two blocks of land. The member for Goyder will know that the land south of Wallaby Holtze Road has been zoned Rural Residential and Rural Living for the last five years. It was rezoned. It would require an extension to Temple Terrace, which I imagine a developer would do. It would require town water, which might benefit people who live on Wallaby Holtze Road; a number of those people have looked at getting town water. There are probably 100 blocks which could be turned off because the land is already zoned, there is no native title, and they could turn that over to a developer. I do not see this parcel of land being for affordable housing. There are some environmental issues but the government, by not announcing anything in the budget, has not taken any notice.
The other area of land is Humpty Doo. Humpty Doo is a district centre, and has been designed for about 25 years. Within the Humpty Doo District Centre, there is a small portion of land for residential development. Humpty Doo is a township and has been designed for both multiple and single dwelling accommodation. I have mentioned it is sitting there waiting for development. Nothing has happened. These are pockets of land where the government could keep the momentum going. They should be pushing to open this land up. Humpty Doo has roads which go straight into the bush and stop dead at a power line. It was meant to go further; it has sat that way for probably 15 years. Norbuilt was the last company to build residential houses in Humpty Doo.
I know plans are being put together for expansion of the Humpty Doo District Centre, however the existing zones - the same as at Holtze - already allow for more housing. This is something we have to put effort into. If there are not enough people in the department of Lands, put more in and get this land ready for development. It hurts me when I know there is land available. I push the government to get this land going. They have expanded the sewerage ponds at Humpty Doo; I think they are double the size.
I want to get onto another important issue; the development of industrial land. Industrial land is very expensive. In Humpty Doo, land has been developed on Spenceley Road as part of a three-stage subdivision and it has all sold. There is land to the west zoned Industrial, and there has been no movement by the government to open that up as an extension of industrial land. Industrial land is important for the development of the Northern Territory.
Industrial land, at the moment, is too expensive. Industrial land has been set aside for the Defence hub on Thorngate Road; opposite is a subdivision where the piggery was. There are a number of 0.4 ha blocks selling for $1m. I do not know how people get into business - not at $1m. I believe they have sewerage, water and electricity. I checked on the website when they were first advertised and could not believe it. How does someone get into small business if they have to pay a loan against $1m for a quarter-acre block?
Opening up industrial land is as important as opening up residential land. Opening up industrial land in the rural area will take the temptation away from people to turn their 5 acre, or 2 ha, blocks into industrial blocks. The member for Goyder would know this happens occasionally in the rural area - you see the odd planning notice come up. Some people want seven demountables on a block which, somehow, was approved. I do not know how they did it; that is another issue. If you have good, reasonably priced industrial land, you encourage people not to use their rural blocks for businesses they should not be operating. That land has been available quite some time. No one has said: ‘Let us open that up because there is a market for it’. If all the blocks are sold people must be saying: ‘We can sell some more’.
It is good to see the government trying to help people buy their own home. I am not against that philosophy; I believe that is good. What concerns me is the government saying there will be a price cap of $475 000 - $385 000 in Alice Springs -your income will limit your loan. I did some figures for a $475 000 house; a household of four who might have an income of $105 000, which is still a large amount of money. I do not think many people have $105 000 - I am just using the maximum figures here. When we rang the bank, we came up with a figure of about $3200 a month, of which you would pay about $800 a month. This works out to be about 36% to 37% of your income, which is above what is permitted. The two things I have a problem with is you start to get into this mortgage creep where people will be stressed - which I believe is a real danger - and you are asking people to go into bigger and bigger debt. I am taking a figure of $105 000. Many people would not have anywhere near that amount of money.
Whilst it is a good idea, the solution is to get cheaper land. Another solution is to work with developers to sell smaller houses which can be added to. The argument is many people today want the biggest house with all the mod cons; that might be fine. That is all you see in the paper too. You do not see small houses - one-bedroom, garage, lounge, kitchen, with a plan that can be added on. How many display homes have you seen called the first homeowner’s house? Why could developers not take the punt and build some display homes which might be half the price of these big ones ...
Mr Bohlin: Because these blokes put caveats on them.
Mr WOOD: Absolutely! The member for Drysdale hit it on the head. Caveats on some of these subdivisions designed to make them beautiful. Everyone knows how beautiful they are because they have black roofs in Farrar, blue roofs in Farrar, and red roofs in Farrar, and that is not environmentally friendly.
Mr Chandler: I have a white roof.
Mr WOOD: Good on you. Thank you, member for Brennan; he has a white roof.
I believe the covenants have restricted the ability of Territorians to look at smaller houses; at different designs. What house won the best design two years ago? A house in Batchelor where windows were made from corrugated Perspex, not glass, and all flow through. It was a house which cost $150 000 - it would not have been built in a Delphin estate. I had a guy come to me who wanted to build a one-bedroom house, and because it did not take up the full building envelope, he was told he could not build it.
We have to get away from this politically correct building attitude we have where all the roofs are colour matched. We have to leave some flexibility so we can build cheaper houses and, when people get more money, they can add to those houses. We need building companies which are willing to take a punt and promote these as a cheaper way to build a house. That needs government to work with them by trying to produce land at a cheaper price.
It is good government has exemptions from stamp duty; I believe most people would be pleased with that. There is a danger that when the government announces there will be exemptions - some work has been done on when government gives exemptions or bonuses to people wanting to buy a house - house prices go up. I will give you an example. I was talking to a small businessman last Saturday who works with solar power work on cattle stations. He has spent 18 months in Alice Springs doing solar panels for houses. He said that when there was a rebate, solar panels were a certain price; they took the rebate off, the price of solar panels has gone down. It makes you wonder whether people put their prices up when there is a rebate, and when there is not, competition comes into play.
There are some good things in the rural area. After 20 years it is nice to see a bicycle path going into Howard Springs. It is not just about me; it is about the heritage that will preserve. In fact, 80% of this bicycle path is in the member for Brennan’s electorate, and I congratulate him for helping me, over the last 20 years, get that bicycle path. You will be able to ride a bike from Howard Springs to Palmerston, Darwin and the northern suburbs. That is Stage 1 as far as I am concerned. Stage 2 is to get it further down the highway.
We need to preserve the old railway line. It is a fantastic railway with a fantastic heritage. The railway line will not be cycling for the sake of cycling; it can be educational …
A member: Down to the Adelaide Hills.
Mr WOOD: Adelaide Hills you want to take it to? Yes, people will be able to commute to work, go shopping, keep fit, have a nice Sunday outing; vice versa for people coming from Palmerston. They will know rural people are not feral; they are very friendly people, and do not be scared when you come out there. It will allow people to come down the track. Hopefully, it will get as far as Coolalinga in the next stage and people can go to the markets and have a cup of coffee.
Ms Purick: I could ride to work.
Mr WOOD: That is right, yes. They will probably have a branch line and you will get organic coffee or something up there.
The money for Freds Pass is a moderate amount when you compare it to what is going to the water park in Palmerston. It is probably a drop in the bucket, but I do not have any complaint. I see this as money from government to recognise the hard work the many volunteers put into Freds Pass. Freds Pass is a big sporting complex. We have money for the next three years for infrastructure and maintenance work. It is important the government shows rural people their sporting facilities will be given some money for maintenance and upgrades.
I notice the government does this tricky thing of putting the $1.8m water and aquatic wildlife viewing facilities at Howard Springs but, as you know, that was in last year’s budget. You have to go through this budget carefully because sometimes the good news is last year’s good news - as the member for Brennan mentioned in relation to the water park. There is nothing in there for the pool. I have been given a verbal guarantee on the issue surrounding the pool - because that is what is missing at the moment - who runs it, how much it costs, how long it will run for. It is no good digging a hole in the ground until those things are sorted out. I know people are frustrated, however, I would rather it was worked out properly before an announcement is made. We do not want a white elephant, or a white pool, down there.
Land releases: I have mentioned the rural area. The Defence Hub has a sign up: ‘Developing the Defence Hub First Stage’. First stage will be all right; second stage will probably not too bad; third stage, they will be in the swamp and the magnetic ant hills. It will be interesting when they get to the third stage.
There is $0.5m to expand facilities at Humpty Doo for the bus exchange, which is good. This is the start of the park-ride idea the government is putting forward to get people onto buses. You do not want to just have the infrastructure; you need to be advertising and promoting it otherwise it will not happen. I noticed there was no money for Coolalinga’s bus exchange. I hope that has not fallen off the agenda. There should be one for Howard Springs near the highway so people can leave their cars and catch an express into Darwin.
The Darwin port: what concerns me is the revote for the $33.7m overland conveyor to improve bulk shipping loading operation. The question really is: how come it has not happened? What has been the delay? It is an area we have spoken about many times. The issues around the wharf will come back at the Estimates Committee; there will be many questions, especially from the member for Brennan.
There was an amount of money for an upgrade of Jenkins Road - $4.5m. My concern with that is we have not designed Weddell yet. Much as people use it, I would like to know …
Ms Purick: That is going to be for the gaol.
Mr WOOD: Yes, this is going further than that; we have not worked out where the gaol is going yet. If you are going to design a city, you want to ensure you know exactly where the roads are going before you put bitumen on. I am interested to know what is happening.
I am happy to see the boat ramp, at last, at Palmerston. The member for Blain has been calling for this for donkey’s ages; I hope it does happen this year. The water park at Palmerston: there are many people who live close to Palmerston, like the member for Goyder, she can pop across on her bike for a swim. Not only will it be good for Palmerston people, it will also be good for rural people. Even though we criticise government for various things, if that happens this financial year, good. What we can do for our youth and families to give them something to do is the way to go, rather than kids bored out of their brain. Look at Leanyer, it might be free, and it might cost a great deal of money, but many kids use it; you never see a shortage of kids in the water or on the slides or up on the bike path.
A question I will be asking in parliament regarding social housing, including public housing is: where is the $31.8m for managed accommodation facilities? I would like to know what that is about.
A Working Future: the member for Braitling raised the issue. Although I am part of the CTC, there are questions to be asked about where some of that money has gone. I look forward to the positives, saying the proof will be in the pudding if they build the number of houses in the time they said, at the price they said they would. On the other hand, we have had the first review which said there had been a bloated bureaucracy at the beginning. We have had a post-review assessment which gives a mildly supportive report, however, at the same time, says a number of things have not yet been approved. The proof of whether SIHIP is doing what it said it would, will be when the targets and budgets are released. The CTC has asked for detailed quarterly reports and, hopefully, we can get a better indication of where the money has gone.
The work camp at Barkly: I applaud the minister for that. It is a good thing and I believe we need more of them. I also believe they could be in more isolated areas, or even places like Nhulunbuy or Borroloola. It is a great concept. We need to look at the Katherine prison camp, along with one in Central Australia. I am still on record as saying I am not a fan of huge prisons. I know that is a debateable area, and the minister knows I have been involved in discussions and people have different points of view on it. However, I would rather see more people out bush than stuck in a big town prison. If we can get to that, I would be much more satisfied than seeing one big prison, minister.
I do not know how we can get there. Many experts say you have to do it this way first, however 80% of the prisoners are Indigenous and many for a short term. I believe there is room for more discussion, minister. It is an important area. It might be delayed at the moment but it is something we need to get right.
I feel the youth area has missed out. I looked at some of the figures. They might be in other budgets but it is hard to find where money is spent on youth. I looked at the $0.9m for the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan and there is $0.1m to provide family support by increasing the capacity of the Family Support Centre. If we are serious about keeping kids out of trouble, we need to see some big dollars put into youth. You might be putting the water park at Palmerston, what about more money for Palmerston YMCA? It could do with more money. It could do with a purpose built building. Some of their facilities are in the basketball stadium, but they still work upstairs where you could not put trampolines because it is a two storey building and you would hit the roof. They need to put more money in there.
It is the same with youth facilities in Alice Springs. We had complaints the manager was only on a one year contract. That has to be changed. I would like to have seen more money put into those programs in the budget to send out a signal that the government is really fair dinkum when it comes to early intervention. We might put it under youth however we are trying to say: this is getting in early; we care for our kids; we do not want them to get into trouble. Let us put some more money in there.
The constant issue I had when speaking to the people from the Gap Drop-In Centre at Palmerston is funding is just too short. Some people get funding for a year and halfway through they are filling out details of what they did that year to get the money for the next year. If governments really want to say they are doing something for youth, put these programs on a longer term - five or 10 years - so we can get these programs constant, get the good people staying in the job, and we can help kids. I am disappointed in the youth area because I cannot see a targeted amount for young people.
There is some money in the budget for schools and libraries in the Palmerston rural area. One area which needs looking at is a new library at Taminmin. It is well past its use-by date. It is a school with 1200 kids, and it is a shared facility. It is too small. It is the same size library as was there for 450 kids. We need money for the Taminmin library.
I address the issue of taxing mining. If 2% was the only extra tax they were going to get I would say it is probably not the end of the world. However, if that is going to be combined with the 40% tax from the federal government, where are we going? I am not against taxing some of the big companies. I believe when you talk mining, there are mining companies, and there are little mining companies. The Territory is well-known for having many smaller mining companies that have invested money and have been right on the borderline. You have to start making a profit so you can re-invest in mining. Mining is not just digging a hole. You have to repair machinery and explore for more ore. If you are looking at tax for the mining industry, I would not support a blanket increase. I would look at each mine on its merits. Look at the number of gold mines that collapsed in the Pine Creek area several years ago. If it is that much extra they have to pay that tips them over the line, then people lose jobs and mines close down.
The government needs to be careful how it does it. Did they know the federal government was going to introduce a 40% tax? Two percent is probably not going to do any harm. You cannot look at it in isolation. I am not an expert in the area; I would like to do more reading on it between now and estimates to gain some understanding of what is being proposed. The federal government may change it. If you have listened to the news, Mr Rudd has been told by the mining companies this is not a good catch. Maybe it is not the last we will hear about this.
Defence receives a small mention, and it is an important area, not because of the money it puts into the community - page 172 of the Northern Territory Economy book, the planned move of 7RAR, the Royal Australian Regiment, will see about 700 Army personnel from the Territory relocated to South Australia from late 2010. That is a large number of people, half of which may be married with a family - a considerable number of people to leave the Darwin area. I am interested to know how that will affect our economy. This document does not say, however they might be replaced with something else, or more troops may come in from south.
I knew some were moving; I did not realise it was that many. That is a large number of people from the Defence Force going south. I am not sure I heard anything in the budget debate about it. I am interested to know if that has been calculated as a loss when it comes to income and spending in the Northern Territory.
The other area is whether government has been harsh enough with this budget. Harshness is not seen until you find a page - I do not have the exact page - I have it in my notes – where we have an efficiency dividend. This is a sneaky way to achieve reductions in staff and expenditure. It does not show up as anything much; just says efficiency dividend - and it has gone up to 3%. That is fine; you ensure departments stay lean and do not waste money. However, there are three or four people in a department who have had the 1% or 2% dividend for the last 10 years and they are getting down to taking the wheels off the chair ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 77, the member be given an extra 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I wish to acknowledge someone in the gallery. I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Chair of the EPA, Mr Andrew Tupper. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am concerned that if you cut some small departments you make them ineffective. A concern has been raised with me that these cuts could have had some environmental impact. When we are looking at people checking the wharf, was that because we have cut back, through efficiency dividends? For instance, has a particular person in the department left and the position not been filled? That fixes the 3% dividend. Have people simply retired or shifted to another department and not been replaced? It does worry me.
There is an inquiry into the oil rig which burned off the coast of Australia last year. I have a feeling some of that may have been due – and we will find out in the inquiry - to the capability of our department being stretched because there were not enough people to do the job. I put the proposal that things like this 3% dividend are the reason some departments are stretched so much; they do not have the right people, or enough people. One person could be working 24 hours, seven days a week, to do the job two people should be doing, simply because of cuts. You might have people researching Panama Disease - if you have a 3% cut what does that mean? Three percent less research, or do we not buy as much equipment to help with our research?
It is a cold method of cutting expenditure and, I believe, too cold if Treasury uses it as a means of ensuring efficiency. There might be plenty of departments needing efficiency. I have had people talk to me: where is the car? They have taken it and we only have one car. So, if there is a job to do you have to wait for the car, which means they are hanging around not doing their job.
That efficiency dividend, and its effect within the public service, is something worth investigating. Do not look at it as a blanket way of reducing expenditure, but at what it affects in every department. Is it making a department which has to look after the environment unable to do its job because it has been cut back by this 3% efficiency process? I do not know what other people think; I believe it is worth looking at.
On the global area - I spoke about this last budget - we have to be careful because the GST revenue, whilst it has not decreased in numbers, it has certainly decreased in the rate of growth and, on top of that, we lost $77m in the restructured GST. We have picked up on mining royalties, and there are several other areas which seem to be at least steady, such as taxation revenue. Taxation revenue appears to be stable according to – I am looking at figures from one year to the next. It has a slight drop, and I have been notified by a number of hotel owners with poker machines their revenue - I am not praising the poker machine industry - from poker machines has dropped substantially since smoking restrictions were introduced.
I understand that will eventually increase. People will get used to smoking outside - we are trying to reduce the number of people smoking. To be honest, I might play the pokies every now and then; however it is not a great form of gambling. It is one of the highest forms of gambling in Australia - it leaves racing for dead. It is probably the least successful form of gambling because it is habit forming. You could call it entertainment but some reduction in poker machine output is not the end of the world.
The government needs to be very careful where it is going. It said it wants growth to continue. It said private growth has dropped and has been replaced with public spending growth. I know that argument from the CLP days. The hotel across the road and this building were built when private industry growth started to decline. The government stepped in to ensure the economy continued and people kept their jobs. We all hope INPEX will come, because it will help that type of development, however, we are not sure of that yet. The government, whilst it hopes these things will help in the future, has to be very careful. We do not want to go too far into debt.
I believe we have to put more money into developing private industry. Look at primary industry in this budget. Where is the real push to increase primary industry? It is a fairly low percentage of GDP in the Northern Territory compared to mining.
A member: GSP.
Mr WOOD: GSP, that is right. I believe that …
A member: Gerry, mining is a primary industry. .
Mr WOOD: You are right. Do not get me onto why we call it the Department of Resources.
There is a classic example of government not promoting primary industry. It should not be called the Department of Resources. Resources are how many biros, books and notebooks we have; that is what I call resources. The department needs to change its name and go back to the grassroots. It needs to call itself the department of primary industry, and we need to promote and push our economy as a variable economy. It does not only depend on mining or tourism, it can depend on primary industry, Defence, many things. When you read this budget, primary industry has been left out. It has miserable amounts of money for a little experimental work on a few stations. The government needs a few cowboys on that side - someone who knows about a cow, a carrot, and a couple of pumpkins. These people understand rural industry is important.
We have to be very careful with primary industries, especially the cattle industry. There are some moves which might give an impression Indonesia might be slowing down on cattle imports. Reading Country Life, the Cattlemen’s Association suggest it is getting harder to get permits to import cattle into Indonesia because they are importing more frozen beef. We might think everything is great with the livestock industry – I believe it is. It is good the government is going to Vietnam, however, we need to keep working hard to ensure that major source of income from primary industry is not at threat. We need to keep working with the Indonesian government to ensure live cattle exports continue. That is an area the government needs to pick up on. It needs to promote primary industry; it needs to develop more land and more water. If government develops land and water and says: ‘Here is some land available for agriculture’ - they do not have to get anyone. Let the market go out there; it will say when the growth of certain crops is economical. The government needs to provide the land and the water so it can happen.
Overall, I believe the budget is good in some places, and in other places it has a deficit. As usual, we will have plenty of time to question the government in more detail at the estimates, and I look forward to that.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, Budget 2010-11 delivers now for Territory families, and invests in the Territory’s future. It builds on gains made in the past so Territory families can enjoy a better standard of living, and their children and future generations can enjoy a better standard of living. Importantly, Budget 2010-11 delivers initiatives to create and support Territory jobs.
While we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, it would be too early to withdraw or reduce our infrastructure spending in the light of the global financial crisis which has affected so many parts of the world in recent times. In fact, I can proudly say a record infrastructure package of $1.8bn is at the heart of Budget 2010-11. It is the biggest infrastructure program in the Territory’s history. This package will keep our economy ticking, while building the important infrastructure Territorians need. Having people in work is one of the keys to having a strong economy and stable society. This record investment will secure 3600 jobs. While we continue to deliver for Territory families, and take into account population growth and future economic policies we have, most importantly, engendered confidence in the future.
Some of the world’s best economists have stated government spending is the best approach when faced with economic downturn and the threat of higher unemployment. Our actions will grow the Territory now and for the future. Labor sees strong and growing employment as one of the fundamentals of community development and social justice.
I would like to take time out to comment on the member for Braitling’s reply to the Treasurer’s budget. I want to touch on some of the comments made this morning by the member for Braitling. His attacks on our consultants in private enterprise and the investment we make in local businesses have forced my comments. He clearly is unable to read budget books, and provide knowing and informed comment in this debate. He stated we waste money on construction consultants, and I reject that. He believes our local architects, engineers, building designers, surveyors, and probity auditors should not be working on projects. The worry for me is he was so wound up I fear the member for Braitling may start to believe himself; and this is of great concern to members on this side of the House. He said: ‘We are not getting value for money from our projects’. We disagree. These consultants in the private sector perform extremely important tasks across the Territory.
I want to touch on the Building the Education Revolution program to inform the member for Braitling how we invest in local businesses and consultants. The facts are, with the federal government, we are investing $188m over 134 individual projects, to improve schools across the Territory. All up, 498 local businesses have benefited from this program. One hundred percent of all consultants and contractors are local. The Master Builders’ Association of Australia issued a release on 6 April 2010 which stated: ‘The government’s well targeted BER stimulus has underpinned what would have otherwise been certain collapse in commercial building activity across Australia, leading to job losses as high as 35 000’. That is 35 000 men and women who would be unemployed today.
The member for Braitling did not support the stimulus. He voted against it, and continues to speak against it today. He also complained about our infrastructure investment program. I wonder, with all that overseas travel, does he have time to speak to local businesses about their thoughts? The fact is, from June 2009 to date, 96% of tenders have been given to local business. He also said we have no plans to build the Palmerston Water Park. I can assure the House we have a great plan and a full cash allocation in this budget of $13.57m. Palmerston City Council is fully supportive of the design, and they know Palmerston residents will love this free facility.
The member for Braitling also commented he knows truck registrations will increase, and this will have an effect on the economy of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government has not increased vehicle registrations. Territory Insurance Office has increased the motor accident compensation charge by 3.5% and, for the benefit of the member for Braitling so he does not have to do the sums, the overall increase for a triple road train will be $23.50 a year.
Let us hear the true story, and a story I am proud to tell. Construction: I have met with business which relies on government investment, and it is too early to pull back on our investment infrastructure. Our decision to invest a record $1.3bn infrastructure program in last year’s budget to protect Territory jobs has proven to be the right one. The Territory recorded the lowest unemployment in the nation for the past six months. We have a strong economy, and the message is out there - if you want a job, take yourself to the Northern Territory.
Some of the important projects completed this financial year include the Royal Darwin Hospital Trauma Centre; Bulla Health Centre; Radiation and Oncology Centre; upgrades to many schools such an Anula, Minyerri, Ross Park, Katherine Middle School and the new Centralian Middle School as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan; new industrial land and a boat ramp at East Arm; upgrades at Hidden Valley; Fogg Dam boardwalk and other fishing infrastructure; headworks in Palmerston East for land release; Casuarina Police Station; Galiwinku Police Station and accommodation for our hard-working police officers; aerodrome upgrades at Nyirripi, Papunya, Palumpa and Peppimenarti; upgrades to the Stuart and Victoria Highways, including new bridges; new seal on important roads such as the Tanami, Plenty and Buntine Highways; extended the seal on the Litchfield Loop and the Red Centre Way; added passing lanes on Tiger Brennan Drive, and continued with the Tiger Brennan extension.
Through Budget 2010-11, our record $1.8bn program will continue to deliver new classrooms, better hospitals, better roads and more housing options for Territorians. This includes $213m to build better schools, which includes upgrades to Acacia, Henbury and Nemarluk Special Schools, Centralian Middle School, Casuarina Secondary College, Sanderson Middle School and homeland learning centres as part of A Working Future. It includes a record $147.8m to upgrade Territory hospitals including better renal facilities in Katherine and Tennant Creek, staff accommodation at Gove, a better emergency department in Alice Springs, and new emergency standby power generation at the Royal Darwin Hospital; $331m investment to strengthen, widen or seal Territory roads, as well as the continuation of Stage 2 of the Tiger Brennan Drive extension which is on track for completion this year; continued headworks for Palmerston East, and new headworks for the new suburb of Kilgariff in Alice Springs; planning works for the new town of Weddell; supporting fully serviced lots in Tennant Creek; and more social, affordable and public housing in our cities and our regions, including three new seniors villages at Larapinta, Johnston and Malak.
As mentioned, this government is investing in residential land release, which is part of our Housing the Territory initiative. This includes $20m to deliver headworks at Zuccoli in Palmerston East, and $10m for the AZRI subdivision, which has now been named Kilgariff in honour of one of the Territory’s great pioneers. This $30m investment will be used to provide power, water, sewerage, and road infrastructure for these suburbs, so we can get more Territorians into their own homes sooner. Stage 1 of Zuccoli will deliver 550 dwellings on 400 lots, and is an integral part of our plan to house 15 000 more Territorians in Palmerston over the next five years, and 1200 lots at Kilgariff will be fast-tracked to meet the demand for future residential and urban development in Alice Springs.
As part of this government’s Growing the Territory initiative, we are encouraging investment and helping business and industry expand by providing land and roads, and sewerage and water infrastructure to support industrial developments. Budget 2010-11 invests $18m for five key projects which build on the Land Development Corporation’s solid track record of subdividing and servicing industrial land. The five key projects are: $3m to subdivide six new blocks as part of the Casey Street subdivision near the new East Arm boat ramp - future use is set for marine-related industries such as boat sales, hire, repair, storage and charter; $5m for the provision of sewer to the current and future developments within the East Arm marine services precinct, East Arm commercial precinct, and the existing Hudson Creek industrial estate; $2.5m to fill and service waterfront land at Muramats Road in Berrimah for the use of small ships and barges; $4.5m for the construction of a haul road for the movement of fill from the vicinity of the Hidden Valley area to the East Arm marine services precinct area - this haul road will form the basis for the future construction of an industrial arterial road servicing proposed Hidden Valley and Bleesers Creek subdivisions; $3m for Stage 2 of the Defence Support Hub to build on Stage 1 work already under way by local company, Sage Contracting Pty Ltd.
To build on the development of the beautification of Casuarina Coastal Reserve and installation of the Nightcliff foreshore exercise stations, the government has committed $4m in Budget 2010-11. This will provide a footpath between the airport and Marrara sports ground, build a walkway between the sports ground and nearby accommodation, and install a mangrove boardwalk and fishing platform with disabled access at Rapid Creek. These projects include Larrakia history markers, and are part of a broader project to link some of Darwin’s best coastline, parks, reserves and sporting facilities.
Transport is another big winner in Budget 2010-11, which delivers now for Territory families and invests in the Territory’s future. As I said last year, safe, accessible and effective delivery of transport services is a good thing in itself, however, it should also be geared to support economic and social development for the Northern Territory. Budget 2010-11 continues this journey with a $331m road package, which I already mentioned, and improved regional transport services. Included as part of our $331m roads package is: $3m to widen Vanderlin Drive from Patterson Street to Mueller Road near the Leanyer Recreation Park to improve traffic flow and road safety in Darwin’s northern suburbs; $3m to upgrade and seal a further 6 km of Litchfield Park Road in the popular Litchfield National Park, which attracts more than 260 000 visitors each year; $2.5m to seal a further 5 km stretch of the Fog Bay Road to help Territorians and tourists access some of the Top End’s best fishing spots, including angler access to both Bynoe Harbour and the Finniss River, the two latest areas in which government has brought back commercial barramundi licences to make recreational fishing even better.
Budget 2010-11 also focuses on improving access to rural and regional communities, supporting local industry, and encouraging new investment by upgrading key links. This includes $31.9m for central region roads, including $2m to seal around 7 km of the Sandover Highway, a further $2m to continue sealing the Tanami Highway, and $21.7m towards maintenance and minor upgrades of key roads.
Work on the $23m Port Keats and Daly River crossing upgrades, beginning with $10m to upgrade the Moyle River floodplain and Tom Turner Crossing; an extra $2m to continue supporting the pastoral and agricultural industries by upgrading key Top End beef roads in the Douglas Daly region; $14.4m for roads in the Barkly region, including $670 000 for the Sandover Highway, $790 000 for the Tablelands Highway; and $1m for the Kurundi-Epenarra-Hatches Creek Road; $27.7m for roads in the Katherine region, including $1.67m for the Buntine Highway, $1m for the Carpentaria Highway, $550 000 for the Roper Highway, $580 000 for the Buchanan Highway, and $4.58m for various other local roads in the Katherine region. The Northern Territory government and federal government will also spend $116m in total on national highways in the Territory, a great investment into our primary transport corridor.
The Territory government is continuing to work with the Commonwealth on many roads infrastructure projects, including projects to address safety issues, strengthening and widening of various sections of the network, construction of new overtaking opportunities between Darwin and Katherine, and sealing 46 km of the Umbakumba Road on Groote Eylandt from Angurugu to Umbakumba. I welcome the significant contribution from the Anindilyakwa Land Council towards this project; providing flood immunity for Central Arnhem Road, with $14m to improve access with work on a bridge over the Mainoru River to begin this Dry Season.
I would like to talk about regional transport services. Improving access to remote communities goes beyond building and improving roads. Budget 2010-11 commits to expanding regional transport services through a $21.3m investment to give more than 10 000 Territorians improved and expanded transport services in the bush, including $3.1m for passenger bus services to be trialled in more communities; $6.2m over the next three years to improve freight handing at costal barge landings across the Top End, including Nguiu, Gapuwiyak, Ramingining, Maningrida and Galiwinku; $7.5m to upgrade airstrips at Yarralin, Alpara and Canteen Creek; and an extra $4.5m over five years to support shires to manage airstrips across the Territory..
Each plan is vital to the future of the Territory, and each is interrelated. The strong infrastructure spend will create and support jobs, as well as boosting the local economy, both through short-term job creation and long-term use of the improved roads.
Improved regional transport services are a key element of our A Working Future policy to improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians living in regional and remote areas. In coming years, some of the issues in this portfolio I am focused on are completing the development of the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy, providing connectivity of regional centres across the Territory, and the long-term Northern Territory Transport Strategy; improving the service and safety standards of the commercial passenger vehicle industry; continuing the planning and facilitating of public transport and school bus services for the Territory; and, improving safety on public transport networks.
This budget also provides for additional funding of $1.8m for free bus travel for students and seniors; $980 000 for school bus services for Rosebery primary and middle schools; and $650 000 for improved and expanded bus services in Alice Springs, including a special needs bus with a carer to transport students with disabilities.
The primary function of the Darwin Bus Service is to provide an efficient, safe and reliable urban public bus service to meet the needs of the Darwin and Palmerston communities. In time, of course, those services will be extended to the new city of Weddell. Strategic issues facing the Darwin Bus Service in 2010-11 include continuing refinement of Darwin Bus Services’ commercial business operations as a government business division, and improving safety for drivers and passengers. As part of this year’s budget, we will be looking to meet these challenges through continued improvement of accessibility and comfort for all passengers through acquiring air-conditioned, low floor, easy access vehicles; investing in new buses with contemporary passenger transport ergonomics for passenger comfort and safety; and continued implementation of strategies to improve environmental outcomes, including purchasing buses which meet Australian design rules and European exhaust emission standards.
In the area of correctional services, the Correctional Services budget for 2010-11 will exceed $100m for the first time in the Territory’s history. Our new era in Corrections is an integral part of this government’s Safe Territory Initiative to rehabilitate prisoners and put a stop to the cycle of reoffending. As we know, there is no quick fix; getting the lives of prisoners back on track takes time and the right approach. New funding in Budget 2010-11 includes $7.6m for a new Barkly Work Camp comprising $5.1m to construct, and $2.5m for the operation of the camp. This new 50-bed prisoner work camp is due to start in early 2011, and will help end the cycle of crime by helping prisoners learn valuable work and life skills to increase their employment opportunities.
Through the Henderson government’s Safe Territory Plan, the government is getting tough on crime and convicted offenders. Research shows released prisoners with low education and employment skills are very likely to end up back in prison. The new work camp will be based in Tennant Creek and allow prisoners to participate in community work projects, learn valuable work and life skills, and give something back to the community so they do not end up breaking the law and return to prison. The camp will help to end the revolving door by providing prisoners with the skills to successfully transition back into the community with support and confidence.
Work camps can significantly reduce high recidivism rates, particularly amongst Indigenous offenders who make up 82% of the prison population. Projects and programs at the new work camp will include training during the day and education at night, with a specific aim to fill real jobs where skill shortages might exist. The new work camp will also provide opportunities for community involvement with prisoners and offenders to help integrate them into the community. Construction of the new camp will also support jobs, and boost the economy in Tennant Creek.
Budget 2010-11 also delivers additional funding of $7.5m to manage increasing prisoner numbers. This includes funding for prisoner rehabilitation and education programs. Budget 2010-11 also delivers additional funding of $2m to manage increasing juvenile detainee numbers, including provision for management of increased female detainees, and transition from a casual to permanent staffing model. Juvenile detention facilities in the Territory have experienced increasing detainee numbers in recent years. The additional funding will allow implementation of an improved staffing model and meet higher operational costs. Under this government’s Closing the Gap initiative, there is additional funding of $300 000 for remote area corrections officers to supervise community-based offenders; $245 000 for rehabilitation programs for sex offenders to break that cycle of offending; and $300 000 to expand the Indigenous Family Violence Offender Program.
In relation to ports, we will soon be launching the Darwin Port Corporation Master Plan 2030, which outlines a 20-year land use strategy aimed at growing the port. The Master Plan 2030 is a vision which will accommodate the long-term expansion of East Arm. The corporation is well positioned to demonstrate to its customers it understands future demands and is innovatively planning to meet them.
With land reclamation at East Arm under way, and plans for new infrastructure at both East Arm and city wharves, the corporation is positioned to meet its challenges 2010-11. Budget 2010-11 invests around $37m in Darwin Port Corporation. The highlights include: continued expansion of bulk materials handling infrastructure to facilitate mineral exports, including a 2.5 km overland conveyor to link bulk commodity or stock piles to East Arm Wharf; continued expansion of bulk material stock pile capabilities; the filling, paving and sealing of Pond F, and the reclamation of the Eastern Reclaimed Area, including the paving and sealing of the hardstand; improvements to the bulk loading system to enhance operational capabilities in respect to environmental sustainability and stakeholder’s needs; and major maintenance program for city wharf facilities, including the Frances Bay Mooring Basin, Fisherman’s and Stokes Hill wharves.
It is a great pleasure to outline the budget for the portfolio of Arts and Museums. This is my first budget as a minister with this portfolio from the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. Funding of $38.1m is provided in Budget 2010-11 as a great investment into arts and culture, which is for our major facilities’ development, repairs and maintenance, and minor new works. The Scientific and Cultural Collections Output Group preserves and provides access to the Northern Territory’s natural, scientific and cultural heritage. Budget 2010-11 provides $28.2m for this output group.
The Arts and Screen sector output group delivers $9.9m. The Arts and Screen sector delivers many public facilities this government operates for the education and enjoyment of Territorians and visitors alike. This includes facilities in Darwin, such as the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory at Bullocky Point; Fannie Bay Gaol; Lyons Cottage; the Northern Territory Library at Parliament House; and the Northern Territory Archives Service in Cavenagh Street and Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, such government facilities include the Museum of Central Australia; the Araluen Arts Centre; the Northern Territory Archive Service; and the Strehlow Research Centre.
I will break up the $28.3m from Budget 2010-11 into more detail. The Museums and Art Gallery facilities I have mentioned, such as the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, the Museum of Central Australia, the Strehlow Research Centre, and various historic buildings in their care will receive $11.3m in 2010-11 to account for, preserve and provide access to Territory art, culture, and natural history collections. The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory presents permanent, temporary, and travelling exhibitions, including the National Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Art Award, an exhibition which is now in its 27th year. Budget 2010-11 has provided $600 000 to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory for the provision of a wet-store fire suppression system.
The Araluen Arts Centre, within the Araluen Cultural Precinct in Alice Springs, is set to receive $4.4m in Budget 2010-11. This funding will enable this public facility to continue delivering, facilitating and promoting performing arts, cinema, visual arts and tourism programs and attractions for residents and visitors to Alice Springs. The Araluen Cultural Precinct provides some of Alice Springs’ premier cultural and historical experiences, encompassing performing and visual arts, the natural history of the region, Indigenous culture and the more recent European settlement.
Part of the draft Araluen Cultural Precinct development plan is the Araluen Arts Centre solar airconditioning project, which this budget will deliver in partnership with the Commonwealth. The Museum of Central Australia is an interpretative centre for Central Australia’s unique natural history. The exhibits and displays follow the evolution of the landscape and the fascinating creatures which inhabit it. Most recently, the museum has hosted an exhibition Lifting the Veil to celebrate the 150th year since John McDouall Stuart led his expedition to Central Australia in 1860, with objects on display including personal items from Stuart, which remains open to the public.
In 2008, the Chief Minister announced an $11.5m project to preserve, commemorate, and understand our role in World War II. It is important to note construction work for the Darwin Aviation Heritage Centre upgrade will also start this Dry Season. This is as a result of the $1.5m provided by the Henderson government in Budget 2009-10. It will deliver the construction of a new entry foyer area to provide a formal entrance to the centre, a new engine bay exhibit, and a new toilet block at the rear of the main hangar. A great aviation centre it is! Design options are currently being developed for the defence of the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery Mr Andrew Laming MP, the federal member for Bowman, who is here with the federal Indigenous Affairs Committee. I extend to you a warm welcome – and it is probably warm for you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, and to members.
Design options are currently being developed for the defence of Darwin Museum at East Point, and digital interpretations of our heritage sites are also an integral component of the project.
Each year, the Northern Territory government provides the Northern Territory Film Office with $500 000 in funding which has proved worthwhile, with an estimated $5.5m injection into the Territory economy as a result of the production of the award-winning films, Samson and Delilah, Balibo and Australia. Our arts industry is well established, increasingly taking on a stronger business focus. The Northern Territory has a powerful cultural heart, and nothing says who we are and what we do more clearly than our art and culture.
We know having our children involved in arts improves their education, literacy, and numeracy. We know engagement in the arts can promote a sense of health, wellbeing and belonging. Arts and culture is an important and growing contributor to our economy, particularly in remote and regional areas. There is enormous opportunity to increase this economic benefit, as well as leveraging arts and culture to make healthier societies. $3m will be available in Budget 2010-11 to support the many community-based arts organisations across the Northern Territory which provides hundreds of arts events annually, support individual artists to realise their aspirations, create and present new artistic works, and deliver workshops, exhibitions, and even festivals for the benefit of our Territory community. The government has committed an additional $200 000 to strengthening and supporting regional and community arts festivals.
The Darwin Festival will receive $500 000 from the Territory government in Budget 2010-11. This will allow the festival to continue delivering outstanding events and experiences to Territory audiences, and consolidate its growing local, national and international reputation. The funding will directly benefit the 1200 artists involved in the festival, two-thirds of whom are Territory artists, and the myriad of arts organisations which get the opportunity to showcase their work. By providing a grants program for arts projects open to individuals, groups, and not-for-profit organisations, this government provides support for grassroots activities across the Territory.
The cultural diversity of the Northern Territory is what makes it a truly distinctive place, from the different Indigenous groups who have lived here for many thousands of years, to the diverse cultures of families who came to make the Territory their home. It is important for the whole of the Territory the stories of these families be properly recorded and preserved.
In conclusion, Budget 2010-11 delivers for Territory families now and invests in the Territory’s future. It was produced against a backdrop of ongoing challenges within the private sector, despite our growing economy. Last year’s budget demonstrated the importance of government spending during economic downturn - we are not completely out of the woods yet. That is why Budget 2010-11 continues to protect Territory jobs and supports Territorians to buy their own home. In my electorate, it delivers better roads, schools, housing, hospitals, and a new 50-bed prisoner work camp, changing the lives of disadvantaged Territorians. What price do you put on that?
This budget is about protecting the positive gains we have made throughout the Territory by protecting Territory jobs while ensuring we keep developing the Territory. The Treasurer continues to do a great job under challenging circumstances, and I am proud to support the budget.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I also acknowledge my very good friend in the gallery, Mr Andrew Laming MP, the federal member for Bowman, a former colleague in the federal parliament. Andrew is very familiar with the Northern Territory, having worked here as an eye surgeon, and in some of the neighbouring countries as well. Unlike the gentleman he was just talking to, the member for Johnston, also a doctor, this guy has gone on to become a very good politician. It is great to see him back in Darwin visiting this Chamber, and it is great to welcome him.
This budget is a dud. There is no other word for it. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the budget will go down as a budget about debt. It is also a budget which lacks vision, courage; it is a gutless budget, and it has a deficit of honesty. Government debt, we are now informed, is nearing $1bn. By 2013, 2014, government debt is expected to be around $1.7bn - this is in a Territory of little over 200 000 people. Quite enormous sums of money are being frittered away by this useless, shambolic, moribund, and mendicant government. The budget deficit this year is $163m, and it is expected to hit $267m by 2010-11. It is a budget which lacks vision - there is very little in it for health, education, to reduce crime, or assist in building roads and other infrastructure. In fact, it is a whole lot of nothing, apart from a great racking up of debt.
Recently, the Chief Minister came into this House and said the opposition had been deathly silent on the Henry Tax Review. Goodness me! What criticism we get from the Chief Minister - we are deathly silent on the Henry Tax Review. We know the Chief Minister knows a thing or two about being deathly silent; that was pointed out when one of our great mining companies, McArthur River Mining was pushed to the brink. We were trying to get the Chief Minister to stand up for Territorians, for Territory business. What did the Chief Minister do? He squibbed it. He was as quiet as a lamb and said nothing when the future of hundreds of workers was in jeopardy, and all he had to do was pick up the phone to his good mate at the time in Canberra, Peter Garrett. No, the Chief Minister was deathly silent.
The member for Arafura also knows a thing or two about being deathly silent. Over the last week we have heard of the Tiwi Land Council’s outrage at the lack of government response and focus on some of their needs, and have decided to introduce fishing permits. What does the member for Arafura say? Well, who knows? Who knows where the member for Arafura stands? The member for Arafura says nothing. Does she support the Tiwi Land Council in their decision to introduce fishing permits, or does she support the Labor government? It is a tough decision for the member for Arafura, however she should be honest, up-front, and she should have the courage to tell Territorians, particularly, her constituents, where she stands on this issue.
As far as being deathly silent on the Henry Tax Review, the only person who has mentioned the review to date is the Chief Minister; apart from that there has been a deathly silence from all members of government. For those people not aware, the Henry Tax Review was a $10m review commissioned by the Prime Minister to look into the taxation system in this country - a $10m review which took months and months to complete, and the government sat on it for months and months. They released it early this month and, surprise, surprise, of the 138 recommendations made in that $10m review, no small amount of change for this incredible review, the Prime Minister and Treasurer picked up two of those recommendations contained in the Henry Tax Review.
A great fraud on Australians - a great waste of taxpayers’ money. He has picked two out of 138 recommendations contained in the review. Mind you, it is better than he did with his 2020 summit. If we remember, he had all the brightest minds in Australia gather at Parliament House, many hundreds of recommendations from that summit - that costly exercise. I do not believe he picked up a single recommendation from the greatest minds in Australia assembled in Canberra. There may have been 138 recommendations in the Henry Tax Review; the best he could do was two. I suppose, is quite good going on this Prime Minister’s part.
You wonder why the Chief Minister is so down on us not talking about the Henry Tax Review, or what has come of that review. On 2 May 2010, Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd released a joint press release headlined: ‘Stronger, Fairer, Simpler; A Tax Plan for our Future’. There were several measures: generate more superannuation savings for working Australians; lower tax for all companies, especially small businesses; investing in our future infrastructure needs, particularly for mining states, and all this comes before the big ticket item, a resource super profits tax. In that press release, Mr Swan and Mr Rudd outlined a few good points. The release went on to say:
In the Northern Territory it is 26.5%. The Northern Territory was followed closely by Western Australia, whose gross state product was 25.3%. The next nearest was Queensland, at 8.3%. Extraordinarily, the Territory is incredibly dependent on mining as a proportion of gross state product. Over a quarter of our economy - 26.5% - revolves around mining. For that reason, I believe the Chief Minister and the Treasurer should have started thinking about what this resource super profits tax meant, considering in the Northern Territory we are so affected by mining.
Mr Conlan: He cannot. He has already signed up for the health plan. He has to pay for that somehow.
Mr TOLLNER: He has already signed up to the health plan. It seems this government does no checking; they do not care about anything, as the member for Greatorex says. We have a Chief Minister who is appallingly subservient to the Prime Minister of this country, and the Labor government, and does not even question what is in the health package. Before any questions were put to the federal government, before any negotiations started, our Chief Minister goes to Canberra and says: ‘Oh, I am going to sign up. I will sign up; count us in’. We know why he wanted to be counted in - he has run up the white flag on health. He recognises his government is a complete failure on health and, for that reason, could not hand over health to Kevin Rudd quickly enough.
In relation to the resource super profits tax, I was wondering what it meant. I then came across this article - and I am sure most members have seen this. It was in the Sydney Morning Herald, and was commenting on an interview the Prime Minister did on radio 6PR. They asked Mr Rudd what a super profit was. Mr Rudd said: ‘A super profit will be defined as if you have a company that is investing a certain amount of money, what you then do is deduct their expenses’. He said: ‘What you then do is deduct further the amount, which would be collected if, for example, they were investing their funds in long-term bond markets, in other words, what would constitute a reasonable rate of return on investment’. That seems gobbledegook, as it did to the radio interviewer. He asked the Prime Minister a number of times how you calculate it, what it is, to which the Prime Minister said: ‘It is calculated on the basis of a company in terms of first of all, their total level investment; second, the revenues they earn in a given year; third, you remove the expenses that they would generate in a given year; fourth, you then take into account what that company would otherwise earn if they were putting their money, for example, into an investment on the long-term bond market. And it is only if they are profitable using that formula, and earning super profits, that you would impose this tax’. This tax, by Mr Rudd and Mr Swan’s own reckoning, is to generate $9bn - massively large amounts of revenue. This gives an insight into what is going through the Prime Minister and the Treasurer’s mind.
I spent a little time, before coming into the parliament, in the superannuation industry. For 10 years almost, I was running a large industry superannuation fund. I still have a lingering interest in how investments work. The long-term bond market, or the 10-year government bonds, I believe are currently paying somewhere between 5.5% and 6.5% return. It is not a very great return because there is no risk - risk is zero. You are guaranteed that return. Put your money in a 10-year government bond and you are guaranteed to collect the exact rate they tell you at the start …
Mr Elferink: 5.7%.
Mr TOLLNER: 5.7%. I was pretty close with somewhere between 5.5% and 6%.
There is absolutely no risk at all with the 10-year government bond. You have to ask yourself, as an investor, or as a potential miner - and you have a few million dollars to throw around and you want to go out and make a quid - why would you spend millions of dollars exploring countryside and drilling holes on the sheer luck of finding something? We can reduce that luck, to some extent, by the money we put into organisations like Geoscience Australia, better mapping techniques, however there is still a high risk explorers will not find the minerals they are looking for. It is a high-cost business. You go into it, you hit pay dirt - you find you have a resource you can mine. You then have to find workers, equipment, markets, a whole range of things, and you invest in that. You dig it up and hope commodity prices stay where they were, or increase. If those commodity prices drop you could be left holding the can.
I once heard Malcolm Turnbull speak about mining. Malcolm Turnbull is someone who knows quite a deal about the investment and funds management business. Malcolm Turnbull said mining is the second riskiest business in the world only to filmmaking. There is a high degree of risk involved in mining and, from the examples given, you can see why. Much is seriously pot luck. Therefore, when a company finds a resource and manages to exploit it - gets it out of the ground - you expect your returns to be considerably higher because you have taken on considerably more risk. You take on a large risk when you invest in mining companies.
Getting back to my point, as a miner, why, if you are going to be taxed at 40% for everything you earn over the 10-year government bond rate, would you bother investing in mining? Why would you not take your money and stick it in the 10-year government bond rate? From a miner’s point of view, that would be a far safer thing to do; they would not have to worry about their drilling program or commodity markets. They can sleep easy at night; they do not have to worry about anything. We have seen what has happened on the national share market since this announcement has been made; there has been much more volatility than usual in mining stocks. It has certainly created discussion.
I heard the member for Nelson say: ‘There are big mining companies, and there are small mining companies. The small ones are the little scratches; these big ones are taking all of our profits overseas. They are the bad eggs’. That is the way Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan have couched this whole deal - we are clawing back a little money which would otherwise be going overseas. What he is doing, of course, is massively reducing the profits of these companies. All working Australians have superannuation funds which vary across the country. Madam Speaker, you would be in the old type where you have a defined benefit scheme. At the end, there is no pool of funds; it comes out of government revenue. The way this government is going, you have no guarantee it is going to be there by the time you reach retirement age. That is another issue.
The majority of Australians are in accumulation funds. They are real funds - there is a pool of money there, and that money is invested. A big portion of nearly every managed superannuation fund in this country would be invested in mining and the resources sector. The Prime Minister is saying he is going to attack people’s superannuation savings. Lo and behold, he is going to increase the super rate to 12% instead of 9%. What he takes on one hand, he gives with the other - similar to this government.
We see in the budget papers mining loyalties are $156m currently. The royalty rate is 18%. Government has announced in this budget they are going to increase it to 20% - a little more than 10%. A little more than 10% of $15.6m is a little over $15m. What are they doing in their budget? The member for Daly said in his speech: ‘Budget 2010-11 includes initiatives to develop Territory industry, including the minerals and pastoral industry. We will see $15.3m to produce mineral exploration’. That is about the 2% government is increasing on the royalty rates for mines. They take extra money off mines and give it straight back to them. You wonder what this churn of money accomplishes. It is the same as Kevin Rudd. It is a job, as the member for Port Darwin says, for someone who works in the revenue office. Again, we see bureaucracy increase and become more and more out of control.
This plan of Kevin Rudd’s is seriously brain dead. I have no idea who suggested something as crazy as this. To suggest anything under a 5.7% return is a super profit is ridiculous. We see the banks are getting murdered. Banks are jumping all over the place because, funnily enough, they earn profits in excess of 5.7%. Anyone in business earning a nett profit of more than 5.7% should be worried, because Kevin Rudd believes anything over that is a super profit. The thin edge of the wedge is the mining industry. I cannot understand why we have a government in the Northern Territory with 26.5% of its GSP coming from mining, not screaming from the rafters about what is going on with Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan and this resources super profit tax. What an absolute joke! When is the government going to stand up for Territorians? When is the government going to do something for the Territory?
This is outrageous. We have a Chief Minister who says: ‘We have not heard anything from the opposition about the Henry Tax Review’. We have heard absolutely nothing from the government. This is absolutely outrageous: 26.5% of our gross state product coming from the mining industry and we have a Treasurer, Chief Minister, and Mines minister, the whole government, who do not care the slightest about our mining companies in the Northern Territory, and we have seen it in the past.
As mentioned earlier, what they did to McArthur Mine was absolutely horrendous - talk about deathly silence. This government does not care what happens to mining in the Northern Territory. Forget all the platitudes, all the nonsense about a $15.3m contribution to exploration. They are absolutely ripping it out of the industry!
If the industry wanted to spend $15.3m on exploration, you would think the government would not take it off them; the government would let them explore, let them do what they do. That is what mining companies do - they explore, they mine, they dig things up and create wealth for their shareholders, for the members of superannuation funds who invest in those shares, for all the workers, and they create townships and infrastructure and the whole area benefits. Here we have a Treasurer who, by his own statement, is going to implement what he calls a ‘stronger, fairer, simpler tax plan for our future’ which is all funded. He says in his own press release:
That is in the Treasurer’s press release - the whole thing hangs on taxing the daylights out of our miners. What has this government said about it? Absolutely nothing!
We have a budget that means nothing; it is all about debt. There is nothing in it to improve education, health delivery, roads, reduce crime - it is all smoke and mirrors. However, there is an acknowledgement in the budget that mining is a massive contributor to the Northern Territory, and what do we get from this government when it comes to a federal government talking about ripping miners off? Deathly silence. It is absolutely appalling. At times I am embarrassed to be in this parliament with this Chief Minister and this Treasurer. It is absolutely appalling.
Current government debt is at $900m; sounds simple, sounds small if you say it quickly; $900m, close to $1bn. In a few years this will explode to $1.7bn. Sounds not too much when you hear the figures Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan throw around. But there are not 20 million people living in the Northern Territory; we have slightly more than 200 000. When you talk about 200 000 people, owing, currently, close to $1bn, in a few years owing $1.7bn - that is not even taking into account the non-financial public sector debt or the superannuation liabilities this government is still carrying - it is some serious money.
I put a post on a social networking page I have last night saying I am concerned about the Northern Territory government debt. A simple line. I had about a dozen responses with people saying: ‘Why would you be concerned?’ Most people do not understand this, do not listen to this, do not tune into this, however the reality is when it happens it is all too late. When these mines are closing down in the Northern Territory or new ventures are not getting up because companies decide it is too difficult - it is too hard to invest in Australia - that is when we start to see the effects. It is too late then.
That is why you have a government in place to look out for the dangers and look after the needs of Territorians. That is why it is absolutely disgraceful we have a Chief Minister and a Treasurer who are not standing up for Territorians, who are not doing their bit, not screaming from the top of the roof and the top of their lungs that this is not on. Twenty-six point five per cent of our gross state product comes from mining, and you are sticking your foot on their neck. ‘Get out of our lives’, is what the Chief Minister should be telling Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, ‘Get out of our lives! You are doing us absolutely no good with this ridiculous resource super tax’.
This budget is a dud; it is complete waste of time; it is all smoke and mirrors; it is a sham; it does nothing for our services; it puts us miles into debt and it should not be supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to the Treasurer’s budget speech. I have deliberately listened to the contributions of various ministers who trot out the usual approach government takes to these things. The same speech writer basically fills out the speeches for each ministers, then they chant: ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, we are going into debt for jobs’, which is not an unreasonable argument if you were prepared to accept at face value what they were telling you. However, you cannot accept at face value what you are told by this government any more. The dishonesty, particularly from the Treasurer in relation to the way Territory finances are arranged, is now manifest and evidentially demonstrable.
The government is going to incur debt taking us up to, in the general government sector, a debt projected out to $1.7bn in the next few years. That debt, if you factor in the non-financial public sector, which I note the member for Fong Lim picked up on, is actually $3bn. The rationale is we have to borrow in these times of the global financial crisis to steer the ship of state through.
I note the projected growth rate for the next financial year is 3.6%. I note also the Consumer Price Index for Darwin, as a capital city, is projected at 3.1%. I am uncertain why the Northern Territory government would determine to set a growth rate and a CPI which would leave behind, by all common indicators, that which is a warm economy bordering on the hot. Whilst I appreciate the argument you have to borrow to protect jobs to prevent recessions, this is not what this particular spend represents.
I note the expenditure of government in the current financial year will add about $160m to the debt of the Northern Territory in a growth environment of 0.4% of 1%. That is tolerable and understandable.
However, to continue expenditure, and ramp up that expenditure to the tune of a further set of borrowings of $270m, to engender an environment where growth reaches 3.6%, CPI reaches 3.1%, is of concern because this is no longer about protecting jobs, and the Treasurer says it herself. It is more about creating jobs. I can well understand the business community would be happy with that; I understand that. However, the business community is not the one which directly and ultimately has to pay this money back. That is the concern, and leads me to my overall concerns about the way this government does its financial planning. This money will have to be paid back at some point.
This government has not positioned itself well. The government had, since 2001 - and particularly during the times of the rivers of gold of the GST - a financial strategy in place where debt reduction, and the prudent management of liabilities, was the way to go. Year in year out, not only did they have increases in the goods and services tax to the Northern Territory, there is a component on top of the predicted increases, which were the unpredicted increases. These are extra amounts of the goods and services tax that find their way to the Northern Territory. If you calculate these unexpected GST windfalls and add them up, year in and year out for the first seven or so years of the GST, we would have eliminated - or come very close to eliminating - the Northern Territory’s nett debt situation.
I heard the minister suck air through her teeth and say: you have to decide what your priorities are – whether you are going to hire, which policemen you are going to get rid of. If you were moderating the growth of the public service - police officers, nurses, etcetera - and pulling back slightly on that growth in a prudential way, sticking to your budgets and doing nothing more, the nett debt of the Northern Territory could have disappeared. Yesterday, the Treasurer raised the example of Western Australia not having any debt. It was under a Labor government and was well done; they stuck to their budgets and managed the budget properly. They had no debt at one stage. I will return to this issue shortly. However, for the purposes of what I am describing now, the nett debt position of Western Australia - I am talking total government sector, not just general government sector, total government sector - was zero. They were in a better position to deal with the global financial crisis than the Northern Territory. It is because they showed a modicum of greater prudence than this government has been able to achieve in the last few years.
It is the process of them looking at the budget, year in year out, and doing it historically, which demonstrates this inability to show fiscal discipline on the part of this government. Year in, year out, there are increases in the budget. Some of those are beyond the control of the Northern Territory government - SPPs, the national partnership payments, and those types of things. They come through the pipeline and the Northern Territory government has no choice but to really push them through the budget papers. That is what happens.
There is, however, a component which underlies that - the component of the Appropriation Bill itself in the Northern Territory, which I do not have in front of me. The component we see particularly expressed in Budget Paper No 3, and under all the line items for each of the departments right up the front, describe what the Northern Territory appropriation is.
The Northern Territory Financial Management Act enables the Northern Territory government to touch the Central Holding Authority for up to 5% of that appropriation - the appropriation which is being sought by the Treasurer in this bill - without having to come back to this House and plead for a further appropriation. There is one example I am aware of where the government did come into this House on a non-budget-related issue, but they came with another Appropriation Bill in a rather surprising twist. That is by the by. If they need more money beyond the 5%, they have to come back to this House.
Each year, we load into the budget a thing called the Treasurer’s Advance. I note this year it is worth another $40m, as it traditionally is. I believe it was $30m at one stage. That is the fund, and it is defined in the budget papers much more succinctly than it has been in the past I notice. It is defined, essentially, as the contingency fund you go to for those unexpected things. I do not expect government, for one second, to be able to predict a cyclone, a flood, or some disaster where they have to touch that fund. There are other occasions where it is occasionally necessary to make a policy decision, as it moves forward, to touch that money.
We give government the capacity to touch that $40m on an annual basis – essentially, no questions asked. However, government does not do that - or they do touch it very quickly. Then they go back to the Central Holding Authority and continue touching it, touching it, touching it – year in, year out. Year in, year out they do not spend the $40m; they end up spending about $170m, depending on the financial year and the 5% number. They end up spending about $170m out of the Treasurer’s Advance. That is reflective of not particularly good financial planning, because through the budget process, those ministers who come to the Budget Cabinet and ultimately have their input, should be in a position to say: ‘This is what we are doing this year’, without having to spend another $175m on changes of heart, changes of mind, changes of policy.
We heard the Minister for Transport lauding this morning the classical example, the interlock devices. That was an off-budget spend covered by the Treasurer’s Advance; it cost $400 000. The government, at the time, decided it was necessary to advance this policy. That is their choice, however, it shows poor fiscal discipline. They could have waited until the next budgetary cycle and introduced the policy as part of the budget. However, they chose to spend the $400 000. We learned today, after the expenditure of some $400 000, they have had one interlock device fitted. In their haste and urgency to introduce this in the last budget cycle, or the budget cycle before, they spent $400 000 on one device. This is not a good outcome, and not good fiscal discipline.
Whilst the government seeks to dress itself up as the harbourer of all knowledge, the fact is, it often gets it seriously wrong. Looking at some of the predictions from last year and the outcomes this year, growth rate itself from 2% predictor to a 0.4% final estimate, is a big shift. One has to ask questions about the modelling the Treasurer uses. Rather than being rational about it, the Treasurer has this capacity to defend her position aggressively and, frankly, deceitfully.
During the Statement of Corporate Intent tabling debate a short time ago, I mentioned the Treasurer had said in this House previously - I quote her during Question Time: ‘Western Australia did not have any debt back at all in 2008-09 when it was a Labor state’. I have done some homework on that. Eric Ripper, the then Treasurer for Western Australia, in his budget speech for the 2008-09 budget, raised the issue of debt in his speech and says: ‘The government is in heaps of debt, the equivalent of its mortgage bill will increase to $11.4bn over the next four years’.
I am annoyed I did not pick up on the Treasurer’s interjection because it will not turn up in the rushes, however, the Treasurer said: ‘They returned a surplus for that year’. By doing that, she is suggesting they got rid of the nett debt - there was no nett debt at the end of that year. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense! The 2009-10 budget overview, page 17, says:
The Treasurer has said Western Australia had no nett debt in the year 2008-09 budget delivered by a Labor government. Wrong, dishonest, deceitful. It is true that, in prior years - and I draw the Treasurer’s attention to the Budget Overview document of the financial year 2006-07, where it says: ‘As a result of the government’s sound management of state finances, the general government sector will remain nett debt free across the entire forward estimates period. Every dollar of the projected surpluses will be used to reduce debt or build infrastructure’. There is other debt, however, the general government sector is nett debt free. ‘The government has used its surpluses to retire about $2.4bn in state debt over the last three years. Exactly! That is exactly what the Country Liberals say should have been happening in the Northern Territory, year in, year out.
It took a Carpenter Labor government to set the benchmark; to show the Northern Territory government how this should be done. It was a Carpenter Labor government which was able to, during the financial crisis, rack up a further $11bn of debt over the following four years, however, they positioned themselves so much better to do it. In that respect, the Carpenter Labor government left a legacy for the people of Western Australia which should have and, more importantly, could have, been replicated by the Northern Territory government. They did not choose to show fiscal restraint, fiscal prudence or fiscal discipline and their failure to do so is why we are borrowing to add to a nett debt already worth $900m.
I acknowledge, to a degree, the Northern Territory government reduced its nett debt slightly. It is the equivalent of boasting about getting wet when you have fallen into a swimming pool - the simple act of falling into the swimming pool should have produced the result. This Northern Territory government has not achieved it. The Treasurer of the Northern Territory will not be honest with Territorians. She has tried this line about Western Australia not having debt under a Labor government twice in this House, denied it once more in the last debate, and has been caught out.
A Labor government got rid of debt in Western Australia, and a Labor government racked it up again. However, they positioned themselves better to do so. What the Treasurer did in this House was downright dishonest. She has a history of this. She told this House in the last budgetary cycle that $913m to the year up to March was put out by government. What she did not say - and I had to track back in later questions - she was talking the year March to March; and that is dishonest. Any financial institution, be it an accountant, an economist or treasury, if you say year to March, you are talking about the first three quarters of the financial year. She did not make it clear. She was being slippery and that is the hallmark of her Treasury-ship.
I draw members’ attention to the questions in relation to the Power and Water Corporation and the $218m of debt we have taken on as a jurisdiction to bail it out. I asked what the position was a few months ago. Amongst her answer the Treasurer said:
And further:
I start to find these budget books less and less reliable when I read the Statement of Corporate Intent, which does not report a $51.6m profit for the year - it reports a loss of approximately $5m. Again, it paints the picture of how this Treasurer will say anything, do anything, to convince Territorians how good she is. However, she consistently utters misleading statements. She is the head of that organisation …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that please.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not hear that point of order. Are you doing this yourself? For the sake of the debate I will do it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is not your role.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker does have the opportunity to intervene. Within standing orders, I have the opportunity to intervene, and misleading is …
Mr ELFERINK: Very well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: This Treasurer also continues to conduct herself in the same fashion. Stateline, Northern Territory, April 2007 – she is asked the question about housing being released: She said:
Okay, she was wrong. She was way off the mark - like a million miles off the mark - which gives you reason to have concern about her capacity to predict the economic and fiscal environment in which she operates. Okay, she makes a blue. We accept that. You read the budget books from the current financial year - just 1700 - and then there is some strange date rearrangement and the budget books which have now been presented to us for the next financial year it is 2232, off the top of my head. So there are big shifts. We ask her a question about it, and rather than saying: ‘I was wrong,’ she talks about back casting and forecasting. There is no integrity in trying to cover up when you are so consistently as wrong as that. It does not behove her well when she does that; people are starting to express their reservations. They are ringing me up, talking to me about it, and people are starting to say: ‘We do not believe her anymore.’
I also note that the argument is in the current financial year, in the budget books, there is a reference that the reason we have to roll-out this new expenditure and borrowings is to support the economy because some major projects have wound up. It is curious that something very important has disappeared from the budget books of 2009-10 financial year. What has disappeared is a reference to major works; I believe it is the NT Economy budget book, I will have to find it, and they included works in the CBD. There has been a sudden and notable disappearance of cranes from the Darwin skyline over the last 12 months, specifically noted in the 2009-10 budget books as a source of major private sector investment. Something has made those cranes disappear. The first question you would ask is: if something has made those cranes disappear, then what has made those cranes disappear?
Dr Burns: The GFC!
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not the GFC. I thank the minister for his suggestion. It is not the GFC because, if it were the GFC, land prices would not have been doing what they are doing everywhere else in Darwin, except the CBD. Blocks have not been moving that much in the CBD.
Dr Burns: What about pre-sales and bank finance?
Mr ELFERINK: See, this is the point - you are guessing. There is something else important: a moratorium on the planning arrangements and the zonings in the Darwin CBD blocks, which have had a serious effect on the value of those blocks. All of a sudden, whilst the government has announced to everyone out there: ‘We are going to think about what you can and cannot do in the CBD’, that has the effect of putting a hiatus on the value of each and every block in the CBD. All of a sudden the people who own the blocks in the centre of the CBD, who purchased those blocks under the old scheme, assuming that scheme was something they could trust to do certain things, suddenly do not know whether they can do those things.
Then you go to the outside and the fringes of the CBD where blocks were purchased and traded with an expectation that you would able to do certain things but, more importantly, not do certain things on those blocks. But when you have a moratorium which says: ‘We are still thinking about what were are going to allow you to do’, that means those people who own those blocks do not know what they can and cannot do; so they stop putting money into it.
Think about it logically. If I had a property in the Darwin CBD and I wanted to sell or trade that property, I would put it on the market. The first question an investor would ask me: ‘What can I do with it? Can I go up to this height or that height?’ If I said: ‘I am not quite sure, because the government is thinking about it’, all of a sudden the investor is thinking: ‘I am not buying that block; I am not going to invest in that particular property’. If you think about it for 12 months, which is essentially what the government did whilst the moratorium was in place, everything stops. That is exactly what has been achieved.
That decision alone affected an area of development which was considered to be so important it made its way into the year 2009-10 budget books. It has been expunged from the year 2010-11 budget books. Mining projects have been mentioned as winding up, and other resource projects have not gone forward, but the comments about the Darwin CBD have disappeared from the 2009-10 budget book. The reason is it would have drawn, and highlighted, attention to the issue that I raise here this evening.
I also want to touch on the revotes which have been rolled from the current financial year into next financial year. It reflects the stories and the rumours I consistently heard from people that the government has been restraining and holding back contracts. The revote is enormous. The government went to the last election boasting of a record budget spend – we hear this all the time - a record infrastructure spend of $1.3bn.
In fact, the program increased during the financial year to about $1.6bn, $1.59bn, if memory serves me - which would have been a positive thing. I suspect there is a great deal of federal government money in that, and I would not be at all surprised if SIHIP is in that mix. What happens if you count up everything that goes into that $1.6bn, and you see the cash component, and you see the revote out at the other end? All of a sudden, $750m of the announced $1.3bn or $1.6bn, it turned out to be, was not spent.
I am fully aware of the reasons for that: there is a roll from one year to the next in some of these major projects; that happens and you accept and understand that. However, there is another thing which creates a situation where out of a $1.3bn projection, you withhold $750m simply because the government sits on the contracts and have been holding back and holding back. Now they are going to spend it in this financial year, probably because they have had trouble managing these projects, then they are going to heat up an economy which will see a 3.6% growth, with 3.1% CPI growth in the next financial year, driven by government expenditure.
I wonder how those public servants whom the government so loudly laud and champion and say they want to protect, are going to deal with a CPI growth rate when the government itself is still in the budget books restraining itself to about a 2.5% pay increase. Which means there is an effective cut coming to the public servants of the Northern Territory; small wonder they are screaming from the rafters. I know the minister realises this is an issue government has to face, and it will be a real challenge to the government. Then they have the added problem, if they have to change their position on the 2.5%, the deficit will invariably get larger.
A growth rate of 3.6% will also impact on house and rent prices. Whilst the government tells us they are turning off land five times faster, I ask the simple question: five times faster than what? I have heard the expression now from three ministers: ‘We are releasing land five times faster …’. Not one of them has finished that sentence. I am curious to hear in the budget reply the Treasurer’s response to this: five times faster than what? What are we releasing it five times faster than? Did we release one block in the last two years, so we are releasing five blocks this year? Is that what we are doing? Give us the benchmark other than ‘five times faster’, otherwise the government ministers will do nothing but lower themselves into the same level of dishonesty the Treasurer has lowered herself into in protecting her position. It is not a good way to run a budget.
I also note that the Chief Minister had a little whinge about the Henry Tax Review. What I do not understand is what the government’s position on taxation is, what its policy is. The Treasurer wrote to the Henry Tax Review and said: ‘I want a general or broad-based income tax on which we can set the local standards’. Two days later, the Chief Minister is on the radio saying: ‘That is not our policy, that is not what we are going to do’. I do not get it. So, is it the case that the Treasurer and the Chief Minister are not speaking to each other about what they are doing? Was it the rather secretive approach …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member for Port Darwin, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I was not actually going to rely on it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have covered most of those issues I wanted to cover. I do, however, thank the Leader of Government Business for the courtesy.
The Henry Tax Review is out. I would have stood here for another 10 minutes and said what I was intending to say in relation to the Henry Tax Review and the impost on mining, but the member for Fong Lim covered that issue more than well. The only issue I really wanted to touch on from that perspective was what the member for Fong Lim quite rightly pointed out, that mining stocks have taken an absolute shellacking in the last couple of days, and that is where some of my personal superannuation is parked. Consider that a declaration of interest, but the fact is that is where so much superannuation is parked. It is false economy to tax and push down the value of a particular sector of the industry, to drive down the value of that sector to protect superannuation which, in actual fact, invests in that sector. That is an extremely disappointing result. I am afraid that this smells of politics more than good fiscal management at a federal level, and it will affect the Northern Territory negatively.
The politics, of course, is every superannuant is a voter. Every mining company probably is not. It is easy to pick on those big, bad mining boys when you can then run the argument I saw the Prime Minister run on television tonight: ‘They are going to take the super away from the mouths of those retirees into the future. Woe betide the opposition’. But the truth of the matter is this policy may well achieve the same result, and that part is concerning.
Overall, this budget is disappointing because it does not show prudence, and I am not talking about anything other than prudence. Some restraint, which has been required since this government came into office, is as absent from this budget as it has been from every other budget. Where Western Australia was well positioned, much better positioned than the Northern Territory, was achieved by the simple application of prudence.
The Country Liberal policy, over time, will see the application of prudence, the very strategies the Northern Territory government said they would follow in their own financial strategy. It will allow for growth, it will allow for change, but it will do it in a way which is much more fiscally responsible than we have seen up until now. I believe the Territory has weathered the global financial crisis well, as well as Australia has a nation, but we are not out of the woods yet. I am deeply concerned about what I see on television with what is happening in Greece; I am concerned about the scuttlebutt you hear about the bubbles in China. There are other areas where we can still seriously come unstuck. It would have been nice to be in a better position where we would be able to deal with those issues, should they happen, than we are now.
Madam Deputy Speaker, from an overall point of view, once again, this government has simply failed to be prudent where prudence would have done us so much good. I believe it was an Aesop’s Fable which discussed the partying life of a grasshopper and the serious life of an ant, and I wish this government would show a little more ant and a little less grasshopper.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to put my comments on the record regarding this Appropriation Bill. A friend asked me the other day, what has this Labor government actually achieved? I said: they claim they have achieved a number of things, such as setting up freedom of information legislation, although it is not the best example of FOI legislation; did away with mandatory sentencing, made a wave pool and convention centre that was going to rival the Hanging Gardens of Babylon; spent a lot of money on parties so people could enjoy themselves; a of variety of concerts and sporting matches, which is good entertainment for a many people; and they promised to make life better for Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians in the bush.
Then my friend asked me: has anything really been achieved that advances the Territory in a positive way to give people a real future? That got me thinking and prompted me to closely analyse what Labor has done, or not done, for the Territory. In light of this year’s budget, I decided Labor has not done very well for the Territory. In fact, in many ways we have gone seriously backwards.
When Labor first came to power they promised many things such as freshness, to govern openly, and address and correct all the wrongdoings in our communities. There was an expectation that change would occur and, given they had a mandate, people took time out to relax. However, it was not very long after the new era dawned in the Territory that people started to realise nothing was really changing for the better. In fact, life started to get worse at an alarming rate.
As a consequence of this Labor government’s complete loss of values, loss of vision, loss of planning and loss of moral stewardship, the Territory is almost at rock bottom and on the brink of being taken over completely by the Commonwealth government; it almost runs the Territory, anyway, due to this government’s hopeless track record.
We have the intervention across the Territory in 52 communities which are freehold land, held in land trust, plus three other communities, overriding our legislation due to the previous Chief Minister’s dithering on the Little Children are Sacred Report; 50% of the land mass is under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act controlled by the Commonwealth, with absolutely no interest by this government in patriation of the legislation; two large national parks run by the Commonwealth, and no desire by this government to manage them to the benefit of all Territorians; and they are not really interested in wholly managing the uranium industry.
Uncle Kevin wants to take over the hospitals, and this government is rolling over and playing possum and being kicked into a bad deal and, of late, Uncle Kevin wants to take over mineral royalties.
Last year when I did my budget in reply, this is what I said at that time:
Sadly, the sentiments are the same, as is this government’s failures on all fronts: failed as a participant in our community, failed as a manager, failed as a good strategic planner, failed as a leader, and failed to deliver a robust or solid budget. Indeed, this Labor government has delivered a deficit budget and pushed our nett debt higher and higher, which is completely unacceptable.
The government will argue they have taken us into deficit so they can spend big on infrastructure, which might seem good in theory, to keep the kitty ticking over. However, it is not good business practice to budget for losses as it does not take into consideration any extraordinary circumstances or structural changes in the financial markets, or any changes in the global financial scene. And, of course the deficit does not help when the federal Labor government wants to impose a whopping 40% resource rent tax on the mining industry, which will impact on the Northern Territory.
We only have to look at what is happening right now in Greece. The basis of the current meltdown in Greece is due to their borrowings being out of control because they spent more than they received in taxes - it is that simple. As a consequence, there are now riots in the streets and the Greek government is forced to slash public sector wages and pensions.
I am not suggesting we will have riots on our streets here. My point is it is not good practice to spend more than you get in, and have borrowings escalate so tomorrow’s Territorians will have to pay. That is not a future for the Territory, and it is not a future I want.
I will focus my comments on the broad areas of Housing, Lands, and Planning and what impact this year’s budget has, or does not have, for my electorate and the rural area generally in the Top End.
SIHIP, poor SIHIP, never had a chance of achieving what it was set up to achieve with the abysmal management by this Labor government. The Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program was initiated by a memorandum of understanding in September 2007 - Commonwealth government funds and Northern Territory management. In July 2009, the ABC reported in its Lateline program that SIHIP was yet to build a single house despite spending $45.54m of its $672m budget. We now hear from the member for Braitling in the 2010-11 budget that we have a SIHIP black hole of over $100m. Where has that money gone? This government does not want to answer; it does not want to tell.
A government report dated August 2009 said the program was criticised as too slow to deliver, its governance overly bureaucratic, and the program too costly in terms of the unit cost for housing and administration. The revised program budget is still $672m, which each new house expected to cost $450 000 to over $529 000, after factoring in a proportion of administration costs and contingencies.
We were told yesterday that just seven out of the targeted 750 houses, and a mere fraction of the 2500 refurbishments, have been completed. It is not a very good record and it must be remembered that it is Commonwealth government funds that the NT government manages. Clearly they cannot manage and have not managed, and the question has to be asked: will the full 750 houses be built at all?
We have seen the alliance on Groote Eylandt sacked and contractors not paid. We have seen only a tick and flick paint job done on some houses instead of a full and proper refurbishment. We have spoken long and often on the shocking management of this program by the NT government, and the big question is yet to be asked: what happens after SIHIP? My colleague, the member for Braitling, articulated very well the failings of this program which can be best summarised as gross incompetence, no other words for it.
Affordable housing - words often bandied around by this government and overused so much it has lost its meaning - this government has no idea what the expression means. Through their lack of policies and lack of systematic land release we now have almost the least affordable place in the country to live, second only to Sydney. Median house prices in Darwin have increased by $127 000 to $500 000 in the last three years. Government tries to tell us that it is affordable to live here, but the figures speak for themselves. The National Housing Supply Council figures paint the picture. In March 2007, a house in Darwin was $390 000. The average Australian price was $390 225. In December 2009, the price in Darwin was $540 000. The national average was $481 938. In March 2010, the median house price is a staggering $570 125, and the median unit price is $403 228, almost on par with Sydney and Canberra. How can people afford to stay here? The short answer is: they cannot, and sadly they are leaving the Territory.
Rental affordability - Darwin is the most expensive capital city in which to rent in Australia. In March 2007, Darwin was $340; the Australian average was $287. In December 2009, Darwin was $570; the Australian average was $378. Under supply versus demand creates price pressure in the real estate markets; price pressure leads to inflation in the cost of housing which leads to diminished housing affordability. It limits market options for entry. People are forced into the rental market because they cannot afford to buy which causes reduced vacancy rates and inflation in the rental market. As a consequence, we get increased cost burden impacts across the broader economy, such as the loss of skilled personnel because they cannot afford either to buy or rent. When they leave, they take with them their skills, experience and ability to contribute the Territory’s development and prosperity. The question has to be asked: how has this come about? Why are we one of the most expensive places in the country to live and rent now, yet five years ago we were not? Poor land release policies and lack of supply of accommodation across the board is the major contributing factor, and this government just does not get it.
Housing supply - the Housing Supply Council estimates there has been a dwelling shortfall of 178 400 in Australia over the last 12 months, an increase of 78 800. In the Northern Territory, there is a shortfall of 10 100 dwellings, an increase of 1200 over the last 12 months. So, in 2009, there were 178 400 Australians, and in the Northern Territory 10 100 people seeking a dwelling which they are unable to obtain. In this week’s budget we hear of the systematic failures of this government to facilitate housing construction. We read of the need for 2000 homes under a system which has only delivered 1200 in the past year. The Housing Industry Association’s report released in March this year on the Territory’s future residential need once again highlights the disarray surrounding the Henderson government’s failed land release policies.
Key findings in the HIA report include: the need for 21 500 dwellings over the next 10 years, almost double the 12 200 dwellings completed over the past decade. An underlying demand of 2400 dwellings in 2009 doubled the 1180 commencements last year - an underlying housing shortage of 4200 dwellings after years of under investment. The anticipated accumulated housing shortage of 11 500 dwellings by 2020 means thousands and thousands of homes demanded but no homes available because there is no affordable land on which to build; a 10-year increase in housing prices of 176.1% compared to an increase in full-time earnings of 52.5%; and an increase in rentals of 23% over the past two years, three times faster than the cost of living increase. The report also puts a time frame on the commencement of the housing crisis in the Territory, stating:
This puts responsibility for the housing crisis fair and square on the poor planning of successive Labor governments.
I now turn my attention to public housing and the problems we currently have in this sector. This is not just me saying we have a crisis; others are saying we have a crisis, and it is from recognised credible organisations such the NT Council of Social Services. I quote from their media release of 15 February 2010:
Public housing policies and the performance of this government are abject failures - long waiting lists, empty dwellings, repairs long overdue - to name three key areas of public housing failures. Let us look at the wait times. At the end of March 2010 in Alice Springs, nearly 4 years for a one-bedroom unit – for a person who is not a pensioner. In Palmerston, a one-bedroom unit, nearly five years. If you are a pensioner wanting to live in Palmerston, you have to wait nearly 4 years for a one-bedroom unit. It is nearly five years in Alice Springs for a three-bedroom unit for a family. In Darwin and Casuarina, it is close to 5 years. They are extraordinary wait times; no wonder people are leaving the Territory because they just cannot get accommodation here in the public or private sector.
Why are vacant properties under Territory Housing so high? There were 195 dwellings across the Territory at the end of last year: 81 in the northern suburbs, 27 in Palmerston, 20 in Katherine and 57 in Alice Springs. While it is recognised some houses may take longer than others to repair, it is clear the government needs to ratchet up their repair and maintenance program – 195 dwellings that could house people desperately in need.
The consequences of this Labor government’s failure across the board in housing and land release policies has resulted in the Territory having some dire statistics: the homelessness rate, low uptake of finance, long waiting lists, high rents, astronomically high house prices and land prices - and the list goes on. We have the highest homelessness level in the country. The national figure is 53 people to every 10 000; in the Northern Territory it is 248 people for every 10 000. We have people and families living in cars. At this time, in Darwin alone, we have 120 families not living in a house; they are homeless. Some might stay with friends for a short time but, sadly, most live rough. I know there are families living in cars. I believe our rate of homelessness is around 400% higher than the national average. It is shameful this Labor government has allowed it to happen, and they continue to stand by and let people live rough, live on the streets, live in cars and, let us not forget the 14-year-old girl who was put out onto the street just after her father died.
Talking with the non-government organisations in the welfare sector, they tell me they give out funds for people to buy tents, as there is nothing else they can find for them; that was before Christmas. Now, we have the situation of caravan parks in the Top End not taking in any more permanent residents due to this government’s poorly constructed van park legislation. And, in the Centre, permanent van park people have been given notice to vacate parks for the same reason. More pressure will be placed on the housing system and more pressure on community groups by caravan parks not taking in permanent residents.
These figures are not made up. They come from non-government organisations which have to clean up and try to pick up the mess of this government’s failed housing and land release policies. Last week I spoke on homelessness in the bush, and the number of people being supported with food parcels; this is on the public record and is a terrible indictment on this government.
Minister, in the Opposition Leader’s response to the budget he announced the Country Liberals’ housing plan for troublesome tenants. This government has derided our policy, but may I suggest you get a briefing so you know what we are on about. Our policy builds on earlier Country Liberal announcements. The first was our short-term accommodation village to deal with chronic shortage of rental properties. Our new policy will enforce the philosophy that a public housing property is a valuable asset of the Territory, and it must be respected by occupants.
By the minister’s own admission today, public housing is a privilege, not a right, and privileges come with responsibilities. Our policy places the onus of responsible public housing tenancy on to the tenants. This level of responsibility is equivalent to that expected in private rental housing. The policy does have a ‘three strikes and you are out’ component; however, ‘out’ means going from existing public housing, which they are not respecting or looking after, to a traditional housing facility; and if the behaviours continue in the traditional housing area, and are not addressed by the individual, then tenants will not be in public housing at all.
We are not putting people into transitional housing unsupported. Ongoing funding includes significant extra money for doctors, psychologists, social workers and educational support, plus facilities, maintenance and all the other attendant resources people would have if they lived in general public housing, only focused on the problems at hand. That, Treasurer, is how $15m is spent - on addressing the problems, not burying them away in the suburbs. Once elected to government and having started our implementation, there will be immediate positives to the announcement of this policy. A proportion of unruly tenants will moderate their behaviour immediately; they will not want to be evicted; they will want a roof over their heads. It is about accountability and, as we have seen from this government, they do not want to hold anyone accountable, whether it is parental responsibility orders or any other announcement.
A proportion of people will go into transitional housing, and come back once they demonstrate they are willing to live harmoniously with the community in public housing, and have respect for community property and their neighbours. A core component will require the intensive support we are providing, and they will get the support they really need; and they will learn new coping strategies. If they do not take on the responsibility of looking after their homes and being a contributing part of the community, they will be moved out. We will no longer condone public property tenants who fail to treat their homes as a community asset. We will not tolerate tenants who believe it is a right and not a privilege with obligations.
Of course, there are budget implications. We expect to see an immediate reduction in public housing maintenance costs; we expect to see a reduction in turnover costs of empty housing; we expect to improve the lifestyle of a significant proportion who enter into the transitional housing phase by the application of close to one-on-one counselling, training and support; we expect public housing waiting lists will be reduced; and we will continue to support non-government organisations to assist marginalised people into permanent accommodation.
I turn to Lands and Planning, and let me put a few facts on the table. We have the lowest level of home ownership uptake and the highest level of people living in rental properties. Although Bellamack was first announced in September 2007, construction on blocks will not start until this Dry Season; and we saw the backflip on the microdot shoeboxes called Bellamack Gardens. Johnston and Zuccoli are way behind schedule; we have problems with land release in Alice Springs; and the Berrimah Farm proposed development is bogged down in environmental assessment because of past use of hazardous materials on that property, and is unlikely ever to be developed as a housing estate, and rightly so.
Berrimah gaol - to be or not to be! - first Noonamah, then maybe near Robertson Barracks, and who knows where it might go? We are yet to hear two years after the original announcement. Government changing zonings at a whim: what is the point of having zones under the planning scheme if the government changes the zone to suit its own political agenda?
Let me put a few further facts on the table. Planning, generally, under this government is a disaster. We have little industrial land available and the current price of industrial land is very expensive. Talking with business people and industry it is approximately $405 per square metre; yet eight years ago it was around $90 per square metre. Why so high now? Supply and demand – it is no supply and a growing demand.
Planning for Weddell is way behind schedule with the government only recently putting out to tender the requirement for scope of works including investigations for residential, commercial and industrial land development for Weddell. The tender is a four month project and, following assessment of the bids, I would be surprised to see a tender released before November this year.
The Chief Minister claimed in a media release that blocks will be turned off by 2014, which I seriously doubt given this government’s track record in planning and getting things moving. I have sought information from the minister on the planning for Weddell through Questions on Notice, and I am waiting for a reply. I am very concerned about this government’s ability to keep to any timetable and their inability to plan for critical services such as water supply, and the supply of power and sewerage. I have spoken before on the lack of planning for the future water supply for Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell, and large industrial projects such as INPEX. Sure, the Darwin River Dam wall has been raised and work is being done on Manton Dam. If Weddell is planned to have 40 000 people and we get INPEX, there will be massive water consumption. I do not believe the current storage facilities will cope without some detrimental impact on the rural area, in particular.
I have read very little in the budget for my electorate or for the Top End rural area generally. I find it offensive that the Litchfield Council area is lumped in with Palmerston in the regional highlights. I have nothing against the good people of Palmerston who I am sure are mighty fine people, including my colleagues, the members for Blain, Brennan and Drysdale. However, the Litchfield Council area has some 7500 ratepayer properties, a population close to probably 17 000, a multitude of businesses and industries, district centres, and many activities that stand apart from Palmerston – if not Darwin. It is an area of large land mass and population that deserves its own highlight section given the contribution from the Litchfield area to Darwin and Palmerston, particularly extractive products, tourism, agriculture, horticulture and farming.
Having said that, I welcome the allocation of funds to Taminmin College and Middle Point Primary School; improvements to Howard Springs Reserve, even though it seems we will never get to swim there again; contribution to ongoing research in primary industries, although I do not believe there are enough funds for what we need; and funds for infrastructure at Freds Pass Reserve, a great recreational reserve.
What I do not see is any allocation for the fictitious rural pool, despite funds being allocated for Palmerston which already has a swimming pool complex; any funds for improvements to the police and fire complex, including the volunteer fire brigade - which is always in need - and no provision, not even any comment, about the provision of an ambulance service and centre for the rural area. I see nothing about trying to improve the community and the Taminmin College library, which is grossly undersized and set up originally to cater for 500 students and a small community. It now has to cater to a school community of 1200 students and a largely expanded residential community.
In closing, I do not believe this budget will achieve what the Treasurer believes it will achieve. Indeed, this budget, like everything else this Labor government does, will be a failure, and that does a complete disservice to all Territorians.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Standing Order Committee’s Fourth Report of the 11th Assembly including a report to the Assembly on the reference to the committee dated 18 August 2009 relating to the Estimates Committee processes, report on supplementary questions, and report on General Business afternoon.
I will now make a tabling statement and this is the report that will be distributed to all members.
We had some discussions earlier this week and resolved, as a parliament, to change some of the rules and standing orders around the Estimates Committee. We have debated that.
This report has a number of recommendations. Recommendation 1 of the report details some of these elements of change around the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee, and we have discussed those.
Recommendation 2 is the Standing Orders Committee agreed to undertake a review of the Estimates Committee process for 2011, with specific consideration, and report no later than November 2010 on the specific matters of: extending the 2011 Estimates Committee to run over two weeks; the hours of operation of the Estimates Committee including government- owned corporations to be set; the number of sitting days to be reduced to reflect any additional hours provided to Estimates Committee; and the option for generic questions to be included in the Estimates Committee review process. This recommendation is in line with discussion within the Standing Orders Committee about extending the period of Estimates Committee. This is one very important aspect the committee considers, plus the hours of operation of the Estimates Committee and the government-owned corporation.
Weighing that against if we are going to have an increase in the Estimates Committee and a similar reduction in sitting days is a matter to be considered by the Standing Order Committee.
There was a request by the opposition for generic questions to be included in the estimates review process. We know from past estimates there is a number of what we call generic questions that opposition asks. Last year, there was a set of generic questions around credit card transactions where there had been any anomalies in credit cards, and some quite important questions asked by the opposition. It highlighted some deficiencies, and also the actions some departments were taking under their own right to tighten up on the use of credit cards.
Having said that, we are all aware, I believe, that the use of credit cards by departments, generally, has been a positive step. However, it is something that has to be looked over and audited through the proper stringent processes. We will consider the issue of generic questions to be included in the Estimates Committee review process. Without pre-empting the deliberations of the Estimates Committee or what the recommendations might be of the Estimates Committee, I could put forward a personal opinion here that there is a process for written questions by opposition and Independent members. There is an avenue for that. I would not like to see, from a personal perspective - I have to be convinced otherwise - and I have reservations about a written question process taking over the estimates, because I really see the estimates as being a personal interaction, if you like, a human interaction, between the opposition, the Independents, ministers, and public servants.
It will be a good debate we have on this issue and we need to discuss it. I was just putting forward an initial thought I had on that particular issue. I am not, of course, pre-empting any of the discussions or recommendations that come out of the report.
The Standing Orders Committee recommended amendments to Standing Orders 109(3)(c) and 119 to read as follows. Standing Order 109(3)(c) states that one supplementary question for Question Time may be asked immediately by an opposition member who asked the original question which shall not exceed 30 seconds, and the answering of each supplementary question shall not exceed one minute.
Originally, the standing order nominated the Leader of the Opposition as the only one having the capacity to ask a supplementary question. After some discussion - and looking at parliaments elsewhere - it was decided and resolved by the committee that any member of the opposition can ask a supplementary question, but it has to be supplementary to an original question they asked themselves.
Going to the question asked this afternoon by the member for Braitling directed to the member for Katherine, it seems as if they could even be asking supplementaries of themselves, as well. We will see how that all develops and …
Mr Giles: There is a thought.
Dr BURNS: Well, there is a thought. I suppose, on another note, there is opportunity, in certain circumstances, for government members to ask opposition members certain questions, or even Independent members, if you were going to take that standing order as it stands.
Once again - I am putting forward a personal view here - Question Time, principally and primarily, is an opportunity for government, opposition, and Independent members to ask questions of government. Anyway, what happened today was a first for me. I will be remembering today for that reason, for some time.
Standing Order 119, Question Time:
That is a very important part of the estimates procedure.
Then, on General Business afternoon, opposition and Independent Members will be able to reorder opposition and Independent notices and postpone notices and Orders of the Day, providing the ranking of opposition and Independent notices and Orders of the Day remain in the same position on the Notice Paper. Notification of rearrangement of notices or Orders of the Day are to be advised by the opposition or Independent member to the Clerk, government Whip, Independent members and opposition Whip by the close of sittings on the Tuesday immediately preceding the business day.
Essentially, I am sure all members understand that, with both notices and orders, there will be flexibility for the opposition and Independents to reorder where things stand without bumping, say, if there are three items of the opposition and, then, the business by the Independent, they can reorder their bands, but they cannot push the opposition down from No 3 to No 4. That is a fair and equitable system, and it may avoid the question we had here today in Question Time with the member for Katherine’s bill on intertidal waters. That could possibly have been brought up the list and debated last night, and would circumvent the need for such a question as we had in Question Time today. However, that is a tactical issue by the opposition.
Anyway, that is it in a nutshell. The Standing Orders Committee is to come back with a report by November. The importance of November is that it gives us, as a parliament, time to settle the arrangements for next year for the estimates process and, as you well know, Madam Speaker, to have sitting days set in the parliamentary calendar, so members of this Assembly, the public and others then have a clear idea of the format of the sittings for the 2011 year. People can plan their diaries and business before the House, and public servants know what is going to be involved in the estimates process well in advance.
Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the Assembly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly adopt the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, we had some interesting debates within the Standing Orders Committee about a number of the issues the member for Johnston just spoke about. First was the number of hours allocated; we actually requested more hours. I agree the committee has agreed that will be part of the review process to be put in place in 2011 estimates. However, times are down a little. We thought the time allowed is probably insufficient to get through some of the heavy portfolios some of the senior ministers have.
I recall my own experience last year - which was the first estimates process I went through - of having to sit patiently and wait for ministers to pontificate about policy, and how much this and that, and all sorts of things are going on and, basically, not answering the question. As a result, an enormous amount of time was burned up simply by ministers talking about all sorts of issues other than answering the question. It is a bit like Question Time in this House, where it appears ministers just continue to gather all this stuff around them that does not involve answering the question.
I recall going through each output group, and watching the process to get to the point when it was my turn to ask ministers questions about my portfolio. When I added it all up, I got to talk for about 17 minutes out of the entire process. I thought that was hardly time for someone to be able to ask some very pertinent questions. The estimates process is the only real opportunity to scrutinise the money bills of the government. I thought the time in relation to my portfolios - 17 minutes, or close to; whatever it was - was insufficient to get to the bottom of some of the issues constituents in my electorate and the people who form part of my portfolio groups wanted to know.
I know there are many groups which speak to government, government consults with them, and government departments consult with them. As the alternative Northern Territory government we actually consult with these people too. We speak to them and ask them what their concerns are and, in many cases, they communicate those concerns to us. That is their only opportunity, on many occasions, to actually ask the government about some of the answers they did not get.
We used to have the estimates process, although it may not have been known as that, occur in this Chamber years ago. However, when the current government came to power, they changed the process and then put time limits on it. I recall, in days gone by, where you could come to this House and watch the process of the opposition holding the government to account. That process would take as long as it was absolutely necessary to drill down and get to the bottom of where and how the government was spending the taxpayers’ dollars.
However, with the time constraints we have these days it is very difficult to get to it, especially if you get ministers who do not choose to cooperate and stall the process by giving lengthy answers about situations and issues which are not that relevant to the actual question. Of course, if you go through with four hours or six hours, and you only get to the first portfolio and you do not get answers, then that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, something has to happen; that is, time has to be allocated to various shadow ministers. However, there are so many issues that require answers these days, that we do need more time. I am hoping the government will go along with our request for extensions of time. I believe it is going to move up to 60 hours, which puts us in the ball park of other jurisdictions in this country.
Madam Speaker, although we do not have a dissenting report as such, I record there are lots of things that we put up that the committee did not choose to take on board. I look forward to the Standing Orders Committee reviewing the estimates process and, in November, perhaps we can recommend, with the government’s help, that time be extended so the taxpayers of the Northern Territory, through the opposition, have ample opportunity to quiz and question the government on how and where they are spending their dollars.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. I am glad we have been able to be flexible and bring this debate on earlier than was originally scheduled. It is important to settle some of the issues including the supplementary question and the review by the end of these sittings. I thank members for their contribution.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Council of Territory Cooperation, I table the Second Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated May 2010
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the second CTC report provides details of the council’s first three months activities this year. In the time period for this report, from January to the end of March this year, the council conducted nine hearings most of which were public hearings.
In addition to Darwin, the council conducted hearings in Nguiu, Wadeye, Angurugu, Umbakumba and Alyangula; site visits of SIHIP constructions in Nguiu, Wadeye and Groote Eylandt; and a site visit of the ENI onshore gas plant at Wadeye. Within this time frame, the council spoke to more than 70 witnesses.
Earlier this year, using its self-referencing powers, the CTC looked into the cause of the major power outage in the Darwin region on 23 November 2009, and the statistics used by NT Police and the Department of Justice to report on domestic violence.
The CTC believes it has an important role in examining government policies in an open and transparent way, and public meetings are an essential part of it. Where possible, CTC meetings are open to the public, with the exception only being when an organisation or individual requests that a matter be heard in camera. During the first three months of the year, the CTC held four briefings in camera.
This second report, prepared and supported by all CTC members, demonstrates the improving level of collaboration between members with their agreement in determining their findings, and making formal recommendations contained in the report.
I want to first talk about the council’s inquiry into what led to the power outage which affected 14 000 households on 23 November 2009. The council spoke to representatives of the Power and Water Corporation and NT Gas to find out what went wrong, but the public hearings also provided these two organisations with opportunities to put information on the public record.
To understand what went wrong on 23 November, some background into how power is supplied, and what is NT Gas’s involvement, is needed. The Weddell Power Station was completed in 2008 and is a base or intermediate load station with two General Electric gas turbines, remotely controlled from Channel Island.
In June 2006, the Power and Water Corporation and ENI Australian Limited executed an agreement for the supply of gas over 25 years from the beginning of 2009. Earlier in 2006, an agreement was reached between the Power and Water Corporation and NT Gas to construct a gas pipeline from Wadeye to Ban Ban Springs south of Darwin, to transport gas from the Blacktip gas field.
Following delays in availably of the first gas under the agreement, ENI proposed sale of early off-specification gas to the Power and Water Corporation. This was agreed in August 2009 after a review and study into the viability of using early off-specification gas. The first, early off-specification gas was supplied to the Power and Water Corporation by ENI, through NT Gas Bonaparte gas pipeline, to Weddell and Channel Island Power Stations in September 2009, along with gas from Mereenie and Palm Valley fields.
On 23 November 2009, the supply of gas was stopped to the Weddell Power Station by NT Gas, causing power outages. Investigation by the PWC and NT Gas continues into the cause of the failure of the gas supply system, but evidence given to the council describes what happened that day. What appears to have happened was the NT Gas system did not pick up the amount of water that was in the pipeline itself and, when the water hit the coalesces at Weddell, the pumping system did not cope with the volume of water that came into them, and the back-up pumping system did not work. As a result of that, their system was, basically, overrun with water and they had to shut the supply down because their system failed.
After hearing from the Power and Water Corporation and NT Gas, the CTC believes introducing the early off-specification gas was a gamble. The lateness of the supply of the gas by ENI invoked the liquidated damages clause arising for not supplying gas on 1 January 2009. Because the liquidated damages clause was capped at a certain price, which the CTC believes would have been reached by mid-2009, ENI was not liable for any further damages, and the Power and Water Corporation had to meet any further costs. ENI’s failure to deliver specification- compliant gas within contractual time frames came at the expense of the Power and Water Corporation and ultimately, Territory taxpayers.
These circumstances led the Power and Water Corporation seeking early off-specification gas in spite of the risks it represented to the infrastructure. Because of the threat to the pipeline from corrosion, it was decided to introduce 27 000 L of diesel as a corrosion inhibitor. The CTC was advised there was no capacity for NT Gas to know how much liquid was being introduced to the pipeline at the point of supply. Evidence was given that the only thing that was different, and not monitored in relation to using the early off-specification gas and its delivery, was the liquid content of the diesel used to coat the gas pipeline as a corrosion inhibitor. None of the members of the CTC have expertise in these technical matters, but it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that the combination of deliberately introduced diesel and unknown quantities of liquid entering the pipeline overwhelmed the capacity of the pipeline’s liquid abatement systems.
The council makes three recommendations in relation to this incident. The first two are for the Power and Water Corporation to send the CTC the results of its and NT Gas’ investigation into the events leading up to the day the gas supply was stopped to the Weddell Power Station; and the final report from NT Gas, APA Group, the Power and Water Corporation, Worley Parsons the regulator, and ENI which identified the risks and recommendations on the release of early- specification gas, be released to the CTC.
As the Power Water Corporation is a government-owned corporation, it is subject to government oversight. There are two ministers with responsibility for Power Water Corporation - the Minister for Essential Services and the Treasurer as the shareholding minister. The CTC believes the liquidated damages clause threshold was too low; using early-specification gas was inherently risky; and insufficient capacity existed in the system to detect liquids in the system. The Power and Water Corporation was forced, by circumstances, to use gas it would have not otherwise used after the liquidated damages threshold became insufficient to cover the costs of the diesel. The government should have known the high-risk process being undertaken by the Power and Water Corporation, and should have been the final approver of it, given the effect on taxpayers.
The ministers responsible declined to attend the CTC hearing to discuss their roles and knowledge of what transpired. The CTC’s third recommendation about this matter is the Minister for Essential Services and the Treasurer attend a CTC hearing to determine their involvement and level of knowledge of what transpired.
I will now move on to the second of the council’s self-references: its examination of police and the Department of Justice reporting of domestic violence statistics. The council wanted to look at these statistics because the way the information is recorded, collated, analysed and reported appear to affect the final statistics publicly released. The council’s concern is what the statistical information is saying, and what is being used to develop the government’s policy directions to address the reported increase in domestic violence.
The CTC heard from the representatives of the police in the Department of Justice to explain the differences in the statistical collation and reporting methods used by the two organisations. One important difference was explained as the variants between offence-based and victim-based reporting. The police representatives explained they have moved from offence-based to victim-based reporting and, in last year’s annual report, provided figures on both types.
Other important differences are the different geographies and time periods the statistics can relate to. For example, when the Chief Minister talks about crime statistics, the figures he refers to are for the previous 12 months. When the police report on crime statistics, it is a 12-month period preceding the quarter of the month released. To add to this, the data used by the Department of Justice is derived from analysing different geographical areas than that used by police.
The final difference is that police count all crimes against the person in their counts, while the Department of Justice only counts those offences classified as assaults, and do not include offences like rape, murder, and robbery. By excluding these offences, the proportion of domestic violence-related offences was increased by limiting how many crimes of violence were included.
The council wants to see improved crime statistics reporting, and has made two recommendations to assist in clarifying the publicly-released information. The first is addressing all of these differences between police and Department of Justice reporting by recommending statistics relating to crime, especially domestic violence-related crime, be accurate and consistent with one another. If this is not possible, an explanation needs to be given to aid the accurate interpretation of the differences.
The second recommendation is to address another of the differences the council heard about - the volatility of small numbers reported quarterly - which can produce misleading statistical information. The CTC recommends the minimum reporting times for crime statistics be reviewed to reduce the volatility in numbers, to assist in setting policy responses by government.
I turn to the CTC’s three priority areas of SIHIP, local government and A Working Future. Late in January, the council spoke to the Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services, Mr Bob Beadman, about his role in implementing the six parts of A Working Future, and the findings in his report. While the council recognises that A Working Future was announced and Mr Beadman appointed less than a year ago, it was particularly interested to learn about the progress and the policies’ implementation. In the second report, the CTC makes three recommendations relating to A Working Future, two of which I want to talk to briefly now.
The CTC heard from Mr Beadman about the need for the restoration of a government administration presence in Indigenous communities. Mr Beadman said the installation of government business managers and Indigenous engagement officers was the first step in restoring government administration presence in communities. This is just the beginning, however - as Mr Beadman said - the government needs to rethink re-establishing a presence to undertake the myriad of functions which have been left to shires and non-government organisations to carry out.
The CTC agrees with Mr Beadman and recommends the Australian and Northern Territory governments re-establish government offices in growth towns to prevent overloading shires and non-government organisations. The CTC notes that, as part of the growth towns implementation process, reference groups are being established at the same time SIHIP is establishing housing reference groups and local government has local boards. The council is concerned about the number of advisory and consultative groups being established to advise government policy implementation. We recommend government review the number of advisory boards and reference groups which they require growth towns establish.
I now turn to talking about the council’s findings that flow from visiting Nguiu, Wadeye, and Groote Eylandt. At the Nguiu public hearing, representatives from the Tiwi Land Council and Tiwi Shire Council and associated groups discussed a range of matters related to SIHIP, local government and A Working Future. The council heard the Tiwi Shire has considerable concern about the decreasing level of funding for the shire council to deliver its services. Council heard the shire council had reorganised its management structure, which would save the shire $320 000. However, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services was arguing for the employment of another senior financial manager. This appears unnecessary and, from evidence given during the hearing, cannot be funded on existing resources. The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government permit shires to develop an organisation structure without requiring approval from the government.
The CTC’s second report includes some information on the site visits of SIHIP construction and, in Wadeye’s case, the tour of the concrete plant and panel workshop, which I will not go into other than to say how useful it is to see on the ground how SIHIP is being implemented.
In its first report, the council raised its concern about the limited cost rationale applied following the SIHIP review to refurbishing houses, to what is called the functional level, at an average cost of $75 000. In its response to the CTC’s first report recommendation, the government said refurbishments will be supplemented by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services repairs and maintenance program via service agreements with shires.
At Nguiu, we saw firsthand the effect of confining refurbishment to $75 000 in one house, where it meant it would not be returned to a standard which would allow for healthy living because the floor, which was pitted and permeable, was not to be resurfaced. The floor needed to be sealed to provide a surface that can be kept clean. The CTC understands this house has since been refurbished, if not rebuilt to an ‘as new’ standard. However, the policy of refurbishing houses to a functional level remains, and to rely on annual funding for housing maintenance to remedy glaring flaws which should be included in refurbishing houses is unacceptable. The CTC recommends refurbishment of houses includes all work to return houses to functional houses that allow for healthy living, including the ability to keep houses clean.
The CTC visited Groote Eylandt for two days of site visits and public hearings in Angurugu and Umbakumba, and a public hearing at Alyangula.
Since the CTC visit, the Australian and Northern Territory governments announced that Earth Connect Alliance SIHIP operations were to cease. The council is very mindful of subsequently raised concerns on Groote Eylandt about the slow progress and quality of SIHIP construction, and the impact of that on maintaining community support for the 99-year lease in the Regional Partnership Agreement.
The council makes four recommendations which are in direct consequence to the situation throughout the Groote Eylandt SIHIP construction and the removal of Earth Connect. The CTC has a number of concerns about determination of the Earth Connect’s contract, due to what we understand was government’s belief there were flaws in Earth Connect’s systems. The CTC is concerned there was a desire to shed alliances from the delivery of the SIHIP construction. We think this adds to our already expressed concerns about the alliance model delivering no better outcomes than previous construction models.
By investigating what has occurred, it became clear that Earth Connect was under time pressure driven by the Australian and Northern Territory governments. The CTC is mindful the delays were caused by the demands of both governments, which meant the program was delivered late and at great cost and was, therefore, not the responsibility of Earth Connect.
The CTC is concerned that replacing Earth Connect will further delay housing construction and refurbishments, and exacerbate overcrowding and associated issues on Groote Eylandt. We note, for example, the delay already apparent with houses reviewed, due for completion by the end of March, have not been completed.
There needs to be some recognition and acceptance by both governments of their shortcomings in implementing SIHIP. Gained from the most recent SIHIP update, there are 133 refurbishments complete, 119 under way, six houses completed, and construction commenced on 18 new houses. Barely seven months remain in this year to meet the targets of at least 150 new houses and 1000 refurbishments and rebuilds.
The CTC visited Groote Eylandt to inform itself about SIHIP construction progress and was confronted by several issues. Prior to the visit, there were several suggestions that Earth Connect Alliance had delivered substandard work. Whilst we do not have building expertise, we were satisfied the work appeared to be of an acceptable standard. The CTC notes, where there was a requirement for remedial work, Earth Connect had done more than would be considered reasonable to address minor issues.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, the CTC recommends both governments establish independent building supervision and certification as part of the SIHIP works.
For similar reasons, the final two recommendations seek to clarify what monies have been paid to Earth Connect, for what work, and for detailed costings for the remainder of the work now allocated to Territory Alliance.
As a result of concerns raised in the first report, the CTC asked for a secretary who would be dedicated to the needs of the council. I place on the record my appreciation of the work of all secretarial staff who have helped with the council since it commenced, and to welcome Helen Campbell as the council’s new secretary. I thank my fellow committee members and welcome the member for Nhulunbuy who recently replaced the member for Fannie Bay as a government member.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to the second report of the Council for Territory Cooperation.
This second report provides information on the council’s public hearings and visits, as the chairman of the committee just said, from January to March 2010. It covers issues such as the power supply, domestic violence statistics, A Working Future, and visits to Nguiu, Wadeye, and Groote Eylandt, which the chairman just talked about.
They are quite substantial recommendations, I believe, regarding the power. The chairman gave quite a detailed view on the evidence we had. I must say, the hearings we had with Power and Water and NT Gas were probably the most productive hearings and discussions I have had or heard for some time. I believe one of the CTC’s recommendations is, when that inquiry or report is finished, that report should be made available to the Council for Territory Cooperation at its earliest convenience. Power and Water and NT Gas have already provided a great deal of information to the CTC. As I understand, the matters we have had discussions about are still the subject of some ongoing discussions between Power and Water and NT Gas.
I must say at the outset how good it is to see a report from the CTC on which all members of the council were united. I believe it shows we are cooperating …
Mr Elferink: That is because you are actually willing to be critical of government.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: That is because you are actually willing to be critical of your government.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We are uniting and we are moving together. I believe we all have a commitment to the issues which are being investigated and looked at. There is some robust discussion which happens between all members and that is a good thing; that is not a bad thing. I believe all the members of the committee controlled by the Chair - sometimes I believe the members control the Chair, but never mind. A great deal of work has been undertaken, and the trips have been fantastic. Hopefully, Power and Water and NT Gas will get the information and when they are finished that that is made available to the CTC. There are a number of recommendations. Recommendation 2 was also regarding Power and Water and NT Gas issues.
We then had meetings with the police and the statisticians from the Department of Justice. I found it interesting to go through the statistics and to find out the differences with the compilation of the statistics - you may laugh, member for Port Darwin, but some of us are humble enough to admit that …
Mr Elferink: No, I am laughing at myself, trust me. I struggle with statistics as much as you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We can look at those statistics and admit that. So, it was good to get that qualifying to know when you are looking at those statistics, the differences in how they are compiled, and how the police record their statistics versus the statisticians in the Department of Justice, and how those crime statistics are pulled in. One of the things the CTC, having looked at that, is recommending is there should be an explanation about how those statistics are compiled and used, and made clearer so they are more consistent and reduce the volatility. That is quite a reasonable recommendation and one I certainly hope government will agree to implement.
Then travelling to the Tiwi Islands, we went to first - or was it Wadeye? No, we might have gone to Wadeye first. One thing I will say with Wadeye, the place is absolutely buzzing. We saw Thamarrurr Development Corporation and their involvement with the housing projects and other things happening there. There was some tension when we first arrived there, but that was resolved - a slight misunderstanding, but the Chairman did apologise to the traditional owners of that community and we resolved that. It was good to be able to get to Wadeye to see things are actually happening in the community. Often, one picks up the paper and reads all these terrible things about Wadeye and that the whole community is basket case and violence is rife. It helps to get out of Darwin and into these communities to see they are not basket cases; that things are happening, houses are coming up.
I know members opposite like to constantly throw back that it has taken a long time. Well, if you look at the landscape of the Northern Territory, in 2007 in remote Aboriginal communities, there was not one serviced lot in any of those communities. To conduct a huge housing program like this, surveys and consultations needed to be done. All of the planning and surveying we take for granted in Darwin and our urban areas was not done in many of our remote communities. Years ago, they did do some when they had the SLAP plans, but it was not to the extent you needed to do this as communities grew and populations increased.
For Wadeye, it is great to see that community developing and coming along. We saw two different houses. New Futures Alliance was building one lot of houses and the Thamarrurr Development Corporation was building another set of houses. It was good to be able to compare and see the differences, both in structure and price. The pricing of building a house, I think, from the Thamarrurr Development Corporation - and correct me if I am wrong – was around $360 000, and we were told the average or the catch price on the other houses built by New Futures Alliance was around $450 000, and some were above those costs. CTC members were certainly interested in questioning New Futures Alliance and Thamarrurr Development Corporation as to what would be, in effect, nearly $100 000 difference per house. That is something we wanted to go further into. I do not think we have gone back to that, but the prices and the variations in some of the prices of these houses in some of the communities needs to be looked at. I am not saying that I saw that everywhere, but it was an issue that came up at Wadeye.
After Wadeye we went to the Tiwi Islands - a bit biased but my favourite place. We went to Nguiu and met with the shire council. If any group that has been at the receiving end of many reforms or changes, you would say the Tiwi Islands is probably the one that has been trying to deal with a lot of these reforms. Prior to the shire, there was the amalgamation of all of the community government councils and, then, along came the shires. The reforms and the Local Government Act needs to change, in that the shires have to have the capacity to be able to leverage service fees. The whole issue of rating, which was some pipe dream of some bureaucrat who probably thought it was a good idea, is not a good idea. It is not the reality on the ground for these communities for the simple reason you do not have the private home ownership base in these communities.
Even if we start moving towards people owning their own homes on the ground in these remote communities, the reality is it is not the same as Darwin. You are not going to have a population of private homeowners on the ground in these communities to be able to generate the revenue which is needed to make these shires sustainable. All of the shires we have spoken to, when you asked them what their rates revenue was, it is quite a small part of the revenue coming in.
It does not make these shires sustainable and, if there is going to be a decrease in their discretionary funding from government to operate, government needs to look at changing the Local Government Act to give these shires the ability to collect and create a revenue stream that is going to make them viable.
I lived on Nguiu and worked with the Nguiu council when it was its own community government council many years ago. The council was quite viable in those days. I am shocked every time I go back home at how high the grass is. Then, when I talk to people in the shire, they say because they no longer collect service fees, they are not able to mow the grass. When the council used to collect service fees from everyone, they used to mow everyone’s lawn. They did all of that maintenance - parks and gardens - all of those activities used to happen. Now, it does not happen. I had a number of discussions with the CEO of the shire to try to bring attention to the fact it is part of their core local government services and they should do it, but they say because they do not collect this any more, they are not able to do it.
We met with the land council for a short time, and had some discussions with them on roads and other issues. I must say, with both the Tiwi Land Council and the Tiwi Shire, there have been, I suppose, some tensions for some time. Tension is not productive at all, or in the interest of Tiwi people to have these two groups at loggerheads with one another. One of the issues which I raised at the CTC is, on the Tiwi Islands, Milikapiti and Pirlangimpi - which are the other two communities on the other side - are also in negotiation with the federal government to move towards 99-year leases. The question we have posed and talked about at the CTC level is - and I have had discussions; the member for Port Darwin and I are part of a subcommittee to look at this issue – is regarding the Tiwi Islands where you have the majority of the towns leased to the Executive Director of Township Leasing.
One wonders what the future role is for the land council if the core work of land councils is to do the leasing, to represent traditional owners, and ensure all of the stuff under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is to be conducted. If the Tiwi Land Council is contracting its services to another person or a third party, I pose the question: what is the future role of the Tiwi Land Council? Should we, the CTC, be looking at that? There are a number of layers in and amongst these communities which adds a number of barriers to progress or to work happening and going forward.
Madam Speaker, we then went from the Tiwi Islands to Groote Eylandt looking at the houses. I thought the houses and everything were okay. I am not a builder, but on inspection of the houses, they were fantastic …
Dr Burns: Did you have a spirit level?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I did not.
Mr Elferink: I did.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The member for Port Darwin had a good time with the spirit level.
Mr Elferink: A spirited time, perhaps, even.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A spirited time, Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin had. I did not get the spirit level, but the member for Port Darwin did.
I thought the houses were okay. I am not going to get into dragging up or going into the details of Earth Connect, what was happening and what might have happened. There is no point in that. What is good is that Territory Alliance has now come in there, the housing project will continue, and people are not going to be denied the houses, and the houses which should have been built continue to happen on the ground at Groote Eylandt.
When I saw the comment about copper pipes - well, anyone who knows anything in the Health field knew that copper piping in houses went out about 20 years ago. With Earth Connect, there were issues about the quality of the materials and other things. That has been resolved. Territory Alliance, as I understand, has now had consultations with the community, as well as with the government and Anindilyakwa Land Council, and that seems to be resolved.
My concern in all of that - and the CTC has not had an opportunity to go, but I am certainly hoping my fellow members on the CTC will want to come to Jabiru, Gunbalanya and Maningrida – when we were in Groote Eylandt, I was concerned the other community where there was going to be substantial capital works in SIHIP was Gunbalanya, and the houses that were being built at Gunbalanya were not going to be held up at the expense of trying to sort through and work through this contract.
I acknowledge Andrew Kirkman from the Department of Housing, who has done a fantastic job. I acknowledge Andrew; in all of the discussions I have had with him in relation to Gunbalanya and housing within my electorate, he has been very efficient and effective. His handling and the work he has done with making sure the transition - particularly at Groote Eylandt when we went there, because there were some tensions. We did not know what the underlying tensions were; it was not until we got back to Darwin we realised what the underlying tensions were. However, Andrew Kirkman, the department and the minister, handled that transition very well. I say that particularly after talking to my constituents at Gunbalanya, who were very appreciative of the respectful way they have been treated, the consultation, and all the communication that has happened to them since Earth Connect was transitioned out. That was certainly a big fear of mine; that things would stop and nothing would happen. But, that could not be further from the truth. Things have certainly moved on, and continue to move on.
I believe we will see many of those houses being built, and that is something we all want. Despite constantly hearing the bleating that there has only been six or seven houses been built, it could not be further from the truth. Whilst I said Wadeye was going gangbusters and there was a lot of activity, it is the same at Nguiu on the Tiwi Islands; there is a whole lot of activity happening.
The minister for Housing and I went to the Tiwi Islands and looked at some of the houses, and inspected inside some of the houses. I believe the media was a bit put out because they could not follow us into the houses but the minister got to see some of these houses internally. I was also heartened to hear the Chairman say in his speech there was one house which the members for Katherine, Port Darwin, Fannie Bay, and I were looking at and we were told they were not going to paint the walls or the floors. When I went back with the minister, there had been many changes. I have promised the Chairman that on my next trip to the Tiwi Islands, in another week’s time after I come back from Alice Springs, I will take a photo of that house and bring it back for members because the transformation of that house has been quite dramatic.
It just shows, if putting some pressure and going around these communities and making sure things are going to be up to standard can be the role of the CTC, then that is a good thing.
Sorry, Madam Speaker, the member for Katherine is very distracting.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I will take that as a compliment, member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did not mean it like that either, member for Katherine. Madam Speaker, I would like that expunged.
You have tickets on yourself, mate. We are spending too much time together, Willem, that is what it is.
Anyway, back to the CTC report which is what we are talking about, member for Katherine ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Recommendations 10 to 14 all relate to SIHIP. They are working in all the 21 communities. As the minister said during Question Time, seven new houses have been completed, and 80 are well under way. The 270 rebuilds and refurbishments have been completed or are under way so, by the end of the year, SIHIP will have completed at least 150 new dwellings and 1000 rebuilds and refurbishments across the Territory.
It has been a significant and complex program, and it will continue to be that, spanning a number of years. It is not just about building houses, and I believe that is what we often forget; that it is just about the house that is going up. All of us who worked and lived in remote communities know it is not just about building the house; it is about delivering the training, the employment, and ensuring we are going to deliver on the long-term outcomes for Aboriginal people in those communities. It would be good, at some stage, to get those figures; I believe we are exceeding the training targets. When I looked at the figures we received at the CTC, over 100 local, Indigenous people are in employment and training in this program. That is a good thing, because it is 100 Aboriginal people across these 21 communities who are employed in this program.
With the second report, we still have a long way to go. I welcome the member for Nhulunbuy who, I know, is going to enjoy the travel and getting around and talking to people. I have enjoyed the debates and discussions with the member for Port Darwin. There are many issues we have discussions and debates about. We often get consensus. It is a good thing to have that robust debate. This also applies to the members for Katherine and Nelson, as the Chair.
The committee is a good one and there are other areas we need to look at. I am looking forward to going to Alice Springs next week because, whilst we tend to focus on the Top End, there are challenges we need to get on top of in Central Australia. We need to ensure we understand those challenges and can achieve the outcomes so people in Central Australia, particularly in those communities, can get the same level of attention and services as everyone else expects. I am looking forward to travelling with the CTC in Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, I support the report and look forward to the government’s response.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also speak to this unanimous report from this parliamentary committee. I say at the outset I have had a good hard look at the member for Katherine and I am not in the least bit distracted. Perhaps that is something the member for Arafura can explain to the House at some other point.
There are some very serious issues raised in this report. I ask honourable members to recall, when I quote from this report, it is a case of ‘so say all of us’, which means the Labor members, the Independents, and the Country Liberals members on this committee.
I quote from page 7 of the report, dealing with findings, particularly in relation to the shut down of the power supply in November last year. It is a short quote:
I heard the member for Nelson repeat those words in his address; that the introduction of early off-specification gas was a gamble involving millions of dollars.
To remind members of what has occurred, essentially, last November the power was shut down to the whole of Darwin, Katherine, and Palmerston. It was shut down very suddenly and without warning. The reason it was shut down was because a staff member of NT Gas turned the gas off. I presume he cranked off one of those great big stop cocks near the coalescers just outside of the Power and Water Corporation’s fence. That would, under normal circumstances, have been seen as an abhorrent act of vandalism. The fact is - and I had not heard anyone say it here, but it should be said - that particular employee did a commendable job. They did the right thing. I do not know who that person was, but I certainly hope NT Gas passes on to that employee the Council of Territory Cooperation’s unanimous belief that they did the right thing and they should be commended for the courage of their decision.
The reason it was a courageous decision is he or she was standing not far away from a couple of coalesces which had filled up with fluid. Those coalescers should never have had much, if any, fluid in them at all. But, as it turns out, those coalescers had been overwhelmed, not only on that day, but had been nearly overwhelmed on two occasions in previous days. Coalescers collect fluid in a pipe, and those fluids were overwhelming coalescers all the way back to Ban Ban Springs, basically, where the first coalescers exist. That is because the amount of fluid in that pipe was far in excess what the designers of the pipe had ever contemplated having in them.
Consequently, what occurred is, for some reason, fluids entered the pipe - and we are not talking about water, we are, essentially, talking about hydrocarbons. A total of 27 000 L of those hydrocarbons, namely diesel, were deliberately injected into the pipe. Also, there was no way of monitoring how much fluid - hydrocarbons and water - was entering the pipe from the supplier; namely, the ENI Gas supplier.
The reason all of this was occurring was because the Northern Territory government had determined they wanted to take gas which was outside of the specifications the pipe was designed to carry. That sounds like a fairly irresponsible process. The reason they wanted to pump 27 000 L of diesel into that pipe was because they wanted to inhibit corrosion, as they were scared water was going to get into the pipe. That pipe was never designed to carry water. The reason it was not designed to carry water was because it was to carry gas of a certain specified type. The question then begs: why would the Northern Territory government seek to have a gas supplier that is contracted to supply gas, push a gas down a pipeline which had the potential to damage the pipe? The reason was because the Northern Territory Power and Water Corporation was asking for it.
It would sound almost reckless to go down that path, but there was a logical reason the Power and Water Corporation chose to go down that path. That reason was because they were paying for huge amounts of diesel to run the generators, particularly at Channel Island. It was costing tens of millions of dollars.
Under normal circumstances, when an organisation like ENI promises to provide a certain product by a certain date, and they fail to supply that product, then damages flow to the party who is injured. What that, basically, means is if they break their promise, they have to pay for any losses suffered. ENI did not come close to providing the gas required by the Power and Water Corporation on 1 January 2009, when they were supposed to supply it. Indeed, they failed to supply that gas at an effective rate at all in the whole of 2009, and did not start supplying that gas until well into 2010.
When the Northern Territory government negotiated the supply of gas with ENI, what they allowed to occur was a cap on liquidated damages. These are the damages I referred to earlier, when the party which fails to keep its promise has to pay for the costs of any losses suffered by the other party in a contract. I am aware of what that liquidated damages cap is, but I will not mention the figure because it is a commercial-in-confidence figure, and I certainly will not betray it to this House. What I can say, however, is that it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that cap had already been reached in either May or June 2009, and government was fundamentally aware that cap was going to be reached so early, because they already started negotiations with NT Gas, the organisation which owns the pipeline, to try to push early off-specification gas down that pipeline.
The existence of that cap on liquidated damages meant the Northern Territory government, or the Power and Water Corporation, had to grab some dice and have a crap shoot, and try to deliver any sort of gas they possibly could down the pipeline, because they were unable to secure a supply of gas that conformed. The reason for that was, after about May or June, the Northern Territory government, or Power and Water Corporation, would have had to have paid the full tote odds for the diesel they were burning. That was going to cost tens of millions of dollars. That is the reason they took the crap shoot - and they lost. The consequence of that gamble was you saw this massive shutdown of power supply to the people of the Northern Territory when the non-specified gas overwhelmed the coalescers along the system and managed to get through to the customer itself, the Power and Water Corporation.
There is a very serious problem built into this. It would be an interesting observation up until now, except for one thing; that is, the potentiality of another problem. This parliamentary committee took evidence that demonstrated one of the new generators at the Weddell Power Station suffered damage to one of its turbines. At the time of reporting, and at the time I make this speech, it is still not known to me or the committee why or what caused that damage. However, it is almost an irresistible finger to point at off-specification gas coming down the pipeline.
This, then, is a problem, because it is clear from the correspondence that I have seen that NT Gas made it abundantly obvious to the Power and Water Corporation there would be hydrocarbons coming down the pipe. The Power and Water Corporation said: ‘Turn it on anyhow, make it happen’. So, the Power and Water Corporation took this gas. It is possible some of these hydrocarbons found their way into the Weddell generator system because we know one of them broke. One of them was very seriously damaged and, if it does turn out some of these hydrocarbons did make their way down the pipeline and into those turbines and damaged the turbines, General Electric will not come good on the warranty those machines naturally carry.
There are several questions that yet need to be answered, and those issues are touched on in the report. Essentially, the question is: what was the source of the damage to the turbine at Weddell generator? If it was hydrocarbons, was it as a result of gas that overwhelmed the coalescers and carried hydrocarbons into the turbine? If it was, what is the effect on the warranty? If that is the case, and all of these are entirely possible, what is going to be the cost to the taxpayer of the Northern Territory because warranties have been voided by General Electric, the manufacturers of the damaged turbine?
Today, we had the Statement of Corporate Intent delivered to this House by the owner of the Power and Water Corporation, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, having to bail out that organisation to the tune of $218m-odd over the next three years. It is conceivable the Northern Territory government will have to spring even more millions of dollars to the Power and Water Corporation because of this.
Madam Speaker, the questions which are really important now are: what did the government know about these arrangements, and did the government approve of the application of early off-specification gas down the pipeline? If they did, then they have a duty to the people of the Northern Territory, either through this parliamentary committee or in this House, to explain why they allowed it to occur and why they took this crap shoot? If they did not know then the questions have to be asked: why were they not told and why have they lost so much control of their organisation, which they own, that it was taking gambles with Territory taxpayers’ assets, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars?
It is important, and it behoves this government, to report, and make its ministers report to this House or, more importantly, to the council itself, so they can be cross-examined as to what their knowledge was and what instructions they gave, if they, indeed, knew anything.
As a consequence, I remind and draw members’ attention to Recommendation 3 on page 9 of the report which says:
I look forward to both those ministers standing in this House today or, as soon as possible in relation to this debate, and explaining what they knew and what instructions they gave in relation to the supply of early off-specification gas to the Power and Water Corporation. It is a failure of the negotiation process which enabled ENI to take advantage of a cap on liquidated damages that caused the Northern Territory’s Power and Water Corporation, and probably the Northern Territory government, to take a risk that has, ultimately and potentially, led to a loss totalling tens of millions of dollars, let alone the loss of power for a whole day to every citizen who lived in Darwin, Palmerston, and Katherine.
I also turn my attention to the findings on SIHIP. We all believe, as members of the CTC, that:
This is the Labor Party members, the Independents, and the Country Liberals saying with one voice that this government has to acknowledge the post-review refurbishments are an embarrassment, and will continue to be so.
This government will accept houses whose walls have not been repainted under the refurbishment process. They will then place people into those houses and say: ‘Look after this place, treat it as your own home’, when they will not even treat it as a decent landlord would treat a house. It will be sufficient for this government to receive occupancy and ownership of a house which will be merely pressure cleaned as a result of the changes to SIHIP.
SIHIP was lauded as such a triumph by the federal government and, more importantly, the Territory government which had carriage of the implementation of this program at such a premature time, that expectations were raised to a level subsequent maladministration could not hope to achieve. By the time this program has been wrested away from the Northern Territory government and back to the federal government - because of the excruciatingly embarrassing front pages in The Australian outlining what a monumental disaster this government had turned SIHIP into - and by the time they had finished reviewing what was left, they had to cut corners. The infrastructure component had to be dropped away; that now is a cost impost on the Northern Territory taxpayer. The quality of the houses that were promised in the first instance were lowered and, more importantly, were made smaller, and the quality of the refurbishment and rebuilds had gone from a very high standard to mere pressure cleaning and doing the wet areas. That should be an excruciating embarrassment to this government.
Presiding over all I have spoken about today has been one minister - the member for Daly, the minister, whom we would really have to now call the 200-Million-Dollar-Minister, because that is largely what I would calculate at the moment he has cost Territorians. He has cost SIHIP an absolute bomb because of maladministration. The Aboriginal people who live in these remote communities will get less than they were originally promised because he did not place his hand on the tiller and guide the craft.
It was this minister who must have signed off on the decision to allow for early off-specification gas to come down the pipeline, which may well be found to have led to the destruction of one of the machines he is supposed to be the guardian and protector of. This is the minister who introduced a local government computer system which will cost $5m to fix because he had taken his hand of the tiller and failed to guide the ship of state for which he was responsible.
Whilst we have not done it on this occasion, I remind members of the original dissenting report members from the Country Liberals put to the first report of this parliamentary committee. I stand by what I said in that original report - but plus, plus, plus now. This minister is not a bad person, but he is just not capable of doing the jobs the Chief Minister gives him and he is costing Territorians hundreds of millions of dollars.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members it now being 9 pm pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we will now complete the item of business before the Chair.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly now stands adjourned.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, today I pay thanks to the Alice Springs RSL for, once again, hosting a wonderful Anzac Day. The night before Anzac Day we celebrated the 49th Annual Anzac Eve Dinner, put on by the RSL through the President, Dennis Parker, and the Vice President, Kevin Rockemer.
It was a fantastic event. I believe 86 people were in attendance, including Dennis and Kevin. We had the prayer by Aidy Viney from the Salvation Army; 1RSU were in attendance; many American Defence personnel from interstate; the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan; the Labor Senator for the Territory, Trish Crossin, and the federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon. It was good to see Margaret Larkin, the new head of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap, there for her first 49th Annual Anzac Eve dinner. It was a fantastic night; I believe it was better than last year. I really look forward to the 50th anniversary next year, and will be more than happy to MC that event again.
The Dawn Service on Anzac Day was fantastic, with a great crowd from Alice Springs. When they say standing room only, there was not even that. They were all the way down the hill at the Dawn Service, and the 10.30 am service was the same - people all the way down the hill. Next year we will have several hundred extra people coming to town to attend the Dawn Service. I am unsure how we will get extra seats up Anzac Hill, however it will be fantastic.
I laid a wreath at the 10.30 am service, and I sponsored several of the schools in my electorate of Braitling to lay a wreath: Larapinta Primary School, Living Waters School, Braitling Primary School and OLSH.
I thank student representatives from Larapinta Primary School who presented a wreath; it was fantastic they were involved. Anzac Day is a hugely patriotic event and it is exciting and very important we pass on that education to our youngsters, our young students, our young leaders of tomorrow.
I thank student representatives Thomas Boyce and Christie Heffernan from Larapinta Primary School, and I thank the Assistant Principal, Ashlea Farrell, for coming along, and the Principal, Stewart Moyses for allowing them to come. It was great.
From Living Waters School, I thank the Principal, Eunice Stoll, and the Assistant Principal, Amanda Seidel and, in particular, the student representatives who attended and presented the wreath, Donovan Brown and Courtney Synnott.
From Braitling Primary School: Principal, Sue Crowe, who I work very well with, and the Assistant Principal, Peter Hirst. It was fantastic for Braitling Primary School to want to be involved in this. The student representatives were Jacob Crowe and Cassie Boyd. It was great to see them there. They are the first two school captains Braitling Primary School has ever had, and are doing a great job and I wish them well. I am getting involved in the leadership group at Braitling Primary School when in Alice Springs, and I offer all the assistance I can to Jacob and Cassie; they are doing a good job.
I also thank OLSH, with Brother Paul Gilchrist, the Principal, and Janice Patterson, the Assistant Principal, and student representatives, Anthony Geppa and Stephanie Johansen, who presented the wreath.
Next year I would like to see Yipirinya School coming along as well. The other school I have in my electorate, St Philip’s College, presented their own wreath, which I did not sponsor. As the government closed down ANZAC Hill High School this year, I did not get involved with those guys because they are now part of middle schools in the member for Araluen’s electorate. I thank those people.
Moving on to another matter, I thank the Housing minister, the member for Johnston, for providing me with an answer in Question Time today where I asked: ‘Is it true $19m has been spent on Groote Eylandt when we do not have a house built?’ He has kindly and very generously answered that question and confirmed: 17 new houses have been commenced; there are 19 refurbishments; rebuilds complete, and nine are under way. Allowing for the full up-front payment for all of those based on $450 000 average for a new house and $75 000 for a refurbishment, that comes to $9.75m. Despite that, they have spent more than $19m. Once again, we have seen a rip-off by this government in SIHIP.
It was disappointing reading and receiving the Northern Territory budget this week. I paid attention to Luke Bowen and the Cattlemen’s Association about their need for roads, particularly pastoral roads in the Northern Territory. I have not tabulated the exact dollar figure, however I note pretty much the only money put into the pastoral industry came from the federal government; the Northern Territory government completely neglected the pastoral industry and roads infrastructure. In particular, in the Transport minister’s electorate of Barkly, I found it surprising the minister turned his back on them. That is how it goes; we live and learn.
In my shadow portfolio of Infrastructure, the port is not going to be addressed; they put money in the budget which will not be spent. We know they have lied regarding the roads. They have made a couple of small commitments: $3m in the member for Karama’s electorate, but did not think to duplicate the road all the way to the Stuart Highway, including McMillans Road.
We have seen the cost of registering cars and trucks go up. In Regional Development, we have seen a complete and sustained attack on the regions, not only by not investing in roads, also by previous incursions into the regions through the shire rating system. With this great, big, new tax by Kevin Rudd, coupled with the more than 10% increase in the mining royalties tax by the Northern Territory government - something which will have a negative effect on our economy – we will, potentially, see mining companies pull out. We saw one pull out yesterday - Toro Energy pulled out of Central Australia. We will see in the future, especially if this federal tax goes ahead, and the Northern Territory one, mining projects life tenures rolled back. We will also see an attack on jobs, community development, and infrastructure.
I thought this Labor government supported the land councils, but there will be less money going to land councils now. There will be less money going to Aboriginal people in royalties, and less money going towards infrastructure to support community development. I find it surprising a Labor government, which gets votes from Indigenous people in the bush to keep members in power, would attack these people. My job as Regional Development spokesperson is to support and grow the regions, not attack them like the Labor government, with this great, big, new tax, from the Territory budget and the impending federal budget. I condemn this government for those actions.
Moving back to an old subject, I again call on the Transport minister to resign his portfolio for his speeding infringement, which I understand he may or may not have paid. I am interested if you could clarify that for us: has it been paid or has it been withdrawn by the government.
I would also like to see the member for Daly apologise to Territorians for setting up this appalling SIHIP, which has spent nearly $200m out of a $672m budget - a quarter of the budget - and seven houses built. We have spent a quarter of the budget on seven houses. I ask the member for Daly to apologise to people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish everyone all the best until estimates.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to respond to some assertions by the member for Johnston during an adjournment debate speech on 4 May where, amongst other things, the member for Johnston stated the member for Sanderson was telling the school council totally incorrect and untrue information about the school-based constable program. I am astounded the member for Johnston has not done his homework very well. That is his prerogative.
I quote from the adjournment speech by the member for Johnston:
The only reason the school-based constable program still exists is because of the extraordinary amount of support it receives from the community, the school community, the general policing community - the mums, dads and school councils. It is not 10 years as the member for Johnston said; he has that wrong - it is actually nine years. With a bit of luck, under the freedom of information legislation we have, I will get the letter dated November 2001 where the then minister for Education, and also Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Syd Stirling, wrote to the commissioner requesting the school-based policing program be axed. No consultation - nothing. Three paragraphs in a letter and there you go - get rid of it. I am hoping we can bring that letter to the House to show the lack of support the current government has given over the years. As a former school-based police officer, I have heard the rhetoric: ‘Oh, yes, we support it’.
The second issue in the quote from the adjournment debate speech by the member for Johnston says:
He goes on and says:
The next part of the quote is - and he is quoting from the alleged minutes of the school council meeting from Sanderson Middle School. It says:
It is really amazing; that is incorrect. These are uncirculated minutes; no one has had an opportunity to read them, nor have they been signed by the Chair of the meeting, who was there.
It is an incorrect account of what occurred at the meeting, and it is interesting because the minutes were taken by the Sanderson Middle School Secretary who also happens to be, I believe, President of the Karama/Sanderson Branch of the Australian Labor Party - interesting.
I relayed the same thing to all my other school councils seeking their ideas and feelings on the issue. There are strong concerns, based on some very strong rumours, the new Police Commissioner is going to take school-based police officers out of schools and put them in police stations. I had numerous people contact me. As a former school-based police officer, I was probably the obvious choice for people to talk to. I had constituents, parents, school council members, education and police personnel, retired police officers, to name a few, express their deep concerns about the review of allocation of police resources, in particular the taking of school-based police officers out of the schools and putting them into police stations.
That is the issue I put to all my school councils. I have to say they were unanimous everywhere. I noticed there was some at one meeting who chose not to vote, but the rest voted overwhelmingly in favour of retaining school-based police officers to operate in schools at all times; not be part of a police station, or on a roster anywhere else. That was the question.
It is interesting when you see what the Police Commissioner said; I will quote from a statement by the Police Commissioner, Mr John McRoberts. At least the Police Commissioner has the ability to get it right. It says here:
I can assure this House and the Police Commissioner, I did not quote him. Unfortunately, the member for Johnston sits there skulking down in his seat because it has been shown he is incorrect.
I would like to talk about some of the issues for the wider community. The whole school-based policing program is about reducing anxiety levels of young people, educating them in relation to what happens in a community, and how they can protect themselves. Going into classrooms, as school-based police officers have for many years, although I believe it is going to change, school-based police officers teach young people how to deal with bullying; they empower them. They help them realise there are people in the community who will help them. When talking to young girls at school you teach them from a very young age that they do not have to put up with bullying. That leads to improved behaviour where they will not put up with bad behaviour from partners, from husbands, things like that. We have the ability to reduce the amount of domestic violence in our community by teaching people at a very young age, by people in authority who they can actually relate to, not to put up with this type of behaviour.
What happens in the real world - unfortunately I do not believe the member for Johnston realises this - when you give young people the ability to walk around in ones or twos because their anxiety levels are down and their confidence is up - they know there are people in the school, on the way to school, on the way home from school, and they have the confidence to walk about; they do not have to congregate in groups, they do not have to get into gangs. I have seen it happen. I have helped remedy some of these issues - when young people get together the groups get bigger and bigger, and that is when you have gang problems in our community.
A range of issues occur because we have had a reasonable school-based police program while this government has been in power. Prior to that time, we had an excellent school-based policing program. Right from day one this government did not want to support it.
There are a number of problems I foresee. One, the commissioner, at the end of paragraph 8 in his statement says: ‘They will remain police officers and will support frontline police activity’. Paragraph 7 says: ‘They will be directly involved and aware of local policing issues’. Directly involved? What does that mean? Does that mean they are general duties officers, or are they school-based police officers? My understanding of what the Police Commissioner said is they start and finish at a police station. Is there going to be flexibility in rostering? Can they go out and do these types of things? Will they have to have guns? If they are going to be frontline police officers, they will wear utility belts and have guns. It will be interesting to see what the NT Police Association will say about their officers whilst kitted up, working one up. Procedures within the police department say if you are going out to be active, you need a partner. How is that going to work? Are we going to have two police officers in schools so they can work together? The flexibility of rostering is going to be interesting. Police General Orders will have to change, and I am sure the Police Association will have something to say about police officers being kitted up and working on their own.
What about the education policy? The Education department and guns in schools - that will have to change as well. I wonder what school councils will say when they have police officers in schools with guns, kitted up, capsicum spray, a range of kit and caboodle they need to perform frontline police activity.
Has there been any community consultation in relation to school-based police officers with guns in schools as opposed to general duties officers responding to operational requirements? There will be operational requirements for police to respond to reactive things. However, we are talking about proactive duties and the ability of the local sergeant or superintendent to recall that police officer, put him back into frontline policing, if the officer in charge of the police station deems it necessary, because they are, and remain, police officers and will support frontline police activity. Where is the detail?
This is the thin edge of the wedge to get school-based police officers out of schools, back into police stations where they can be absorbed into operational police numbers. It also helps the government say: ‘We have all these extra police officers around the place’, and quote the number of operational police officers they have. There is an enormous amount of work school-based police officers do voluntarily after hours, and I am wonder how much of that will happen. How will officers feel about going out there? I suspect some of this is more about fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles than worrying about where these people start and finish.
A great adage says: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Prevention is better than cure and, in fact, is far cheaper. The police shoulder badge motto is: ‘To serve and protect’. I always believed prevention is protecting, however it seems we are going to have less protection and more police officers trying to clean up the mess due to the lack of prevention and community policing this government is prepared to put into our community. I am appalled at the statements by the member for Johnston.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, before I get into my electorate adjournments, I have to say the contribution heard from the member for Sanderson is nothing short of disgraceful and shows absolute contempt for, not only this parliament, but also the Police Commissioner. I can categorically rule out right here, right now, that our police force and our school-based constables will be wearing guns in schools. What the member for Sanderson has stated tonight is nothing short of disgraceful. He is not fit to be a member of parliament by coming into this House without a shred, a skerrick, of evidence.
He stands here knowing this parliament is broadcast, that journalists are listening, that people may be viewing this on the Internet, and making a statement that our school-based police constables will be wearing guns in schools. That is absolutely …
Mr Styles: I did not say that; I said ‘maybe’.
Mr HENDERSON: … disgusting …
Mr Styles: Maybe.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … and disgraceful, and goes to show what a grubby, rumourmongering, rumour pedalling, contemptuous piece of work the member for Sanderson is.
I state very clearly on the record: there is absolutely no intention by the Police Commissioner, or by this government, of removing school-based constables from our schools. I put on the record there is absolutely no intention by the Police Commissioner to kit up and arm our school-based constables in our schools in the Northern Territory. It goes to shows what a grub, and what a pedalling rumourmonger the member for Sanderson is. He is nothing short of an absolute disgrace to his former profession, which I hold in very high regard.
He is saying the minutes of this meeting were wrong. I have spoken to other people who were at that meeting and they have confirmed he stated the commissioner was going to pull school-based constables out of the schools. He said he had people coming up to him saying: ‘This is what the commissioner is going to do. We are going to pull these school-based constables out of schools’. Instead of going from school to school around the northern suburbs pedalling rumours - you are a member of parliament, after all, member for Sanderson - he could have contacted directly …
Mr Styles: These were concerns of constituents.
Mr HENDERSON: … either me, as Police minister, or the Police Commissioner, and said: ‘Police minister, Police Commissioner, these rumours are being spread around. Are they true or are they not true? I need to be informed because I am a member of parliament and people are saying this to me, and I need to be informed’. No, he does not do that. He squirms around the northern suburbs, slinking and sliding into school council meetings, peddling rumours …
Mr Styles: Rubbish! Openly asking the questions.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … peddling rumours and misinformation for his own sleazy, grubby, political gains. He has been caught out red-handed. Then, he heaps insult onto self-inflicted injury by coming into this House tonight, after the Police Commissioner had to clarify the peddling of misinformation by a former school-based constable for his own grubby political ends and had to write to schools and say: ‘This is not true. I am not withdrawing our school-based constables from our schools. I am looking at how better to integrate and inform our school-based constables to what is happening around our schools’.
In that memo to schools, the Police Commissioner had to clear up the misinformation and rumourmongering from the member for Sanderson. He certainly did not state school-based constables would be wearing guns into the schools …
Mr Styles: And nor did I.
Mr HENDERSON: You spent about five minutes, member for Sanderson, saying this would be the outcome of these decisions ...
Mr Styles: No, I am asking questions.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: You are nothing short of an absolute grub! If you had any concerns, you could have raised them with me, or with the Police Commissioner. Did you ring the Police Commissioner’s office this afternoon and say: ‘Commissioner, I am very concerned about this letter. I have interpreted this as school-based constables possibly wearing guns in schools’? No, you come into this House tonight knowing you had a media audience to run your grubby little game.
Member for Sanderson, I have lost absolutely all respect for you tonight. You worked long and hard to get into parliament, and I believe you would do better as someone who fought hard to represent your electorate. What you said tonight was an absolute disgrace - there is no way our school-based constables will be wearing guns on school grounds.
Getting on to more pleasant things in my electorate, I would like to talk about Henbury School - fantastic special school in my electorate. I congratulate a new Principal, Carolyn Edwards, who was appointed Principal of the school four to five weeks ago. Carolyn is doing a fantastic job. There is significant funding to upgrade Henbury School in this budget. It is a school which has served thousands of students well over many years, and has a very special place in my heart as member for Wanguri.
The school has successfully opened an opportunity shop, which has moved to Millner, and has proven to be a great success story, because it provides opportunities for students to work in an employment situation, and provides a unique and powerful impact within disability services in the Northern Territory. The students have completed a mural on the wall, and there have been very favourable public comments on the artwork. Many people now smile and drop in to say hello to the students working in the op shop. It goes to show, with a bit of creativity, how our special schools can provide real opportunities for children to be engaged and understand what it is to be in the workplace; and it certainly puts real smiles on the faces of those students.
Wanguri Primary School Principal, Jenny Robinson, has just returned from an international conference in the UK on Constructing Trust. She presented a paper at the conference on that subject. I have had a number of discussions with Jenny about how we build successful workplaces, and how those workplaces function very much on a matter of trust. Jenny has been studying very hard and I look forward to seeing her paper. The study examines how stakeholders use and understand the concepts of trust. I am looking forward to catching up with Jenny and getting a copy of that paper.
Wanguri also held a special Anzac Day ceremony several Wednesdays ago. Unfortunately, I could not be there - I was in Canberra for the COAG meeting. Around 40 Defence personnel attended, followed by morning tea, and students contributed to the program for the ceremony.
At Holy Spirit Catholic School, Principal, Bernadette Morris and the school are really proud. Their Community of Learners Garden is proving to be very successful; it is a fantastic garden, and shows the community what a great school Holy Spirit is. It promotes special relationships with pets, growing fresh produce and eating the end result. Some low life broke into the school and stole one of the chickens - the kids were pretty disappointed about that - I do not know who on earth would steal a chicken. Putting that aside, it is a fantastic initiative from the school. I was very pleased to contribute a number of plants, and it provides a very peaceful environment for our students to enjoy.
Henry Gray and Leanyer Primary School certainly keep going from strength to strength. I had a delegation of Year 5 students come to my office in Wanguri expressing their concerns about the impact on the environment of flatback turtles. I believe most members of parliament have been bombarded with e-mail messages regarding that. The kids have picked up on that issue and presented me with their concerns. I have responded to them with a commitment by our government to protect our marine environment.
Our Leanyer Year 6 students developed a program for Anzac Day with Defence personnel in attendance and I am very proud of Anzac Day at Leanyer School. All classes made wreaths, and the students were responsible for raising the flag and commemorating Anzac Day.
Our schools in the Wanguri electorate keep going from strength to strength, and I look forward to catching up with them soon.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Rescission of Secure Care Facility at
Lowther Road, Bees Creek
Rescission of Secure Care Facility at
Lowther Road, Bees Creek
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 290 petitioners praying that the decision to build a secure care facility for high risk behaviour people on Lowther Road, Bees Creek, be rescinded. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that we are strongly concerned by the Department of Health’s intention to build and operate a secure care facility that will cater for high risk behaviour people who will be located at the facility on a non-voluntary basis in a facility similar to a conventional gaol. The location on Lowther Road, Bees Creek, Hundred of Strangways is completely unacceptable, especially given absolute lack of consultation and the potential for detrimental impact on amenity.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government provide full details as to why this location has been chosen and rescind the decision to develop a secure care facility in a rural location.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Secure Care Facility, Bees Creek
Ms PURICK (Goyder)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming to standing orders, from 185 petitioners relating to the secure care facility on Stuart Highway, Bees Creek. I move the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- The undersigned wish to raise my objection to the proposed development of a secure care facility at s88/330B (870 Stuart Highway, Bees Creek). My objection to this proposal is outlined in the attached cover letter to this petition dated 24 April 2010.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arnhem and Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the whole of the today’s sitting day for the members for Arnhem and Greatorex. It is signed by the government and opposition Whips.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 100)
(Serial 100)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend various acts and regulations that fall within the Justice portfolio. The acts amended in this bill include the Criminal Code Act, the Land Title Act, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, the Retirement Villages Act, the Retirement Villages Regulations, the Sale of Lands (Rights and Duties of Partners) Act 2010, the Sentencing Act, and the Unit Titles Act.
The Criminal Code is amended to clarify the meaning of section 177, pursuant to amendments made over the past few years. Section 177 of the Criminal Code is the offence of: acts intended to cause serious harm or prevent apprehension, and it carries the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is clear from the maximum penalty it is a very serious offence. What makes it such a serious offence is it applies when an offender intends to cause a particular result, such as serious harm. The offence of causing serious harm, at section 181 of the Criminal Code, carries a lesser maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment because a person is guilty of that offence even though they did not intent to cause the serious harm.
Sometimes, it is very difficult to prove an offender intended to cause serious harm. However, if the prosecution charged someone with an offence under section 177, then the offender should not be able to evade just penalty only because the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the offender intended to cause the harm. The jury should be able to come to an alternative verdict that the offender is guilty of the offence of causing serious harm.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought to the Territory government’s attention the current wording in section 177(a) means it does not operate as it is intended. The current wording provides, if the prosecution does not prove any intent to cause serious harm, then the only alternative guilty verdict the jury can come to is that the offender caused harm, even if the injury sustained by the victim amounted to serious harm. The maximum penalty for causing harm is only five years imprisonment.
Section 4 of the bill amends section 177 of the act by omitting and substituting subsection (a) with a new subsection (a), the purpose of which is to reinstate the previously existing alternative verdict of serious harm to a charge under section 177.
Section 44 of the Land Title Act relates to the issuing of certificates as to title. Pursuant to section 44(1) the Registrar-General may only issue such a certificate to the registered owner of the lot of land. Further, pursuant to section 44(2), if the lot is subject to a registered mortgage, the Registrar-General may only issue a certificate if the mortgagee consents to the issue of the certificate. This is interpreted as meaning that, if there is more than one mortgagee, consent must be obtained from all of them before the Registrar-General may issue a certificate under subsection (1). This process can be very inconvenient for lawyers and conveyancing agents responsible for preparing conveyancing documents. It also adds to the cost of a conveyance.
Section 6 of the bill amends clause 44 of the act by omitting and substituting subsections (1) and (2) with new subsections (1) and (2). The new subsection (1) will allow legal practitioners, as defined in the Interpretation Act, and licensed conveyancing agents acting for owners of land to sign applications for the issuing of the certificate containing the indefeasible title for a lot.
Pursuant to the new subsection (2), where there are two or more mortgages over a lot, the Registrar-General will only require the consent of the first registered mortgagee in order to issue a certificate under subsection (1).
Since the Public Interest Disclosure Act commenced on 31 July 2009, a number of issues have been identified which require amendment. Pursuant to section 53 of the act, there are strict requirements of confidentiality that may operate to prevent any disclosure of confidential and identifying information by persons acting in an official capacity. However, those requirements do not extend to persons who are not acting in an official capacity, for example, persons interviewed in connection with a disclosure. Thus, there is nothing to prevent such persons from disclosing information that may have come to their knowledge during the course of an interview, or from the fact that they were interviewed. This can destroy the efforts of the commissioner to maintain confidentiality and protect a discloser’s identity.
Clause 9 of the bill amends the act by omitting the words ‘other than identifying information’ from section 53(2)(a) and (b)’. This will allow for a disclosure of confidential information, including identifying information to be communicated, provided it is necessary for exercising a power or performing a function under the act, including for a report or a recommendation. An example would be a chief executive creating a file.
The current act does not provide for the disclosure of confidential information by the relevant chief executive in circumstances of emergency. Instead, the relevant chief executive must seek approval from either the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures or the discloser prior to taking any action. So, for example, if the relevant chief executive of an agency receives a disclosure that employee X is stealing drugs, it is arguably an offence to contact the police, or to take immediate disciplinary action against the employee, if to do so would reveal the content of the disclosure.
Clause 10 of the bill amends the Public Interest Disclosure Act so that it is not an offence for a person to disclose confidential information if the disclosure is made in response to circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency. There are a number of criteria that must be met in order for this protection to operate. These are that the person disclosed in the information must reasonably believe that the circumstances of the emergency exist, and that disclosure is the only reasonable way of dealing with this emergency.
There are requirements for making a disclosure. The discloser must notify the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures within 48 hours of making the disclosure and, in that notification, must set out the reasons why the disclosure was appropriate.
Pursuant to section 46 of the act, the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures may delegate any of the functions or powers conferred on him or her under the act. However, legal advice from the Solicitor for the Northern Territory suggests that no such power of delegation exists with respect to the relevant chief executive. As a result, the chief executives must, arguably, personally undertake all administrative tasks that relate to public interest disclosures that are made to them. This includes the typing of documents, the opening of files, photocopying, etcetera. This is contrary to the policy position when the legislation was introduced.
Clause 11 of the bill inserts a new section 54A into the act which provides that responsible chief executives for a body or public office can delegate any of his or her powers or functions. The delegation power relates to the following powers and functions under the Public Interest Disclosure Act:
receive disclosures under section 11;
Clause 10 of the bill also inserts a new section 53B into the act, which provides that the Commissioner for Public Interest Disclosures may, in certain circumstances, direct that a person not disclose confidential or identifying information.
The final amendment to the Public Interest Disclosure Act by this bill is to section 5 of the act. That section outlines what constitutes improper conduct. At present, pursuant to subsection (1)(a)(iv) a breach of public trust may constitute improper conduct. The placement of the letter ‘a’ between the words ‘of’ and ‘public’ tends to suggest the type of trust being referred to is a financial one. This was not the intent of the legislation. The type of trust that section refers to is the trust of the public. To remove any doubt as to the type of trust referred to in that section, section 8 of the bill omits the words ‘a public trust’ and substitutes them with the words ‘public trust’.
Section 36 of the Retirement Villages Act provides for land intended to be a retirement village for a notation to that effect to be registered on the title. However, there is nothing in that act or in the Land Title Act that provides for the removal of the notation in circumstances where all concerned agree that the land is not, or is not going to be, or is not to remain, as a retirement village.
Clause 13 amends the act by inserting new Section 36A which establishes a process for the removal of restriction notices concerning retirement villages from the land titles register.
Clause 15 of the bill amends the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act to provide that the act is not applied to contracts or proposed contracts for the sale of land if the buyer is a related person by virtue of a de facto relationship. This exemption already exists in relation to spouses. This corrects an anomaly in the Sale of Land (Rights and Duties of Parties) Act 2010 and removes, prior to the commencement of that act, an inadvertent distinction between married persons and persons in a de facto relationship.
The Sentencing Act is amended to rectify a drafting oversight which affects the operation of Section 78BA mandatory imprisonment for certain violent offences. Section 78BA of the act provides that, where an offender commits an offence to which that section applies, if found guilty, the court must record a conviction, and must order the offender serve either a term of actual imprisonment or a term of imprisonment that is partly, but not wholly, suspended. The offences to which the section applies are a number of violence offences which are listed in Schedule 2 of the act. Item 2 of Schedule 2 purports to include an offence against Section 188 of the Criminal Code - common assault and aggravated assault. However, at present, Item 2 of Schedule 2 of the Sentencing Act reads: ‘An offence section 188 of the Criminal Code …’. It should read: ‘An offence against Section 188 of the Criminal Code …’.
The result of this has been that a magistrate formed the view that they can not invoke the power of Section 78BA of the Sentencing Act. While the Department of Justice does not necessarily accept that this view of the law is correct, it is patent that there is a practical need to both correct the grammar as well as clarify the meaning. The schedule to the bill amends Item 2 of Schedule 2 of the Sentencing Act to ensure that Section 78BA of the Sentencing Act may operate in respect of an offence under Section 188 of the Criminal Code.
The Unit Titles Act is amended so that it is clear that applications under Section 10 for the subdivision of a parcel of land can no longer be made under the act for new developments. This is because the Unit Titles Schemes Act applies to all new subdivisions of land into units, except where the land being subdivided is already a unit or lot that is subject to a title under the Unit Titles Act.
Clauses 19 and 42 of Schedule 2 of the Retirement Villages Regulations are amended to include references to Unit Titles Schemes Act. This corrects an error in Section 185 of the Unit Titles Schemes Act 2009 which referred to residential tenancies regulations when it should of referred to the Retirement Villages Act. Accordingly, Section 185 was a nullity having no substantive effect.
The amendments contained in this bill do not in any way alter the policy or intention of this legislation but, rather, improves the legislation by providing certainty to previously ambiguous provisions to ensure clarity and consistency with other legislation.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
FINANCIAL TRANSACTION REPORTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 101)
(Serial 101)
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 Northern Territory Financial Transaction Reports Act, the NT act, is part of a national scheme to combat organised and serious crime, including major drug dealing and terrorism financing, by monitoring suspicious financial transactions, both nationally and internationally.
Financial institutions and organisations called ‘cash dealers’ that deal with large amounts of money are required to report suspicious transactions to the Australian Transaction Reports Analysis Centre, known as AUSTRAC. This was done under AUSTRAC’s governing act, the Commonwealth Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988, the 1988 Commonwealth act. The Northern Territory passed its own complementary legislation, the NT act, which provided for the giving of further information to Northern Territory police in relation to suspect transactions reported to AUSTRAC under the 1988 Commonwealth act, and for the giving of information in relation to other suspect transactions. All other jurisdictions passed similar legislation as part of the Commonwealth scheme.
Under section 5 of the NT act, the police can request further information from cash dealers in relation to information that the cash dealer has communicated to Austrack. For example, if a bank has reported a suspicious transaction to AUSTRAC, the police can then request the bank to give further information, for example, copies of bank statements, deposit slips, etcetera, pursuant to provisions in the NT act. This is an important investigative tool in the fight against multinational and serious organised crime, and the financing of terrorism.
AUSTRAC, however, now has a new governing act, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the 2006 Commonwealth act. This new Commonwealth act widens the definition of cash dealers to include other entities which also deal with large financial transactions such as bullion providers, gambling institutions and solicitors trust accounts. There are now 20 000 reporting entities, including the 12 000 cash dealers, that used to report under the 1988 Commonwealth act, and approximately 8000 new reporting entities brought in under the 2006 Commonwealth act.
Since the 2006 Commonwealth act was fully implemented in 2008, the 8000 new reporting entities are required to report suspicious transactions to AUSTRAC under section 41 of the 2006 Commonwealth act.
The cash dealers of the 1988 Commonwealth act had the option, up until March 2010, of continuing to report under the 1988 Commonwealth act, or, reporting under the 2006 Commonwealth act. As from March 2010, they must all report under section 41 of the 2006 Commonwealth act. This means that without Northern Territory legislation to take account of the 2006 Commonwealth act, the NT police and police in other jurisdictions for that matter, will not be able to request the further information needed to investigate the suspicious transactions reported to AUSTRAC that are necessary in the fight against organised crime.
The purpose of this bill is to bring the NT act in line with these changes made to the Commonwealth legislation. The other states are in the process of developing new legislation along the lines the NT is introducing today. Queensland has already introduced a similar regime.
The Financial Transaction Reports Amendment Bill 2010 updates the NT act to include the reporting obligations under the 2006 Commonwealth act, and keeps the NT up-to-date in the Commonwealth legislative scheme. This bill continues this government’s partnership with the Commonwealth government in the ongoing fight against serious and organised crime.
A serious loophole has also been plugged, with the removal of subsection 3 of section 7 from the NT act. Subsection 3 of section 7 removed the requirement for reporting financial transactions if that report was going to incriminate a cash dealer in an offence. This subsection confused the issue of which offence is being committed under which act, and which offence requires the privilege against self incrimination.
The purpose of the NT act is to require the reporting of financial transactions. If a cash dealer breaches his or her reporting obligations by not giving further information when requested by police, the dealer breaches the NT act. That is one offence, and that offence carries a penalty of 85 penalty units or two years gaol.
If the dealer does not report a financial transaction under the NT act because it may incriminate him or her in another separate offence, that is a different matter. The dealer may then rely on the privilege against self-incrimination for the other offence and not report the financial transaction, but will be prosecuted for not reporting under the NT act. Police and prosecuting authorities would then gather evidence in the usual manner to prosecute the other offence, be it money laundering, tax evasion, or drug offences, and the offender will have the normal procedural protections in relation to that offence. The NT act only penalises the dealer for not giving information he or she is obliged to give under the NT act; it is not forcing him or her to give evidence in a separate matter.
Repealing this provision removes the anomaly of having honest financial institutions being required to report financial transactions, but dishonest ones not being required to report. The Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction in Australia with this provision. This bill demonstrates the Northern Territory government’s continuing commitment to the battle against serious crime.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) IMPLEMENTATION BILL
(Serial 103)
(Serial 103)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend Northern Territory law consequential to the enactment by the Commonwealth of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 known widely as the PPS Act. The bill implements the Northern Territory’s obligations under an intergovernmental agreement signed in October 2008 and, more broadly, the National Partnership to Deliver a Seamless National Economy 2008, to reform laws covering securities over personal property which is, essentially, anything other than land. Under the intergovernmental agreement, the Commonwealth has enacted the PPS Act providing for a national register and national laws covering securities over personal property. This will replace some 70 to 80 state, territory and Commonwealth acts that deal with such securities. It is proposed that the PPS Act will commence functional operation in May 2011.
The PPS Act will govern the registration of personal property securities. These securities are agreements and arrangements under which items of personal property such as a motor vehicle are used to secure payments of money – for example, a loan - or the performance of an obligation.
The PPS Act arose from a reform process instituted by the Standing Committee of Attorney’s-General (SCAG) when it considered a discussion paper in 2006. It resulted in the intergovernmental agreement signed by the members of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 2 October 2008. Under this agreement, the Commonwealth agreed to enact the PPS Act and to operate a national register of personal property securities interests. As the Commonwealth does not have comprehensive constitutional power to enact such a law, the Australian states also agreed to make appropriate referrals of power. The ACT and the Northern Territory agreed to make laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the PPS Act. For the Northern Territory, the main task is to provide for the repeal of the current laws relating to personal property securities.
A Commonwealth register will be created under the PPS Act to replace all state and territory registers of security interests in personal property. For the Northern Territory, this will mainly involve registers held under the Registration of Interest in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act, the Instruments Act, and the Cooperatives Act. The register under the PPS Act will operate online. This single, nationally accessible register will replace a myriad of electronic and paper-based registers operating throughout the states and territories and the Commonwealth.
The PPS Act also provides for a uniform set of legal principles governing personal property securities. Again, this single set of principles will replace an array of different laws operating both within jurisdictions and nationally. The new law is based on laws that currently operate in North America. The underlying purpose of the reform is to make consumer and business finance simpler and more efficient, both locally in each jurisdiction, and nationally.
In summary, the PPS Act creates a single national scheme governing the creation, registration and enforcement of security interests in personal property. This bill makes consequential amendments to Northern Territory acts to implement the PPS Act and to facilitate the establishment of the national register.
I will now summarise the key provisions of the bill. Broadly, the bill provides for:
the closure of Northern Territory registers, in particular, the registers held under the Registration of Interests in Motor Vehicles and Other Goods Act, the Instruments Act and the Cooperatives Act.
insertion of provisions into various acts that provide for the issue of statutory licences that those statutory licences are not transferable, thus clarifying that they are not personal property for the purpose of the PPS Act, and are not capable of being used as security.
In regard to statutory licences and the Personal Property Securities Act, as a general rule these are being declared by the bill as not being personal property if there is already an appropriate Territory register for the interests, or if Territory law provides for ministerial consent or other limitations on dealings with the licence or similar interest.
In essence, these statutory licences often exist for regulatory functions. They do not exist for the purpose of creating marketable personal property. Other statutory licences that are granted on the basis of a person’s personal qualifications, for example, fit and proper, or perhaps educational or other standards, are, for the removal of any doubt, taken outside of the Personal Property Securities scheme by declaring them not to be transferable to another person. The states and the Australian Capital Territory have, or are in the process of, enacting legislation of a similar nature to this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TOBACCO CONTROL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 104)
(Serial 104)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Tobacco Control Act 2002 and the Tobacco Control Regulations. Tobacco use continues to be the number one cause of preventable death and illness in the Northern Territory. One in five Territorians dies as a direct result of tobacco use, and the rate of smoking amongst Territorians is well over double the national average. Smoking is considered as the single greatest contributor to the 17-year gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous life expectancy. The Tobacco Control Act was introduced by this government in 2002 to reduce the harms caused by tobacco by discouraging people from smoking; protecting people from environmental tobacco smoke; and supporting those that choose to quit.
At the time of its introduction, it was the most contemporary and comprehensive legislation of its type in Australia. The act was broad in its approach by regulating supply through a retail licence scheme, establishing smoke-free areas to protect against environmental tobacco smoke, and through restrictions on the advertising, display and promotion of tobacco products.
However, since the introduction of the Northern Territory’s tobacco control legislation, all other Australian jurisdictions have introduced new or amended legislation to regulate tobacco supply, use and advertising. As a result, the Northern Territory currently has the weakest legislation in the country which is reflected by the consecutive awarding of the Australian Medical Association’s ‘Dirty Ashtray’ to the Northern Territory for the past five years, Australia’s highest smoking and commensurate levels of tobacco-related diseases and morbidity in the country.
In July 2008, this government reviewed the scope and impact of tobacco control legislation across all jurisdictions in Australia, resulting in a commitment to significant reforms the Tobacco Control Act, and announced by the former Minister for Health. These reforms will ensure the Northern Territory legislation is comparable with other legislation in Australia, provide improved protection to staff and public from environmental tobacco smoke, reduce young Territorians access and exposure to smoking and tobacco products. These goals were considered to be strategic to reducing smoking rates in the Northern Territory.
The Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 will achieve better health for Territorians by taking further steps to protect employees, and the public, from environmental tobacco smoke; reduce children’s exposure to smoking and tobacco products to prevent their uptake; and to support smokers who choose to quit. The amendments will also ensure Northern Territory tobacco control legislation is comparable to protections in place in other states and territories, and will indeed put the Northern Territory at the forefront of tobacco control in Australia again.
The first step towards improving the legislation in the Northern Territory was to lift the exemption on indoor smoking bans in licensed premises to give effect to a complete ban of smoking in all enclosed areas. These changes were successfully implemented on 2 January 2010 and brought consistency for all indoor public areas. Apart from protection for patrons and staff socialising and working at these premises, the smoking bans have also provided a more enjoyable smoke-free environment for patrons, especially families.
I will now indicate the amendments in the bill which provide for the second stage of the important tobacco control reforms. The bill proposes amendments to three key parts of the act and regulations. First, smoke-free areas: the introduction of a ban on smoking in all public outdoor eating and drinking areas, with some exempt areas for licensed venues. Second, displays at point-of-sale: the prohibition on the display of tobacco products at the point-of-sale. Third, licensing of tobacco retailers: the introduction of an annual licence fee and greater powers to impose licensing conditions on retailers.
The current legislation provides limited restrictions on smoking in outdoor public areas, which are limited to outdoor public venues with fixed seating, such as sports stadiums, public transport waiting areas, such as bus stops and some education facilities. The new smoke-free area provisions will prohibit smoking in all public outdoor eating and drinking areas from 2 January 2011. This will provide improved protection for staff who service those areas, and the public that use them, as well as act to discourage people from smoking, and support those who have chosen to quit. The 2 January 2011 commencement date also ensures all affected businesses have more than eight months to make necessary changes.
The bill’s smoke-free amendments will see the introduction of a ban in all outdoor eating and drinking areas such as cafes, kiosks and restaurants. Outdoor or alfresco eating and drinking areas provided by cafes; the tables and chairs in front of local takeaway shops, or the outdoor seating areas of fast-food outlets will not be permitted to allow smoking. The restrictions will also have the effect of prohibiting smoking in non-licensed sporting or public grounds where an on-site food service provides food or drink to be consumed at that ground.
Limited exemptions to these smoke-free areas provisions will be provided to liquor licensed premises so that pubs and clubs can designate an outdoor smoking area or OSA. An OSA will provide a space where Territorians can still have a smoke and drink at the end of the day. However, OSAs will be subject to conditions maximising protection to staff, patrons and children, and to promote a de-normalisation of the smoking culture.
The OSA cannot be more than 50% of the outdoor eating and drinking area, although licensed premises are not required to provide such areas. There are guidelines on what is permitted in an OSA. For example, meals cannot be consumed or served in them, and entertainment is limited. This will reduce the need for staff to service the area and expose themselves to environmental tobacco smoke. The bill also ensures that where there is an OSA, it provides amenities and facilities no better than those in the smoke-free outdoor areas, with the intent non-smokers will be able to access and enjoy the fresh air in outdoor areas that are at least equal to, or better than, any smoking area the venue chooses to provide
In order to assist industry make any required changes to their premises, the bill provides for exemptions from these restrictions until September 2011 where building modifications will not be possible prior to 2 January 2011. We have taken a flexible and consultative approach to these amendments to ensure the hospitality industry can implement the reforms in a sensible manner. I thank the Australian Hotels Association and members of the Good Health Alliance NT for their considered input to the bill, and their continued support for these reforms.
The bill makes provision for exemptions from the outdoor smoking restriction for major public sporting or cultural events. This will ensure that the introduction of the new restrictions is not undermined by the problems that would be experienced in enforcing the restriction at large outdoor events that attract high numbers of patrons across large areas. In considering the exemption, the minister will have the power to impose any conditions necessary to provide reasonable measures to protect employees and the public from environmental tobacco smoke.
There is also provision in the bill for the owner-occupier any property to voluntarily accelerate or otherwise implement outdoor smoke-free areas by designating all or part of the property to be a smoke-free area under the act or regulations so that such areas are enforceable. This approach is one of the most contemporary in Australia, and not only supports industry in the implementation of the bill, but demonstrates the commitment of government to provide legislative support for tobacco control initiatives in remote areas. Shires, businesses and community organisations will now be able to take a leadership role in introducing smoke-free areas with the full support of this act.
The outdoor area smoking restrictions reflect the public desire to separate smoking from eating areas and introduce further restrictions on smoking in public places. They are intended to provide better health outcomes for increased protection for hospitality staff that service outdoor eating and drinking areas, as well as the public that use these areas. Smoke-free areas have been demonstrated to be one of the strongest public health policies to discourage people from smoking, support smokers trying to quit, reduce the harm caused by smoking, as well as deter young people from taking up the habit.
The second area of reform focuses on display and point-of-sale restriction. The bill proposes amendments to prohibit the display of tobacco products at a point of sale. This will mean retailers in the Northern Territory will be required to cover their displays or keep products under the counter. Tobacco products will no longer be an image that children associate with sale counters at their local store, supermarket, or service station. By removing tobacco products from view, it will also support smokers who have chosen to quit.
It is well established by research that tobacco manufacturers use the display areas to market and promote their respective products to the consumer, as well as children, in an effort to encourage the uptake of smoking. The bill includes provision that will require all tobacco products to be kept out of sight of the public. This will apply to ordinary tobacco retailers and specialist tobacconists alike. I understand this could be seen as a strong measure, however, I cannot emphasise enough the importance of protecting our young people from the harm of smoking. Reducing the likelihood of them taking up smoking through a prohibition on display of products is something we must do.
Indeed this approach is reflected by last week’s announcement by the Australian government that all tobacco products will soon be sold in plain packets. This is not a ban or a tax on the sale of cigarettes. Tobacconists can use display areas for other suitable promotional and gift type items.
I recognise and applaud those supermarkets and remote stores that have already taken this step and are showing leadership by demonstrating healthier stores in our community.
The third reform area is licensing. Changes to the licensing arrangements under the act will see the introduction of an annual licence fee of $200, and improve the ability of the Director of Licensing to impose and enforce conditions on tobacco retailers. The reforms will allow for the Director of Licensing to be able to act against new tobacco products designed to attract and encourage smoking by children and young people, such as fruit and confectionary flavoured cigarettes. Included in the bill is a new offence provision to allow for breaches of any licence condition to be enforceable. The revenue generated from the licence fee will support government activities to support quit attempts and to promote tobacco cessation services.
Finally, high roller rooms in casinos can be declared by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing and exempted from the smoke-free requirement. Currently, gaming machines are not permitted in a high roller area. The bill proposes amendments to the regulations that will enable gaming machines to be located in the high roller area. This is consistent with the majority of high roller rooms in other jurisdictions that permit smoking.
Overall, the changes provide for considerable strengthening of the current act and regulations, and continue the legacy of this government to act on the rates of tobacco-related death and disease in our community. Researchers have calculated tobacco use costs the Australian people more than $31bn a year in health and social costs associated with tobacco-related disease and morbidity.
If this approach is translated to the Northern Territorial on a per-capita basis, the resultant cost to the Territory economy is more than $310m per year. This is, obviously, a conservative estimate, given the challenges and costs of providing healthcare in remote and regional areas, and our very high rates of smoking. The Territory 2030 strategic plan sets ambitious targets for reductions in smoking prevalence. These targets will not be achieved without the introduction of new smoke-free area provisions and supply controls.
I, and the current government, have demonstrated through the introduction of the Tobacco Control Act in 2002, and now this amended bill, that we are committed to reducing tobacco-related harm. I am particularly committed to the emphasis on supporting those who have chosen not to smoke, or to quit, through the provision of smoke-free areas, as well as ensuring protections afforded to the more vulnerable in our community.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
APPROPRIATION (2010-2011) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Continued from 5 May 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support Budget 2010-11. Budget 2010-11 not only delivers more services now for the health and wellbeing of Territorians, it responsibly invests in our future through a record infrastructure spend. We have a record Health and Families budget of $1.16bn, and we look forward to Territorians receiving better patient care and more responsive child and community services so our society is safer.
Budget 2010-11 supports business and industry, and the Territory’s long-term plan for sustainable primary industries and fisheries, both recreational and industry, and responsible mining and energy sectors. A strong economy in 2010, with low unemployment, low taxes, and an abundance of natural resources, will continue to encourage investment in these sectors which are key drivers for our economy.
Budget 2010-11 also supports our great Territory lifestyle. Fishing is our most popular pastime. The additional infrastructure and investment in boat ramps and access roads supports our continued enjoyment of recreational fishing.
I now turn to my portfolio areas. This year is the first year I have had responsibility for both Health and Families portfolios, including Child Protection. These areas are vitally important to this government, and we are committed to bringing about real and lasting changes to improve the lives of Territorians.
The shadow Health minister, the member for Greatorex, publicly claimed last week he believed we have the worst health system in the nation. Unlike the CLP, the Labor government is proud of our health system and the professionalism and effort of every one of the 5700 employees. The CLP has no plan or ideas for the health system; they are only interested in continually running it down, insulting and offending the dedicated health professionals who are the front line, caring and helping all Territorians, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The member for Greatorex also claimed we have some of the worst primary healthcare in the nation. Again, he demonstrated no understanding of the quality care provided in the 84 community-based health centres throughout the Territory by experienced nurses, Aboriginal health workers, and allied health professionals and doctors. This care is turning around the years of underfunding and neglect when the CLP was in government, and is now producing real improvements in critical health outcomes such as three-year improvement in the life expectancy of Aboriginal women, Indigenous infant mortality rates falling by 35%, anaemia rates for Aboriginal children falling by 20%, cervical cancer rates falling by 61%, dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer falling by 64% in non-Aboriginal women and by 92% for Aboriginal women; and patients on renal dialysis survival rates are now equivalent to the rest of Australia.
In Budget 2010-11, the Henderson government is, once again, demonstrating our commitment to a healthy Territory; one that goes to improve the health and wellbeing of all Territorians. I am proud to announce we are increasing the Health and Families budget, continuing the precedent set when we first came to government. The budget for the Department of Health and Families in 2010-11 from all funding sources will be $1.16bn. This is an increase of 139% since 2001-02 under Labor’s governance, with $110m boost this year. In addition, this government has approved new capital projects in both the 2009-10 and 2010-11 programs. In total, new infrastructure projects of $113m have been added to the 2009-10 program, and additional projects amounting to $39.3m will commence in 2010-11.
Across the agency, we usually observe some fluctuations in revenue with the cessation of some Australian government funded programs. This year we note this revenue has decreased by $10m, and this has been reflected in those outputs which have high proportions of externally-funded programs. It is expected new agreements will be negotiated in the coming year to maintain service delivery in these programs.
In this budget, we have not included any of the additional projects funded through the National Health Reform Agreement recently signed at COAG. As specific agreements are formalised over the course of the year, I will advise the House and the budget adjustments will be made. However, I can tell you now that it will mean a $222m boost to the Health budget over the course of the next 10 years, with $55m committed for the transition period from 2010-11 to 2013-14.
I now turn to some of the specifics of the Health budget. In Budget 2010-11, every one of our five public hospitals gets an increase in funding. It is worth listing, and listening to, what Budget 2010-11 provides for our hospitals. $292.8m for Royal Darwin Hospital, up 161% since 2001, a massive $47m boost from last year; $129.2m for Alice Springs Hospital, up 140% since 2001, an additional $11m since last year; $28.6m for Katherine Hospital, up 102% since 2001; $20.5m for Gove District Hospital, up 85% since 2001; and $12.5m for Tennant Creek Hospital, up 105% since 2001.
Let me explain what this funding means for our hospitals. In 2010-11, we estimate there will be about 440 000 attendances at our hospitals, that includes inpatients, outpatients, appointments and emergency department attendances, roughly double the entire NT population, with half of them - 220 000 patients - walking through Royal Darwin Hospital doors. This increased funding goes to provide more services and more health staff on the front line to care for these patients.
This budget delivers $9.5m ongoing to fund our 95 extra hospital nurses. We have engaged these nurses to ensure the quality of care in our five hospitals with safe nurse to patient ratios. By mid-March 2010, there were 1975 nurses in the Health Department, up from 1322 in 2001, an increase of 653 nurses. Similar increases have occurred with the medical workforce. We now have 170 specialists and 362 doctors in the Health Department, up from 272 doctors in 2001 - over 200 more doctors.
We are strengthening the workforce in pathology this year with $620 000 for extra staff at Royal Darwin Hospital to provide extra services, and to ensure service standards maintain national accreditation. One of our key workforce strategies is to grow our own and we pursue that on several fronts, such as the partnership with Charles Darwin University and Flinders University with the first full Northern Territory medical school due to commence in 2011.
I am pleased to announce this budget will fund $0.5m for increased academic, vocational and technical educational programs for school-based apprenticeships; the future workforce.
Budget 2001-11 provides major funding for Health infrastructure. $43.5m has been provided to upgrade the emergency standby power infrastructure at Royal Darwin Hospital, and an additional $2.6m to provide interim emergency power generation. $3.8m has been provided to build six new two-bedroom units on the grounds of the Gove District Hospital, which will make it easier to recruit staff to the region.
We have also finalised negotiations with the Australian government for two significant infrastructure programs. At Alice Springs Hospital, the new emergency department will be built, with the Australian government providing $13.6m to boost the $6m provided by our government. This will provide a modern 35-cubicle facility that is consistent with current standards for emergency management, doubling the current emergency department’s capacity.
On the Royal Darwin Hospital campus, the Australian government has provided $18.6m to construct a 50-bed patient hostel. This will provide an accommodation option for patients who require access to hospital services but do not require constant medical supervision. This will greatly benefit regional and remote Territorians.
Budget 2001-11 also delivers in the regions, with a new $4.5m health centre to be built in Millingimbi, and $800 000 to upgrade the Borroloola Health Centre.
There has been much attention recently about renal services, particularly in Central Australia. Again, this government has demonstrated a commitment to delivering services close to where people live by negotiating a tri-state agreement with South Australia and Western Australia. We have delivered a new 12-station facility in Alice Springs at Gap Road operated by Nephrocare, with a capacity for an additional 48 patients.
A further $1.7m will enhance services to clients in Tennant Creek, with the expanded renal facility expected to be operational in late 2010. Construction of a new satellite renal facility in Katherine will also commence this financial year at an estimated cost of $2.8m.
Despite the best efforts of members opposite to undermine and thwart us, the Henderson government has delivered the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, in partnership with the Rudd government, providing excellent radiotherapy care for all Territorians. In Budget 2010-11 we will provide $7.2m for the full operational support of the centre, including expanded chemotherapy, additional specialists, therapy support staff, and a fully refurbished 26-bed patient accommodation at Stuart Park.
I now turn to the Northern Territory Families and Children’s Services budget. I have said before, there can be no greater priority as a government than to protect our children. Budget 2010-11 demonstrates the Henderson government’s commitment to boosting child protection services, supporting frontline workers, and delivering now for families and children. In 2010-11, the budget will increase by over $80m to $135.5m. That means an additional 76 child protection staff employed as part of the $14.7m funding boost, the single largest boost to improve our child protection system in the history of any Territory government.
An additional $100 000 will be invested into youth services to increase the capacity of the Family Support Centre to work with families in Palmerston. We will deliver additional staff to every Family and Child Services office across the Territory, and also provide support to families and foster carers. This significant investment strengthens the child protection system while we await the recommendations of the independent board of inquiry in June. It builds on the extra 112 child protection support workers funded by the Labor government since 2002-03, as well as tripling of the child protection services budget since 2001, continuing the reforms commenced with Caring for our Children and Closing the Gap.
Specifically in 2010, the following initiatives will commence: $6m to support out-of-home care, provide greater support for foster carers and improve therapeutic services for our children; $3m for additional child protection officers and associated support staff; $1.5m to continue development and funding of culturally secure Aboriginal child protection and family support services in regional centres; $850 000 will be provided for additional child protection workers across the Territory for therapeutic services and residential care.
Under the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan, $1.5m will be provided to operate two supported group homes for children and young people, and $600 000 to provide after hours response services to youth on the street.
As part of the Palmerston Youth Action Plan, $450 000 has been provided for more family support services and crisis accommodation. This will increase to $1.3m in the 2010-12 financial year.
In Mental Health Services, I am pleased to announce a major new initiative with $930 000 for the 24-hour mental health hotline. This hotline will help people with a mental illness get appropriate treatment sooner by providing six new mental health professionals for the triage service. For people presenting at a health centre or emergency department suffering from a suspected mental illness, the health staff will be able to call the hotline and receive advice about treatment and referral options on the spot.
This government will continue with the implementation of appropriate 24-hour secure care facilities to support at risk young people and adults with disabilities and complex behaviour. An extra $9.4m is provided to continue the roll-out of secure care facilities in Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals and communities, and $2.3m to enhance services. The facility will provide safe and controlled therapeutic environments for clients to learn and develop their skills for living in the community.
The government is committed to supporting the most vulnerable members of our society. We have engaged the process of reform with adult guardianship in the Territory, and we are providing an additional $200 000 this establish a statutory office of the public guardian.
I now move to my other portfolios of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. My department of Resources is focused on a sustainable and productive primary industry sector, sustainable use of fisheries resources, and the responsible recovery of minerals and energy resources.
Fishing in the Territory is more popular than anywhere else in the nation, and makes such an important contribution to our great Territory lifestyle. We have the highest level of boat owners in Australia, and we attract a huge number of fishing tourists to the Territory, and we are continuing to invest in ways to makes fishing even better - some could say we are luring a huge number of fishing tourists to the Territory.
We are continuing with our fishing infrastructure program and have committed over $1m during 2009-10 to improve facilities for anglers. This builds on the $3.2m boat ramp facility completed at Hudson Creek; a $670 000 pontoon at Dinah Beach boat ramp; installation of toilets at Corroboree Billabong; upgrade of the boat ramp at Saltwater Arm; upgrade of the boat ramp at Leaders Creek, and $4m to upgrade the boat ramp infrastructure at Elizabeth Creek boat ramp.
A comprehensive survey into recreational fishing has been under way for the last three years throughout the Territory at the cost of $475 000. The survey will provide valuable information to ensure our fisheries remain sustainable and the fishing experiences available today continue into the future.
The commercial fishing sector has not been forgotten, with the Northern Territory Seafood Council receiving a further $180 000 in this budget to continue support for its good work in communicating and representing the commercial seafood industry. Over recent years, this government has removed 15 commercial fishing licences and closed rivers such as the McArthur, the Adelaide, the Finniss as well as Bynoe Harbour. The government also closed Darwin Harbour and sold back the coastal net fishery following the removal of nine commercial fishing licences. On top of these initiatives, the government has a commitment to buy back a further three commercial barramundi licences in the term of government.
An important component of the fisheries budget is the ongoing funding support for the marine rangers program in indigenous communities. Fisheries this year has again allocated funding to support this program of $640 000 to meet financial and administrative costs of the eight Indigenous ranger groups that undertake monitoring and coastal surveillance activities. It needs to be recognised the program places an importance on engaging Indigenous Territorians in coastal and marine management issues.
Another initiative performing an important role is the aquatic biosecurity program, which helps to protect the Northern Territory and our fishing and aquaculture industry from introduced aquatic pests. Funding of $322000 has been committed to undertake a comprehensive survey of Darwin Harbour for marine pests throughout 2010-11. The excellent work undertaken by the Northern Territory Aquatic Biosecurity Group was recognised nationally in winning the Environment category at the recent 2010 Australian Seafood Industry Awards.
It is not only in the marine environment that biosecurity is vital. In this budget, $250 000 is allocated to biosecurity within the Primary Industry group to further expand the Northern Territory Emergency Response capabilities through training and the development of information management systems. This is only one piece of the Primary Industry budget picture. The primary industry sector has been increasing in value over the last few years recording a 19.3% increase in 2007-08 and easing back by 14.3% during the global recession, but still worth over $395m to the Territory’s economy in 2008-09. In 2009, we saw over 345 000 head of cattle exported through the Port of Darwin, which included 305 000 head of cattle from the Territory. Similarly, the Territory horticultural industry is dynamic, coming from an estimated $96.4m in 2007-08 to $99.3m in 2008-09, which is a solid result for the industry during a recession.
This budget will see the Primary Industries group of my department continue to work with industry organisations to pursue new livestock trade opportunities overseas, including Vietnam. Currently, Indonesia remains the focus of our live cattle trade, taking over 90% of animals exported. Members will be aware that minister Suswono, the Indonesian Minister for Agriculture, accepted my invitation to visit the Territory to view our pastoral industry firsthand, and to build relations with the newly appointed minister in our key market for Territory cattle.
My department continues its association with the successful Indigenous Pastoral Program which has been allocated $590 000 in the budget. This program has increased cattle numbers on Indigenous properties in excess of 90 000 since 2003.
I now move to the biggest contributor to the Territory’s economy, minerals and energy. This is the fourth year of the $14.4m Bringing Forward Discovery initiative, which combines a range of strategies designed to stimulate mineral and petroleum exploration, and attract exploration investment. Under Bringing Forward Discovery, the Northern Territory has achieved record levels of private sector expenditure on mineral exploration.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show mineral exploration expenditure in the Territory for the 2009 calendar year was a new record of more than $148m, up by 1% on 2008. All other states suffered a significant drop in expenditure over the same period, with total Australian expenditure down 22%, and expenditure in South Australia down 49%. Also, the Territory is still the only Australian jurisdiction with a dedicated China and Japan Investment Attraction strategy. This has resulted in more than $100m of new investment into the exploration and mining industry in the Northern Territory.
Funding of $450 000 is provided for the fourth year of the eight-year $3.7m Alice Solar Cities renewable energy program. In addition, Budget 2010-11 contains $3.1m to ensure compliance with legislation in the mining, energy and exploration industries and to ensure the implementation of environmental best practice; and the funding of $685 000 to boost environmental regulation of mining operations, including the establishment of a Central Australian Mining Team to be based at the Arid Zone Research Institute in Alice Springs.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on this budget. This is a budget that delivers a healthier and safer Territory. It is a budget that protects Territory lifestyle and Territory jobs.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I speak on the Appropriation Bill, the budget bill for the upcoming financial year. I will talk today briefly about my electorate, about Alice Springs, the portfolio areas of Transport, Infrastructure, Regional Development and Indigenous Affairs, and I will touch a little on Housing. I will talk generally on other areas across the Northern Territory.
I believe this is a socialist budget full of government reliance on mistruths. This is a budget that puts the Territory in debt by $1.7bn by 2013-14. It is a terrible start to the financial year.
Before I arrived today I looked over my budget reply from last year and, without a word of a lie, I could repeat exactly the same words, just change the numerical values. For the benefit of the member for Barkly, I will be plagiarising my previous speech.
This is a budget reminiscent of the Melbourne Storm with salary cap breaches everywhere, no more so reflected than the awarding yesterday of a tender for the Elizabeth River boat ramp in the budget at $3 point-something-million, announced yesterday for $4 point-something-million. Day 1 and they are already over by $1m.
I could go on, however let me start with Braitling, Alice Springs, which has been the hardest done by in this budget for a long time. We know this government likes to revote work; it revotes more work than it spends. I will go into those figures later. The $6m commitment for the Alice Springs Police Station is not in the budget. I phoned police officers yesterday and said: ‘Have they done the work?’ They looked around - took them about three seconds - and said: ‘They have done nothing’. It is not in the budget.
I note there is nothing in the budget for the CBD mall revamp, an election commitment from 2008 - consultancies after consultancies, but still no work.
The government is very keen to promote federal government money in their budget. Yesterday’s performance, especially by the member for Johnston, who is not keen to accept budget decreases because government withdraws the money. They are happy to promote they are doing the work, however, they are happy to blame the Commonwealth for withdrawing the money - and no more so than the accommodation park in Alice Springs for 150 people. Government said it was wonderful and it was part of their budget. Well, it is federal money.
I did not see the Mereenie Loop in the budget. I saw the emergency department in the budget this year, after being revoted for the last few years. The Araluen solar air-conditioning - where has that gone? That is another thing which has been revoted - come back in, revoted out, come back in. We do not know where that is at, and it is an indication the Northern Territory government has completely forgotten about Alice Springs.
The $10m headworks for AZRI is detailed and widely promoted as doing something for land release in Alice Springs. It is gobbledygook. Budget Paper No 4 shows they do not plan to do any headworks until April next year. I doubt that will happen. The June 2008 Future Planning Forum paperwork identifies $31m needs to be spent on headworks at AZRI - $21m alone on the water supply - I doubt that $10m will go very far. It is nearly two years since that planning forum; we have not had any land released. We have not had land released in any of the other areas identified in that forum. I believe this is a government and a budget of spin and nothing else. This is $10m which will not be spent; this will be revoted - mark my words.
In the Barkly region, there is no provision in the budget for a new doctor for the Tennant Creek Hospital. There is nothing about birthing services, air services, or improved transport for Barkly. We hear the member for Barkly, the Minister for Transport, talking about the nuclear waste dump in the media. I am certain that is important to women who are giving birth at Borroloola or Robinson River.
This is a very light budget for regional development; a negative budget for regional development. I am very interested to know how many regional development staff actually live off the Stuart Highway. How many regional development staff in senior positions are men? No disrespect to women, however, in many areas the need to talk to Indigenous men to promote regional development is an important factor - many of those people will not talk to women.
How can the Minister for Regional Development say the government is supporting the region after the two biggest killers have been implemented? One has been implemented; one is about to be. The first was shire council reform, taxing pastoralists, trying to get them off their land. That is not supporting the region; that is killing the region. Removal of the voice of people in the bush with the introduction of shire council reform, and the ability for people to have self-determination has been completely eroded. That does not develop regions. I have had constant phone calls from mining companies around the Territory in relation to the 2% mining tax …
Dr Burns: You have been returning a few as well by the look of it; more than your fair share.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: … on top of the 40% mining tax by the federal government. People at Newmont Mine are very concerned about this new 2% tax, so much so that it might bring forward the end of the life cycle of the mine. From a regional development perspective, we know those mining companies put infrastructure into the bush, into communities, employ people. We should be embracing mines, not attacking them like the Treasurer and the Prime Minister - the great Kevin Rudd - are doing in the Territory.
Our two biggest industries are mining and tourism. What do they want to do to our biggest industry, mining? They want to attack it; they want to close it down. A 40% tax, and then these lunatics on the other side want to put a 2% tax on it. This budget is not fit for the Territory. The 2% increase up to 20%, and the federal one, 40%. This is an attack on mining! This is an attack on the Northern Territory! This is not good for the Northern Territory. It is not good, in budgetary terms, for the Northern Territory; not at all.
Moving to transport, there will be price increases, through the insurance component, for registration. Truck registrations will rise. While the government says it is the lowest-taxing jurisdiction, these things go through on the side without telling anyone - without pronouncing it. This will have an effect on the economy of the Northern Territory, as will the mining tax.
It is important to look at what is in the budget for infrastructure. We have seen what was committed to last year and what they have spent. They spent $748m, and have revoted $842m. They are passing on less than what they spent! What sort of budget is it when you announce a record $1.3bn budget last year, however you only spend half what you say? This time they are saying $1.8bn. Why not take it further and say you are going to spend a trillion dollars and roll it over for the next 100 years. That is what you are doing.
It gets worse! Going through the budget you find things to be done this year, however they will not happen. A key thing is work at the port - construction of a new conveyor belt, the reclamation of land, and the creation of a hardstand area on that reclaimed land. More than $50m has been set aside in three budgets and the work has not been done. We have spills occurring in our port. Action needs to be taken on our port. They say: ‘Oh, we are doing all this work on our port - it is in our budget’. The $50m-plus makes up part of the $1.8bn, however at the back of the budget, under committal target dates for major capital projects - and building a new conveyor belt, reclaiming land and creating a hardstand area is a major capital project - it is not in there. You are not going to do it!
Surprisingly, at the Property Council budget breakfast yesterday the Treasurer said work will not commence at the port unless we find more contractors to use the port. Why is it in the budget? Where is the money in the budget? Where is the money allocated for work at the port? It is not sitting in the Port Corporation’s budget. Where is the money?
It is false and misleading to put these things in the budget when you have no intention of doing the work. It escalates your number to $1.8bn, however you are not doing the work. You could look at the list of revoted works - Numbulwar police post, Yarralin Police Station, Gapuwiyak Police Station, Ramingining Police Station, Epenarra police overnight facilities, Alice Springs Police Station, as I mentioned, is completely off the page; upgrading cyclone shelters and building new ones, off the page.
The Barkly prison camp was supposed to be done last year, rolled forward to this year. Department of Education revoted works from $77m to $137m; Department of Housing, $185m, including the Bellamack Seniors Village of $10m - now down to $9m. What have they spent that $1m on? There is nothing out there at all.
Department of Health and Families revote of $149m, including the Alice Springs Hospital’s fire protection and air-conditioning remediation works. Never mind the fact the poor nurses have to walk out the gate at night and nearly be attacked outside the Memo Club car park. $90m to upgrade the Alice Springs emergency department.
Last year there was $1.3m in the budget to build a new sobering-up shelter at Tennant Creek, and $1.3m to build a sobering-up shelter at Katherine. Last year we saw that money being taken from Tennant Creek and given to Katherine so Katherine had $2.6m, much to the disgust of the federal government’s department of Health, I am advised. We know it has not been built, and we see in this year’s budget it has been reworked down to $1.3m in Katherine, and nothing for Tennant Creek. Where did the $1.3m go? That is a pertinent question for estimates! Has it gone on consultancies and planning in the way this government operates and mismanages its funds? Is that where it has gone? Where is the money the federal government is allocating to the Territory government for this?
Do not be surprised if we see in the federal budget $2.7m announced for a sobering-up shelter in Tennant Creek, much to the Commonwealth government’s disgust, because it will only cost $1.3m to build. The Northern Territory will take $1.4m in fees to build a $1.3m sobering-up shelter. That is what we will see. Hopefully, my comments today have stopped that, and we get the right money going to the right people.
A new health centre at Milingimbi and Wadeye, the Palmerston Super Clinic still being worked on, and Royal Darwin Hospital. I have mentioned the Palmerston boat ramp which blew out on Day 1 of the budget.
The Palmerston Water Park, not doing the work for $5m, it is now going to cost $13.6m. This is what happens when you delay works. Lands and planning revoted works $203m, aerodromes, Bellamack subdivision, Rosebery Primary and Middle Schools. $20.5m for Stokes Hill Wharf. It is mentioned in the budget; it escalated it to $1.8bn, however the committal target dates for major capital projects are not there. There are no plans to do it; no plans at all to do the work. It is crazy. This is an inflated infrastructure budget which will not deliver on projects it mentions. It does not have time frames for work to be done - that is how false it is. Port Corporation revote to $58.353m. That is absolutely ridiculous.
In today’s paper there is an article about the Tiwi Islands. This is something missing from the budget, and I note the member for Arafura is listening intently. We heard, in Question Time on Tuesday, the minister for Planning and Construction and Infrastructure, in response to a question from the member for Macdonnell say roads on the Tiwi Islands are local government responsibility. I note the article by Ben Langford saying two Country Liberal party politicians were at a Tiwi Islands Land Council meeting.
The member for Katherine and I were at that Tiwi Islands Land Council meeting, which I believe was in February. We were not present last Friday where they said: ‘Enough is enough; we are not dealing with the Northern Territory government’. The Tiwi Islands took on a self-determining responsibility over the Blue Mud Bay decision, the issuing of permits, and how inter-tidal waters are used on the Tiwi Islands. It is their right. We want people to self-determine. We want people to come to the negotiating table with something.
We attended the meeting in February; we did not talk, we listened to what was happening. They were happy to have us there. Whilst conversing with public servants from the Chief Minister’s department, they said: ‘We want action on our roads and we will negotiate with you’. There was no way that could happen then. They said: ‘If you do not come back with roads money by the next meeting we are taking it all off the table’.
I, and the member for Katherine, did not attend the meeting last Friday. No one from the Country Liberals attended. I am unsure if anyone from government went. They made that decision and good on them; they have the right to make that decision. It is a failure by the Northern Territory Labor government to secure the fishing rights of people of the Northern Territory, people of the northern suburbs …
A member: A broken 2008 election promise.
Mr GILES: A broken 2008 election promise. Whether they are local roads or not, the Country Liberals support the Tiwi Islanders in economic development.
Next Saturday is the official opening of the Tiwi College - a college where $15m was allocated by the previous Education minister, Julie Bishop, because the Northern Territory government would not come to the table. It is quite ironic the previous federal government built the college and the current federal government is going to open it. I hope Julie Bishop turns up.
It is sad you still cannot properly get to the college in the Wet Season because of the dirt road. I have driven on it many times. We hear the government say: ‘It is a local road; we cannot do anything about it’. This is in their growth town area! It should be a priority! This should be one of your flashy media releases saying: ‘This is what we are doing for roads; this is what we are doing for infrastructure. We are not rolling it over; we are not taking out squillions of dollars in project management fees’. That is what should have happened. That is what this is about. That is what the Territory budget should be about.
I repeat: the Country Liberals support the Tiwi Islanders in self-determination, economic development, and their roads.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I will bring it back to a great concern I have - I believe the Northern Territory government, in their administration of capital projects, is broke. I believe it is broke. I believe it has taken too much money in administering projects. In particular, I look towards the Construction Division, a separate division within the Northern Territory government. I take on board the Treasurer’s comments that most of the figures from the budget were at the end of March – I do not have a specific date, but I take it on board.
She has an estimate of $79m income in project management fees for Construction Division. It says: ‘The Construction Division responsible for working collaboratively with government client agencies to identify infrastructure requirements to design, procure and manage construction projects Territory wide and oversee maintenance of government assets’. They do the government’s job of constructing and managing things.
In their operating statement they had $78.8m in sales of goods and services, with a total income of $79m. Their expenses include $28.7m, which went on employee expenses with a staff of 393, and purchase of goods and services of $46.4m - $46.4m! What would that be on? Would that be on consultancies? I wonder! On designers and planners? I wonder how we are getting value for money in the management of our projects …
Dr Burns: You tell that to all the engineers and architects in this town. You say it. You do not know what you are talking about. You never have! You are a fool!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Leader of Government Business!
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I ask the member to withdraw that last comment.
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Braitling, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to remind members opposite of Standing Order 51, please.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I remind all honourable members on both sides of the House of Standing Order 51, and I ask members to cease the interjecting, please. Thank you, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I go back to that point on page 279 of Budget Paper No 3: $46m for purchase of goods and services. There is an article in today’s paper talking about my travel. It is my job to travel around the Territory, to represent the people of Braitling, and to travel to Darwin instead of walking. I would not want to drive because you might get a speeding ticket like the member for Barkly. I have to travel for my job, and I do my job as efficiently and effectively as I can. However, $46.4m - should someone not be asking whether that is value for money? $46.4m for consultancies - that is highly questionable.
That is where I believe the problem is. Go through this budget and look at infrastructure projects. As the projects roll from one year to the other, where they have been spending money on planning, designing, getting things done, consultancies, the budget go down. You can see where the money is going, and it is not on the ground where it is supposed to be. I have spoken ad nauseam in this Chamber about that. It is similar to the 11 visits by consultants to Maningrida as part of SIHIP without anything happening. What is that money doing? How is that helping people?
It is very interesting when you take on board - what is the program called, member for Fong Lim - the bungled housing?
Mr Elferink: I think that was SIHIP, missing the ‘I’s.
Mr GILES: SIHIP, that is right. SIHIP …
Mr Tollner: They sent the super minister in to fix it.
Mr GILES: Super minister has gone in to fix it. He did so well in Health, he is now with SIHIP, after the member for Daly, who built the bridge at Daly River from his 2005 election commitment - fantastic job. Like the election commitment to build a bridge over McArthur River; that is going well, too. I note that receives a mention in the budget, too – to escalate that $1.8bn.
I look with interest, and cast aspersions towards the member for Nelson. I also look in disgust towards the bush members opposite, the member for Johnston, the member for Daly, who was the previous Housing Minister. In 2008-09, $33.3m was spent on Indigenous housing. In this financial year to the end of March, as advised by the Treasurer, $136.6m has been spent on Indigenous housing with SIHIP. The total of those two years to March - some 21 months - is $169.9m rounded to $170m, spent on SIHIP, going by these figures. Going on other paperwork, they have spent $174m, but $170m. The minister for Housing said yesterday, there have currently been 155 refurbishments undertaken throughout the Northern Territory, and seven houses built. For $170m, we have had seven houses built - seven houses - and 155 refurbishments.
There have been reviews, concerns and inquiries. We saw the member for Macdonnell walk out, and the member for Arnhem come and go. Let us look. Refurbishments are estimated to cost, on average, $75 000 each. My argument is $75 000 is not value for money for refurbishment when the shire can do it for $25 000, and the standard is better than the alliance contractors. A simple calculation will tell you 155 refurbished houses at $75 000 each equals $11.625m. Seven new houses at an average estimate by government of $450 000, would total $3.15m. The total of those two is $14.775m, however, the government has spent $170m. Their own costings say it should cost $14.775m, even if you add on the 8% administration fee. Where is the money?
Yesterday, the minister for Housing said there are currently 115 refurbishments under way, and 80 houses in the middle of construction. If we provide the benefit of the doubt to the government that they paid for these works up-front, the 115 refurbished properties at $75 000 each - which is a rip-off - would cost $8.625m, and the 80 houses at $450 000 each would cost $36m.
The 80 houses currently in development, the 115 refurbishments currently being undertaken, the seven houses in two-and-a-half years that have been built, and 155 refurbishments that have been done – total $59.4m; they have paid $170m. Where is the missing $110m? How dare these people ask us to support this budget when $110m is missing from one program? How can we support that? How can we support a budget with $110m missing? Despite the fact they say they are going to build conveyor belts, reclaim land, build hardstand areas at the port, nothing is happening.
Despite the fact they have missed out the Mereenie Loop Road, despite the fact they have done nothing about the headworks at AZRI, despite the fact police stations are not in the budget, despite the fact the mall for Alice Springs is not there, despite the fact there is no doctor or birthing service at Tennant Creek, no air services, or sobering-up shelter, or the $1.3m for Katherine, or the dodgy letter the member for Karama sent about $3m to duplicate the road to Leanyer Recreation Park saying the CLP did not want the project to proceed - which we have not spoken about - despite all that, where is the $110m? I ask the question: where is the $110m?
Page 279 of Budget Paper No 3 mentions purchase of goods and services for the Construction Division of $46.4m. I wonder if some of that money has gone there. I wonder how many consultants, and people from Queensland, have taken our money from the SIHIP project, keeping jobs from Territorians, keeping jobs from businesses in the Northern Territory, taking money from our economy. I wonder what is happening there. I wonder how those people feel. This money is supposed to be going on the ground, and the government will say: ‘It is all going to Indigenous employment expenses’. Wrong, because we know the federal government provided tens and tens of millions of dollars to the Northern Territory government, or to the SIHIP alliances, to employ and train Indigenous people. They are setting up labour hire companies employing people. We know how that works. It is not the employment, it is not the project design consultancy fees; they can do it cheaply. It is not quality, because they are handing houses back at Ali Curung with no septic tank lids so kids fall in the septic. They are making tenants pay $88 to reinstall air-conditioners. Where is the $110m?
How can I support a budget like this? This does not support anything. It does not work for the regions when the mining royalty tax is 20%, and the federal government is pushing it to 40%. It will close mining companies down. Yesterday we saw one mining company pull out of the Northern Territory - pull out! McArthur River and Newmont have great concerns about increased royalties. These are a tax on our regions. This is where we should be developing the Northern Territory.
I did not see anything in the Regional Development budget about power supply to Ali Curung to support the development of the Centrefarm operation. I did not see anything in the budget about the road to nowhere off the Stuart Highway which goes into the bush. I did not see a graph which illustrates the revote by this government. They like to talk about infrastructure spending. This looks like the budget they showed for infrastructure. They said an increase in infrastructure; this is the revote budget; it looks the same. As our infrastructure budget goes up, the more we revote.
This budget is an absolute disgrace. I wonder how we move forward, particularly with the SIHIP project. That missing money - what do we do? I wonder how we move forward in Regional Development.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: The Deputy Clerk has advised me the time has expired.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just pause for a minute.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I move the member be given a further 10 minutes in order to complete his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A smart budget would have spoken about Regional Development and how we would work better in partnership with our federal colleagues; how we would link staff in regional locations; the relationship between Regional Development and growth towns; how we could complement government business managers in the bush to undertake a regional development role with Regional Development Australia partnered with the Northern Territory government. That would be a smart approach, instead of everyone living on the Stuart Highway.
That would be a smart approach to Regional Development, but do we see that in here? No, we hear the Minister for Regional Development: ‘Blah, blah, blah, we support the regions’. There is nothing in there. We hear much about A Working Future, and we saw the flyer from the minister for Housing about a record spend in housing. It was all revoted works or federal money. We saw education - all revoted works or federal money.
This is the government of spin. They like to promote the money the federal government gives them to do their job, however they cannot take the medicine when they do not do the job themselves, or when the federal government takes the money back for non-performance. The monitoring of Montara is a perfect example.
I put the question again, and would be very keen for the minister for Housing to explain to Territorians where that $110m has gone. I am very keen on his colleagues explaining to the Country Liberals how many police you could put in the northern suburbs for $110m; how many teachers you could have across the Territory for $110m; how many nurses you could have. Could you have birthing services in Tennant Creek with that $110m? I would like to know, for $110m, how many pastoral roads you could fix.
For $110m we could have two new power generators for the Territory so the lights would not go out while the member for Daly, the Minister for Essential Services, manages that. For $110m we could have two 25-storey apartment blocks, going by Sunrise Towers. For $110m we could have the Wonarah phosphate mine; 1.1bn tonnes of phosphate reserves. For $110m we would have an airborne early warning control facility at Tindal and still have $50m left over. For $110m we would have most of the gas pipeline from Darwin to Jabiru. For $110m, on the Darwin median house price of $540 000, we could have built over 200 houses. Not SIHIP houses, real houses. We could have much with that missing $110m. The point is with the $110m, this government does not know how to manage.
This is a maladministered program. This was supposed to have infrastructure, now we see, through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, the federal government is giving the Territory government money - over millions, over hundreds of millions of dollars - for the infrastructure component of land servicing and essential services. When Mal Brough announced this it was supposed to be included. We have had seven houses built in two-and-a-half years and spent $170m. Answer that question. How does that work?
For $110m we could have nine Palmerston water parks. We could have one in the rural area. I ask: how can the member for Nelson - and I am not personally attacking him - continue to support this government? He stated if he thought a program was being misadministered, he would withdraw his support. This program is being misadministered! $110m has gone missing from the face of the earth. No one knows where it is. Maybe the minister for Housing does, but he will not share it with us
I call on the member for Nelson to advise parliament where that $110m is. If he cannot justify $75 000 for a single refurbishment, which should cost $20 000, $450 000 for construction of a new house, expenditure in each community and, more importantly, where that $110m has gone, he needs to reconsider his agreement with the Chief Minister. That is $110m of Northern Territory taxpayers dollars, and we are sick and tired of seeing money maladministered.
We are also sick and tired of seeing people from the communities with nowhere to live, coming into town, living in overcrowded conditions, committing acts of antisocial behaviour, drunk and fighting on the streets, living in the long grass. This is not what we want to see. We want to see a moderate environment where we help everyone. We help people into housing, we help people into jobs. This is pilfering money from a program designed to help those most in need. People in the northern suburbs are sick and tired of this. They are quite prepared to put their taxpayer dollars into programs assisting people get from the bottom to the top, but they do not want to see money wasted, and this is money being wasted. They want to see more police, but are quite happy in a housing program to help people get started. They do not want to see it being wasted.
People in the northern suburbs want to see roads built. We have heard about the $3m for the Vanderlin Drive to Leanyer Recreation Park. People in the northern suburbs would prefer to see roads from Lyons all the way to Vanderlin Drive, and McMillans Road to the Stuart Highway. They are foregoing that.
We have vital projects like SIHIP, where $110m of Australian taxpayer’s dollars, Territory taxpayer’s dollars, Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs taxpayer’s dollars has gone missing. This is a very important point because it cuts right to the heart of the Northern Territory government and how it manages its programs.
I am only focusing on one particular area but BER is exactly the same. Go through documents from the Department of Construction and Infrastructure by the minister and see how much money went to each project. Then ring the school and say: ‘How much did it actually cost?’ You start scratching your head! ‘How much did the Territory government get?’ And you start scratching your head. It is an issue of value for money.
I do not believe these people know the cost of things. I do not believe they understand how much it really costs to buy goods, buy a service. It is ridiculous that they are in charge.
In conclusion, I find it hard to support this bill because money has gone awry. I cannot find money in this budget, particularly on SIHIP, and particularly when you see items on the infrastructure budget which are not on the list to be done this year. How can they be there? You look for the $55m-odd for the port, and ask where that money is. Looking at the budget, it is not sitting in the port account. How can you support this budget; there are some serious questions?
The mining increase in tax from 18% to 20% is an attack on our region, as are the rates on pastoral properties.
Alice Springs has been hard done by; Braitling has been hard done by in this budget. I do not think there is a compassionate person on the other side – pork-barrelling their own electorate, and not looking after the whole Territory as they should be. They talk about A Working Future; I believe it is just spin.
I rest my case. I believe I have well prosecuted the need for the government to come clean on its $110m black hole in SIHIP - $170m spent in two-and-a-half years and seven houses built. No wonder the member for Macdonnell walked out. I rest my case. I do not commend this bill to the House. I have serious reservations about supporting it.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the Appropriation Bill and the Treasurer’s statement on Budget 2010-11.
Budget 2010-11 invests in Territory 2030, the Henderson Labor government’s strategic plan for our future. Budget 2010-11 delivers now for Territory families with record spending to boost hospitals, schools, community safety, and housing. We are investing in our future. The biggest investment in infrastructure in Territory’s history, and the lowest small business taxes in the country are creating and protecting Territory jobs.
Turning to my portfolios of Natural Resources, Environment, Parks and Wildlife, Heritage, Sport and Recreation, Climate Change, and Information Communication and Technology, Budget 2010-11 delivers $135.7m for the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport through nine output groups, eight of which I am responsible for.
I am delighted and proud to announce $600 000 will be delivered under the 2010-11 budget to establish a cash for containers scheme in the Northern Territory by 2011. Efforts to reduce waste in the Territory will be further complemented by the introduction of legislation this year to ban lightweight plastic shopping bags across the Northern Territory. These are positive ways Territorians will achieve one goal of the Northern Territory Climate Change Policy: to reduce the volume of rubbish sent to landfill by 50% by 2020.
Budget 2010-11 delivers $6.1m for environment and sustainability outputs to provide advice to government, industry, and the community in relation to environmental protection and sustainability issues. In light of recent incidents at our ports in Darwin, Nhulunbuy, and Groote Eylandt, the Northern Territory government has boosted environment and sustainability by a further $1m. The package includes licensing of additional high-risk activities, with particular attention paid to the Darwin Port: $400 000 for an audit and review of all port operations across the Northern Territory, and the provision of an additional $800 000 to NRETAS to employ more environmental compliance officers to police the new licensing regime.
I am determined to ensure a culture of disclosure and compliance with the Territory’s environment protection laws and regulations. The Territory government has provided $1.5m for the Environment Protection Authority to implement stronger powers recently introduced by government in Budget 2010-11. This includes an additional funding boost of $500 000 in Budget 2010-11 to deliver additional resources, including more staff to support the EPA’s new expanded role in monitoring and protecting the Territory’s environment.
Madam Speaker, $15.8m will be invested in our parks and reserves conservation management programs. The second stage of the $1.8m, three-year Territory EcoLinks initiative is funded under Budget 2010-11. This supports the Territory 2030 commitment of a comprehensive set of environmental protected connected systems across 20% of the Territory’s land mass by 2030. This government intends to establish a wildlife corridor extending more than 3500 km from Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory to Port Augusta in South Australia.
Budget 2010-11 also commits $3.8m on parks joint management programs to establish equitable partnerships with local traditional owners to manage, maintain and protect the biodiversity of a park or reserve, while at the same time serving the needs of visitors and the wider community. A total of $36.7m will be spent on our 87 parks and reserves in Budget 2010-11.
Highlights include $1.8m as part of a $3m upgrade over three years to deliver upgrades at the Territory’s first park, Howard Springs Nature Park, renewing the park with cooling off pools and a high class viewing platform for visitors to observe wildlife, including the park’s famous barramundi and turtles. Budget 2010-11 provides $2.1m for a visitor centre at Wangi Falls, one of the Territory’s most popular natural environments in Litchfield National Park, in my colleague, the member for Daly’s electorate. I am pleased to announce Budget 2010-11 provides $11m for the Territory’s biological parks, including support for the Alice Springs Desert Park, Territory Wildlife Park, the operation of Window on the Wetlands, and the George Brown Darwin Botanical Gardens.
In Budget 2010-11, $45.7m has been provided to fund natural resource management. $32.8m is allocated in Budget 2010-11 to formulate and implement assessment, monitoring and evaluation programs for land, coastlines, native vegetation and biological diversity.
Budget 2010-11 continues the $3.3m funding over four years, commencing in 2009-10, to reduce feral camel impacts by 90%. Feral camels have a major impact on the environment, particularly in Central Australia. Feral camels affect pastoralists and their properties and impact on stock fences, infrastructure, and food and water resources. They also contribute to climate change, and are a major problem for the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.
$300 000 additional funding has been allocated for crocodile management under the Northern Territory government’s Be Croc Wise campaign. This funding will see the continuation of the public campaign of Be Croc Wise, which I am sure all members have seen on television. The message is being taken to schools, with more than 10 000 schoolchildren having attended Be Croc Wise talks conducted by my department. It was an absolute pleasure to be at a recent session at Nightcliff Primary School with the local member.
This budget also funds Bushfires NT - $950 000 in Budget 2010-11. Bushfires NT staff, volunteers and brigades are on the front line protecting Territorians from the dangers of bushfires. We are investing in their resources to create a safer community, and I thank them for their work on behalf of all of us.
Budget 2010-11 invests $1.2m into providing a flood forecasting service to minimise risk to life and property in the event of flooding.
Budget 2010-11 delivers a further $11.5m investment in Water Resources for measuring and assessing surface and groundwater resources.
We all know the importance of our heritage in the Northern Territory. Budget 2010-11 sees $2.8m invested in conservation of the Northern Territory’s heritage assets through advice, assistance and regulation. Budget 2010-11 allocates $1m for repairing and maintaining government-owned heritage assets throughout the Northern Territory. A further $200 000 is provided through the NT Heritage Grants Program and, in 2010, for the very first time, applications will be welcomed for funding supporting events connected to heritage places.
Budget 2010-11 delivers a total of $22.5m towards Sport and Recreation. The creation and maintenance of sporting facilities in the Territory remains a cornerstone of government’s commitment, with $8.5m for a water park in Palmerston, making a total commitment of $13.5m for this election promise.
There is also $4.2m overall for the Arafura Athletics Stadium, a centrepiece of the Arafura Games. A further $1.25m has been allocated to finalise the $4m election commitment at the Hidden Valley Motor Sports Complex. The total sport and recreation grants pool increased to $10.5m in 2010-11 for grants to sport, peak and local governing bodies, as well as grassroots organisations. The highlights include $3.7m to peak sport and active recreation bodies; $2.3m to shires to provide sport and recreation officers, facilities and programs in each shire; and $980 000 to the Freds Pass Reserves upgrades.
Budget 2010-11 includes $2.4m for national and international sporting fixtures in the Northern Territory. This includes a Super-15 Rugby Union pre-season match, featuring the ACT Brumbies competing for the Territory Cup as part a new three-year deal worth $900 000. There is the staging of the bi-annual Indigenous All-Stars AFL game, as well as two home-and-away AFL matches in Darwin, and the NAB Challenge pre-season game in Alice Springs, as part of the new five-year agreement.
We have the National Rugby League game to be hosted in Alice Springs next year involving the North Queensland Cowboys as part of an $890 000 three-year agreement. There is a National Basketball League pre-season competition at Marrara Indoor Stadium involving all NBL clubs, and a game in Alice Springs, and also the WNBL game involving Perth Lynx in Alice Springs this year. There is a $200 000 funding package each year over five years to assist the NT Thunder compete in the Queensland Australian Football League (QAFL) competition, and $50 000 to assist to the Territory Storm netball team to compete in the Australian Netball League. $3.4m has been allocated for the Northern Territory Institute of Sport to support athletes through its individual scholarship programs and the squad programs.
ICT initiatives are assisting the Northern Territory government move towards goals set out under Housing the Territory, A Working Future, Healthy Territory, Smart Territory and Growing the Territory, as well as progressing Territory 2030 priority areas of knowledge, creativity and innovation.
The Department of Business and Employment budget for 2010 includes $5m in Northern Territory funds, and $3m in Australian government funds, as part of a three-year, $15.5m funding package to support national partnership agreements in conjunction with the Department of Health and Families, and the Department of Education and Training. A further $7m over three years from the Australian government will provide for advanced services in Territory growth towns, including video conferencing, tele-health for clinicians to seek remote expertise to diagnose patients, and e-learning initiatives for students and employees.
The Department of Business and Employment will coordinate implementation of a $2.2m national partnership agreement fund in conjunction with the Australian government, the Department of National Resources and Environment, Arts and Sport, and the Department of Housing, Local Government, and Regional Services to develop a plan to deploy public Internet access and video conferencing to the Territory growth towns. Over three years, 40 of our remote Indigenous communities will have access to free public Internet, mainly through their local library or resource centre. I am extremely proud of the very effective and efficient budgetary measures, and the outcomes this government has achieved in the area of ICT.
The $34m Northern Territory Climate Change Policy provides 40 targets and 118 concrete actions by which the Northern Territory government is fighting climate change. Budget 2010-11 provides a comprehensive investment in our future through the delivery of $7.2m to support businesses and households take action on climate change. Budget 2010-11 includes $2m funding for renewable and low emissions energy at Alpurrurulam in the member for Barkly’s electorate, also part of a $4m contribution by Northern Territory government towards $14m of renewable and low emissions energy in remote communities.
A further $250 000 has been included in the 2010-11 budget for the Centre for Renewable Energy. The centre will be established at the Charles Darwin University this year to support our growing green energy sector into the future. The $6m Government Energy Efficiency Program, or GEEP, supports the green fleet policy and the Energy Smart Building Policy, assisting larger government energy users, like our hospitals and schools to make energy efficiency upgrades. Budget 2010-11 also supports the government’s Green Fleet Policy. $4m will be spent over two years for the Green Heart of Darwin project. The Green Heart of Darwin project includes walkways and cycle paths linking our great recreational activities to some of our great sporting precincts. There is $720 000 in Environment NT grants to community groups, organisations, and schools. Budget 2010-11 continues to support ecoBiz NT through $700 000 to offer advice and rebates of up to $20 000 to Territory small- to medium-sized businesses to become more energy efficient.
The Northern Territory government is proud to support world-leading establishment of savanna burning offset markets in the Territory, providing $200 000 in Budget 2010-11 to ensure the survival of the North Australian Fire Information website, a critical support to the emerging savanna burning offset market. Budget 2010-11 delivers a critical investment of $700 000 to rehabilitating and protecting the Mary River freshwater wetlands and carbon stores from rising sea levels, and to reduce saltwater intrusions, protecting fishing and saving biodiversity.
In addition to being minister for all those portfolios, I am also Minister for Central Australia. I am also the member for Stuart, living with my family in Alice Springs. As a Centralian, I acknowledge the many initiatives and projects - particularly the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan, Planning for the Future, and the transformation of our town camps - I, as the lead minister, am driving to have real outcomes for Central Australians.
Budget 2010-11 invests in Central Australia’s future and delivers key projects which will secure and create jobs. It provides now for Central Australian families, and builds on this government’s significant investments in the Centre - investments which have created, and will continue to create, local jobs and drive the region’s prosperity. Budget 2010-11 delivers more than $560m to improve schools, hospitals, housing, and infrastructure in Central Australia. We are investing in better hospitals, with $38m to upgrade the Alice Springs Hospital. We are investing in better schools, with $8.27m for school upgrades in Central Australia. Equally as important, a decision which has already been warmly welcomed by local business is our investment in land release, and provision of $10m to fast-track headworks for housing at the AZRI site in the new suburb of Kilgariff.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, do you have much more to say?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: You do. Then we will go to the suspension for lunch.
Debate suspended.
COMMONWEALTH DAY MESSAGE 2010
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the Commonwealth Day Message 2010 from Her Majesty the Queen dated 8 March 2010:
- Today’s societies are constantly seeking ways to improve their quality of life, and science and technology play a vital part in that search.
Experimentation, research and innovation mean that more opportunities for improving people’s lives exist today than ever before. Take long distance communication, where the obstacles of time and geography have been dramatically reduced; people can now use mobile phones to be in instant contact virtually anywhere in the world, be it with a medical centre in the Himalayan mountains in Asia, a Pacific island school, a research facility at the South Pole, or even the international space station beyond this planet altogether.
Advances in modern telecommunications are also having a marked economic effect on people from developing nations in the Commonwealth, helping to transform small- to medium-sized businesses. The Internet is playing an important part in helping to nurture these fledgling markets but, as yet, it still remains an unaffordable option for too many of our Commonwealth citizens.
Progress in the fields of healthcare, manufacturing, and education have, for the most part, helped improve people’s lives throughout the world. In the health sector, the Commonwealth has shown how collaborative schemes can successfully assist member states to fight pandemics and diseases.
In making these advances, the Commonwealth recognises that the best forms of innovation are those that unite, and help build resilient partnerships and better societies as a whole.
This is particularly important for the more than half of the Commonwealth citizens who are under 25 years of age. It is vital that their potential to build on the exceptional scientific expertise that exists in member states is also fully supported through education and social development. The Commonwealth understands this, and should continue to aid and encourage our young people to participate in the exciting new opportunities that lie ahead, in the knowledge that progress is something which must be sustained and shared by all.
TABLED PAPER
Power and Water Corporation - Statement of Corporate Intent 2010-11
Power and Water Corporation - Statement of Corporate Intent 2010-11
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I table the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent 2010-11. The Statement of Corporate Intent is the annual performance agreement between the corporation and the shareholding minister on behalf of Territorians as owners of the corporation.
As members are aware, Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first government owned corporation, GOC, on 1 July 2002. The 2010-11 SCI is the corporation’s ninth. Consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI being tabled today, on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information no private sector business would be expected to release.
The 2010-11 Statement of Corporate Intent contains plans for the largest ever capital and maintenance investment program in the corporation’s history. $1.215bn of capital investment will be made between 2010-11 and 2014-15, to ensure reliability of service and to meet growing demand. In relation to repairs and maintenance, $311m is projected to be spent over the SCI period. As highlighted in Budget 2010-11 papers tabled this week, the Territory government has undertaken a $112m debt to equity swap with the Power and Water Corporation. This is reflected in the general government sector balance sheet. Debt to equity swaps, and vice versa, have occurred on a number of occasions with government business divisions – GBDs. Most notably is when GBDs are formed to ensure an appropriate capital structure, consistent with similar corporations, is maintained.
In the case of the Power and Water Corporation, $56m of debt to equity swap was provided when it became a government owned corporation in 2002, to establish a debt equity structure similar to other utility authorities. This latest debt for equity is again to maintain an appropriate capital structure for Power and Water Corporation as the corporation delivers the largest-ever capital program to position the Territory for growth. This investment is important to improve reliability of supply and respond to growing demand on the power network, and forms a key part of this government’s strategy to grow the Territory.
The financial sustainability of Power and Water Corporation is maintained. Power tariffs remained at previously announced levels, which are at mid-range levels compared to other jurisdictions. As the 2010-11 SCI will be considered by the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee, I will not go into any more detail now.
In accordance with section 39(7)(a) of the Government Owned Corporations Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I table Power and Water Corporation’s 2010-11 Statement of Corporate Intent.
MOTION
Power and Water Corporation – Statement of Corporate Intent 2010-11 – Referral to Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Power and Water Corporation – Statement of Corporate Intent 2010-11 – Referral to Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be referred to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for examination and report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion, I thank the Treasurer for bringing this matter on. It was my understanding these documents were not going to hit the table until later today; I acknowledge her courage. However, it brings to mind some answers which were given in February this year - and I wish I could lay my hands on them now – by the minister in relation to, specifically, the current financial position of the Power and Water Corporation. At that time I was accused, by the minister, of scaremongering for suggesting the taxpayer may carry some exposure to the current circumstances of the Power and Water Corporation.
Unfortunately, due to a conversation being held by the Leader of Government Business, I was not able to hear everything. However, it is my understanding the bailout package now for the Power and Water Corporation is $112m. This is the debt to equity swap which was referred to only four times in Budget Paper No 2 and, indeed, only four times in all budget papers. For a $112m impost, that is a very light number of comments.
It concerns me the Treasurer has worked so hard and assiduously to deny there were any problems. The Treasurer has worked very hard to point out there was a profit operating this year. She made much of the fact there was a dividend holiday given to the Power and Water Corporation; that the taxpayer has pushed capital grants into the corporation, and now we are taking over $112m, if I heard correctly, of the Power and Water Corporation’s debt.
It ill behoves this Treasurer, and this government, to continue to demonstrate such a slippery approach to the people of the Northern Territory in the way they provide information. If, two or three months ago, I was scaremongering because I was concerned the taxpayer was going to pick up the bill, what is there to be scared of? Now my fears have crystallised into a reality, and it is a $112m reality.
I remind honourable members of the balance sheet of the Power and Water Corporation as at 30 June 2009, a year ago, and I note the borrowings of that organisation had reached $559m. To put that in the context, the nett debt of the Territory government right now - it will change in the next couple of years because of these borrowings - is only $900m. When you compare that to a single organ carrying a borrowings weight of $559m, having to then pay for several generators which have been brought forward in the budget process, it was obvious this organisation would continue to struggle to service its debt.
I raised the question in February and said: ‘Goodness, gracious me, Treasurer, how is it all going to play out? Will it mean we will be paying more for our power and water tariffs?’ The Treasurer did not rule that out until last week when I raised it in relation to the …
Ms Lawrie: Not true. I have consistently ruled that out.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … debate we were having on the Auditor-General’s report from February 2010. I again raised the issue, and finally she said it would not cost Territorians any more in tariffs. The fact is, what we are creating at the moment is a system of dual tariffs, because Territorians will now be paying for the Power and Water Corporation through a dual tariff system. The first tariff will be when you pay your power bills, which have gone up by 25% in the last two years, and moreover, there will be an increase in tariffs through taxation.
Ms Lawrie: No, we are not taxing.
Mr ELFERINK: I will pick up on the interjection. The $112m …
Ms Lawrie. Budget 2010-11 tax cuts.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … they have borrowed to bail out this organisation …
Ms Lawrie: Budget 2010-11 tax cuts.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Where is that $112m going to come from, your personal income? The Treasurer can only spend tax money on this. Territorians will pay this through taxation, and they claim to be great governors of the Northern Territory when in fact they continually mislead Territorians about the …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us talk about the way this Treasurer conducts herself in relation to informing Territorians …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member opposite is going to accuse me of misleading, then do so by way of substantive motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Do you want me to?
Ms Lawrie: Absolutely, bring it on.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as you well know under standing orders you can only do that under substantive motion, otherwise I ask you to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory says all sorts of things whenever she …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I have said that you either need to …
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw it for the sake of getting on with this debate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Let us look at the way this Treasurer informs Territorians. Yesterday in this House, the Treasurer said: ‘Western Australia did not have any debt back in 2008-09 when it was a Labor state’. That is what she said. I will quote from the 2008-09 Budget Speech by the West Australia Labor Treasurer, Eric Ripper. ‘The government’s nett debt, the equivalent of its mortgage bill, will increase to $11.4bn over the next four years’. She said they were not carrying any debt in 2008-09; Eric Ripper said they were. He should know - he is the Treasurer of the Western Australia parliament. She will say anything. In February she told Territorians there was no problem with the capacity for Power and Water to cover its own expenses yet, a few months later, she is racking up $112m of taxpayers’ funded debt to pay for the circumstances of the Power and Water Corporation.
She said recently in this House in the year to March, $913m – and she has corrected it to $919m now – $913m had been paid out in relation to infrastructure expenditure. Surely we would have been a little surprised to discover the whole of the infrastructure spend for the financial year 2009-10 was only $748m. How could the year to March add up to $913m? To clarify the situation afterwards, she said: ‘I am talking about the year March to March’.
If you say to any accounting firm, Treasury, any economist’s office: year to March this much was spent, the automatic presumption will be the financial year to March. With slippery words and totally - I cannot say the word I want but it is a three letter word starting with ‘L’ – however, I can tell you she is absolutely dishonest in the way she approaches Territorians.
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not.
Mr ELFERINK: She has the audacity to say we are talking from March …
Ms Lawrie: I am looking forward to estimates.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: … to March. What Treasurer answers questions in March to March years - only when it suits her to say whatever she wants; and she is so misleading in the way she answers questions. It is like trying to grab an eel in a bucket of Vaseline. It really is. Nailing her down on any of these issues is difficult because she changes the goal posts. Treasury systems around this country …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I want to point out the 2008-09 actual for WA was negative nett debt of $2.6bn; they had received more revenue than expected.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: I also point out, and lay on the table, the 2009-10 budget overview, which is the year afterward - the nett debt from the budget overview paperwork from WA …
Ms Lawrie: You are stumbling.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am stumbling because I am making this up as I am standing here. Do you know why?
Ms Lawrie: Making it up as you go along. That is what you do.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Because I am sitting here with these papers in front of me. Without any notice you drop …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please pause. I ask you to address your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: … this paperwork on the table, expect us to speak with any …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Misleading the Chamber. Our Whip notified the opposition Whip of the bringing forward of the tabling statement for the Power and Water SCI. There was notice to the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask she withdraw that. She has accused me of misleading this House. She either does it by substantive motion, or not.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to withdraw, but he got it wrong, again.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. You used the same language yourself, member for Port Darwin, and it was wrong of me to allow it through. You may resume.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. Yes, I am standing here because we do not get any notification of this. They just drop it on …
Mr Bohlin interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr ELFERINK: … the table and then move that it gets farmed off to the committee in two weeks time to look at, hoping no one will pick it up. Yes, occasionally I stumble while I am speaking because I do not have a prepared speech. What I have on my side is the truth - something you are utterly unfamiliar with.
Sometimes I feel intimidated by this House, and by the forces of Treasury that support the Treasurer. However, the thing which really intimidates me more than anything else is the truth. Whilst this Treasurer’s lips are moving I will never be so intimidated that I cannot rise to speak in this House.
I draw members’ attention to her Stateline interview of April 2007 where she said, in relation to land release - and this is the way she conducts herself to Territorians …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance: we are talking about the Power and Water Statement of Corporate Intent. Has he anything to say about the Power and Water Statement of Corporate Intent, or is this a personal attack on me he normally launches when he is way out of his depth?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, resume your seat. There is no point of order. Member for Port Darwin, while there is some latitude, I ask you to endeavour to stick to the subject of the debate, please. You have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The way she presents herself to Territorians is at the heart of this debate, and to make that case I have to demonstrate it. She says this is a personal attack.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I have just tabled the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. I have not given a statement of my view, as Treasurer, of the Territory economy, etcetera. It is the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. It is not for petty, pathetic, political football. Stick to the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. Please resume your seat.
Member for Port Darwin, I remind you again this is a statement directly in relation to the Power and Water Corporation. Could you please direct your comments to that subject? Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as I have already identified, I am asserting the minister, by doing what she is doing in the way she is doing it, demonstrates a predisposition towards the public of the Northern Territory, which is indicative of an attitude which I consider to be unhealthy. That is a serious suggestion to make, which must be supported with evidence. I am providing evidence to that end, which relates to how this Statement of Corporate Intent has found its way into this House.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to that response to my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker …
Mr ELFERINK: Hang on! Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Port Darwin, and resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: I have the call. You have given me the call.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have a point of order from the Treasurer.
Mr ELFERINK: She has not said it is a point of order. Is this a point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order - absolutely a point of order!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please resume your seat. Your point of order?
Ms LAWRIE: I have consistently called the point of order on relevance. We are talking about the Power and Water’s Statement of Corporate Intent. The government-owned corporation will be referred to the Estimates Committee, where it will undergo full and thorough scrutiny by the member for Port Darwin, and other members of this Chamber, quite appropriately so.
Trawling through what he thinks of me as a person, and his views on me, and calling me unhealthy, have nothing whatsoever to do with the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer, resume your seat. Member for Port Darwin, please resume your seat as I have asked. I am going to seek advice from the Clerk. We seem to be in a roundabout here.
The advice I have received, member for Port Darwin, is you are to restrict your comments directly to the Treasurer’s response to the Power and Water Corporation statement. Any other remarks you wish to make would be more appropriate in another debate, possibly the adjournment debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling. We will return to the comments made in February 2010, which related to questions about the Power and Water Corporation.
The Power and Water Corporation is an organisation which has been allowed by this government to run down, both financially and physically. Whilst they want to pass the blame to other people, they have continued to allow the organisation to run down to a point where it has to come back to government and ask for a $112m bailout. Then, immediately after Question Time, which is earlier than I expected, they drop this Statement of Corporate Intent on the last sitting day of the two week period, as just another document hitting the table and hope no one would notice.
They flagged this in the budget papers in its most shallow way. It was expressed only four times in Budget Paper No 2 - no other budget paper. There was no explanation on the equity for debt swap. There was no explanation of what was being swapped; no mention in the second reading speech for the Appropriation Bill by the Treasurer of the $112m debt acquired by the Northern Territory taxpayer. Only after Question Time on the final day of sittings, to refer it to a committee at some date several weeks away the Statement of Corporate Intent.
The Treasurer will sign the Territory taxpayer and general government sector up to a $112m debt and not mention it in her budget speech. She wonders why I question her motives and the way she conducts herself as Treasurer.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, as we have already ruled and discussed, I ask you to keep your comments to the statement of intent …
Mr ELFERINK: I am taking about the statement of intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your own observations as to the Treasurer’s ability …
Mr ELFERINK: I am talking directly in relation to the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe, whilst you are, you are digressing, and we have already called on that.
Mr ELFERINK: No, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am on the verge of dissenting from your ruling. I am talking directly about the Statement of Corporate Intent and the way it has been delivered to this House. I cannot allow myself to be muzzled by the Chair of this House. I can tell you, if you insist on that ruling, I will dissent from your ruling. The Statement of Corporate Intent has surrounding it an approach by government which has been far from transparent, open and honest. The Statement of Corporate Intent …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. If it were true you would have put it on the table yesterday. You would have put it on the table before Question Time, where reasonable scrutiny would be allowed.
Ms Lawrie: It is always tabled on the last day of sittings, and you know that.
Mr ELFERINK: This document …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I have referred the Statement of Corporate Intent to the Estimates Committee for full scrutiny. It is always tabled on the last day. Our government Whip notified the opposition Whip of the tabling.
A member: During Question Time.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, please, Treasurer. Member for Port Darwin, I am going to seek advice, once again, from the Clerk.
Member for Port Darwin, I remind you, once again, to keep your comments to the Statement of Corporate Intent and the comments delivered by the Treasurer in her statement, thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: I will abide by your ruling, but with this one observation: never in this House has the Chair inflicted itself so completely into a member’s speech in an effort to muzzle him ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true. The Chair has sought advice from the Clerk every step of the way, and you have seen that. Do not be a grub.
Mr ELFERINK: The Chair makes the decisions, not the Clerk.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I have taken advice from the Clerk. This document has been tabled. You are able to speak to it. You are able to speak to the Treasurer’s comments. This is also a document that is going to the Estimates Committee which, as I understand, is why it was tabled at this particular time. You have the call, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: If the Treasurer did not want to hear these comments - which she clearly does not - why would she have a motion before this House after Question Time on the last day of sittings?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it that is a rhetorical question, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you could resume your comments, please.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On page 16 of this document, the debt to equity swap is not limited to a $112m bail-out of the Power and Water Corporation - not at all. In the following year, you can add $41.7m to that particular bail-out. In the year after that, you can add another $63.8m to the debt to equity swap arrangement. Off the top of my head, you are getting very close to about $215m bail-out of this organisation. Small wonder she did not want to talk about it. Small wonder she did not mention that.
Ms Lawrie: Happy to talk about the facts, not your strange wanderings.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Treasurer, cease interjecting please.
Mr ELFERINK: Small wonder she did not mention it in her budget speech. Small wonder it barely rates a mention in any of the budget papers.
Ms Lawrie: Four times.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, four times. I will pick up on that interjection. If you read those budget papers, Madam Deputy Speaker - and someone has stolen my Budget Paper No 2 - it talks about debt to equity swap, but those debt to equity swaps are not described in any way. They are merely referred to as debt to equity swaps. I will find a reference to demonstrate how low the quality of information is in these documents in relation to the debt to equity swaps.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those mentions are only that. There is a debt to equity swap - that is it. That is all it says in Budget Paper No 2. However, the obvious question is, and I asked it last night, how much? How much will it cost, because that is the one which underlies the actions of government, and we never get a reply in relation to that. All we got was: ‘Oh, it is in there; we have mentioned it’. She says it is mentioned four times. It is mentioned four times - no detail, no detail whatsoever.
Budget papers, documents, 600-odd pages long, I would guess, looking at the pile they make. And four mentions - four mentions in the lot, and no description. No description or explanation as to what it means and how much it is going to cost. We only get to see that in this particular document now.
This Treasurer has not covered herself in glory regarding the information she has given about the Power and Water Corporation. Not two months ago, in February, she was saying: ‘There is no problem, the organisation is profitable …’
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Again, he is wandering off on a tangent of personal attacks when it is about a Statement of Corporate Intent. It is a scrutiny referral in going to the Estimates Committee and poring through the numbers, and he is doing this out of pure ignorance. The February debate he is referring to is before the new generation strategy was adopted by the board, and the debt to equity swaps go directly to the new generation strategy. He knows that. He has been told that. He is making it up as he goes along.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Treasurer. You can resume your seat …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the basis of those …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: … there is no real point of order. Member for Port Darwin, if you can just please keep your comments …
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the basis of what I have heard from the Treasurer, she had no idea. This is the minister who owns the Power and Water Corporation, and in February her answer was the honest and truthful answer that it was a profitable organisation turning off a $51.6m profit; there were no problems and everything was sweetness and light. In February she had no idea coming down the pipeline was a $200m problem …
Ms Lawrie: I will send this political rant to Andy Macrides.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: There was a $200m problem coming down the pipeline and she was utterly ignorant of it. She did not know. I find that incomprehensible and unbelievable, and that is the point …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, cease interjecting!
Mr ELFERINK: … I am trying to make today, it is unbelievable. You just cannot believe it! You cannot believe the owner of the corporation would not know it was in trouble to the tune of $200m. That is what has happened today, and she is asking us, and Territorians, to believe in February she was saying everything was sweetness and light and it was a profitable organisation, and she had no idea.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Again, I go to relevance. He is verballing. I never use the phrase ‘sweetness and light’. As people know, I am not a sweetness and light person. I will readily admit that. We are talking about a Statement of Corporate Intent.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat. I respond to the Treasurer’s point of order by saying two things. Treasurer, you have the opportunity, if you wish, to approach the Chair regarding a personal explanation and, as the mover of the motion, you have right of reply and therefore the opportunity in closing debate to make further remarks.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can well understand why she is trying to shut me down. I can well …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?
Mr ELFERINK: No, no, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am responding to the constant interjections. How many points of order have we had so far in this debate - 15, 20? What other debate gets 15 or 20 points of order called? Only debates she does not want to hear.
I will get back to what I was saying. She said in February this year, as the Treasurer of the Northern Territory owns the corporation, she had no idea this was coming down the pipeline. If she is not being dishonest, she is not competent to hold the position, because no owner could take a corporation to that point and not know it was occurring - and that is the nub of this issue. The fact is, she did, and that is evidenced by the way this report has come before the House.
This government has not been forthright with Territorians regarding what has been happening with the Power and Water Corporation. I have asked question after question in this House, raised the issue time and time again, and repeatedly received reassurances all was good. It turns out all was not good, and we now know it is worth $200m, and the taxpayer cops the bill.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, my comments will be brief regarding this document and the motion, and have nothing to do with the financial aspects of the document. All I want to comment on - I have found this before with the Power and Water Corporation, I get disappointed that there is scant regard to their environmental performance as an organisation, and the risk assessment done regarding their environmental management and performance. I am also disappointed I never see reference to their safety management systems, or their safety performance, or anything regarding incidents which have occurred.
Mr Knight: It is in there. It is the lowest in the country almost. Read the document.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Ms PURICK: This may not be the appropriate document, however I believe as a major organisation with a large number of hazards in their operations, whether it be power, water or sewerage - and we know alarming incidents have occurred within the operations, most notably the Mt Bundy …
Mr Knight interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Business and Employment, cease interjecting.
Ms PURICK: … explosion in which two workers were seriously burnt and, only by the good grace of Our Lord, were not killed. I heard presentations from Power and Water regarding that incident and the subsequent impact upon the two workers. It was very concerning the safety manager, superintendent, about six years or seven years ago, said when he first joined the organisation he believed they were starting from zero and was very surprised - and this is a long-standing person who had come from the safety industry - he was shocked and surprised they had not killed or injured more people in the past. Sadly, they have lost people with sewerage operations.
I would encourage the organisation to be more forthright with information regarding the organisation’s environmental performance, what are their management systems, their quality systems, and how are they striving for best practice across the different components of their organisation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, my comments too will be based on a quick view of the document. I would like to make a few quick comments, and one is in relation to page 7 where it says:
- Scope and nature of activities. Power and Water provides power, water and sewerage services to customers throughout the Northern Territory. These services are either regulated or open to competition as follows …
- Water and sewerage services are provided under monopoly licences.
On a regular basis, I receive complaints about the cost of private people putting in services, and it is an area which needs some investigation. Power and Water seem to be the be-all and end-all when you need permission to put electricity services into a subdivision or, in the case of a plumber who came to me recently, they have the power to say yes or no, for instance, to an extension of a water pipe.
I have raised this with the minister; it is of concern. Power and Water is putting an extension to a water main in Howard Springs at the moment; it is quite a substantial contract. A local plumber who owns several industrial sheds simply asked the contractor: ‘What size copper pipe are you putting over to the sheds?’ They said 25 ml copper, which is standard size. He asked Power and Water: ‘Can I upgrade that because the industrial sheds might need higher pressure as a requirement for fire safety?’ He asked if he could put 50 ml copper in. Bearing in mind the contractor is there already and would have dug the trench, put the sand in, put the 25 ml pipe in, covered it up, and it would have all been to specification. My understanding is Power and Water said no, they would need an engineering plan. This beggars belief as there are specifications for laying water pipes and you would think a qualified plumber could lay that according to the specifications rather than drawing up expensive engineering plans for 20 m of pipe. He was willing to pay for the extra tapping saddle, the extra pipe, the extra gate valve or globe valve, whatever it was to put on the other end, and probably the extra metre. He was told it would cost $15 000. This is 20 m; it is probably from here to where you sit, Madam Deputy Speaker in 50 ml copper in a trench the contractor was already going to dig, and he was told $15 000.
I worry that Power and Water uses its monopoly influence to set any price. They see people and developers as the goose that lays the golden egg. I have known people who might only be subdividing three or four blocks of land and are required to put very expensive transformers on the power line. I am not saying those transformers are not needed, but what can happen is the developer has to pay for the whole transformer which is beneficial to a number of people in the area. Recently people were asked if they wanted a public water connection along their road. They were quoted $19 500, and very few people took up that offer because the size of the pipe Power and Water require is to take it further than just the subdivision.
There has to be more balance. People pay for the infrastructure, however they do not have to pay for the infrastructure required to take a water main down the road. That is where Power and Water put in their contribution, and people needing the water put in their percentage of the contribution - that would be much fairer. It needs to be reviewed. There is always a danger when you have a monopoly situation, especially, if they have the power to say yes or no, that people can get squeezed unfairly.
It is interesting to note that Power and Water, I understand, has a monopoly over water. I am not going to give names and addresses, but I know a person who wishes to supply water to a number of rural blocks through the use of a common bore and a water tank. He has had difficulty getting approval for this because under the Utilities Commission, I understand that Power and Water is the only one allowed to sell water. I am looking at that and have questioned the government about it. It concerns me that if someone wished to sell water, or set up a system where the residents became part of a strata title system where they could manage the water in that subdivision themselves, they are not allowed to do so. My understanding is the developer has been told no, yet he has no chance of being connected to the town water supply. There is a precedent to this; the Southport subdivision near Berry Springs, where government has put in a low tank and a bore, and people are able to collect water themselves.
Water can be distributed to people who are not connected to the system. It is another area that needs to be looked at. If Power and Water is not willing to run a water main to this property surely that person, if he is willing to put in the infrastructure, should be allowed to so that that subdivision can go ahead. The reason for the subdivision being developed with a major bore and tank is environmental. I believe NRETAS is saying if every block of land had a bore on it there would be too much demand for water. This person has put forward this plan as a way around that, and to reduce demand on the environment.
There are other issues Power and Water will have to look at in the future. I am interested to hear more debate on the future dam. That may have to come up for debate quicker than we think. I am interested to know whether the Power and Water bores - when all the scientific analysis has been done over bores in the rural area, especially the Howard River East bore field - does have an effect on the Howard River itself. I have heard a rumour that is the case. Power and Water may have to move some of their bores or reduce their production, I am not sure. The water allocation plan is being developed for that area. The Power and Water bores are limited - that is, there are no more bores to be drilled - or they are told to reduce their production - they do have a licence up to a certain amount. I know Power and Water has already instigated plans to lift the level of Darwin River Dam to increase the water volume by 20%. There is an item in the budget for Manton Dam - about $74m. The reality is they are mid-term solutions to what, eventually, will have to be a longer-term solution; that is, the building of a second dam for Darwin, especially with the possibility of 40 000 to 65 000 people living in Weddell, and Cox Peninsula being developed under the Larrakia Land Corporation.
There needs to be more discussion on this. I would like to hear the latest Power and Water forecast on the need to upgrade infrastructure. In relation to them using water from the rural area, it has always been a bone of contention for many people that the reason Howard Springs does not run like it used to, or bores run out of water in September/October, is because Power and Water uses much of the water.
We need to ensure the science is there. The reality is I do not believe Power and Water can keep taking water out of the Howard East aquifer. They, like the rest of us, will be limited, because the environmental constraints will mean we cannot take any more water out of the Howard River and Howard Springs. Some of the lagoons connected to the aquifer are important areas of recreation and enjoyment in the rural area. None of us want those significant environmental reserves or facilities, in the case of Howard Springs, affected by the overuse of water.
The water allocation plan is a key to the amount of water Power and Water can pump out of the rural area to mix with the water from Darwin River Dam.
I was not expecting to talk on this area, but the rural area is known for its extractive minerals. Most of Darwin is built on sand from Howard Springs; 10% of the water we drink has come from the Howard Springs area. These matters are important from a rural area perspective. Darwin River comes from the rural area; Manton Dam was built in the rural area; and the proposed new dam, if built, will possibly be at Adelaide River. It is an area of concern for rural people.
We know Darwin needs water, however, how will it be planned, what is the scientific basis of what is happening, what proposals are Power and Water putting forward in relation to the conservation of water? I am concerned when I see the planting of shrubs and trees at Coolalinga, which was originally designed as a native garden, under a fully irrigated system with mainly exotic plants. Some kind person decided they were better in his or her garden and recently took most of them away.
Government needs to set some policies. It plants trees along roads, it does landscape designs for public areas, and I include local government in this discussion. If you want to reduce the amount of water used, keep it where we need it. You need it for football ovals, you need it for lawns - we are not knocking lawns altogether. We can put in native plants that do not need much water. I can give you a classic example. I planted some shrubs and trees on the corner of Howard Springs and Whitewood Road. They have had one Wet Season of rain and no irrigation after that. The only thing that destroyed them was the wayward slasher of a contractor working for the department of Transport who wiped them out. We planted them again; they will not have irrigation. I can guarantee, even though it is hot, dry and gravely, those plants will not require water. We need to promote that more, not just for habitat and parochial reasons that native plants in the Territory are good - it saves water. That is what we need to promote.
I thank the minister for tabling the Statement of Corporate Intent. I would have loved more time to read it, but with the budget, the CTC, and several other things, one cannot get to read everything. I certainly will read it, and it may be the source of some questions for parliament, as long as we get them answered.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, there seems to be some misunderstanding in this Chamber today regarding my tabling of the Statement of Corporate Intent and, indeed, the tabling statement. What I did today has occurred ever since the government established the Estimates Committee – that is, refer our government-owned corporation, the Power and Water Corporation, to the Estimates Committee.
As shareholding minister of Power and Water, on behalf of the taxpayer, I ensure their financials, the Statement of Corporate Intent, is brought to the Chamber prior to the estimates sittings in June, and put on the public record so all members of parliament and the public have the opportunity to read the Statement of Corporate Intent, scrutinise the Statement of Corporate Intent, seek any advice they wish to on the Statement of Corporate Intent, and then it comes before the Estimates Committee for detailed and further scrutiny.
I believe, under the changes to the Estimates Committee, the Power and Water Corporation will be scrutinised for five hours, which is an increase. It is not before the Chamber today to be scrutinised on the spot, discussed on the spot. In fact, we are following normal procedure to put it on the public record, have it sit on the public record for a month, and have it come before the parliament’s Estimates Committee for full, appropriate and thorough scrutiny, direct questioning to the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation, Judith King, a very fine woman and great Chair of the Power and Water Corporation Board, and the CEO of Power and Water Corporation, Andy Macrides.
This is not a document I, as Treasurer, have cobbled together and put before the parliament, want to rush debate, done and dusted this afternoon; that is it, bury it, all over, red rover. It could not be further from the truth; that is the fantasy of the member for Port Darwin.
This document is generated from Power and Water, no pun intended, which is signed off through all the appropriate checks and balance processes within Power and Water. It then comes to me, as shareholding minister, and the minister responsible for bringing it before this House. I seek advice from my Treasury officials before signing it off and bringing it before this House.
This is not something, as the member for Port Darwin would have us believe, I have put together under some veil of secrecy regarding Power and Water. It is not that at all. This is about open and accountable scrutiny of the government-owned corporation - the Power and Water Corporation.
As to the timing of the tabling statement, it is normal for it to be done on the last day of sittings, prior to the Estimates Committee sittings in June. That is the convention.
The other conspiracy theory cobbled together today by members opposite regarding the timing of tabling the statement, I will happily put to rest on the public record. Prior to the start of Question Time my office advised that a Stateline interview with ABC television had been organised for me, as Treasurer, to discuss the budget I handed down this week, for 4 o’clock this afternoon. I thought this may be an issue because often mid-afternoon in parliament is the papers/statement section where I would be required, as the shareholding minister, to table the Statement of Corporate Intent for Power and Water, with the tabling statement.
Not wanting to miss the important task I have as Treasurer, and indeed members of parliament and parliamentary staff would understand the concerns which would arise for everyone, I sought advice about bringing this matter forward to ensure it sat on the public record, quite appropriately, without the chance of me missing that opportunity because I was in the midst of an ABC Stateline interview. I was advised the appropriate thing to do was, when there was no question before the Chair post-Question Time, table it then. I was then not delaying to some other time the tabling statement for Power and Water’s Statement of Corporate Intent.
In fact, it was the earliest opportunity to put this on the public record so I could not be accused of holding this until late in the evening, because following the Stateline interview, I have a commitment, as the Treasurer, to give another budget presentation; one of the many presentations I have been giving all week to external stakeholders.
That is why I asked the Government Whip to communicate with the Opposition Whip as soon as we received advice, at the start of Question Time, that I could bring this on when there was no question before the Chair. We could then have a few more hours of scrutiny today; bearing in mind we have a month of scrutiny, bearing in mind we have a five hour scrutiny process before the Estimates Committee of the Power and Water Corporation itself. There was no conspiracy. That is why this matter was brought forward in today’s orders - because I have a Stateline television interview commitment as Treasurer.
Going to some of the issues raised - and the reason I will respond to them is I am growing increasingly concerned corporations are being used as a political football; and they should not be. Power and Water Corporation is a government-owned utility. We are too small a jurisdiction for competition to be real yet. We have done the regulatory amendments a government would need to do to open up the jurisdiction to competition. That became live and active as of 1 April 2010. That being said, our government inherited the Power and Water Corporation. We have made it a government owned corporation and given them as much independence from government as we could, bearing in mind the taxpayer ultimately owns it.
My role is to ensure I work very closely with my Treasury officials, the board, and the senior management of Power and Water Corporation to understand their financial position, and to keep a very close eye on that financial position. Quite appropriately, if they undertake significant capital expenditure, or significant repairs and maintenance expenditure, which, of course, arose out of Merv Davies report, quite appropriately, I then participate in a series of discussions as to whether it is an appropriate path for the corporation to take and what their financial situation is going to be, and how that, then, would be managed. That is simply what has occurred. That is why I have approved a debt to equity swap to ensure the financial sustainability of Power and Water. I have made no bones publicly about the fact it was to support the capital expansion required under the New Generation Program adopted by the board, and approved by our government, for extra turbines at Channel Island for improved reliability, growth and demand in the system. I am aware it has been past practice between the government and GBDs that debt to equity swaps occur. There is nothing unusual about it.
Going to this issue of whether we tried to hide it - we did not try to hide it. It was referred to four times in the budget papers and, on budget day, when asked the question, I ensured the government gave a response to the media about the Power and Water Corporation debt to equity swap. I also told the media, when questioned yesterday, of the actual amounts and advised them very clearly those amounts would be in the Statement of Corporate Intent which would be tabled in parliament. There is no attempt whatsoever by government to hide this. We have been quite up-front. It is simply the imaginings of the member for Port Darwin - he thinks I am trying to hide information regarding Power and Water Corporation. It could not be further from the truth. I have been completely up-front about it.
Going to an issue the member for Port Darwin raised about the budget paper, I want to point out on page 19 of Budget Paper 2 it says quote: ‘A series of debt for equity swaps over the budget and forward estimates period reassessed annually. The swaps will assist with funding the increased infrastructure investment as part of the Power and Water Corporation New Generation Strategy to improve system capacity and reliability while maintaining fiscal sustainability’. Budget Paper 2 is the whole of government paper. The swap is not an appropriation and, therefore, no need to be in any other budget papers. Again, up-front, explained it was about the New Generation Strategy, knowing full well we were happy to provide details when asked. We know it will be scrutinised come estimates time, and the subject of debate in parliament at any time which, of course, it has been today.
I will go to matters raised by the member for Goyder. She said she was disappointed in the Statement of Corporate Intent in environmental matters and Power and Water Corporation. I will refer the member for Goyder to page 10, where the Statement of Corporate Intent details its environmentally sustainable policies, and also pages 20 and 21 where it goes through environmentally sustainable KPI measures. The issue she raised concerning occupational health and safety issues and a safe workplace, I point out, going to the 2009-10 target and looking at lost time injuries the number is 6; lost time injury frequency rates – 3.4, and staff satisfaction index is 81%. I am not the operations minister for Power and Water, the member for Daly would know far more about this than me, however the feedback I am getting from the ETU, the union which represents the bulk of the workers at Power and Water Corporation, is there has been a significant improvement in the attention to OHS in Power and Water Corporation. I know there has been a significant increased diligence in Power and Water Corporation in its environmental requirements, being a good corporate citizen in its environmental standards, and setting in place the relevant and appropriate KPIs a utility such as Power and Water Corporation should have.
I take exception to the comments of the member for Goyder. I do not agree with her at all, and I recommend she seek - if she is particularly interested in this area of occupational health and safety and environmental measures - a briefing with Power and Water Corporation in regard to it. I know, from talking to board members of the Power and Water Corporation and the CEO, Andrew Macrides, they have paid significant attention to this in policy development and actions at Power and Water Corporation for quite a few years now.
I am very disappointed with the baseless accusations bandied around in the Chamber today on the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent. Due process is occurring today; that process is convention. It is a case of tabling it so it can be fully, totally, and appropriately scrutinised at the estimate sittings in June. I note, under standing orders, the time for scrutiny of Power and Water Corporation has increased and is now going to be a five-hour period of scrutiny.
Regarding the issues raised by the member for Nelson, he has the opportunity to raise those directly with the Power and Water Corporation at that estimates session. I am aware he has had that dialogue with the Power and Water Corporation on many occasions in the past during the estimates session. When I say dialogue, I think of what the Leader of the Government Business has often said about estimates: sometimes the best value members of parliament get from estimates is the opportunity to have dialogue with the people who have responsibility for sections of government service delivery.
I want to put on record, given the nature of the accusations from the member for Port Darwin today in this debate, my sincere appreciation and thanks to Judith King, the Chair of the Power and Water Corporation Board. She is a woman of enormous integrity and professionalism; indeed, all board members of the Power and Water Corporation Board are above the accusations flung around this Chamber today by the member for Port Darwin. They are upstanding Territorians and Australians. They serve our Territory significantly through their role on the Power and Water Corporation Board. I sincerely thank them and I value and trust their judgment. I am delighted they give their time generously as members of the Power and Water Corporation Board.
I also put on the record my thanks and acknowledgement of the diligence by which Andrew Macrides applies himself to his role as the CEO of the Power and Water Corporation. I recognise it has gone through significant improvements in the last few years. We had the Andrew Reeves report into the financial and commercial sustainability of the Power and Water Corporation which, indeed, the Statement of Corporate Intent is very relevant to. Also, Merv Davies undertook his report into the more operational aspects of the Power and Water Corporation. Those two significant bodies of work have served the Power and Water Corporation well in improving their systems management and financial arrangements.
I know they have had regulatory changes imposed on them by this government in positioning the Territory to open itself up to a competitive marketplace. Rather than being dragged there, they have been quite embracing of change which, ultimately, will lead them into the path of competition. Competition is healthy, and we have always maintained that as a government. I look forward to the day when continued economic growth of the Territory means we will see a competitor in this marketplace. That being said, it would take a significant major user to come on board for competition, the likes of large mines, etcetera.
No corporation can rest on its laurels. The significant challenges ahead for Power and Water Corporation include renewable energy. Challenges will come its way in schemes adopted by the federal government to respond to climate change; it is a utility in the energy provider sector. The work we have been doing with the major energy users group has also been beneficial, and understanding the elements of the power and water business, and being able to separate and greater scrutinise each element of the Power and Water Corporation business from generation to transition distribution to retail has been a great body of ongoing work.
No utility like Power and Water can rest on its laurels, and anyone in the utility businesses has been through fairly dramatic change in our nation in the last 10 years, and change continues. The government did what no other government had the strength to do - we undertook the Reeves review, asking the genuine questions around the financial and commercial sustainability of Power and Water. Reeves recommended tariff increases. Tariff increases had not occurred whether it was the CLP government or a Labor government; they simply had not occurred for about two decades. That, I believe, was a mistake. It took the Henderson Labor government to take the tough but right decision for the financial sustainability of Power and Water to increase tariffs, and we announced those tariff increases last year. Those tariff increases fall across three financial years, and we are part way through that. Prices change as of 1 July this year for power, water and sewerage.
I have said consistently there will be no further tariff increases beyond that. I am committed to that; I am good for my word on that. To say it is a tax by another way by doing a debt to equity swap is arrant nonsense. I believe it is not appropriate to use a government-owned corporation as a political football. By all means have a stoush with the Treasurer over budget, because I have handed it down on Tuesday, however to use the Power and Water Corporation, a corporation which cannot stand here and answer for itself, as a political football in this Chamber today, was appalling, quite frankly.
There are good people on the board, good people working for the organisation, and there are good people in Treasury scrutinising them. There are very good people on the Utilities Commission - which I have expanded to a three-person commission - who are in place to scrutinise Power and Water Corporation. To say today my character as an individual affects the outcome of the Statement of Corporate Intent is about as low as I have seen debate reach in this Chamber. I would hope, at some stage, we see a level of maturity in debate in this Chamber which would well serve Territorians. I look forward to the scrutiny of Power and Water Corporation. I look forward to the scrutiny of the Statement of Corporate Intent which, at five hours, is longer than in the past.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was going to ask if the Treasurer wanted an extension of time.
Ms LAWRIE: I have finished.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
APPROPRIATION (2010-2011) BILL
(Serial 99)
(Serial 99)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, continuing from my contribution this morning, I was talking about Central Australia and this government’s absolute commitment in Budget 2010-11 to both Central Australia and Alice Springs. A decision already warmly welcomed by local businesses is the fast-tracking of $10m to bring forward headworks at the AZRI site for the new suburb of Kilgariff. This is a significant investment now and into the future. I recently mentioned it on 8HA, and it was great to receive support from an Alice Springs local, Steve Brown, who agreed entirely $10m coming forward, fast-tracking development at AZRI, is certainly welcome news. I thank Steve for his support. AZRI has the potential for around 1200 lots over many years. This will help meet the demand for future residential and urban development in Alice Springs. The $10m in headworks will connect essential power, water and sewerage services to make blocks at Kilgariff available to the public sooner.
Budget 2010-11 also delivers for Central Australian families with spending to boost housing and home ownership. In Alice Springs, the Homestart NT price cap has been lifted from $300 000 to $385 000; an increase of $85 000. Together with the increases in stamp duty exemption for first homebuyers, and increases in the Principal Place of Residence Rebate, home ownership will be accessible to more Central Australians.
Our commitment to the Youth Action Plan continues in Budget 2010-11 with $3.47m for Stage 2 of the plan, supporting children and families and making the community safer by reducing antisocial behaviour. The plan includes $1.5m to run two supported group homes for 12 young people; $1.1m to upgrade the youth hub and provide an alternative education program for young people with extreme behaviour; $625 000 to provide an after-hours response to youth on the streets; $250 000 to boost resources in schools to tackle disengaged students.
Many of these initiatives were announced by the Chief Minister, the Police Commissioner and me in Alice Springs recently. Budget 2010-11 also contains record funding to build better schools and recruit more teachers, including an extra 170 teachers for remote schools. $6.42m will deliver upgrades to the Centralian Middle School, as well as establish the youth hub at the ANZAC Hill campus. Acacia Hill School, just around the corner from where I live, will receive $2.8m to upgrade infrastructure, while Hermannsburg School will receive a $1.25m upgrade. $33.4m is being provided for non-government schools across Central Australia, and we are on track to meet our promise to upgrade the Territory’s 74 government primary schools and group schools, including those in the Centre.
This government’s commitment to the Alice Springs Transformation Plan continues in Budget 2010-11. This very important partnership with the federal government is delivering improvements in housing and living conditions, and giving families a safe place to bring up their kids. Budget 2010-11 also includes $2.7m to upgrade a new supported and short-term accommodation facility in Alice Springs. These facilities include the new Alice Springs Accommodation Park which will provide short-term options for up to 150 visitors to town; a 28-unit village at Percy Court to provide transitional accommodation; refurbishment of the Lodge to provide housing for visiting renal dialysis patients, and eight more managed accommodation beds added to the existing Salvation Army facility.
Budget 2010-11 also provides $5.6m to construct a new 18-unit senior village at Larapinta to provide more housing options for senior Territorians and Territory Housing tenants. It will also help free up larger dwellings for younger families on the waiting list.
Our continued investment in Central Australia includes $32m to upgrade key roads to support Central Australia’s growing resource industry, as well as improve access for people living and visiting remote communities. Key roads will continue to be upgraded and sealed, including $2m to seal around 7 km on the Sandover Highway. I am pleased to see that commitment ongoing; it is something as local member I pushed for. It might not sound much to members, but in relation to the Sandover lease and the decentralised model of Utopia with homelands and service centres, it is really important there is a good reliable road between the shire council office, the store, the airstrip and the homeland clinic along that stretch of the Sandover. That will ensure people have a reliable road to get to those important services from their homelands.
A further $2m will be invested to continue the progressive sealing of the Tanami Highway; it is getting closer to Yuendumu. I look forward to the day it is sealed all the way to Yuendumu. The Tanami Highway is a key transport route for the mining and cattle industries, and an important link to a number of communities including Yuendumu, Yuelamu and Laramba. In addition, design works to complete sealing of the inner loop of the Red Centre Way will commence in Budget 2010-11. We are also committing about $21.7m towards maintenance and minor upgrades on key roads including the Stuart, Plenty and Lasseter Highways, as well as the Larapinta Drive and Namatjira Drive links in Central Australia.
Budget 2010-11 invests in our future with better hospitals, better schools and more housing.
Turning to my electorate, I am pleased to place on the public record a number of initiatives and projects funded under Budget 2010-11, particularly with A Working Future and the things we have heard about this week. Besides an enormous amount of dollars going into supporting A Working Future - $980m for infrastructure - and we know to build some of these communities into real towns, we need infrastructure from the ground up. Some issues being funded through the $980m are not new issues or projects to bush areas. They include a regional transport strategy, including bus trials and airstrip upgrades, which is most welcome; major road upgrades, some of which I have already mentioned; more renal services and remote health clinic upgrades, mentioned by my colleague, the member for Casuarina, this week; children and family centres and mobile preschools, which are very important. I am pleased to say under A Working Future and Budget 2010-11 there is $8.1m for child and family centres at both Gunbalanya and in my electorate at Yuendumu.
We can talk about infrastructure building from the ground up, but with our most important asset, people, we need to build our growth towns from the people up. I believe there is no better place to start than providing centres where families provide very important support to other families to build themselves up through family centres. I am very pleased there is money in A Working Future Budget 2010-11 for a family centre to be built at Yuendumu.
With regard to schools and homeland centres upgrades and new police stations, I am pleased to see money going into a permanent police station at Yarralin, in the northern part of my electorate, as well as other communities. It is very important for Yarralin as, with most communities, there are social issues. Often we rely on the communities to work it out. If they are to be real growth towns and provide equal services to communities, law and order and police stations are a very important part of that. I am very pleased Yarralin is going to have a new police station. Also, $2.5m will be used to upgrade the Yarralin airstrip, which is very important to those people living at Yarralin.
During my four years as local member it has been an ongoing issue, particularly during the Wet. The current location of the airstrip at Yarralin makes it very hard to land a plane, and with CASA regulations we often have charter companies refusing to land during the Wet, and at night, because it is dangerous. It is an issue which has been around for a long time - since Peter Toyne’s days as the local member. I am pleased to see $2.5m in Budget 2010-11 to upgrade the airstrip. I would like to work with the minister, and have been to Yarralin recently and talked to some of the elders who have identified a site for the new airstrip. I encourage your department, minister, to work with the elders to put the airstrip in the right spot so we do not have similar problems.
In my electorate I am very pleased to see, within A Working Future, $980m - very important to build from the ground up our infrastructure - our human asset in family centres. In what A Working Future means in my electorate, for the Central Australian region alone we are talking about a significant number of dollars - $65.7m. That is an enormous amount of well needed money. There is $32m for land servicing and essential service infrastructure into those growth towns. In my electorate it includes Yuendumu and Lajamanu and, in the Centre, Ali Curung, Elliott and Hermannsburg.
With essential services such as power and water, an ongoing, long-running issue for my constituents at Yuelamu has been their long-term water supply. They have, for many years, relied on surface water from a dam for their supply of potable water. As we know, Central Australia is often in drought, which has meant people at Yuelamu have had to use bottled water for many years. While there have been health benefits with lower numbers of gastrointestinal issues, $1.9m to secure longer-term potable water sources for Yuelamu is important. I thank my colleagues on this side of the House for acknowledging people at Yuelamu, for a long time, had a significant issue with water supply, and believe $1.9m is money well worth investing.
As already mentioned, in Stuart there is $2m to upgrade the Tanami Highway. Also, education and ICT are important. It is great to see continued support for the School of the Air with $3.56m. Many of my constituents, particularly in the pastoral properties and some of the smaller remote communities which are not growth towns, rely heavily on School of the Air to provide good quality education. I recently visited School of the Air in Alice Springs with Senator Conroy, the federal minister for Information and Communications. The roll-out of fibre and the improved wireless and satellite technology is going to do amazing things for School of the Air in the quality of education and packages they can roll-out. It is good to see more money for them. It has been some time since I visited School of the Air in Katherine and there is $3.76m to support the ongoing and great work Katherine School of the Air does for many constituents in the northern part of my electorate.
Regarding roads, $1.2m is to replace the Jasper Creek bridge on the Buchanan Highway. I have been there during the Wet - probably a silly idea, however it gave me a good idea of the road conditions.
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that additional time be given for the minister to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, member for Brennan, I will not be much longer.
Regarding the Jasper Creek bridge, it is a really rough part of the Territory, particularly in the Wet. I have driven through there in the Wet, and it is very difficult area. The people at Yarralin and VRD Station rely on that road to get to Timber Creek, through to the roadhouse and down to Katherine. There is $1.2m to replace the bridge at Jasper Creek.
That covers my electorate, Central Australia, Alice Springs, and my portfolios. I place on the public record my thanks to the Under Treasurer and her staff, who do a fantastic job every year in preparing the papers we take for granted. I thank them for their briefings in Cabinet, and my questions relating to those portfolio areas in Central Australia and Alice Springs. I thank them for their great work, and I congratulate the Treasurer on a fantastic budget.
It is probably the most difficult budget we have had to deal with coming from the global financial crisis. The feedback, from the business community in particular – I was at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon recently talking to people about opportunities. We discussed the CDL today; we launched our scheme, and we have told people it is coming. People at the luncheon were very positive about the economy built around green and CDL. I believe it is very positive. I am looking forward to the next 12 months and rolling out these great initiatives. I am glad they have been financially supported in this budget. I thank everyone again.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, first, it would be fair to say budgets must be a hard time for government. On both sides of the Chamber, we want more for our electorates and more for the Northern Territory than we can effectively budget for.
I thank all those hard-working public servants who must have put in many hours pulling all this information together - doing the budgeting behind the scenes to put what we have here in a final document. Well done to all those public servants who work very hard.
In preparation for my Budget 2010-11 reply, I took the time to read over my last year’s reply - my first budget reply. One of the many comments I read from last year gave me reason to reflect on the process, and provided valuable insight into how a Labor administration operates.
______________________
Distinguished Visitor
Mr John Howard AC
Mr John Howard AC
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, if I could interrupt you for one moment, please. Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the former Prime Minister, Mr John Howard AC. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, as an example of my point, and how a Labor administration operates, I would like to read my closing comments from last year’s reply:
- Even a cursory look at this budget clearly demonstrates it has been written to deceive, to pull the wool over Territorians’ eyes and present a budget well above what we all know will really be delivered in 2009-10. Next year we will face another revoted, record spend to continue the deception. It is deception if members of the public believe $1.3bn of new money is going to be spent this year on infrastructure.
How relevant these words are today a year on, with yet another revoted Commonwealth supported record spend. However, this time we are talking about $1.8bn in regard to infrastructure. Well, we will see. Will that $1.8m be spent? I do not think so.
Before I concentrate of this year’s budget, I believe it is important to reflect on what I said last year regarding a few promises made for Palmerston in particular, and in one case where I promised to eat a lemon if one promise was delivered in Palmerston. As a man of my word, it is important to revisit promises and ensure you do what you say you are going to. In this case, and to help recall my promise, I will read from my speech last year:
- For Palmerston, it was great to see $10m to construct the Bellamack Seniors Village; something much needed in Palmerston. I will eat a lemon if I see that completed within this budget cycle. In fact, I would probably eat a lemon if we see 170 blocks turned off in Bellamack by the year’s end.
It would appear I do not need to consume that lemon because, as predicted, there is no seniors village in Bellamack. I was at Bellamack on the weekend and I can assure you I did not see a seniors village, nor did I see 170 blocks turned off.
Let us look at the water park, first announced as a 2008 election promise, well before land and council agreement had been reached, which was plain and simple arrogance. In the lead-up to last year’s budget, the water park was re-announced with $5m allocated this time. I will refer to what I said last year:
- While I believe most welcome the news, this is another release of an old announcement. Again bring on the lemons; I will guarantee this water park is not delivered within this budget cycle and next year you will be boasting about delivering a water park to Palmerston; the same as you boast about delivering the boat ramp …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: Again, I will not need to eat a lemon. Let us talk about the boat ramp - talked about, consulted, and announced more times than those squeezy Sumo truck advertisements.
The government’s own report suggested $5m was required to upgrade the Elizabeth River boat ramp, yet only $4m was in last year’s budget. What did we get? Nyet, nada, nothing - another example of a revoted program. This year the budget only allocates $3.613m for an upgrade costed at $5m just a few years ago. Call me cynical but history tells me anything the government puts off costs the taxpayer more. Tiger Brennan was originally costed at around $26m, delayed because of Labor bureaucracy, or should I say procrastination. The taxpayer will end up paying $110m for a job which should have cost $26m. Why? Because of delays. Delays add costs, and costs in this case rose from $26m to $110m - quite a jump – because of internal wrangling and a failure to make a decision. The sad thing is the poor taxpayer pays for this incompetence - a cost of $84m because of Labor incompetence.
I move on. The water park is a fantastic initiative which I am sure will be loved by Palmerston residents, but a water park comes at a huge cost - do not get me started on the ongoing cost - but cost, nonetheless, should be examined closely because we need to remind Territorians this government promised to deliver a water park in Palmerston for $5m. How can you trust an administration which continually gets it so wrong? What worries me is we are talking about public money; taxpayer’s money, and the poor taxpayer is left to pay for a lacklustre government which has an horrendous history of failing to deliver on time and within budget; relying time and time again on the poor taxpayer who each year is left to pull this useless government out of the money pit.
The average person expects more; they expect accountability, value for money and efficiency, and a frugal approach when using public money. We see a government with a history of failing to deliver within budget and on time; a government which appears to have an attitude of: ‘it is only money’, and ‘to heck with the outcomes just throw more in’; failing to deliver within the time frames promised and, when they do deliver, sometimes years late, it comes at a huge cost to the public. It is not good enough. After a horrid history of budget blowouts, cost overruns and record deficits, we are supposed to believe a project with an original costing of $5m two or three years ago, can now be delivered for $3.6m. I believe it will not, it cannot, and if it is, it will not resemble what was originally promised.
With that it is perhaps, timely to make another promise. I promise to eat a lemon if the Palmerston boat ramp is completed by the end of this year, within budget, and is of the same design as promised at the last election. I would prefer to eat that lemon rather than repeat this story. Why? If I have to eat that lemon next year, it will mean the good people of Palmerston have a new boat ramp, and that will deserve a celebration – a good, old lemon squash to celebrate not only the new Palmerston boat ramp, but to acknowledge this Labor government delivered on a promise - although late, delivered, nonetheless. I am dreaming, I believe, but hope I am not. I would love to see it but I can say this with my hand on my heart: it will not be delivered on time as originally promised, or within budget.
The water park is another great example of how this government can get it so wrong when costing works, costing services and costing or forecasting budgets. A park, nonetheless, if constructed, will be welcome by the residents of Palmerston. The members for Drysdale, Blain and I have been vocal in this House, demanding government deliver on their promise of a water park for Palmerston. The fact it has been budgeted for again this year gives me comfort that a strong opposition can keep a government to its commitments, in check, and drive projects.
Let us turn to this year’s revoted presentation by the Treasurer yesterday. We see record budget, record spend etcetera, etcetera. How can we believe it? How can we believe the Treasurer when we see major examples of revoted works and Commonwealth money being included within a budget to add a little polish? They gloss it up and deflect the sad reality of the poor budget with no real vision, and no real zest to launch the Northern Territory into a strong foundation to manage any future challenge which comes our way.
I expected to see a much tougher budget this year, particularly after the Treasurer had already said as much. I expected a budget which was tight in all areas; a budget which demonstrated sound commercial sense. Sadly, we did not see this. What we have seen is a budget with real potential to drive prices higher in an overcooked market, where the average person will pay for the Treasurer’s and the government’s mistakes.
Looking through the budget papers one area which surprised me, particularly after the last few weeks of countless examples of environmental piracy, was the stripping of the NRETAS budget by nearly $10m. I was even more surprised to see a number of departments had their budgets cut; however, the Department of the Chief Minister had a windfall of about $10m. It appears to me this government, and the Chief Minister, thinks our environment is not as important as the Department of the Chief Minister - the Department of Happiness. Only last week the minister for our environment promoted, through the media, the government would increase the EPA’s budget by $0.5m. Five hundred thousand dollars to help protect our environment! This statement was backed up in the budget papers, including the highlights, where it mentions $0.5m. On closer scrutiny you see the EPA has only been given an increase of $434 000. You, Madam Speaker, and this government might not think $66 000 is much money. I raise this because it openly advertises this government continues to mislead Territorians when it comes to budgets, and they do not feel ashamed or embarrassed by the way they spin the truth.
Four hundred and thirty-four thousand dollars is not $500 000. If this is an example of how this Labor Cabinet budgets, it is no wonder the Territory government is in debt - up the financial creek - and will continue to go further into debt. They will go further up the creek with no plan to right the ship and sail out of the creek. They spend money as if it is growing on mango trees with no regard for taxpayers, with no accountability or respect when it comes to managing budgets and the Territory.
Imagine telling the bank you had a deposit of $0.5m for a property loan and you go to sign the paperwork with $434 000. What do you think the bank would say? They would say: ‘Where the hell is the $500 000?’ No deal. Show me the money’. You cannot tell me Treasury is that blas; the minister for the Environment does not understand the difference between $500 000 and $434 000. If you do not, I have a few bridges I would like to sell you. It is not true, it is not accurate, and it is dishonest to announce you are increasing the EPA’s budget by $0.5m when it is clear you are not. It is disgraceful, deceitful and Territorians deserve better. They expect it and, in the case of the environment, they demand government provide an appropriate level of service which provides real protection for our environment.
The reality is the budget for NRETAS has dropped from $174 640 000 to $165 742 000. Nearly $10m and, if we were really serious about protecting our environment, this is one department that would not have seen a reduction in their budget. If we were serious about crocodile management, this is one department that would not have its budget reduced, and if we are serious about parks and wildlife, this is one department that should not have its budget reduced.
If the Chief Minister is concerned about the environment, crocodile management, climate change, and not focused on his political spin machine, let us see him reduce his department’s budget to ensure NRETAS can do its job. His department has seen an increase of about $10m this year - not a bad windfall. Nothing like leading by example, Chief Minister. I can imagine that speech: ‘Team, we need to find savings across the board. This will be our toughest budget yet. By the way, I will be increasing my spin bucket by about $10m. So, come on, chins up, find me that money’.
As an example of this government’s priorities, having seen one budget line which provides a deeper insight into this government’s commitments, this government’s real persona; that is, the amount of money committed for a crocodile public awareness program of $300 000 for the entire year. Let us look at page 215, Budget Paper No 3 - $300 000 for a one-off Brumbies game. Most people love sport, although I have to admit, while I did play Rugby, I much preferred Rugby League. However, the reality is this government sees an …
A member: What position did you play?
Mr CHANDLER: I played fullback at one stage – hard to believe.
The reality is this government sees an annual crocodile public awareness program only as important as a one-off Rugby game. When I saw this I was horrified. It clearly demonstrates the government, in love with whistles and bells, smoke and mirrors, biscuits and jam, is not interested or focused on basic services.
It was interesting listening to the Treasurer making comments today - interjecting and using the word ‘adjustment’. Is this the new Labor word for decrease - adjustment? Is it true we have a record budget full of increased spending and ‘adjustments’ - not decreased, not reduced spending, just adjustments. I will have to remember that one.
Let us look at how NRETAS will manage now the Chief Minister has decreased, ripped, pillaged – sorry, I mean adjusted - their budget this year. Parks and Reserves is adjusted down by $996 000; Biological Parks is adjusted down by $26 000; Natural Resources is adjusted down by $3.246m; Environment and Sustainability is adjusted down by $952 000; Heritage is adjusted down by $799 000 from a rather small budget to start with. This one is interesting: NRETAS employee expenses down from $64.51m to $60.714m. This government talks about jobs. I expect a drop when over $3m has been removed from the budget. How many jobs does more than $3m cover? Where are they going? Remember, this is a department promising to protect our environment, employing additional environmental police; to protect us from crocodiles in the crocodile exclusions zone. With what? Fewer staff? Are existing staff required to do even more? It seems a little dodgy to me.
I could go on, however you can see the Labor government disregards our parks and wildlife, desecrates our heritage values, pollutes our natural resources and, of course, shrugs off our environment - approximately $10m. All the while, the Department of the Chief Minister sees an increase. That would be an upward adjustment of around $10m. The Chief Minister thinks he is more important than our environment, our parks, our wildlife, and our heritage.
I am fully aware of the reality in the short time I have been a member of the Northern Territory parliament and, therefore, the relatively shortness of my knowledge and experience of the budget processes. I am also blatantly aware of the criteria for how budgets are presented. However, that does not mean I cannot disagree with how they are presented, and how the information is disseminated. I would love to see a budget containing spreadsheets and graphs where comparisons can be made for, say, the last five or 10 years on any budget line, where detail or programs are presented in a way they can be drilled down to help fully understand how a program operates and why a program operates.
Frankly, if government has nothing to hide, why can we not have a detailed budget paper? I am more than positive each department already has this detail. Rather than wasting money on highlights and overviews, which are really nothing more than a hard cover junk mail advertising - the budget papers are interesting in what they do not show as much as what they do show.
I am certainly no financial genius, however I understand the risk of CPI going beyond 3 percentage points I was speaking to a businessman recently who said as long as we are not going backwards, that is, into recession, even a CPI under one percentage point is acceptable to him.. I also suggest, while it is important that government supports and steps in during hard times to prevent a recession, it is irresponsible to over-invest when CPI increases have been indicated above three percentage points, particularly in a market such as housing, which is a critical point at this time, and far out of reach of the average income earner. However, we have a government fuelling the rocket and hoping on rising interest rates to moderate the market.
You do not have to be Einstein to understand the out of control spending by this government, and the federal government, is starting to overcook the market, driving up interest rates. Can anyone else not see this? Are we all blind to this idiotic situation where taxpayers’ money is being used to fuel a fire getting out of control with borrowed money which, of course, taxpayers have to repay. At the same time, it is the taxpayer-funded rollercoaster spending government contributing to a hot market causing interest rate rises. So, guess what? The taxpayer, the mortgage owner, or the renter pays again. For the Treasurer to say the market is moderating, she is waiting or hoping on interest rate rises to moderate the market, is plainly irresponsible and signs of an out of control administration.
We have seen a number of severe environmental challenges in recent weeks involving mining, transport and loading processes. While I appreciate how important mining is to the Northern Territory and Australia, mining practices, in particular, loading and transporting ores, need to improve. It is paramount government has in place detailed strategies to ensure these practices are not only complied with, that enforcement measures are taken for non-compliance. Given mining and transporting ore is not a new thing, I suggest the average person expected government was already doing this. However, it has become evident over the past few weeks it has not. It has been caught with its pants down in regard to protecting our environment. With the recent announcement to increase the number of environmental police - increase the EPA’s budget - I do not see anything else in this budget going anywhere near what is required to ensure we manage the processes effectively, and to ensure our environment is preserved from wanton destruction.
If this government was serious they should have spent the $35m budgeted for years ago for a new conveyor loading facility at East Arm. If they had, we would not have such a serious issue regarding copper concentrate in our harbour. That fact alone borders on criminal. To have budgeted for new facilities but sat on their hands, sat on their bums, while tons of dangerous substances pour wantonly into our once pristine harbour is atrocious.
I also question why this government, in a tag team approach, wants to tax out of existence one of the strongest economic stimulants in this country. From my point of view, any company required to pay more tax might reduce or pull out of an operation. It may continue but cut corners which may negatively impact on the environment in an effort to maintain profitability. I am talking about the mining industry, and the additional taxes this, and the federal government, want to attach. Why does this Territory Labor government, in tandem with their federal counterparts, want to put our mining industry at such a disadvantage through a big fat tax as to sabotage future investment, sabotage job opportunities and, in doing so, sabotage their own income through less tax being paid because of less investment and, federally, less tax being paid by people who would be working in the industry. This industry, by the way, pays well and provides a great deal of income tax generating work. Talk about killing off the goose that laid the golden egg.
The Canadian government has come out and welcomed the news. Why? Is it not obvious? They have all to gain and nothing to lose, particularly with new investment, new jobs and a new income stream for the Canadian government. They can, and will, take full advantage of this ill-thought out plan, ill-thought out tax, on an industry which provides some of the best paying jobs in Australia, with some in the highest tax margins available – all put at risk. As I mentioned, businesses may continue but they may cut corners, and it may be to the detriment of our environment.
In wrapping up, it is obvious this out of control administration has come to terms with the fact they cannot manage their budget. They are borrowing to meet recurring debt, and are now looking at new ways to tax industry, to tax the average person, all because of failed policy upon failed policy. One policy, as we all know, has created a housing crisis of a magnitude never seen before, all the while throwing fuel on a fire in an attempt to look good with little regard to the outcomes and hoping and praying that rising interest rates moderate or cool the fire they are stoking.
In regard to this uninspiring, risky and irresponsible budget I am disappointed, and feel deeply sorry for the many struggling families in the Northern Territory. While we acknowledge the many jobs that will be ensured by this budget, government needs to focus on service levels and the outcomes delivered to the community rather than the amount of money being spent.
I also am deeply concerned this Northern Territory Labor government has such a disregard for our environment that they have stripped the very department charged with protecting our environment of nearly $10m, all the while ensuring the department of spin benefits directly by about the same amount. How can you take this Labor government seriously on protecting our environment and on climate change initiatives? You just cannot. I hope people who care about our environment, care about our future, look hard at this government, look hard at what they have delivered, what they have promised and then ask: have I been fed a lie? Have I been fed a promise over the years that Labor supports our environment, is serious about climate change? I ask you to consider a new alternative, as you have most certainly been let down.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, my response to the budget will be dealing more with the micro rather than the macro, which is just as important when debating the budget.
The first area, and one of the most important for many people in the Northern Territory, is housing and land. It is an area where no matter how much the government says it is speeding up land release, have increased land release fivefold - that is a good thing, however it is after the horse has bolted. We are trying to fix a problem from few years ago, probably before the present minister was in parliament, when a section of the Department of Lands and Housing dealing with land release was removed. Unfortunately, someone put forward projections that the growth of Darwin was not going to be as high as thought; those projections were wrong. We have a major problem trying to develop enough land to catch up with the shortfall created some years ago.
Bearing that in mind, it is good to see they are pushing ahead fast. I am interested in what is happening with Zuccoli. The minister has said it is going to be a government development through the Land Corporation, and it will be good to see the price of land turned off there. I saw how much a block of land was in Tennant Creek - I believe we should all pop down there – it is about $16 500. The minister explained it is an old subdivision with the headworks already in place. You do not have quite the degree of headworks required in Tennant Creek as you do for a greenfield site.
One of the key factors in bringing affordable housing into play is to bring the price of land, and the turn-off for that land, to a cheaper price. I worry about how much profit is taken on the sale of virgin land. Land should be the cheap part so people have enough money to …
A member: The government said it makes nothing on land.
Mr WOOD: … and this will be interesting to see because Land Corporation will be bringing a developer into Zuccoli. One of the questions from this side of the House would be the cost of developing a block of land. That is important. That will give us an idea what the market does when land is sold - what mark-up has been put on private land.
It is good to see $10m has been put forward for the AZRI development in Alice Springs. I believe that area should be pushed hard. Alice Springs has the same issues as the Top End - shortage of land. In the budget papers, you see the price of a medium house in Alice Springs has started to skyrocket. Has the minister for airports, Anthony Albanese, given approval to the government for the airport corporation to open up land adjacent to the AZRI land? That will release more land, and the more land you can produce, the more competition, the lower the price.
I mentioned, in Question Time, the $1.95m to progress planning for Weddell. It is an area which has to be done properly. I say to the government: do not forget that about one third of Weddell is private land; whatever you do in planning this land ensure you include that. A number of people own 20 acre blocks on Middle Arm, and their address is Weddell. I have had people say: ‘That is not part of Weddell’. I felt like saying: ‘Go to the council office and see where the rate notice goes’. It goes to Weddell. There are probably 50 blocks of land which are part of Weddell. Any discussion about the future of Weddell has to include those local landowners.
The government is trying to catch up with this shortfall in housing. I have told the government several times there is land in the rural area zoned for housing. It does not have native title on it. There is no indication of that coming forward in the budget. There are two blocks of land. The member for Goyder will know that the land south of Wallaby Holtze Road has been zoned Rural Residential and Rural Living for the last five years. It was rezoned. It would require an extension to Temple Terrace, which I imagine a developer would do. It would require town water, which might benefit people who live on Wallaby Holtze Road; a number of those people have looked at getting town water. There are probably 100 blocks which could be turned off because the land is already zoned, there is no native title, and they could turn that over to a developer. I do not see this parcel of land being for affordable housing. There are some environmental issues but the government, by not announcing anything in the budget, has not taken any notice.
The other area of land is Humpty Doo. Humpty Doo is a district centre, and has been designed for about 25 years. Within the Humpty Doo District Centre, there is a small portion of land for residential development. Humpty Doo is a township and has been designed for both multiple and single dwelling accommodation. I have mentioned it is sitting there waiting for development. Nothing has happened. These are pockets of land where the government could keep the momentum going. They should be pushing to open this land up. Humpty Doo has roads which go straight into the bush and stop dead at a power line. It was meant to go further; it has sat that way for probably 15 years. Norbuilt was the last company to build residential houses in Humpty Doo.
I know plans are being put together for expansion of the Humpty Doo District Centre, however the existing zones - the same as at Holtze - already allow for more housing. This is something we have to put effort into. If there are not enough people in the department of Lands, put more in and get this land ready for development. It hurts me when I know there is land available. I push the government to get this land going. They have expanded the sewerage ponds at Humpty Doo; I think they are double the size.
I want to get onto another important issue; the development of industrial land. Industrial land is very expensive. In Humpty Doo, land has been developed on Spenceley Road as part of a three-stage subdivision and it has all sold. There is land to the west zoned Industrial, and there has been no movement by the government to open that up as an extension of industrial land. Industrial land is important for the development of the Northern Territory.
Industrial land, at the moment, is too expensive. Industrial land has been set aside for the Defence hub on Thorngate Road; opposite is a subdivision where the piggery was. There are a number of 0.4 ha blocks selling for $1m. I do not know how people get into business - not at $1m. I believe they have sewerage, water and electricity. I checked on the website when they were first advertised and could not believe it. How does someone get into small business if they have to pay a loan against $1m for a quarter-acre block?
Opening up industrial land is as important as opening up residential land. Opening up industrial land in the rural area will take the temptation away from people to turn their 5 acre, or 2 ha, blocks into industrial blocks. The member for Goyder would know this happens occasionally in the rural area - you see the odd planning notice come up. Some people want seven demountables on a block which, somehow, was approved. I do not know how they did it; that is another issue. If you have good, reasonably priced industrial land, you encourage people not to use their rural blocks for businesses they should not be operating. That land has been available quite some time. No one has said: ‘Let us open that up because there is a market for it’. If all the blocks are sold people must be saying: ‘We can sell some more’.
It is good to see the government trying to help people buy their own home. I am not against that philosophy; I believe that is good. What concerns me is the government saying there will be a price cap of $475 000 - $385 000 in Alice Springs -your income will limit your loan. I did some figures for a $475 000 house; a household of four who might have an income of $105 000, which is still a large amount of money. I do not think many people have $105 000 - I am just using the maximum figures here. When we rang the bank, we came up with a figure of about $3200 a month, of which you would pay about $800 a month. This works out to be about 36% to 37% of your income, which is above what is permitted. The two things I have a problem with is you start to get into this mortgage creep where people will be stressed - which I believe is a real danger - and you are asking people to go into bigger and bigger debt. I am taking a figure of $105 000. Many people would not have anywhere near that amount of money.
Whilst it is a good idea, the solution is to get cheaper land. Another solution is to work with developers to sell smaller houses which can be added to. The argument is many people today want the biggest house with all the mod cons; that might be fine. That is all you see in the paper too. You do not see small houses - one-bedroom, garage, lounge, kitchen, with a plan that can be added on. How many display homes have you seen called the first homeowner’s house? Why could developers not take the punt and build some display homes which might be half the price of these big ones ...
Mr Bohlin: Because these blokes put caveats on them.
Mr WOOD: Absolutely! The member for Drysdale hit it on the head. Caveats on some of these subdivisions designed to make them beautiful. Everyone knows how beautiful they are because they have black roofs in Farrar, blue roofs in Farrar, and red roofs in Farrar, and that is not environmentally friendly.
Mr Chandler: I have a white roof.
Mr WOOD: Good on you. Thank you, member for Brennan; he has a white roof.
I believe the covenants have restricted the ability of Territorians to look at smaller houses; at different designs. What house won the best design two years ago? A house in Batchelor where windows were made from corrugated Perspex, not glass, and all flow through. It was a house which cost $150 000 - it would not have been built in a Delphin estate. I had a guy come to me who wanted to build a one-bedroom house, and because it did not take up the full building envelope, he was told he could not build it.
We have to get away from this politically correct building attitude we have where all the roofs are colour matched. We have to leave some flexibility so we can build cheaper houses and, when people get more money, they can add to those houses. We need building companies which are willing to take a punt and promote these as a cheaper way to build a house. That needs government to work with them by trying to produce land at a cheaper price.
It is good government has exemptions from stamp duty; I believe most people would be pleased with that. There is a danger that when the government announces there will be exemptions - some work has been done on when government gives exemptions or bonuses to people wanting to buy a house - house prices go up. I will give you an example. I was talking to a small businessman last Saturday who works with solar power work on cattle stations. He has spent 18 months in Alice Springs doing solar panels for houses. He said that when there was a rebate, solar panels were a certain price; they took the rebate off, the price of solar panels has gone down. It makes you wonder whether people put their prices up when there is a rebate, and when there is not, competition comes into play.
There are some good things in the rural area. After 20 years it is nice to see a bicycle path going into Howard Springs. It is not just about me; it is about the heritage that will preserve. In fact, 80% of this bicycle path is in the member for Brennan’s electorate, and I congratulate him for helping me, over the last 20 years, get that bicycle path. You will be able to ride a bike from Howard Springs to Palmerston, Darwin and the northern suburbs. That is Stage 1 as far as I am concerned. Stage 2 is to get it further down the highway.
We need to preserve the old railway line. It is a fantastic railway with a fantastic heritage. The railway line will not be cycling for the sake of cycling; it can be educational …
A member: Down to the Adelaide Hills.
Mr WOOD: Adelaide Hills you want to take it to? Yes, people will be able to commute to work, go shopping, keep fit, have a nice Sunday outing; vice versa for people coming from Palmerston. They will know rural people are not feral; they are very friendly people, and do not be scared when you come out there. It will allow people to come down the track. Hopefully, it will get as far as Coolalinga in the next stage and people can go to the markets and have a cup of coffee.
Ms Purick: I could ride to work.
Mr WOOD: That is right, yes. They will probably have a branch line and you will get organic coffee or something up there.
The money for Freds Pass is a moderate amount when you compare it to what is going to the water park in Palmerston. It is probably a drop in the bucket, but I do not have any complaint. I see this as money from government to recognise the hard work the many volunteers put into Freds Pass. Freds Pass is a big sporting complex. We have money for the next three years for infrastructure and maintenance work. It is important the government shows rural people their sporting facilities will be given some money for maintenance and upgrades.
I notice the government does this tricky thing of putting the $1.8m water and aquatic wildlife viewing facilities at Howard Springs but, as you know, that was in last year’s budget. You have to go through this budget carefully because sometimes the good news is last year’s good news - as the member for Brennan mentioned in relation to the water park. There is nothing in there for the pool. I have been given a verbal guarantee on the issue surrounding the pool - because that is what is missing at the moment - who runs it, how much it costs, how long it will run for. It is no good digging a hole in the ground until those things are sorted out. I know people are frustrated, however, I would rather it was worked out properly before an announcement is made. We do not want a white elephant, or a white pool, down there.
Land releases: I have mentioned the rural area. The Defence Hub has a sign up: ‘Developing the Defence Hub First Stage’. First stage will be all right; second stage will probably not too bad; third stage, they will be in the swamp and the magnetic ant hills. It will be interesting when they get to the third stage.
There is $0.5m to expand facilities at Humpty Doo for the bus exchange, which is good. This is the start of the park-ride idea the government is putting forward to get people onto buses. You do not want to just have the infrastructure; you need to be advertising and promoting it otherwise it will not happen. I noticed there was no money for Coolalinga’s bus exchange. I hope that has not fallen off the agenda. There should be one for Howard Springs near the highway so people can leave their cars and catch an express into Darwin.
The Darwin port: what concerns me is the revote for the $33.7m overland conveyor to improve bulk shipping loading operation. The question really is: how come it has not happened? What has been the delay? It is an area we have spoken about many times. The issues around the wharf will come back at the Estimates Committee; there will be many questions, especially from the member for Brennan.
There was an amount of money for an upgrade of Jenkins Road - $4.5m. My concern with that is we have not designed Weddell yet. Much as people use it, I would like to know …
Ms Purick: That is going to be for the gaol.
Mr WOOD: Yes, this is going further than that; we have not worked out where the gaol is going yet. If you are going to design a city, you want to ensure you know exactly where the roads are going before you put bitumen on. I am interested to know what is happening.
I am happy to see the boat ramp, at last, at Palmerston. The member for Blain has been calling for this for donkey’s ages; I hope it does happen this year. The water park at Palmerston: there are many people who live close to Palmerston, like the member for Goyder, she can pop across on her bike for a swim. Not only will it be good for Palmerston people, it will also be good for rural people. Even though we criticise government for various things, if that happens this financial year, good. What we can do for our youth and families to give them something to do is the way to go, rather than kids bored out of their brain. Look at Leanyer, it might be free, and it might cost a great deal of money, but many kids use it; you never see a shortage of kids in the water or on the slides or up on the bike path.
A question I will be asking in parliament regarding social housing, including public housing is: where is the $31.8m for managed accommodation facilities? I would like to know what that is about.
A Working Future: the member for Braitling raised the issue. Although I am part of the CTC, there are questions to be asked about where some of that money has gone. I look forward to the positives, saying the proof will be in the pudding if they build the number of houses in the time they said, at the price they said they would. On the other hand, we have had the first review which said there had been a bloated bureaucracy at the beginning. We have had a post-review assessment which gives a mildly supportive report, however, at the same time, says a number of things have not yet been approved. The proof of whether SIHIP is doing what it said it would, will be when the targets and budgets are released. The CTC has asked for detailed quarterly reports and, hopefully, we can get a better indication of where the money has gone.
The work camp at Barkly: I applaud the minister for that. It is a good thing and I believe we need more of them. I also believe they could be in more isolated areas, or even places like Nhulunbuy or Borroloola. It is a great concept. We need to look at the Katherine prison camp, along with one in Central Australia. I am still on record as saying I am not a fan of huge prisons. I know that is a debateable area, and the minister knows I have been involved in discussions and people have different points of view on it. However, I would rather see more people out bush than stuck in a big town prison. If we can get to that, I would be much more satisfied than seeing one big prison, minister.
I do not know how we can get there. Many experts say you have to do it this way first, however 80% of the prisoners are Indigenous and many for a short term. I believe there is room for more discussion, minister. It is an important area. It might be delayed at the moment but it is something we need to get right.
I feel the youth area has missed out. I looked at some of the figures. They might be in other budgets but it is hard to find where money is spent on youth. I looked at the $0.9m for the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan and there is $0.1m to provide family support by increasing the capacity of the Family Support Centre. If we are serious about keeping kids out of trouble, we need to see some big dollars put into youth. You might be putting the water park at Palmerston, what about more money for Palmerston YMCA? It could do with more money. It could do with a purpose built building. Some of their facilities are in the basketball stadium, but they still work upstairs where you could not put trampolines because it is a two storey building and you would hit the roof. They need to put more money in there.
It is the same with youth facilities in Alice Springs. We had complaints the manager was only on a one year contract. That has to be changed. I would like to have seen more money put into those programs in the budget to send out a signal that the government is really fair dinkum when it comes to early intervention. We might put it under youth however we are trying to say: this is getting in early; we care for our kids; we do not want them to get into trouble. Let us put some more money in there.
The constant issue I had when speaking to the people from the Gap Drop-In Centre at Palmerston is funding is just too short. Some people get funding for a year and halfway through they are filling out details of what they did that year to get the money for the next year. If governments really want to say they are doing something for youth, put these programs on a longer term - five or 10 years - so we can get these programs constant, get the good people staying in the job, and we can help kids. I am disappointed in the youth area because I cannot see a targeted amount for young people.
There is some money in the budget for schools and libraries in the Palmerston rural area. One area which needs looking at is a new library at Taminmin. It is well past its use-by date. It is a school with 1200 kids, and it is a shared facility. It is too small. It is the same size library as was there for 450 kids. We need money for the Taminmin library.
I address the issue of taxing mining. If 2% was the only extra tax they were going to get I would say it is probably not the end of the world. However, if that is going to be combined with the 40% tax from the federal government, where are we going? I am not against taxing some of the big companies. I believe when you talk mining, there are mining companies, and there are little mining companies. The Territory is well-known for having many smaller mining companies that have invested money and have been right on the borderline. You have to start making a profit so you can re-invest in mining. Mining is not just digging a hole. You have to repair machinery and explore for more ore. If you are looking at tax for the mining industry, I would not support a blanket increase. I would look at each mine on its merits. Look at the number of gold mines that collapsed in the Pine Creek area several years ago. If it is that much extra they have to pay that tips them over the line, then people lose jobs and mines close down.
The government needs to be careful how it does it. Did they know the federal government was going to introduce a 40% tax? Two percent is probably not going to do any harm. You cannot look at it in isolation. I am not an expert in the area; I would like to do more reading on it between now and estimates to gain some understanding of what is being proposed. The federal government may change it. If you have listened to the news, Mr Rudd has been told by the mining companies this is not a good catch. Maybe it is not the last we will hear about this.
Defence receives a small mention, and it is an important area, not because of the money it puts into the community - page 172 of the Northern Territory Economy book, the planned move of 7RAR, the Royal Australian Regiment, will see about 700 Army personnel from the Territory relocated to South Australia from late 2010. That is a large number of people, half of which may be married with a family - a considerable number of people to leave the Darwin area. I am interested to know how that will affect our economy. This document does not say, however they might be replaced with something else, or more troops may come in from south.
I knew some were moving; I did not realise it was that many. That is a large number of people from the Defence Force going south. I am not sure I heard anything in the budget debate about it. I am interested to know if that has been calculated as a loss when it comes to income and spending in the Northern Territory.
The other area is whether government has been harsh enough with this budget. Harshness is not seen until you find a page - I do not have the exact page - I have it in my notes – where we have an efficiency dividend. This is a sneaky way to achieve reductions in staff and expenditure. It does not show up as anything much; just says efficiency dividend - and it has gone up to 3%. That is fine; you ensure departments stay lean and do not waste money. However, there are three or four people in a department who have had the 1% or 2% dividend for the last 10 years and they are getting down to taking the wheels off the chair ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 77, the member be given an extra 10 minutes.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Barkly.
______________________
Visitor
Visitor
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I wish to acknowledge someone in the gallery. I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Chair of the EPA, Mr Andrew Tupper. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am concerned that if you cut some small departments you make them ineffective. A concern has been raised with me that these cuts could have had some environmental impact. When we are looking at people checking the wharf, was that because we have cut back, through efficiency dividends? For instance, has a particular person in the department left and the position not been filled? That fixes the 3% dividend. Have people simply retired or shifted to another department and not been replaced? It does worry me.
There is an inquiry into the oil rig which burned off the coast of Australia last year. I have a feeling some of that may have been due – and we will find out in the inquiry - to the capability of our department being stretched because there were not enough people to do the job. I put the proposal that things like this 3% dividend are the reason some departments are stretched so much; they do not have the right people, or enough people. One person could be working 24 hours, seven days a week, to do the job two people should be doing, simply because of cuts. You might have people researching Panama Disease - if you have a 3% cut what does that mean? Three percent less research, or do we not buy as much equipment to help with our research?
It is a cold method of cutting expenditure and, I believe, too cold if Treasury uses it as a means of ensuring efficiency. There might be plenty of departments needing efficiency. I have had people talk to me: where is the car? They have taken it and we only have one car. So, if there is a job to do you have to wait for the car, which means they are hanging around not doing their job.
That efficiency dividend, and its effect within the public service, is something worth investigating. Do not look at it as a blanket way of reducing expenditure, but at what it affects in every department. Is it making a department which has to look after the environment unable to do its job because it has been cut back by this 3% efficiency process? I do not know what other people think; I believe it is worth looking at.
On the global area - I spoke about this last budget - we have to be careful because the GST revenue, whilst it has not decreased in numbers, it has certainly decreased in the rate of growth and, on top of that, we lost $77m in the restructured GST. We have picked up on mining royalties, and there are several other areas which seem to be at least steady, such as taxation revenue. Taxation revenue appears to be stable according to – I am looking at figures from one year to the next. It has a slight drop, and I have been notified by a number of hotel owners with poker machines their revenue - I am not praising the poker machine industry - from poker machines has dropped substantially since smoking restrictions were introduced.
I understand that will eventually increase. People will get used to smoking outside - we are trying to reduce the number of people smoking. To be honest, I might play the pokies every now and then; however it is not a great form of gambling. It is one of the highest forms of gambling in Australia - it leaves racing for dead. It is probably the least successful form of gambling because it is habit forming. You could call it entertainment but some reduction in poker machine output is not the end of the world.
The government needs to be very careful where it is going. It said it wants growth to continue. It said private growth has dropped and has been replaced with public spending growth. I know that argument from the CLP days. The hotel across the road and this building were built when private industry growth started to decline. The government stepped in to ensure the economy continued and people kept their jobs. We all hope INPEX will come, because it will help that type of development, however, we are not sure of that yet. The government, whilst it hopes these things will help in the future, has to be very careful. We do not want to go too far into debt.
I believe we have to put more money into developing private industry. Look at primary industry in this budget. Where is the real push to increase primary industry? It is a fairly low percentage of GDP in the Northern Territory compared to mining.
A member: GSP.
Mr WOOD: GSP, that is right. I believe that …
A member: Gerry, mining is a primary industry. .
Mr WOOD: You are right. Do not get me onto why we call it the Department of Resources.
There is a classic example of government not promoting primary industry. It should not be called the Department of Resources. Resources are how many biros, books and notebooks we have; that is what I call resources. The department needs to change its name and go back to the grassroots. It needs to call itself the department of primary industry, and we need to promote and push our economy as a variable economy. It does not only depend on mining or tourism, it can depend on primary industry, Defence, many things. When you read this budget, primary industry has been left out. It has miserable amounts of money for a little experimental work on a few stations. The government needs a few cowboys on that side - someone who knows about a cow, a carrot, and a couple of pumpkins. These people understand rural industry is important.
We have to be very careful with primary industries, especially the cattle industry. There are some moves which might give an impression Indonesia might be slowing down on cattle imports. Reading Country Life, the Cattlemen’s Association suggest it is getting harder to get permits to import cattle into Indonesia because they are importing more frozen beef. We might think everything is great with the livestock industry – I believe it is. It is good the government is going to Vietnam, however, we need to keep working hard to ensure that major source of income from primary industry is not at threat. We need to keep working with the Indonesian government to ensure live cattle exports continue. That is an area the government needs to pick up on. It needs to promote primary industry; it needs to develop more land and more water. If government develops land and water and says: ‘Here is some land available for agriculture’ - they do not have to get anyone. Let the market go out there; it will say when the growth of certain crops is economical. The government needs to provide the land and the water so it can happen.
Overall, I believe the budget is good in some places, and in other places it has a deficit. As usual, we will have plenty of time to question the government in more detail at the estimates, and I look forward to that.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, Budget 2010-11 delivers now for Territory families, and invests in the Territory’s future. It builds on gains made in the past so Territory families can enjoy a better standard of living, and their children and future generations can enjoy a better standard of living. Importantly, Budget 2010-11 delivers initiatives to create and support Territory jobs.
While we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, it would be too early to withdraw or reduce our infrastructure spending in the light of the global financial crisis which has affected so many parts of the world in recent times. In fact, I can proudly say a record infrastructure package of $1.8bn is at the heart of Budget 2010-11. It is the biggest infrastructure program in the Territory’s history. This package will keep our economy ticking, while building the important infrastructure Territorians need. Having people in work is one of the keys to having a strong economy and stable society. This record investment will secure 3600 jobs. While we continue to deliver for Territory families, and take into account population growth and future economic policies we have, most importantly, engendered confidence in the future.
Some of the world’s best economists have stated government spending is the best approach when faced with economic downturn and the threat of higher unemployment. Our actions will grow the Territory now and for the future. Labor sees strong and growing employment as one of the fundamentals of community development and social justice.
I would like to take time out to comment on the member for Braitling’s reply to the Treasurer’s budget. I want to touch on some of the comments made this morning by the member for Braitling. His attacks on our consultants in private enterprise and the investment we make in local businesses have forced my comments. He clearly is unable to read budget books, and provide knowing and informed comment in this debate. He stated we waste money on construction consultants, and I reject that. He believes our local architects, engineers, building designers, surveyors, and probity auditors should not be working on projects. The worry for me is he was so wound up I fear the member for Braitling may start to believe himself; and this is of great concern to members on this side of the House. He said: ‘We are not getting value for money from our projects’. We disagree. These consultants in the private sector perform extremely important tasks across the Territory.
I want to touch on the Building the Education Revolution program to inform the member for Braitling how we invest in local businesses and consultants. The facts are, with the federal government, we are investing $188m over 134 individual projects, to improve schools across the Territory. All up, 498 local businesses have benefited from this program. One hundred percent of all consultants and contractors are local. The Master Builders’ Association of Australia issued a release on 6 April 2010 which stated: ‘The government’s well targeted BER stimulus has underpinned what would have otherwise been certain collapse in commercial building activity across Australia, leading to job losses as high as 35 000’. That is 35 000 men and women who would be unemployed today.
The member for Braitling did not support the stimulus. He voted against it, and continues to speak against it today. He also complained about our infrastructure investment program. I wonder, with all that overseas travel, does he have time to speak to local businesses about their thoughts? The fact is, from June 2009 to date, 96% of tenders have been given to local business. He also said we have no plans to build the Palmerston Water Park. I can assure the House we have a great plan and a full cash allocation in this budget of $13.57m. Palmerston City Council is fully supportive of the design, and they know Palmerston residents will love this free facility.
The member for Braitling also commented he knows truck registrations will increase, and this will have an effect on the economy of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government has not increased vehicle registrations. Territory Insurance Office has increased the motor accident compensation charge by 3.5% and, for the benefit of the member for Braitling so he does not have to do the sums, the overall increase for a triple road train will be $23.50 a year.
Let us hear the true story, and a story I am proud to tell. Construction: I have met with business which relies on government investment, and it is too early to pull back on our investment infrastructure. Our decision to invest a record $1.3bn infrastructure program in last year’s budget to protect Territory jobs has proven to be the right one. The Territory recorded the lowest unemployment in the nation for the past six months. We have a strong economy, and the message is out there - if you want a job, take yourself to the Northern Territory.
Some of the important projects completed this financial year include the Royal Darwin Hospital Trauma Centre; Bulla Health Centre; Radiation and Oncology Centre; upgrades to many schools such an Anula, Minyerri, Ross Park, Katherine Middle School and the new Centralian Middle School as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan; new industrial land and a boat ramp at East Arm; upgrades at Hidden Valley; Fogg Dam boardwalk and other fishing infrastructure; headworks in Palmerston East for land release; Casuarina Police Station; Galiwinku Police Station and accommodation for our hard-working police officers; aerodrome upgrades at Nyirripi, Papunya, Palumpa and Peppimenarti; upgrades to the Stuart and Victoria Highways, including new bridges; new seal on important roads such as the Tanami, Plenty and Buntine Highways; extended the seal on the Litchfield Loop and the Red Centre Way; added passing lanes on Tiger Brennan Drive, and continued with the Tiger Brennan extension.
Through Budget 2010-11, our record $1.8bn program will continue to deliver new classrooms, better hospitals, better roads and more housing options for Territorians. This includes $213m to build better schools, which includes upgrades to Acacia, Henbury and Nemarluk Special Schools, Centralian Middle School, Casuarina Secondary College, Sanderson Middle School and homeland learning centres as part of A Working Future. It includes a record $147.8m to upgrade Territory hospitals including better renal facilities in Katherine and Tennant Creek, staff accommodation at Gove, a better emergency department in Alice Springs, and new emergency standby power generation at the Royal Darwin Hospital; $331m investment to strengthen, widen or seal Territory roads, as well as the continuation of Stage 2 of the Tiger Brennan Drive extension which is on track for completion this year; continued headworks for Palmerston East, and new headworks for the new suburb of Kilgariff in Alice Springs; planning works for the new town of Weddell; supporting fully serviced lots in Tennant Creek; and more social, affordable and public housing in our cities and our regions, including three new seniors villages at Larapinta, Johnston and Malak.
As mentioned, this government is investing in residential land release, which is part of our Housing the Territory initiative. This includes $20m to deliver headworks at Zuccoli in Palmerston East, and $10m for the AZRI subdivision, which has now been named Kilgariff in honour of one of the Territory’s great pioneers. This $30m investment will be used to provide power, water, sewerage, and road infrastructure for these suburbs, so we can get more Territorians into their own homes sooner. Stage 1 of Zuccoli will deliver 550 dwellings on 400 lots, and is an integral part of our plan to house 15 000 more Territorians in Palmerston over the next five years, and 1200 lots at Kilgariff will be fast-tracked to meet the demand for future residential and urban development in Alice Springs.
As part of this government’s Growing the Territory initiative, we are encouraging investment and helping business and industry expand by providing land and roads, and sewerage and water infrastructure to support industrial developments. Budget 2010-11 invests $18m for five key projects which build on the Land Development Corporation’s solid track record of subdividing and servicing industrial land. The five key projects are: $3m to subdivide six new blocks as part of the Casey Street subdivision near the new East Arm boat ramp - future use is set for marine-related industries such as boat sales, hire, repair, storage and charter; $5m for the provision of sewer to the current and future developments within the East Arm marine services precinct, East Arm commercial precinct, and the existing Hudson Creek industrial estate; $2.5m to fill and service waterfront land at Muramats Road in Berrimah for the use of small ships and barges; $4.5m for the construction of a haul road for the movement of fill from the vicinity of the Hidden Valley area to the East Arm marine services precinct area - this haul road will form the basis for the future construction of an industrial arterial road servicing proposed Hidden Valley and Bleesers Creek subdivisions; $3m for Stage 2 of the Defence Support Hub to build on Stage 1 work already under way by local company, Sage Contracting Pty Ltd.
To build on the development of the beautification of Casuarina Coastal Reserve and installation of the Nightcliff foreshore exercise stations, the government has committed $4m in Budget 2010-11. This will provide a footpath between the airport and Marrara sports ground, build a walkway between the sports ground and nearby accommodation, and install a mangrove boardwalk and fishing platform with disabled access at Rapid Creek. These projects include Larrakia history markers, and are part of a broader project to link some of Darwin’s best coastline, parks, reserves and sporting facilities.
Transport is another big winner in Budget 2010-11, which delivers now for Territory families and invests in the Territory’s future. As I said last year, safe, accessible and effective delivery of transport services is a good thing in itself, however, it should also be geared to support economic and social development for the Northern Territory. Budget 2010-11 continues this journey with a $331m road package, which I already mentioned, and improved regional transport services. Included as part of our $331m roads package is: $3m to widen Vanderlin Drive from Patterson Street to Mueller Road near the Leanyer Recreation Park to improve traffic flow and road safety in Darwin’s northern suburbs; $3m to upgrade and seal a further 6 km of Litchfield Park Road in the popular Litchfield National Park, which attracts more than 260 000 visitors each year; $2.5m to seal a further 5 km stretch of the Fog Bay Road to help Territorians and tourists access some of the Top End’s best fishing spots, including angler access to both Bynoe Harbour and the Finniss River, the two latest areas in which government has brought back commercial barramundi licences to make recreational fishing even better.
Budget 2010-11 also focuses on improving access to rural and regional communities, supporting local industry, and encouraging new investment by upgrading key links. This includes $31.9m for central region roads, including $2m to seal around 7 km of the Sandover Highway, a further $2m to continue sealing the Tanami Highway, and $21.7m towards maintenance and minor upgrades of key roads.
Work on the $23m Port Keats and Daly River crossing upgrades, beginning with $10m to upgrade the Moyle River floodplain and Tom Turner Crossing; an extra $2m to continue supporting the pastoral and agricultural industries by upgrading key Top End beef roads in the Douglas Daly region; $14.4m for roads in the Barkly region, including $670 000 for the Sandover Highway, $790 000 for the Tablelands Highway; and $1m for the Kurundi-Epenarra-Hatches Creek Road; $27.7m for roads in the Katherine region, including $1.67m for the Buntine Highway, $1m for the Carpentaria Highway, $550 000 for the Roper Highway, $580 000 for the Buchanan Highway, and $4.58m for various other local roads in the Katherine region. The Northern Territory government and federal government will also spend $116m in total on national highways in the Territory, a great investment into our primary transport corridor.
The Territory government is continuing to work with the Commonwealth on many roads infrastructure projects, including projects to address safety issues, strengthening and widening of various sections of the network, construction of new overtaking opportunities between Darwin and Katherine, and sealing 46 km of the Umbakumba Road on Groote Eylandt from Angurugu to Umbakumba. I welcome the significant contribution from the Anindilyakwa Land Council towards this project; providing flood immunity for Central Arnhem Road, with $14m to improve access with work on a bridge over the Mainoru River to begin this Dry Season.
I would like to talk about regional transport services. Improving access to remote communities goes beyond building and improving roads. Budget 2010-11 commits to expanding regional transport services through a $21.3m investment to give more than 10 000 Territorians improved and expanded transport services in the bush, including $3.1m for passenger bus services to be trialled in more communities; $6.2m over the next three years to improve freight handing at costal barge landings across the Top End, including Nguiu, Gapuwiyak, Ramingining, Maningrida and Galiwinku; $7.5m to upgrade airstrips at Yarralin, Alpara and Canteen Creek; and an extra $4.5m over five years to support shires to manage airstrips across the Territory..
Each plan is vital to the future of the Territory, and each is interrelated. The strong infrastructure spend will create and support jobs, as well as boosting the local economy, both through short-term job creation and long-term use of the improved roads.
Improved regional transport services are a key element of our A Working Future policy to improve the lives of Indigenous Territorians living in regional and remote areas. In coming years, some of the issues in this portfolio I am focused on are completing the development of the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy, providing connectivity of regional centres across the Territory, and the long-term Northern Territory Transport Strategy; improving the service and safety standards of the commercial passenger vehicle industry; continuing the planning and facilitating of public transport and school bus services for the Territory; and, improving safety on public transport networks.
This budget also provides for additional funding of $1.8m for free bus travel for students and seniors; $980 000 for school bus services for Rosebery primary and middle schools; and $650 000 for improved and expanded bus services in Alice Springs, including a special needs bus with a carer to transport students with disabilities.
The primary function of the Darwin Bus Service is to provide an efficient, safe and reliable urban public bus service to meet the needs of the Darwin and Palmerston communities. In time, of course, those services will be extended to the new city of Weddell. Strategic issues facing the Darwin Bus Service in 2010-11 include continuing refinement of Darwin Bus Services’ commercial business operations as a government business division, and improving safety for drivers and passengers. As part of this year’s budget, we will be looking to meet these challenges through continued improvement of accessibility and comfort for all passengers through acquiring air-conditioned, low floor, easy access vehicles; investing in new buses with contemporary passenger transport ergonomics for passenger comfort and safety; and continued implementation of strategies to improve environmental outcomes, including purchasing buses which meet Australian design rules and European exhaust emission standards.
In the area of correctional services, the Correctional Services budget for 2010-11 will exceed $100m for the first time in the Territory’s history. Our new era in Corrections is an integral part of this government’s Safe Territory Initiative to rehabilitate prisoners and put a stop to the cycle of reoffending. As we know, there is no quick fix; getting the lives of prisoners back on track takes time and the right approach. New funding in Budget 2010-11 includes $7.6m for a new Barkly Work Camp comprising $5.1m to construct, and $2.5m for the operation of the camp. This new 50-bed prisoner work camp is due to start in early 2011, and will help end the cycle of crime by helping prisoners learn valuable work and life skills to increase their employment opportunities.
Through the Henderson government’s Safe Territory Plan, the government is getting tough on crime and convicted offenders. Research shows released prisoners with low education and employment skills are very likely to end up back in prison. The new work camp will be based in Tennant Creek and allow prisoners to participate in community work projects, learn valuable work and life skills, and give something back to the community so they do not end up breaking the law and return to prison. The camp will help to end the revolving door by providing prisoners with the skills to successfully transition back into the community with support and confidence.
Work camps can significantly reduce high recidivism rates, particularly amongst Indigenous offenders who make up 82% of the prison population. Projects and programs at the new work camp will include training during the day and education at night, with a specific aim to fill real jobs where skill shortages might exist. The new work camp will also provide opportunities for community involvement with prisoners and offenders to help integrate them into the community. Construction of the new camp will also support jobs, and boost the economy in Tennant Creek.
Budget 2010-11 also delivers additional funding of $7.5m to manage increasing prisoner numbers. This includes funding for prisoner rehabilitation and education programs. Budget 2010-11 also delivers additional funding of $2m to manage increasing juvenile detainee numbers, including provision for management of increased female detainees, and transition from a casual to permanent staffing model. Juvenile detention facilities in the Territory have experienced increasing detainee numbers in recent years. The additional funding will allow implementation of an improved staffing model and meet higher operational costs. Under this government’s Closing the Gap initiative, there is additional funding of $300 000 for remote area corrections officers to supervise community-based offenders; $245 000 for rehabilitation programs for sex offenders to break that cycle of offending; and $300 000 to expand the Indigenous Family Violence Offender Program.
In relation to ports, we will soon be launching the Darwin Port Corporation Master Plan 2030, which outlines a 20-year land use strategy aimed at growing the port. The Master Plan 2030 is a vision which will accommodate the long-term expansion of East Arm. The corporation is well positioned to demonstrate to its customers it understands future demands and is innovatively planning to meet them.
With land reclamation at East Arm under way, and plans for new infrastructure at both East Arm and city wharves, the corporation is positioned to meet its challenges 2010-11. Budget 2010-11 invests around $37m in Darwin Port Corporation. The highlights include: continued expansion of bulk materials handling infrastructure to facilitate mineral exports, including a 2.5 km overland conveyor to link bulk commodity or stock piles to East Arm Wharf; continued expansion of bulk material stock pile capabilities; the filling, paving and sealing of Pond F, and the reclamation of the Eastern Reclaimed Area, including the paving and sealing of the hardstand; improvements to the bulk loading system to enhance operational capabilities in respect to environmental sustainability and stakeholder’s needs; and major maintenance program for city wharf facilities, including the Frances Bay Mooring Basin, Fisherman’s and Stokes Hill wharves.
It is a great pleasure to outline the budget for the portfolio of Arts and Museums. This is my first budget as a minister with this portfolio from the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. Funding of $38.1m is provided in Budget 2010-11 as a great investment into arts and culture, which is for our major facilities’ development, repairs and maintenance, and minor new works. The Scientific and Cultural Collections Output Group preserves and provides access to the Northern Territory’s natural, scientific and cultural heritage. Budget 2010-11 provides $28.2m for this output group.
The Arts and Screen sector output group delivers $9.9m. The Arts and Screen sector delivers many public facilities this government operates for the education and enjoyment of Territorians and visitors alike. This includes facilities in Darwin, such as the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory at Bullocky Point; Fannie Bay Gaol; Lyons Cottage; the Northern Territory Library at Parliament House; and the Northern Territory Archives Service in Cavenagh Street and Alice Springs. In Alice Springs, such government facilities include the Museum of Central Australia; the Araluen Arts Centre; the Northern Territory Archive Service; and the Strehlow Research Centre.
I will break up the $28.3m from Budget 2010-11 into more detail. The Museums and Art Gallery facilities I have mentioned, such as the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, the Museum of Central Australia, the Strehlow Research Centre, and various historic buildings in their care will receive $11.3m in 2010-11 to account for, preserve and provide access to Territory art, culture, and natural history collections. The Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory presents permanent, temporary, and travelling exhibitions, including the National Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander Art Award, an exhibition which is now in its 27th year. Budget 2010-11 has provided $600 000 to the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory for the provision of a wet-store fire suppression system.
The Araluen Arts Centre, within the Araluen Cultural Precinct in Alice Springs, is set to receive $4.4m in Budget 2010-11. This funding will enable this public facility to continue delivering, facilitating and promoting performing arts, cinema, visual arts and tourism programs and attractions for residents and visitors to Alice Springs. The Araluen Cultural Precinct provides some of Alice Springs’ premier cultural and historical experiences, encompassing performing and visual arts, the natural history of the region, Indigenous culture and the more recent European settlement.
Part of the draft Araluen Cultural Precinct development plan is the Araluen Arts Centre solar airconditioning project, which this budget will deliver in partnership with the Commonwealth. The Museum of Central Australia is an interpretative centre for Central Australia’s unique natural history. The exhibits and displays follow the evolution of the landscape and the fascinating creatures which inhabit it. Most recently, the museum has hosted an exhibition Lifting the Veil to celebrate the 150th year since John McDouall Stuart led his expedition to Central Australia in 1860, with objects on display including personal items from Stuart, which remains open to the public.
In 2008, the Chief Minister announced an $11.5m project to preserve, commemorate, and understand our role in World War II. It is important to note construction work for the Darwin Aviation Heritage Centre upgrade will also start this Dry Season. This is as a result of the $1.5m provided by the Henderson government in Budget 2009-10. It will deliver the construction of a new entry foyer area to provide a formal entrance to the centre, a new engine bay exhibit, and a new toilet block at the rear of the main hangar. A great aviation centre it is! Design options are currently being developed for the defence of the …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
________________________
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Andrew Laming MP
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Andrew Laming MP
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I acknowledge the presence in the gallery Mr Andrew Laming MP, the federal member for Bowman, who is here with the federal Indigenous Affairs Committee. I extend to you a warm welcome – and it is probably warm for you.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________________
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, and to members.
Design options are currently being developed for the defence of Darwin Museum at East Point, and digital interpretations of our heritage sites are also an integral component of the project.
Each year, the Northern Territory government provides the Northern Territory Film Office with $500 000 in funding which has proved worthwhile, with an estimated $5.5m injection into the Territory economy as a result of the production of the award-winning films, Samson and Delilah, Balibo and Australia. Our arts industry is well established, increasingly taking on a stronger business focus. The Northern Territory has a powerful cultural heart, and nothing says who we are and what we do more clearly than our art and culture.
We know having our children involved in arts improves their education, literacy, and numeracy. We know engagement in the arts can promote a sense of health, wellbeing and belonging. Arts and culture is an important and growing contributor to our economy, particularly in remote and regional areas. There is enormous opportunity to increase this economic benefit, as well as leveraging arts and culture to make healthier societies. $3m will be available in Budget 2010-11 to support the many community-based arts organisations across the Northern Territory which provides hundreds of arts events annually, support individual artists to realise their aspirations, create and present new artistic works, and deliver workshops, exhibitions, and even festivals for the benefit of our Territory community. The government has committed an additional $200 000 to strengthening and supporting regional and community arts festivals.
The Darwin Festival will receive $500 000 from the Territory government in Budget 2010-11. This will allow the festival to continue delivering outstanding events and experiences to Territory audiences, and consolidate its growing local, national and international reputation. The funding will directly benefit the 1200 artists involved in the festival, two-thirds of whom are Territory artists, and the myriad of arts organisations which get the opportunity to showcase their work. By providing a grants program for arts projects open to individuals, groups, and not-for-profit organisations, this government provides support for grassroots activities across the Territory.
The cultural diversity of the Northern Territory is what makes it a truly distinctive place, from the different Indigenous groups who have lived here for many thousands of years, to the diverse cultures of families who came to make the Territory their home. It is important for the whole of the Territory the stories of these families be properly recorded and preserved.
In conclusion, Budget 2010-11 delivers for Territory families now and invests in the Territory’s future. It was produced against a backdrop of ongoing challenges within the private sector, despite our growing economy. Last year’s budget demonstrated the importance of government spending during economic downturn - we are not completely out of the woods yet. That is why Budget 2010-11 continues to protect Territory jobs and supports Territorians to buy their own home. In my electorate, it delivers better roads, schools, housing, hospitals, and a new 50-bed prisoner work camp, changing the lives of disadvantaged Territorians. What price do you put on that?
This budget is about protecting the positive gains we have made throughout the Territory by protecting Territory jobs while ensuring we keep developing the Territory. The Treasurer continues to do a great job under challenging circumstances, and I am proud to support the budget.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I also acknowledge my very good friend in the gallery, Mr Andrew Laming MP, the federal member for Bowman, a former colleague in the federal parliament. Andrew is very familiar with the Northern Territory, having worked here as an eye surgeon, and in some of the neighbouring countries as well. Unlike the gentleman he was just talking to, the member for Johnston, also a doctor, this guy has gone on to become a very good politician. It is great to see him back in Darwin visiting this Chamber, and it is great to welcome him.
This budget is a dud. There is no other word for it. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the budget will go down as a budget about debt. It is also a budget which lacks vision, courage; it is a gutless budget, and it has a deficit of honesty. Government debt, we are now informed, is nearing $1bn. By 2013, 2014, government debt is expected to be around $1.7bn - this is in a Territory of little over 200 000 people. Quite enormous sums of money are being frittered away by this useless, shambolic, moribund, and mendicant government. The budget deficit this year is $163m, and it is expected to hit $267m by 2010-11. It is a budget which lacks vision - there is very little in it for health, education, to reduce crime, or assist in building roads and other infrastructure. In fact, it is a whole lot of nothing, apart from a great racking up of debt.
Recently, the Chief Minister came into this House and said the opposition had been deathly silent on the Henry Tax Review. Goodness me! What criticism we get from the Chief Minister - we are deathly silent on the Henry Tax Review. We know the Chief Minister knows a thing or two about being deathly silent; that was pointed out when one of our great mining companies, McArthur River Mining was pushed to the brink. We were trying to get the Chief Minister to stand up for Territorians, for Territory business. What did the Chief Minister do? He squibbed it. He was as quiet as a lamb and said nothing when the future of hundreds of workers was in jeopardy, and all he had to do was pick up the phone to his good mate at the time in Canberra, Peter Garrett. No, the Chief Minister was deathly silent.
The member for Arafura also knows a thing or two about being deathly silent. Over the last week we have heard of the Tiwi Land Council’s outrage at the lack of government response and focus on some of their needs, and have decided to introduce fishing permits. What does the member for Arafura say? Well, who knows? Who knows where the member for Arafura stands? The member for Arafura says nothing. Does she support the Tiwi Land Council in their decision to introduce fishing permits, or does she support the Labor government? It is a tough decision for the member for Arafura, however she should be honest, up-front, and she should have the courage to tell Territorians, particularly, her constituents, where she stands on this issue.
As far as being deathly silent on the Henry Tax Review, the only person who has mentioned the review to date is the Chief Minister; apart from that there has been a deathly silence from all members of government. For those people not aware, the Henry Tax Review was a $10m review commissioned by the Prime Minister to look into the taxation system in this country - a $10m review which took months and months to complete, and the government sat on it for months and months. They released it early this month and, surprise, surprise, of the 138 recommendations made in that $10m review, no small amount of change for this incredible review, the Prime Minister and Treasurer picked up two of those recommendations contained in the Henry Tax Review.
A great fraud on Australians - a great waste of taxpayers’ money. He has picked two out of 138 recommendations contained in the review. Mind you, it is better than he did with his 2020 summit. If we remember, he had all the brightest minds in Australia gather at Parliament House, many hundreds of recommendations from that summit - that costly exercise. I do not believe he picked up a single recommendation from the greatest minds in Australia assembled in Canberra. There may have been 138 recommendations in the Henry Tax Review; the best he could do was two. I suppose, is quite good going on this Prime Minister’s part.
You wonder why the Chief Minister is so down on us not talking about the Henry Tax Review, or what has come of that review. On 2 May 2010, Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd released a joint press release headlined: ‘Stronger, Fairer, Simpler; A Tax Plan for our Future’. There were several measures: generate more superannuation savings for working Australians; lower tax for all companies, especially small businesses; investing in our future infrastructure needs, particularly for mining states, and all this comes before the big ticket item, a resource super profits tax. In that press release, Mr Swan and Mr Rudd outlined a few good points. The release went on to say:
- These changes will be consistent with our fiscal rules and will not detract from our ability to return the budget to surplus and repay debt. This means that the package is dependent on the successful implementation of the resource super profits tax.
- Mining is the largest industry in the Northern Territory, accounting for 26.5% of gross state product (GSP) in 2008 – 2009, the highest proportion of all Australian jurisdictions. Nationally, mining accounted for 6.8% of gross domestic product (GDP).
In the Northern Territory it is 26.5%. The Northern Territory was followed closely by Western Australia, whose gross state product was 25.3%. The next nearest was Queensland, at 8.3%. Extraordinarily, the Territory is incredibly dependent on mining as a proportion of gross state product. Over a quarter of our economy - 26.5% - revolves around mining. For that reason, I believe the Chief Minister and the Treasurer should have started thinking about what this resource super profits tax meant, considering in the Northern Territory we are so affected by mining.
Mr Conlan: He cannot. He has already signed up for the health plan. He has to pay for that somehow.
Mr TOLLNER: He has already signed up to the health plan. It seems this government does no checking; they do not care about anything, as the member for Greatorex says. We have a Chief Minister who is appallingly subservient to the Prime Minister of this country, and the Labor government, and does not even question what is in the health package. Before any questions were put to the federal government, before any negotiations started, our Chief Minister goes to Canberra and says: ‘Oh, I am going to sign up. I will sign up; count us in’. We know why he wanted to be counted in - he has run up the white flag on health. He recognises his government is a complete failure on health and, for that reason, could not hand over health to Kevin Rudd quickly enough.
In relation to the resource super profits tax, I was wondering what it meant. I then came across this article - and I am sure most members have seen this. It was in the Sydney Morning Herald, and was commenting on an interview the Prime Minister did on radio 6PR. They asked Mr Rudd what a super profit was. Mr Rudd said: ‘A super profit will be defined as if you have a company that is investing a certain amount of money, what you then do is deduct their expenses’. He said: ‘What you then do is deduct further the amount, which would be collected if, for example, they were investing their funds in long-term bond markets, in other words, what would constitute a reasonable rate of return on investment’. That seems gobbledegook, as it did to the radio interviewer. He asked the Prime Minister a number of times how you calculate it, what it is, to which the Prime Minister said: ‘It is calculated on the basis of a company in terms of first of all, their total level investment; second, the revenues they earn in a given year; third, you remove the expenses that they would generate in a given year; fourth, you then take into account what that company would otherwise earn if they were putting their money, for example, into an investment on the long-term bond market. And it is only if they are profitable using that formula, and earning super profits, that you would impose this tax’. This tax, by Mr Rudd and Mr Swan’s own reckoning, is to generate $9bn - massively large amounts of revenue. This gives an insight into what is going through the Prime Minister and the Treasurer’s mind.
I spent a little time, before coming into the parliament, in the superannuation industry. For 10 years almost, I was running a large industry superannuation fund. I still have a lingering interest in how investments work. The long-term bond market, or the 10-year government bonds, I believe are currently paying somewhere between 5.5% and 6.5% return. It is not a very great return because there is no risk - risk is zero. You are guaranteed that return. Put your money in a 10-year government bond and you are guaranteed to collect the exact rate they tell you at the start …
Mr Elferink: 5.7%.
Mr TOLLNER: 5.7%. I was pretty close with somewhere between 5.5% and 6%.
There is absolutely no risk at all with the 10-year government bond. You have to ask yourself, as an investor, or as a potential miner - and you have a few million dollars to throw around and you want to go out and make a quid - why would you spend millions of dollars exploring countryside and drilling holes on the sheer luck of finding something? We can reduce that luck, to some extent, by the money we put into organisations like Geoscience Australia, better mapping techniques, however there is still a high risk explorers will not find the minerals they are looking for. It is a high-cost business. You go into it, you hit pay dirt - you find you have a resource you can mine. You then have to find workers, equipment, markets, a whole range of things, and you invest in that. You dig it up and hope commodity prices stay where they were, or increase. If those commodity prices drop you could be left holding the can.
I once heard Malcolm Turnbull speak about mining. Malcolm Turnbull is someone who knows quite a deal about the investment and funds management business. Malcolm Turnbull said mining is the second riskiest business in the world only to filmmaking. There is a high degree of risk involved in mining and, from the examples given, you can see why. Much is seriously pot luck. Therefore, when a company finds a resource and manages to exploit it - gets it out of the ground - you expect your returns to be considerably higher because you have taken on considerably more risk. You take on a large risk when you invest in mining companies.
Getting back to my point, as a miner, why, if you are going to be taxed at 40% for everything you earn over the 10-year government bond rate, would you bother investing in mining? Why would you not take your money and stick it in the 10-year government bond rate? From a miner’s point of view, that would be a far safer thing to do; they would not have to worry about their drilling program or commodity markets. They can sleep easy at night; they do not have to worry about anything. We have seen what has happened on the national share market since this announcement has been made; there has been much more volatility than usual in mining stocks. It has certainly created discussion.
I heard the member for Nelson say: ‘There are big mining companies, and there are small mining companies. The small ones are the little scratches; these big ones are taking all of our profits overseas. They are the bad eggs’. That is the way Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan have couched this whole deal - we are clawing back a little money which would otherwise be going overseas. What he is doing, of course, is massively reducing the profits of these companies. All working Australians have superannuation funds which vary across the country. Madam Speaker, you would be in the old type where you have a defined benefit scheme. At the end, there is no pool of funds; it comes out of government revenue. The way this government is going, you have no guarantee it is going to be there by the time you reach retirement age. That is another issue.
The majority of Australians are in accumulation funds. They are real funds - there is a pool of money there, and that money is invested. A big portion of nearly every managed superannuation fund in this country would be invested in mining and the resources sector. The Prime Minister is saying he is going to attack people’s superannuation savings. Lo and behold, he is going to increase the super rate to 12% instead of 9%. What he takes on one hand, he gives with the other - similar to this government.
We see in the budget papers mining loyalties are $156m currently. The royalty rate is 18%. Government has announced in this budget they are going to increase it to 20% - a little more than 10%. A little more than 10% of $15.6m is a little over $15m. What are they doing in their budget? The member for Daly said in his speech: ‘Budget 2010-11 includes initiatives to develop Territory industry, including the minerals and pastoral industry. We will see $15.3m to produce mineral exploration’. That is about the 2% government is increasing on the royalty rates for mines. They take extra money off mines and give it straight back to them. You wonder what this churn of money accomplishes. It is the same as Kevin Rudd. It is a job, as the member for Port Darwin says, for someone who works in the revenue office. Again, we see bureaucracy increase and become more and more out of control.
This plan of Kevin Rudd’s is seriously brain dead. I have no idea who suggested something as crazy as this. To suggest anything under a 5.7% return is a super profit is ridiculous. We see the banks are getting murdered. Banks are jumping all over the place because, funnily enough, they earn profits in excess of 5.7%. Anyone in business earning a nett profit of more than 5.7% should be worried, because Kevin Rudd believes anything over that is a super profit. The thin edge of the wedge is the mining industry. I cannot understand why we have a government in the Northern Territory with 26.5% of its GSP coming from mining, not screaming from the rafters about what is going on with Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan and this resources super profit tax. What an absolute joke! When is the government going to stand up for Territorians? When is the government going to do something for the Territory?
This is outrageous. We have a Chief Minister who says: ‘We have not heard anything from the opposition about the Henry Tax Review’. We have heard absolutely nothing from the government. This is absolutely outrageous: 26.5% of our gross state product coming from the mining industry and we have a Treasurer, Chief Minister, and Mines minister, the whole government, who do not care the slightest about our mining companies in the Northern Territory, and we have seen it in the past.
As mentioned earlier, what they did to McArthur Mine was absolutely horrendous - talk about deathly silence. This government does not care what happens to mining in the Northern Territory. Forget all the platitudes, all the nonsense about a $15.3m contribution to exploration. They are absolutely ripping it out of the industry!
If the industry wanted to spend $15.3m on exploration, you would think the government would not take it off them; the government would let them explore, let them do what they do. That is what mining companies do - they explore, they mine, they dig things up and create wealth for their shareholders, for the members of superannuation funds who invest in those shares, for all the workers, and they create townships and infrastructure and the whole area benefits. Here we have a Treasurer who, by his own statement, is going to implement what he calls a ‘stronger, fairer, simpler tax plan for our future’ which is all funded. He says in his own press release:
- This means that the package is dependent on the successful implementation of the resource super profits tax.
That is in the Treasurer’s press release - the whole thing hangs on taxing the daylights out of our miners. What has this government said about it? Absolutely nothing!
We have a budget that means nothing; it is all about debt. There is nothing in it to improve education, health delivery, roads, reduce crime - it is all smoke and mirrors. However, there is an acknowledgement in the budget that mining is a massive contributor to the Northern Territory, and what do we get from this government when it comes to a federal government talking about ripping miners off? Deathly silence. It is absolutely appalling. At times I am embarrassed to be in this parliament with this Chief Minister and this Treasurer. It is absolutely appalling.
Current government debt is at $900m; sounds simple, sounds small if you say it quickly; $900m, close to $1bn. In a few years this will explode to $1.7bn. Sounds not too much when you hear the figures Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan throw around. But there are not 20 million people living in the Northern Territory; we have slightly more than 200 000. When you talk about 200 000 people, owing, currently, close to $1bn, in a few years owing $1.7bn - that is not even taking into account the non-financial public sector debt or the superannuation liabilities this government is still carrying - it is some serious money.
I put a post on a social networking page I have last night saying I am concerned about the Northern Territory government debt. A simple line. I had about a dozen responses with people saying: ‘Why would you be concerned?’ Most people do not understand this, do not listen to this, do not tune into this, however the reality is when it happens it is all too late. When these mines are closing down in the Northern Territory or new ventures are not getting up because companies decide it is too difficult - it is too hard to invest in Australia - that is when we start to see the effects. It is too late then.
That is why you have a government in place to look out for the dangers and look after the needs of Territorians. That is why it is absolutely disgraceful we have a Chief Minister and a Treasurer who are not standing up for Territorians, who are not doing their bit, not screaming from the top of the roof and the top of their lungs that this is not on. Twenty-six point five per cent of our gross state product comes from mining, and you are sticking your foot on their neck. ‘Get out of our lives’, is what the Chief Minister should be telling Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, ‘Get out of our lives! You are doing us absolutely no good with this ridiculous resource super tax’.
This budget is a dud; it is complete waste of time; it is all smoke and mirrors; it is a sham; it does nothing for our services; it puts us miles into debt and it should not be supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to the Treasurer’s budget speech. I have deliberately listened to the contributions of various ministers who trot out the usual approach government takes to these things. The same speech writer basically fills out the speeches for each ministers, then they chant: ‘Jobs, jobs, jobs, we are going into debt for jobs’, which is not an unreasonable argument if you were prepared to accept at face value what they were telling you. However, you cannot accept at face value what you are told by this government any more. The dishonesty, particularly from the Treasurer in relation to the way Territory finances are arranged, is now manifest and evidentially demonstrable.
The government is going to incur debt taking us up to, in the general government sector, a debt projected out to $1.7bn in the next few years. That debt, if you factor in the non-financial public sector, which I note the member for Fong Lim picked up on, is actually $3bn. The rationale is we have to borrow in these times of the global financial crisis to steer the ship of state through.
I note the projected growth rate for the next financial year is 3.6%. I note also the Consumer Price Index for Darwin, as a capital city, is projected at 3.1%. I am uncertain why the Northern Territory government would determine to set a growth rate and a CPI which would leave behind, by all common indicators, that which is a warm economy bordering on the hot. Whilst I appreciate the argument you have to borrow to protect jobs to prevent recessions, this is not what this particular spend represents.
I note the expenditure of government in the current financial year will add about $160m to the debt of the Northern Territory in a growth environment of 0.4% of 1%. That is tolerable and understandable.
However, to continue expenditure, and ramp up that expenditure to the tune of a further set of borrowings of $270m, to engender an environment where growth reaches 3.6%, CPI reaches 3.1%, is of concern because this is no longer about protecting jobs, and the Treasurer says it herself. It is more about creating jobs. I can well understand the business community would be happy with that; I understand that. However, the business community is not the one which directly and ultimately has to pay this money back. That is the concern, and leads me to my overall concerns about the way this government does its financial planning. This money will have to be paid back at some point.
This government has not positioned itself well. The government had, since 2001 - and particularly during the times of the rivers of gold of the GST - a financial strategy in place where debt reduction, and the prudent management of liabilities, was the way to go. Year in year out, not only did they have increases in the goods and services tax to the Northern Territory, there is a component on top of the predicted increases, which were the unpredicted increases. These are extra amounts of the goods and services tax that find their way to the Northern Territory. If you calculate these unexpected GST windfalls and add them up, year in and year out for the first seven or so years of the GST, we would have eliminated - or come very close to eliminating - the Northern Territory’s nett debt situation.
I heard the minister suck air through her teeth and say: you have to decide what your priorities are – whether you are going to hire, which policemen you are going to get rid of. If you were moderating the growth of the public service - police officers, nurses, etcetera - and pulling back slightly on that growth in a prudential way, sticking to your budgets and doing nothing more, the nett debt of the Northern Territory could have disappeared. Yesterday, the Treasurer raised the example of Western Australia not having any debt. It was under a Labor government and was well done; they stuck to their budgets and managed the budget properly. They had no debt at one stage. I will return to this issue shortly. However, for the purposes of what I am describing now, the nett debt position of Western Australia - I am talking total government sector, not just general government sector, total government sector - was zero. They were in a better position to deal with the global financial crisis than the Northern Territory. It is because they showed a modicum of greater prudence than this government has been able to achieve in the last few years.
It is the process of them looking at the budget, year in year out, and doing it historically, which demonstrates this inability to show fiscal discipline on the part of this government. Year in, year out, there are increases in the budget. Some of those are beyond the control of the Northern Territory government - SPPs, the national partnership payments, and those types of things. They come through the pipeline and the Northern Territory government has no choice but to really push them through the budget papers. That is what happens.
There is, however, a component which underlies that - the component of the Appropriation Bill itself in the Northern Territory, which I do not have in front of me. The component we see particularly expressed in Budget Paper No 3, and under all the line items for each of the departments right up the front, describe what the Northern Territory appropriation is.
The Northern Territory Financial Management Act enables the Northern Territory government to touch the Central Holding Authority for up to 5% of that appropriation - the appropriation which is being sought by the Treasurer in this bill - without having to come back to this House and plead for a further appropriation. There is one example I am aware of where the government did come into this House on a non-budget-related issue, but they came with another Appropriation Bill in a rather surprising twist. That is by the by. If they need more money beyond the 5%, they have to come back to this House.
Each year, we load into the budget a thing called the Treasurer’s Advance. I note this year it is worth another $40m, as it traditionally is. I believe it was $30m at one stage. That is the fund, and it is defined in the budget papers much more succinctly than it has been in the past I notice. It is defined, essentially, as the contingency fund you go to for those unexpected things. I do not expect government, for one second, to be able to predict a cyclone, a flood, or some disaster where they have to touch that fund. There are other occasions where it is occasionally necessary to make a policy decision, as it moves forward, to touch that money.
We give government the capacity to touch that $40m on an annual basis – essentially, no questions asked. However, government does not do that - or they do touch it very quickly. Then they go back to the Central Holding Authority and continue touching it, touching it, touching it – year in, year out. Year in, year out they do not spend the $40m; they end up spending about $170m, depending on the financial year and the 5% number. They end up spending about $170m out of the Treasurer’s Advance. That is reflective of not particularly good financial planning, because through the budget process, those ministers who come to the Budget Cabinet and ultimately have their input, should be in a position to say: ‘This is what we are doing this year’, without having to spend another $175m on changes of heart, changes of mind, changes of policy.
We heard the Minister for Transport lauding this morning the classical example, the interlock devices. That was an off-budget spend covered by the Treasurer’s Advance; it cost $400 000. The government, at the time, decided it was necessary to advance this policy. That is their choice, however, it shows poor fiscal discipline. They could have waited until the next budgetary cycle and introduced the policy as part of the budget. However, they chose to spend the $400 000. We learned today, after the expenditure of some $400 000, they have had one interlock device fitted. In their haste and urgency to introduce this in the last budget cycle, or the budget cycle before, they spent $400 000 on one device. This is not a good outcome, and not good fiscal discipline.
Whilst the government seeks to dress itself up as the harbourer of all knowledge, the fact is, it often gets it seriously wrong. Looking at some of the predictions from last year and the outcomes this year, growth rate itself from 2% predictor to a 0.4% final estimate, is a big shift. One has to ask questions about the modelling the Treasurer uses. Rather than being rational about it, the Treasurer has this capacity to defend her position aggressively and, frankly, deceitfully.
During the Statement of Corporate Intent tabling debate a short time ago, I mentioned the Treasurer had said in this House previously - I quote her during Question Time: ‘Western Australia did not have any debt back at all in 2008-09 when it was a Labor state’. I have done some homework on that. Eric Ripper, the then Treasurer for Western Australia, in his budget speech for the 2008-09 budget, raised the issue of debt in his speech and says: ‘The government is in heaps of debt, the equivalent of its mortgage bill will increase to $11.4bn over the next four years’.
I am annoyed I did not pick up on the Treasurer’s interjection because it will not turn up in the rushes, however, the Treasurer said: ‘They returned a surplus for that year’. By doing that, she is suggesting they got rid of the nett debt - there was no nett debt at the end of that year. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense! The 2009-10 budget overview, page 17, says:
- The deteriorating outlook for the general government operating balance combined with very significant levels of asset investment is expected to see nett debt levels increase from around $7bn as at 30 June 2009 to $19.1bn by the 30 June 2013.
The Treasurer has said Western Australia had no nett debt in the year 2008-09 budget delivered by a Labor government. Wrong, dishonest, deceitful. It is true that, in prior years - and I draw the Treasurer’s attention to the Budget Overview document of the financial year 2006-07, where it says: ‘As a result of the government’s sound management of state finances, the general government sector will remain nett debt free across the entire forward estimates period. Every dollar of the projected surpluses will be used to reduce debt or build infrastructure’. There is other debt, however, the general government sector is nett debt free. ‘The government has used its surpluses to retire about $2.4bn in state debt over the last three years. Exactly! That is exactly what the Country Liberals say should have been happening in the Northern Territory, year in, year out.
It took a Carpenter Labor government to set the benchmark; to show the Northern Territory government how this should be done. It was a Carpenter Labor government which was able to, during the financial crisis, rack up a further $11bn of debt over the following four years, however, they positioned themselves so much better to do it. In that respect, the Carpenter Labor government left a legacy for the people of Western Australia which should have and, more importantly, could have, been replicated by the Northern Territory government. They did not choose to show fiscal restraint, fiscal prudence or fiscal discipline and their failure to do so is why we are borrowing to add to a nett debt already worth $900m.
I acknowledge, to a degree, the Northern Territory government reduced its nett debt slightly. It is the equivalent of boasting about getting wet when you have fallen into a swimming pool - the simple act of falling into the swimming pool should have produced the result. This Northern Territory government has not achieved it. The Treasurer of the Northern Territory will not be honest with Territorians. She has tried this line about Western Australia not having debt under a Labor government twice in this House, denied it once more in the last debate, and has been caught out.
A Labor government got rid of debt in Western Australia, and a Labor government racked it up again. However, they positioned themselves better to do so. What the Treasurer did in this House was downright dishonest. She has a history of this. She told this House in the last budgetary cycle that $913m to the year up to March was put out by government. What she did not say - and I had to track back in later questions - she was talking the year March to March; and that is dishonest. Any financial institution, be it an accountant, an economist or treasury, if you say year to March, you are talking about the first three quarters of the financial year. She did not make it clear. She was being slippery and that is the hallmark of her Treasury-ship.
I draw members’ attention to the questions in relation to the Power and Water Corporation and the $218m of debt we have taken on as a jurisdiction to bail it out. I asked what the position was a few months ago. Amongst her answer the Treasurer said:
You are scaremongering. Power and Water is paying its debt. Power and Water has the capacity to pay its debt.
And further:
- … they are forecasting nett profit after tax of $51.6m.
- When you are making a profit you are paying your debt. Power and Water borrowings appear in the budget books every year.
I start to find these budget books less and less reliable when I read the Statement of Corporate Intent, which does not report a $51.6m profit for the year - it reports a loss of approximately $5m. Again, it paints the picture of how this Treasurer will say anything, do anything, to convince Territorians how good she is. However, she consistently utters misleading statements. She is the head of that organisation …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to withdraw that please.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not hear that point of order. Are you doing this yourself? For the sake of the debate I will do it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is not your role.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker does have the opportunity to intervene. Within standing orders, I have the opportunity to intervene, and misleading is …
Mr ELFERINK: Very well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK: This Treasurer also continues to conduct herself in the same fashion. Stateline, Northern Territory, April 2007 – she is asked the question about housing being released: She said:
- On average, the market demand for new lots, for homes in the Top End is 300 a year. And for example is the land release at Lyons we have got 350 lots turning off at Lyons, for the public, and another 350 for defence, of course. Bellamack will realise some 700 lots within the next 2 years.
Okay, she was wrong. She was way off the mark - like a million miles off the mark - which gives you reason to have concern about her capacity to predict the economic and fiscal environment in which she operates. Okay, she makes a blue. We accept that. You read the budget books from the current financial year - just 1700 - and then there is some strange date rearrangement and the budget books which have now been presented to us for the next financial year it is 2232, off the top of my head. So there are big shifts. We ask her a question about it, and rather than saying: ‘I was wrong,’ she talks about back casting and forecasting. There is no integrity in trying to cover up when you are so consistently as wrong as that. It does not behove her well when she does that; people are starting to express their reservations. They are ringing me up, talking to me about it, and people are starting to say: ‘We do not believe her anymore.’
I also note that the argument is in the current financial year, in the budget books, there is a reference that the reason we have to roll-out this new expenditure and borrowings is to support the economy because some major projects have wound up. It is curious that something very important has disappeared from the budget books of 2009-10 financial year. What has disappeared is a reference to major works; I believe it is the NT Economy budget book, I will have to find it, and they included works in the CBD. There has been a sudden and notable disappearance of cranes from the Darwin skyline over the last 12 months, specifically noted in the 2009-10 budget books as a source of major private sector investment. Something has made those cranes disappear. The first question you would ask is: if something has made those cranes disappear, then what has made those cranes disappear?
Dr Burns: The GFC!
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not the GFC. I thank the minister for his suggestion. It is not the GFC because, if it were the GFC, land prices would not have been doing what they are doing everywhere else in Darwin, except the CBD. Blocks have not been moving that much in the CBD.
Dr Burns: What about pre-sales and bank finance?
Mr ELFERINK: See, this is the point - you are guessing. There is something else important: a moratorium on the planning arrangements and the zonings in the Darwin CBD blocks, which have had a serious effect on the value of those blocks. All of a sudden, whilst the government has announced to everyone out there: ‘We are going to think about what you can and cannot do in the CBD’, that has the effect of putting a hiatus on the value of each and every block in the CBD. All of a sudden the people who own the blocks in the centre of the CBD, who purchased those blocks under the old scheme, assuming that scheme was something they could trust to do certain things, suddenly do not know whether they can do those things.
Then you go to the outside and the fringes of the CBD where blocks were purchased and traded with an expectation that you would able to do certain things but, more importantly, not do certain things on those blocks. But when you have a moratorium which says: ‘We are still thinking about what were are going to allow you to do’, that means those people who own those blocks do not know what they can and cannot do; so they stop putting money into it.
Think about it logically. If I had a property in the Darwin CBD and I wanted to sell or trade that property, I would put it on the market. The first question an investor would ask me: ‘What can I do with it? Can I go up to this height or that height?’ If I said: ‘I am not quite sure, because the government is thinking about it’, all of a sudden the investor is thinking: ‘I am not buying that block; I am not going to invest in that particular property’. If you think about it for 12 months, which is essentially what the government did whilst the moratorium was in place, everything stops. That is exactly what has been achieved.
That decision alone affected an area of development which was considered to be so important it made its way into the year 2009-10 budget books. It has been expunged from the year 2010-11 budget books. Mining projects have been mentioned as winding up, and other resource projects have not gone forward, but the comments about the Darwin CBD have disappeared from the 2009-10 budget book. The reason is it would have drawn, and highlighted, attention to the issue that I raise here this evening.
I also want to touch on the revotes which have been rolled from the current financial year into next financial year. It reflects the stories and the rumours I consistently heard from people that the government has been restraining and holding back contracts. The revote is enormous. The government went to the last election boasting of a record budget spend – we hear this all the time - a record infrastructure spend of $1.3bn.
In fact, the program increased during the financial year to about $1.6bn, $1.59bn, if memory serves me - which would have been a positive thing. I suspect there is a great deal of federal government money in that, and I would not be at all surprised if SIHIP is in that mix. What happens if you count up everything that goes into that $1.6bn, and you see the cash component, and you see the revote out at the other end? All of a sudden, $750m of the announced $1.3bn or $1.6bn, it turned out to be, was not spent.
I am fully aware of the reasons for that: there is a roll from one year to the next in some of these major projects; that happens and you accept and understand that. However, there is another thing which creates a situation where out of a $1.3bn projection, you withhold $750m simply because the government sits on the contracts and have been holding back and holding back. Now they are going to spend it in this financial year, probably because they have had trouble managing these projects, then they are going to heat up an economy which will see a 3.6% growth, with 3.1% CPI growth in the next financial year, driven by government expenditure.
I wonder how those public servants whom the government so loudly laud and champion and say they want to protect, are going to deal with a CPI growth rate when the government itself is still in the budget books restraining itself to about a 2.5% pay increase. Which means there is an effective cut coming to the public servants of the Northern Territory; small wonder they are screaming from the rafters. I know the minister realises this is an issue government has to face, and it will be a real challenge to the government. Then they have the added problem, if they have to change their position on the 2.5%, the deficit will invariably get larger.
A growth rate of 3.6% will also impact on house and rent prices. Whilst the government tells us they are turning off land five times faster, I ask the simple question: five times faster than what? I have heard the expression now from three ministers: ‘We are releasing land five times faster …’. Not one of them has finished that sentence. I am curious to hear in the budget reply the Treasurer’s response to this: five times faster than what? What are we releasing it five times faster than? Did we release one block in the last two years, so we are releasing five blocks this year? Is that what we are doing? Give us the benchmark other than ‘five times faster’, otherwise the government ministers will do nothing but lower themselves into the same level of dishonesty the Treasurer has lowered herself into in protecting her position. It is not a good way to run a budget.
I also note that the Chief Minister had a little whinge about the Henry Tax Review. What I do not understand is what the government’s position on taxation is, what its policy is. The Treasurer wrote to the Henry Tax Review and said: ‘I want a general or broad-based income tax on which we can set the local standards’. Two days later, the Chief Minister is on the radio saying: ‘That is not our policy, that is not what we are going to do’. I do not get it. So, is it the case that the Treasurer and the Chief Minister are not speaking to each other about what they are doing? Was it the rather secretive approach …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member for Port Darwin, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I was not actually going to rely on it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have covered most of those issues I wanted to cover. I do, however, thank the Leader of Government Business for the courtesy.
The Henry Tax Review is out. I would have stood here for another 10 minutes and said what I was intending to say in relation to the Henry Tax Review and the impost on mining, but the member for Fong Lim covered that issue more than well. The only issue I really wanted to touch on from that perspective was what the member for Fong Lim quite rightly pointed out, that mining stocks have taken an absolute shellacking in the last couple of days, and that is where some of my personal superannuation is parked. Consider that a declaration of interest, but the fact is that is where so much superannuation is parked. It is false economy to tax and push down the value of a particular sector of the industry, to drive down the value of that sector to protect superannuation which, in actual fact, invests in that sector. That is an extremely disappointing result. I am afraid that this smells of politics more than good fiscal management at a federal level, and it will affect the Northern Territory negatively.
The politics, of course, is every superannuant is a voter. Every mining company probably is not. It is easy to pick on those big, bad mining boys when you can then run the argument I saw the Prime Minister run on television tonight: ‘They are going to take the super away from the mouths of those retirees into the future. Woe betide the opposition’. But the truth of the matter is this policy may well achieve the same result, and that part is concerning.
Overall, this budget is disappointing because it does not show prudence, and I am not talking about anything other than prudence. Some restraint, which has been required since this government came into office, is as absent from this budget as it has been from every other budget. Where Western Australia was well positioned, much better positioned than the Northern Territory, was achieved by the simple application of prudence.
The Country Liberal policy, over time, will see the application of prudence, the very strategies the Northern Territory government said they would follow in their own financial strategy. It will allow for growth, it will allow for change, but it will do it in a way which is much more fiscally responsible than we have seen up until now. I believe the Territory has weathered the global financial crisis well, as well as Australia has a nation, but we are not out of the woods yet. I am deeply concerned about what I see on television with what is happening in Greece; I am concerned about the scuttlebutt you hear about the bubbles in China. There are other areas where we can still seriously come unstuck. It would have been nice to be in a better position where we would be able to deal with those issues, should they happen, than we are now.
Madam Deputy Speaker, from an overall point of view, once again, this government has simply failed to be prudent where prudence would have done us so much good. I believe it was an Aesop’s Fable which discussed the partying life of a grasshopper and the serious life of an ant, and I wish this government would show a little more ant and a little less grasshopper.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to put my comments on the record regarding this Appropriation Bill. A friend asked me the other day, what has this Labor government actually achieved? I said: they claim they have achieved a number of things, such as setting up freedom of information legislation, although it is not the best example of FOI legislation; did away with mandatory sentencing, made a wave pool and convention centre that was going to rival the Hanging Gardens of Babylon; spent a lot of money on parties so people could enjoy themselves; a of variety of concerts and sporting matches, which is good entertainment for a many people; and they promised to make life better for Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians in the bush.
Then my friend asked me: has anything really been achieved that advances the Territory in a positive way to give people a real future? That got me thinking and prompted me to closely analyse what Labor has done, or not done, for the Territory. In light of this year’s budget, I decided Labor has not done very well for the Territory. In fact, in many ways we have gone seriously backwards.
When Labor first came to power they promised many things such as freshness, to govern openly, and address and correct all the wrongdoings in our communities. There was an expectation that change would occur and, given they had a mandate, people took time out to relax. However, it was not very long after the new era dawned in the Territory that people started to realise nothing was really changing for the better. In fact, life started to get worse at an alarming rate.
As a consequence of this Labor government’s complete loss of values, loss of vision, loss of planning and loss of moral stewardship, the Territory is almost at rock bottom and on the brink of being taken over completely by the Commonwealth government; it almost runs the Territory, anyway, due to this government’s hopeless track record.
We have the intervention across the Territory in 52 communities which are freehold land, held in land trust, plus three other communities, overriding our legislation due to the previous Chief Minister’s dithering on the Little Children are Sacred Report; 50% of the land mass is under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act controlled by the Commonwealth, with absolutely no interest by this government in patriation of the legislation; two large national parks run by the Commonwealth, and no desire by this government to manage them to the benefit of all Territorians; and they are not really interested in wholly managing the uranium industry.
Uncle Kevin wants to take over the hospitals, and this government is rolling over and playing possum and being kicked into a bad deal and, of late, Uncle Kevin wants to take over mineral royalties.
Last year when I did my budget in reply, this is what I said at that time:
- The majority of government actions have financial affects and are reflected in the government’s budget which, in turn, affects government’s involvement in the economy and in society in general. Accordingly, the budget must show how all the activities of government fit together in a sustainable and affordable way.
Sadly, the sentiments are the same, as is this government’s failures on all fronts: failed as a participant in our community, failed as a manager, failed as a good strategic planner, failed as a leader, and failed to deliver a robust or solid budget. Indeed, this Labor government has delivered a deficit budget and pushed our nett debt higher and higher, which is completely unacceptable.
The government will argue they have taken us into deficit so they can spend big on infrastructure, which might seem good in theory, to keep the kitty ticking over. However, it is not good business practice to budget for losses as it does not take into consideration any extraordinary circumstances or structural changes in the financial markets, or any changes in the global financial scene. And, of course the deficit does not help when the federal Labor government wants to impose a whopping 40% resource rent tax on the mining industry, which will impact on the Northern Territory.
We only have to look at what is happening right now in Greece. The basis of the current meltdown in Greece is due to their borrowings being out of control because they spent more than they received in taxes - it is that simple. As a consequence, there are now riots in the streets and the Greek government is forced to slash public sector wages and pensions.
I am not suggesting we will have riots on our streets here. My point is it is not good practice to spend more than you get in, and have borrowings escalate so tomorrow’s Territorians will have to pay. That is not a future for the Territory, and it is not a future I want.
I will focus my comments on the broad areas of Housing, Lands, and Planning and what impact this year’s budget has, or does not have, for my electorate and the rural area generally in the Top End.
SIHIP, poor SIHIP, never had a chance of achieving what it was set up to achieve with the abysmal management by this Labor government. The Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program was initiated by a memorandum of understanding in September 2007 - Commonwealth government funds and Northern Territory management. In July 2009, the ABC reported in its Lateline program that SIHIP was yet to build a single house despite spending $45.54m of its $672m budget. We now hear from the member for Braitling in the 2010-11 budget that we have a SIHIP black hole of over $100m. Where has that money gone? This government does not want to answer; it does not want to tell.
A government report dated August 2009 said the program was criticised as too slow to deliver, its governance overly bureaucratic, and the program too costly in terms of the unit cost for housing and administration. The revised program budget is still $672m, which each new house expected to cost $450 000 to over $529 000, after factoring in a proportion of administration costs and contingencies.
We were told yesterday that just seven out of the targeted 750 houses, and a mere fraction of the 2500 refurbishments, have been completed. It is not a very good record and it must be remembered that it is Commonwealth government funds that the NT government manages. Clearly they cannot manage and have not managed, and the question has to be asked: will the full 750 houses be built at all?
We have seen the alliance on Groote Eylandt sacked and contractors not paid. We have seen only a tick and flick paint job done on some houses instead of a full and proper refurbishment. We have spoken long and often on the shocking management of this program by the NT government, and the big question is yet to be asked: what happens after SIHIP? My colleague, the member for Braitling, articulated very well the failings of this program which can be best summarised as gross incompetence, no other words for it.
Affordable housing - words often bandied around by this government and overused so much it has lost its meaning - this government has no idea what the expression means. Through their lack of policies and lack of systematic land release we now have almost the least affordable place in the country to live, second only to Sydney. Median house prices in Darwin have increased by $127 000 to $500 000 in the last three years. Government tries to tell us that it is affordable to live here, but the figures speak for themselves. The National Housing Supply Council figures paint the picture. In March 2007, a house in Darwin was $390 000. The average Australian price was $390 225. In December 2009, the price in Darwin was $540 000. The national average was $481 938. In March 2010, the median house price is a staggering $570 125, and the median unit price is $403 228, almost on par with Sydney and Canberra. How can people afford to stay here? The short answer is: they cannot, and sadly they are leaving the Territory.
Rental affordability - Darwin is the most expensive capital city in which to rent in Australia. In March 2007, Darwin was $340; the Australian average was $287. In December 2009, Darwin was $570; the Australian average was $378. Under supply versus demand creates price pressure in the real estate markets; price pressure leads to inflation in the cost of housing which leads to diminished housing affordability. It limits market options for entry. People are forced into the rental market because they cannot afford to buy which causes reduced vacancy rates and inflation in the rental market. As a consequence, we get increased cost burden impacts across the broader economy, such as the loss of skilled personnel because they cannot afford either to buy or rent. When they leave, they take with them their skills, experience and ability to contribute the Territory’s development and prosperity. The question has to be asked: how has this come about? Why are we one of the most expensive places in the country to live and rent now, yet five years ago we were not? Poor land release policies and lack of supply of accommodation across the board is the major contributing factor, and this government just does not get it.
Housing supply - the Housing Supply Council estimates there has been a dwelling shortfall of 178 400 in Australia over the last 12 months, an increase of 78 800. In the Northern Territory, there is a shortfall of 10 100 dwellings, an increase of 1200 over the last 12 months. So, in 2009, there were 178 400 Australians, and in the Northern Territory 10 100 people seeking a dwelling which they are unable to obtain. In this week’s budget we hear of the systematic failures of this government to facilitate housing construction. We read of the need for 2000 homes under a system which has only delivered 1200 in the past year. The Housing Industry Association’s report released in March this year on the Territory’s future residential need once again highlights the disarray surrounding the Henderson government’s failed land release policies.
Key findings in the HIA report include: the need for 21 500 dwellings over the next 10 years, almost double the 12 200 dwellings completed over the past decade. An underlying demand of 2400 dwellings in 2009 doubled the 1180 commencements last year - an underlying housing shortage of 4200 dwellings after years of under investment. The anticipated accumulated housing shortage of 11 500 dwellings by 2020 means thousands and thousands of homes demanded but no homes available because there is no affordable land on which to build; a 10-year increase in housing prices of 176.1% compared to an increase in full-time earnings of 52.5%; and an increase in rentals of 23% over the past two years, three times faster than the cost of living increase. The report also puts a time frame on the commencement of the housing crisis in the Territory, stating:
- Since the 2006 Census, the Northern Territory’s lack of new home buildings has turned the state from a housing surplus to a housing shortfall.
This puts responsibility for the housing crisis fair and square on the poor planning of successive Labor governments.
I now turn my attention to public housing and the problems we currently have in this sector. This is not just me saying we have a crisis; others are saying we have a crisis, and it is from recognised credible organisations such the NT Council of Social Services. I quote from their media release of 15 February 2010:
- ‘There is a housing crisis in the Northern Territory’, said Wendy Morton, Executive Director of the NT Council of Social Service today. ‘Working Territorian families are finding it harder and harder to get suitable housing. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable people in our community - those with mental health issues, and those with substance misuse concerns, people with disabilities - suffer under the radar’.
- The Northern Territory government’s 2010-11 budget offers little for those in our community who are struggling, or to the organisations supporting these vulnerable Territorians.
Public housing policies and the performance of this government are abject failures - long waiting lists, empty dwellings, repairs long overdue - to name three key areas of public housing failures. Let us look at the wait times. At the end of March 2010 in Alice Springs, nearly 4 years for a one-bedroom unit – for a person who is not a pensioner. In Palmerston, a one-bedroom unit, nearly five years. If you are a pensioner wanting to live in Palmerston, you have to wait nearly 4 years for a one-bedroom unit. It is nearly five years in Alice Springs for a three-bedroom unit for a family. In Darwin and Casuarina, it is close to 5 years. They are extraordinary wait times; no wonder people are leaving the Territory because they just cannot get accommodation here in the public or private sector.
Why are vacant properties under Territory Housing so high? There were 195 dwellings across the Territory at the end of last year: 81 in the northern suburbs, 27 in Palmerston, 20 in Katherine and 57 in Alice Springs. While it is recognised some houses may take longer than others to repair, it is clear the government needs to ratchet up their repair and maintenance program – 195 dwellings that could house people desperately in need.
The consequences of this Labor government’s failure across the board in housing and land release policies has resulted in the Territory having some dire statistics: the homelessness rate, low uptake of finance, long waiting lists, high rents, astronomically high house prices and land prices - and the list goes on. We have the highest homelessness level in the country. The national figure is 53 people to every 10 000; in the Northern Territory it is 248 people for every 10 000. We have people and families living in cars. At this time, in Darwin alone, we have 120 families not living in a house; they are homeless. Some might stay with friends for a short time but, sadly, most live rough. I know there are families living in cars. I believe our rate of homelessness is around 400% higher than the national average. It is shameful this Labor government has allowed it to happen, and they continue to stand by and let people live rough, live on the streets, live in cars and, let us not forget the 14-year-old girl who was put out onto the street just after her father died.
Talking with the non-government organisations in the welfare sector, they tell me they give out funds for people to buy tents, as there is nothing else they can find for them; that was before Christmas. Now, we have the situation of caravan parks in the Top End not taking in any more permanent residents due to this government’s poorly constructed van park legislation. And, in the Centre, permanent van park people have been given notice to vacate parks for the same reason. More pressure will be placed on the housing system and more pressure on community groups by caravan parks not taking in permanent residents.
These figures are not made up. They come from non-government organisations which have to clean up and try to pick up the mess of this government’s failed housing and land release policies. Last week I spoke on homelessness in the bush, and the number of people being supported with food parcels; this is on the public record and is a terrible indictment on this government.
Minister, in the Opposition Leader’s response to the budget he announced the Country Liberals’ housing plan for troublesome tenants. This government has derided our policy, but may I suggest you get a briefing so you know what we are on about. Our policy builds on earlier Country Liberal announcements. The first was our short-term accommodation village to deal with chronic shortage of rental properties. Our new policy will enforce the philosophy that a public housing property is a valuable asset of the Territory, and it must be respected by occupants.
By the minister’s own admission today, public housing is a privilege, not a right, and privileges come with responsibilities. Our policy places the onus of responsible public housing tenancy on to the tenants. This level of responsibility is equivalent to that expected in private rental housing. The policy does have a ‘three strikes and you are out’ component; however, ‘out’ means going from existing public housing, which they are not respecting or looking after, to a traditional housing facility; and if the behaviours continue in the traditional housing area, and are not addressed by the individual, then tenants will not be in public housing at all.
We are not putting people into transitional housing unsupported. Ongoing funding includes significant extra money for doctors, psychologists, social workers and educational support, plus facilities, maintenance and all the other attendant resources people would have if they lived in general public housing, only focused on the problems at hand. That, Treasurer, is how $15m is spent - on addressing the problems, not burying them away in the suburbs. Once elected to government and having started our implementation, there will be immediate positives to the announcement of this policy. A proportion of unruly tenants will moderate their behaviour immediately; they will not want to be evicted; they will want a roof over their heads. It is about accountability and, as we have seen from this government, they do not want to hold anyone accountable, whether it is parental responsibility orders or any other announcement.
A proportion of people will go into transitional housing, and come back once they demonstrate they are willing to live harmoniously with the community in public housing, and have respect for community property and their neighbours. A core component will require the intensive support we are providing, and they will get the support they really need; and they will learn new coping strategies. If they do not take on the responsibility of looking after their homes and being a contributing part of the community, they will be moved out. We will no longer condone public property tenants who fail to treat their homes as a community asset. We will not tolerate tenants who believe it is a right and not a privilege with obligations.
Of course, there are budget implications. We expect to see an immediate reduction in public housing maintenance costs; we expect to see a reduction in turnover costs of empty housing; we expect to improve the lifestyle of a significant proportion who enter into the transitional housing phase by the application of close to one-on-one counselling, training and support; we expect public housing waiting lists will be reduced; and we will continue to support non-government organisations to assist marginalised people into permanent accommodation.
I turn to Lands and Planning, and let me put a few facts on the table. We have the lowest level of home ownership uptake and the highest level of people living in rental properties. Although Bellamack was first announced in September 2007, construction on blocks will not start until this Dry Season; and we saw the backflip on the microdot shoeboxes called Bellamack Gardens. Johnston and Zuccoli are way behind schedule; we have problems with land release in Alice Springs; and the Berrimah Farm proposed development is bogged down in environmental assessment because of past use of hazardous materials on that property, and is unlikely ever to be developed as a housing estate, and rightly so.
Berrimah gaol - to be or not to be! - first Noonamah, then maybe near Robertson Barracks, and who knows where it might go? We are yet to hear two years after the original announcement. Government changing zonings at a whim: what is the point of having zones under the planning scheme if the government changes the zone to suit its own political agenda?
Let me put a few further facts on the table. Planning, generally, under this government is a disaster. We have little industrial land available and the current price of industrial land is very expensive. Talking with business people and industry it is approximately $405 per square metre; yet eight years ago it was around $90 per square metre. Why so high now? Supply and demand – it is no supply and a growing demand.
Planning for Weddell is way behind schedule with the government only recently putting out to tender the requirement for scope of works including investigations for residential, commercial and industrial land development for Weddell. The tender is a four month project and, following assessment of the bids, I would be surprised to see a tender released before November this year.
The Chief Minister claimed in a media release that blocks will be turned off by 2014, which I seriously doubt given this government’s track record in planning and getting things moving. I have sought information from the minister on the planning for Weddell through Questions on Notice, and I am waiting for a reply. I am very concerned about this government’s ability to keep to any timetable and their inability to plan for critical services such as water supply, and the supply of power and sewerage. I have spoken before on the lack of planning for the future water supply for Darwin, Palmerston and Weddell, and large industrial projects such as INPEX. Sure, the Darwin River Dam wall has been raised and work is being done on Manton Dam. If Weddell is planned to have 40 000 people and we get INPEX, there will be massive water consumption. I do not believe the current storage facilities will cope without some detrimental impact on the rural area, in particular.
I have read very little in the budget for my electorate or for the Top End rural area generally. I find it offensive that the Litchfield Council area is lumped in with Palmerston in the regional highlights. I have nothing against the good people of Palmerston who I am sure are mighty fine people, including my colleagues, the members for Blain, Brennan and Drysdale. However, the Litchfield Council area has some 7500 ratepayer properties, a population close to probably 17 000, a multitude of businesses and industries, district centres, and many activities that stand apart from Palmerston – if not Darwin. It is an area of large land mass and population that deserves its own highlight section given the contribution from the Litchfield area to Darwin and Palmerston, particularly extractive products, tourism, agriculture, horticulture and farming.
Having said that, I welcome the allocation of funds to Taminmin College and Middle Point Primary School; improvements to Howard Springs Reserve, even though it seems we will never get to swim there again; contribution to ongoing research in primary industries, although I do not believe there are enough funds for what we need; and funds for infrastructure at Freds Pass Reserve, a great recreational reserve.
What I do not see is any allocation for the fictitious rural pool, despite funds being allocated for Palmerston which already has a swimming pool complex; any funds for improvements to the police and fire complex, including the volunteer fire brigade - which is always in need - and no provision, not even any comment, about the provision of an ambulance service and centre for the rural area. I see nothing about trying to improve the community and the Taminmin College library, which is grossly undersized and set up originally to cater for 500 students and a small community. It now has to cater to a school community of 1200 students and a largely expanded residential community.
In closing, I do not believe this budget will achieve what the Treasurer believes it will achieve. Indeed, this budget, like everything else this Labor government does, will be a failure, and that does a complete disservice to all Territorians.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee - Fourth Report of the 11th Assembly
Standing Orders Committee - Fourth Report of the 11th Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Standing Order Committee’s Fourth Report of the 11th Assembly including a report to the Assembly on the reference to the committee dated 18 August 2009 relating to the Estimates Committee processes, report on supplementary questions, and report on General Business afternoon.
I will now make a tabling statement and this is the report that will be distributed to all members.
We had some discussions earlier this week and resolved, as a parliament, to change some of the rules and standing orders around the Estimates Committee. We have debated that.
This report has a number of recommendations. Recommendation 1 of the report details some of these elements of change around the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee, and we have discussed those.
Recommendation 2 is the Standing Orders Committee agreed to undertake a review of the Estimates Committee process for 2011, with specific consideration, and report no later than November 2010 on the specific matters of: extending the 2011 Estimates Committee to run over two weeks; the hours of operation of the Estimates Committee including government- owned corporations to be set; the number of sitting days to be reduced to reflect any additional hours provided to Estimates Committee; and the option for generic questions to be included in the Estimates Committee review process. This recommendation is in line with discussion within the Standing Orders Committee about extending the period of Estimates Committee. This is one very important aspect the committee considers, plus the hours of operation of the Estimates Committee and the government-owned corporation.
Weighing that against if we are going to have an increase in the Estimates Committee and a similar reduction in sitting days is a matter to be considered by the Standing Order Committee.
There was a request by the opposition for generic questions to be included in the estimates review process. We know from past estimates there is a number of what we call generic questions that opposition asks. Last year, there was a set of generic questions around credit card transactions where there had been any anomalies in credit cards, and some quite important questions asked by the opposition. It highlighted some deficiencies, and also the actions some departments were taking under their own right to tighten up on the use of credit cards.
Having said that, we are all aware, I believe, that the use of credit cards by departments, generally, has been a positive step. However, it is something that has to be looked over and audited through the proper stringent processes. We will consider the issue of generic questions to be included in the Estimates Committee review process. Without pre-empting the deliberations of the Estimates Committee or what the recommendations might be of the Estimates Committee, I could put forward a personal opinion here that there is a process for written questions by opposition and Independent members. There is an avenue for that. I would not like to see, from a personal perspective - I have to be convinced otherwise - and I have reservations about a written question process taking over the estimates, because I really see the estimates as being a personal interaction, if you like, a human interaction, between the opposition, the Independents, ministers, and public servants.
It will be a good debate we have on this issue and we need to discuss it. I was just putting forward an initial thought I had on that particular issue. I am not, of course, pre-empting any of the discussions or recommendations that come out of the report.
The Standing Orders Committee recommended amendments to Standing Orders 109(3)(c) and 119 to read as follows. Standing Order 109(3)(c) states that one supplementary question for Question Time may be asked immediately by an opposition member who asked the original question which shall not exceed 30 seconds, and the answering of each supplementary question shall not exceed one minute.
Originally, the standing order nominated the Leader of the Opposition as the only one having the capacity to ask a supplementary question. After some discussion - and looking at parliaments elsewhere - it was decided and resolved by the committee that any member of the opposition can ask a supplementary question, but it has to be supplementary to an original question they asked themselves.
Going to the question asked this afternoon by the member for Braitling directed to the member for Katherine, it seems as if they could even be asking supplementaries of themselves, as well. We will see how that all develops and …
Mr Giles: There is a thought.
Dr BURNS: Well, there is a thought. I suppose, on another note, there is opportunity, in certain circumstances, for government members to ask opposition members certain questions, or even Independent members, if you were going to take that standing order as it stands.
Once again - I am putting forward a personal view here - Question Time, principally and primarily, is an opportunity for government, opposition, and Independent members to ask questions of government. Anyway, what happened today was a first for me. I will be remembering today for that reason, for some time.
Standing Order 119, Question Time:
- When questions are called on during the routine of business, questions may be asked of Ministers and other Members in conformity with the Standing Order ...
That is a very important part of the estimates procedure.
Then, on General Business afternoon, opposition and Independent Members will be able to reorder opposition and Independent notices and postpone notices and Orders of the Day, providing the ranking of opposition and Independent notices and Orders of the Day remain in the same position on the Notice Paper. Notification of rearrangement of notices or Orders of the Day are to be advised by the opposition or Independent member to the Clerk, government Whip, Independent members and opposition Whip by the close of sittings on the Tuesday immediately preceding the business day.
Essentially, I am sure all members understand that, with both notices and orders, there will be flexibility for the opposition and Independents to reorder where things stand without bumping, say, if there are three items of the opposition and, then, the business by the Independent, they can reorder their bands, but they cannot push the opposition down from No 3 to No 4. That is a fair and equitable system, and it may avoid the question we had here today in Question Time with the member for Katherine’s bill on intertidal waters. That could possibly have been brought up the list and debated last night, and would circumvent the need for such a question as we had in Question Time today. However, that is a tactical issue by the opposition.
Anyway, that is it in a nutshell. The Standing Orders Committee is to come back with a report by November. The importance of November is that it gives us, as a parliament, time to settle the arrangements for next year for the estimates process and, as you well know, Madam Speaker, to have sitting days set in the parliamentary calendar, so members of this Assembly, the public and others then have a clear idea of the format of the sittings for the 2011 year. People can plan their diaries and business before the House, and public servants know what is going to be involved in the estimates process well in advance.
Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the Assembly.
MOTION
Adopt Report - Standing Order Committees - Fourth Report of the 11th Assembly
Adopt Report - Standing Order Committees - Fourth Report of the 11th Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly adopt the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Standing Orders Committee.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, we had some interesting debates within the Standing Orders Committee about a number of the issues the member for Johnston just spoke about. First was the number of hours allocated; we actually requested more hours. I agree the committee has agreed that will be part of the review process to be put in place in 2011 estimates. However, times are down a little. We thought the time allowed is probably insufficient to get through some of the heavy portfolios some of the senior ministers have.
I recall my own experience last year - which was the first estimates process I went through - of having to sit patiently and wait for ministers to pontificate about policy, and how much this and that, and all sorts of things are going on and, basically, not answering the question. As a result, an enormous amount of time was burned up simply by ministers talking about all sorts of issues other than answering the question. It is a bit like Question Time in this House, where it appears ministers just continue to gather all this stuff around them that does not involve answering the question.
I recall going through each output group, and watching the process to get to the point when it was my turn to ask ministers questions about my portfolio. When I added it all up, I got to talk for about 17 minutes out of the entire process. I thought that was hardly time for someone to be able to ask some very pertinent questions. The estimates process is the only real opportunity to scrutinise the money bills of the government. I thought the time in relation to my portfolios - 17 minutes, or close to; whatever it was - was insufficient to get to the bottom of some of the issues constituents in my electorate and the people who form part of my portfolio groups wanted to know.
I know there are many groups which speak to government, government consults with them, and government departments consult with them. As the alternative Northern Territory government we actually consult with these people too. We speak to them and ask them what their concerns are and, in many cases, they communicate those concerns to us. That is their only opportunity, on many occasions, to actually ask the government about some of the answers they did not get.
We used to have the estimates process, although it may not have been known as that, occur in this Chamber years ago. However, when the current government came to power, they changed the process and then put time limits on it. I recall, in days gone by, where you could come to this House and watch the process of the opposition holding the government to account. That process would take as long as it was absolutely necessary to drill down and get to the bottom of where and how the government was spending the taxpayers’ dollars.
However, with the time constraints we have these days it is very difficult to get to it, especially if you get ministers who do not choose to cooperate and stall the process by giving lengthy answers about situations and issues which are not that relevant to the actual question. Of course, if you go through with four hours or six hours, and you only get to the first portfolio and you do not get answers, then that is a bit of a problem. Obviously, something has to happen; that is, time has to be allocated to various shadow ministers. However, there are so many issues that require answers these days, that we do need more time. I am hoping the government will go along with our request for extensions of time. I believe it is going to move up to 60 hours, which puts us in the ball park of other jurisdictions in this country.
Madam Speaker, although we do not have a dissenting report as such, I record there are lots of things that we put up that the committee did not choose to take on board. I look forward to the Standing Orders Committee reviewing the estimates process and, in November, perhaps we can recommend, with the government’s help, that time be extended so the taxpayers of the Northern Territory, through the opposition, have ample opportunity to quiz and question the government on how and where they are spending their dollars.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. I am glad we have been able to be flexible and bring this debate on earlier than was originally scheduled. It is important to settle some of the issues including the supplementary question and the review by the end of these sittings. I thank members for their contribution.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPER
Council of Territory Cooperation –
Second Report
Council of Territory Cooperation –
Second Report
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Council of Territory Cooperation, I table the Second Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation dated May 2010
MOTION
Print Paper – Council for Territory
Cooperation - Second Report
Print Paper – Council for Territory
Cooperation - Second Report
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Council for Territory
Cooperation - Second Report
Note Paper – Council for Territory
Cooperation - Second Report
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the second CTC report provides details of the council’s first three months activities this year. In the time period for this report, from January to the end of March this year, the council conducted nine hearings most of which were public hearings.
In addition to Darwin, the council conducted hearings in Nguiu, Wadeye, Angurugu, Umbakumba and Alyangula; site visits of SIHIP constructions in Nguiu, Wadeye and Groote Eylandt; and a site visit of the ENI onshore gas plant at Wadeye. Within this time frame, the council spoke to more than 70 witnesses.
Earlier this year, using its self-referencing powers, the CTC looked into the cause of the major power outage in the Darwin region on 23 November 2009, and the statistics used by NT Police and the Department of Justice to report on domestic violence.
The CTC believes it has an important role in examining government policies in an open and transparent way, and public meetings are an essential part of it. Where possible, CTC meetings are open to the public, with the exception only being when an organisation or individual requests that a matter be heard in camera. During the first three months of the year, the CTC held four briefings in camera.
This second report, prepared and supported by all CTC members, demonstrates the improving level of collaboration between members with their agreement in determining their findings, and making formal recommendations contained in the report.
I want to first talk about the council’s inquiry into what led to the power outage which affected 14 000 households on 23 November 2009. The council spoke to representatives of the Power and Water Corporation and NT Gas to find out what went wrong, but the public hearings also provided these two organisations with opportunities to put information on the public record.
To understand what went wrong on 23 November, some background into how power is supplied, and what is NT Gas’s involvement, is needed. The Weddell Power Station was completed in 2008 and is a base or intermediate load station with two General Electric gas turbines, remotely controlled from Channel Island.
In June 2006, the Power and Water Corporation and ENI Australian Limited executed an agreement for the supply of gas over 25 years from the beginning of 2009. Earlier in 2006, an agreement was reached between the Power and Water Corporation and NT Gas to construct a gas pipeline from Wadeye to Ban Ban Springs south of Darwin, to transport gas from the Blacktip gas field.
Following delays in availably of the first gas under the agreement, ENI proposed sale of early off-specification gas to the Power and Water Corporation. This was agreed in August 2009 after a review and study into the viability of using early off-specification gas. The first, early off-specification gas was supplied to the Power and Water Corporation by ENI, through NT Gas Bonaparte gas pipeline, to Weddell and Channel Island Power Stations in September 2009, along with gas from Mereenie and Palm Valley fields.
On 23 November 2009, the supply of gas was stopped to the Weddell Power Station by NT Gas, causing power outages. Investigation by the PWC and NT Gas continues into the cause of the failure of the gas supply system, but evidence given to the council describes what happened that day. What appears to have happened was the NT Gas system did not pick up the amount of water that was in the pipeline itself and, when the water hit the coalesces at Weddell, the pumping system did not cope with the volume of water that came into them, and the back-up pumping system did not work. As a result of that, their system was, basically, overrun with water and they had to shut the supply down because their system failed.
After hearing from the Power and Water Corporation and NT Gas, the CTC believes introducing the early off-specification gas was a gamble. The lateness of the supply of the gas by ENI invoked the liquidated damages clause arising for not supplying gas on 1 January 2009. Because the liquidated damages clause was capped at a certain price, which the CTC believes would have been reached by mid-2009, ENI was not liable for any further damages, and the Power and Water Corporation had to meet any further costs. ENI’s failure to deliver specification- compliant gas within contractual time frames came at the expense of the Power and Water Corporation and ultimately, Territory taxpayers.
These circumstances led the Power and Water Corporation seeking early off-specification gas in spite of the risks it represented to the infrastructure. Because of the threat to the pipeline from corrosion, it was decided to introduce 27 000 L of diesel as a corrosion inhibitor. The CTC was advised there was no capacity for NT Gas to know how much liquid was being introduced to the pipeline at the point of supply. Evidence was given that the only thing that was different, and not monitored in relation to using the early off-specification gas and its delivery, was the liquid content of the diesel used to coat the gas pipeline as a corrosion inhibitor. None of the members of the CTC have expertise in these technical matters, but it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that the combination of deliberately introduced diesel and unknown quantities of liquid entering the pipeline overwhelmed the capacity of the pipeline’s liquid abatement systems.
The council makes three recommendations in relation to this incident. The first two are for the Power and Water Corporation to send the CTC the results of its and NT Gas’ investigation into the events leading up to the day the gas supply was stopped to the Weddell Power Station; and the final report from NT Gas, APA Group, the Power and Water Corporation, Worley Parsons the regulator, and ENI which identified the risks and recommendations on the release of early- specification gas, be released to the CTC.
As the Power Water Corporation is a government-owned corporation, it is subject to government oversight. There are two ministers with responsibility for Power Water Corporation - the Minister for Essential Services and the Treasurer as the shareholding minister. The CTC believes the liquidated damages clause threshold was too low; using early-specification gas was inherently risky; and insufficient capacity existed in the system to detect liquids in the system. The Power and Water Corporation was forced, by circumstances, to use gas it would have not otherwise used after the liquidated damages threshold became insufficient to cover the costs of the diesel. The government should have known the high-risk process being undertaken by the Power and Water Corporation, and should have been the final approver of it, given the effect on taxpayers.
The ministers responsible declined to attend the CTC hearing to discuss their roles and knowledge of what transpired. The CTC’s third recommendation about this matter is the Minister for Essential Services and the Treasurer attend a CTC hearing to determine their involvement and level of knowledge of what transpired.
I will now move on to the second of the council’s self-references: its examination of police and the Department of Justice reporting of domestic violence statistics. The council wanted to look at these statistics because the way the information is recorded, collated, analysed and reported appear to affect the final statistics publicly released. The council’s concern is what the statistical information is saying, and what is being used to develop the government’s policy directions to address the reported increase in domestic violence.
The CTC heard from the representatives of the police in the Department of Justice to explain the differences in the statistical collation and reporting methods used by the two organisations. One important difference was explained as the variants between offence-based and victim-based reporting. The police representatives explained they have moved from offence-based to victim-based reporting and, in last year’s annual report, provided figures on both types.
Other important differences are the different geographies and time periods the statistics can relate to. For example, when the Chief Minister talks about crime statistics, the figures he refers to are for the previous 12 months. When the police report on crime statistics, it is a 12-month period preceding the quarter of the month released. To add to this, the data used by the Department of Justice is derived from analysing different geographical areas than that used by police.
The final difference is that police count all crimes against the person in their counts, while the Department of Justice only counts those offences classified as assaults, and do not include offences like rape, murder, and robbery. By excluding these offences, the proportion of domestic violence-related offences was increased by limiting how many crimes of violence were included.
The council wants to see improved crime statistics reporting, and has made two recommendations to assist in clarifying the publicly-released information. The first is addressing all of these differences between police and Department of Justice reporting by recommending statistics relating to crime, especially domestic violence-related crime, be accurate and consistent with one another. If this is not possible, an explanation needs to be given to aid the accurate interpretation of the differences.
The second recommendation is to address another of the differences the council heard about - the volatility of small numbers reported quarterly - which can produce misleading statistical information. The CTC recommends the minimum reporting times for crime statistics be reviewed to reduce the volatility in numbers, to assist in setting policy responses by government.
I turn to the CTC’s three priority areas of SIHIP, local government and A Working Future. Late in January, the council spoke to the Northern Territory Coordinator-General for Remote Services, Mr Bob Beadman, about his role in implementing the six parts of A Working Future, and the findings in his report. While the council recognises that A Working Future was announced and Mr Beadman appointed less than a year ago, it was particularly interested to learn about the progress and the policies’ implementation. In the second report, the CTC makes three recommendations relating to A Working Future, two of which I want to talk to briefly now.
The CTC heard from Mr Beadman about the need for the restoration of a government administration presence in Indigenous communities. Mr Beadman said the installation of government business managers and Indigenous engagement officers was the first step in restoring government administration presence in communities. This is just the beginning, however - as Mr Beadman said - the government needs to rethink re-establishing a presence to undertake the myriad of functions which have been left to shires and non-government organisations to carry out.
The CTC agrees with Mr Beadman and recommends the Australian and Northern Territory governments re-establish government offices in growth towns to prevent overloading shires and non-government organisations. The CTC notes that, as part of the growth towns implementation process, reference groups are being established at the same time SIHIP is establishing housing reference groups and local government has local boards. The council is concerned about the number of advisory and consultative groups being established to advise government policy implementation. We recommend government review the number of advisory boards and reference groups which they require growth towns establish.
I now turn to talking about the council’s findings that flow from visiting Nguiu, Wadeye, and Groote Eylandt. At the Nguiu public hearing, representatives from the Tiwi Land Council and Tiwi Shire Council and associated groups discussed a range of matters related to SIHIP, local government and A Working Future. The council heard the Tiwi Shire has considerable concern about the decreasing level of funding for the shire council to deliver its services. Council heard the shire council had reorganised its management structure, which would save the shire $320 000. However, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services was arguing for the employment of another senior financial manager. This appears unnecessary and, from evidence given during the hearing, cannot be funded on existing resources. The CTC recommends the Northern Territory government permit shires to develop an organisation structure without requiring approval from the government.
The CTC’s second report includes some information on the site visits of SIHIP construction and, in Wadeye’s case, the tour of the concrete plant and panel workshop, which I will not go into other than to say how useful it is to see on the ground how SIHIP is being implemented.
In its first report, the council raised its concern about the limited cost rationale applied following the SIHIP review to refurbishing houses, to what is called the functional level, at an average cost of $75 000. In its response to the CTC’s first report recommendation, the government said refurbishments will be supplemented by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services repairs and maintenance program via service agreements with shires.
At Nguiu, we saw firsthand the effect of confining refurbishment to $75 000 in one house, where it meant it would not be returned to a standard which would allow for healthy living because the floor, which was pitted and permeable, was not to be resurfaced. The floor needed to be sealed to provide a surface that can be kept clean. The CTC understands this house has since been refurbished, if not rebuilt to an ‘as new’ standard. However, the policy of refurbishing houses to a functional level remains, and to rely on annual funding for housing maintenance to remedy glaring flaws which should be included in refurbishing houses is unacceptable. The CTC recommends refurbishment of houses includes all work to return houses to functional houses that allow for healthy living, including the ability to keep houses clean.
The CTC visited Groote Eylandt for two days of site visits and public hearings in Angurugu and Umbakumba, and a public hearing at Alyangula.
Since the CTC visit, the Australian and Northern Territory governments announced that Earth Connect Alliance SIHIP operations were to cease. The council is very mindful of subsequently raised concerns on Groote Eylandt about the slow progress and quality of SIHIP construction, and the impact of that on maintaining community support for the 99-year lease in the Regional Partnership Agreement.
The council makes four recommendations which are in direct consequence to the situation throughout the Groote Eylandt SIHIP construction and the removal of Earth Connect. The CTC has a number of concerns about determination of the Earth Connect’s contract, due to what we understand was government’s belief there were flaws in Earth Connect’s systems. The CTC is concerned there was a desire to shed alliances from the delivery of the SIHIP construction. We think this adds to our already expressed concerns about the alliance model delivering no better outcomes than previous construction models.
By investigating what has occurred, it became clear that Earth Connect was under time pressure driven by the Australian and Northern Territory governments. The CTC is mindful the delays were caused by the demands of both governments, which meant the program was delivered late and at great cost and was, therefore, not the responsibility of Earth Connect.
The CTC is concerned that replacing Earth Connect will further delay housing construction and refurbishments, and exacerbate overcrowding and associated issues on Groote Eylandt. We note, for example, the delay already apparent with houses reviewed, due for completion by the end of March, have not been completed.
There needs to be some recognition and acceptance by both governments of their shortcomings in implementing SIHIP. Gained from the most recent SIHIP update, there are 133 refurbishments complete, 119 under way, six houses completed, and construction commenced on 18 new houses. Barely seven months remain in this year to meet the targets of at least 150 new houses and 1000 refurbishments and rebuilds.
The CTC visited Groote Eylandt to inform itself about SIHIP construction progress and was confronted by several issues. Prior to the visit, there were several suggestions that Earth Connect Alliance had delivered substandard work. Whilst we do not have building expertise, we were satisfied the work appeared to be of an acceptable standard. The CTC notes, where there was a requirement for remedial work, Earth Connect had done more than would be considered reasonable to address minor issues.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, the CTC recommends both governments establish independent building supervision and certification as part of the SIHIP works.
For similar reasons, the final two recommendations seek to clarify what monies have been paid to Earth Connect, for what work, and for detailed costings for the remainder of the work now allocated to Territory Alliance.
As a result of concerns raised in the first report, the CTC asked for a secretary who would be dedicated to the needs of the council. I place on the record my appreciation of the work of all secretarial staff who have helped with the council since it commenced, and to welcome Helen Campbell as the council’s new secretary. I thank my fellow committee members and welcome the member for Nhulunbuy who recently replaced the member for Fannie Bay as a government member.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to the second report of the Council for Territory Cooperation.
This second report provides information on the council’s public hearings and visits, as the chairman of the committee just said, from January to March 2010. It covers issues such as the power supply, domestic violence statistics, A Working Future, and visits to Nguiu, Wadeye, and Groote Eylandt, which the chairman just talked about.
They are quite substantial recommendations, I believe, regarding the power. The chairman gave quite a detailed view on the evidence we had. I must say, the hearings we had with Power and Water and NT Gas were probably the most productive hearings and discussions I have had or heard for some time. I believe one of the CTC’s recommendations is, when that inquiry or report is finished, that report should be made available to the Council for Territory Cooperation at its earliest convenience. Power and Water and NT Gas have already provided a great deal of information to the CTC. As I understand, the matters we have had discussions about are still the subject of some ongoing discussions between Power and Water and NT Gas.
I must say at the outset how good it is to see a report from the CTC on which all members of the council were united. I believe it shows we are cooperating …
Mr Elferink: That is because you are actually willing to be critical of government.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: That is because you are actually willing to be critical of your government.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We are uniting and we are moving together. I believe we all have a commitment to the issues which are being investigated and looked at. There is some robust discussion which happens between all members and that is a good thing; that is not a bad thing. I believe all the members of the committee controlled by the Chair - sometimes I believe the members control the Chair, but never mind. A great deal of work has been undertaken, and the trips have been fantastic. Hopefully, Power and Water and NT Gas will get the information and when they are finished that that is made available to the CTC. There are a number of recommendations. Recommendation 2 was also regarding Power and Water and NT Gas issues.
We then had meetings with the police and the statisticians from the Department of Justice. I found it interesting to go through the statistics and to find out the differences with the compilation of the statistics - you may laugh, member for Port Darwin, but some of us are humble enough to admit that …
Mr Elferink: No, I am laughing at myself, trust me. I struggle with statistics as much as you.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We can look at those statistics and admit that. So, it was good to get that qualifying to know when you are looking at those statistics, the differences in how they are compiled, and how the police record their statistics versus the statisticians in the Department of Justice, and how those crime statistics are pulled in. One of the things the CTC, having looked at that, is recommending is there should be an explanation about how those statistics are compiled and used, and made clearer so they are more consistent and reduce the volatility. That is quite a reasonable recommendation and one I certainly hope government will agree to implement.
Then travelling to the Tiwi Islands, we went to first - or was it Wadeye? No, we might have gone to Wadeye first. One thing I will say with Wadeye, the place is absolutely buzzing. We saw Thamarrurr Development Corporation and their involvement with the housing projects and other things happening there. There was some tension when we first arrived there, but that was resolved - a slight misunderstanding, but the Chairman did apologise to the traditional owners of that community and we resolved that. It was good to be able to get to Wadeye to see things are actually happening in the community. Often, one picks up the paper and reads all these terrible things about Wadeye and that the whole community is basket case and violence is rife. It helps to get out of Darwin and into these communities to see they are not basket cases; that things are happening, houses are coming up.
I know members opposite like to constantly throw back that it has taken a long time. Well, if you look at the landscape of the Northern Territory, in 2007 in remote Aboriginal communities, there was not one serviced lot in any of those communities. To conduct a huge housing program like this, surveys and consultations needed to be done. All of the planning and surveying we take for granted in Darwin and our urban areas was not done in many of our remote communities. Years ago, they did do some when they had the SLAP plans, but it was not to the extent you needed to do this as communities grew and populations increased.
For Wadeye, it is great to see that community developing and coming along. We saw two different houses. New Futures Alliance was building one lot of houses and the Thamarrurr Development Corporation was building another set of houses. It was good to be able to compare and see the differences, both in structure and price. The pricing of building a house, I think, from the Thamarrurr Development Corporation - and correct me if I am wrong – was around $360 000, and we were told the average or the catch price on the other houses built by New Futures Alliance was around $450 000, and some were above those costs. CTC members were certainly interested in questioning New Futures Alliance and Thamarrurr Development Corporation as to what would be, in effect, nearly $100 000 difference per house. That is something we wanted to go further into. I do not think we have gone back to that, but the prices and the variations in some of the prices of these houses in some of the communities needs to be looked at. I am not saying that I saw that everywhere, but it was an issue that came up at Wadeye.
After Wadeye we went to the Tiwi Islands - a bit biased but my favourite place. We went to Nguiu and met with the shire council. If any group that has been at the receiving end of many reforms or changes, you would say the Tiwi Islands is probably the one that has been trying to deal with a lot of these reforms. Prior to the shire, there was the amalgamation of all of the community government councils and, then, along came the shires. The reforms and the Local Government Act needs to change, in that the shires have to have the capacity to be able to leverage service fees. The whole issue of rating, which was some pipe dream of some bureaucrat who probably thought it was a good idea, is not a good idea. It is not the reality on the ground for these communities for the simple reason you do not have the private home ownership base in these communities.
Even if we start moving towards people owning their own homes on the ground in these remote communities, the reality is it is not the same as Darwin. You are not going to have a population of private homeowners on the ground in these communities to be able to generate the revenue which is needed to make these shires sustainable. All of the shires we have spoken to, when you asked them what their rates revenue was, it is quite a small part of the revenue coming in.
It does not make these shires sustainable and, if there is going to be a decrease in their discretionary funding from government to operate, government needs to look at changing the Local Government Act to give these shires the ability to collect and create a revenue stream that is going to make them viable.
I lived on Nguiu and worked with the Nguiu council when it was its own community government council many years ago. The council was quite viable in those days. I am shocked every time I go back home at how high the grass is. Then, when I talk to people in the shire, they say because they no longer collect service fees, they are not able to mow the grass. When the council used to collect service fees from everyone, they used to mow everyone’s lawn. They did all of that maintenance - parks and gardens - all of those activities used to happen. Now, it does not happen. I had a number of discussions with the CEO of the shire to try to bring attention to the fact it is part of their core local government services and they should do it, but they say because they do not collect this any more, they are not able to do it.
We met with the land council for a short time, and had some discussions with them on roads and other issues. I must say, with both the Tiwi Land Council and the Tiwi Shire, there have been, I suppose, some tensions for some time. Tension is not productive at all, or in the interest of Tiwi people to have these two groups at loggerheads with one another. One of the issues which I raised at the CTC is, on the Tiwi Islands, Milikapiti and Pirlangimpi - which are the other two communities on the other side - are also in negotiation with the federal government to move towards 99-year leases. The question we have posed and talked about at the CTC level is - and I have had discussions; the member for Port Darwin and I are part of a subcommittee to look at this issue – is regarding the Tiwi Islands where you have the majority of the towns leased to the Executive Director of Township Leasing.
One wonders what the future role is for the land council if the core work of land councils is to do the leasing, to represent traditional owners, and ensure all of the stuff under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is to be conducted. If the Tiwi Land Council is contracting its services to another person or a third party, I pose the question: what is the future role of the Tiwi Land Council? Should we, the CTC, be looking at that? There are a number of layers in and amongst these communities which adds a number of barriers to progress or to work happening and going forward.
Madam Speaker, we then went from the Tiwi Islands to Groote Eylandt looking at the houses. I thought the houses and everything were okay. I am not a builder, but on inspection of the houses, they were fantastic …
Dr Burns: Did you have a spirit level?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, I did not.
Mr Elferink: I did.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The member for Port Darwin had a good time with the spirit level.
Mr Elferink: A spirited time, perhaps, even.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A spirited time, Madam Speaker, the member for Port Darwin had. I did not get the spirit level, but the member for Port Darwin did.
I thought the houses were okay. I am not going to get into dragging up or going into the details of Earth Connect, what was happening and what might have happened. There is no point in that. What is good is that Territory Alliance has now come in there, the housing project will continue, and people are not going to be denied the houses, and the houses which should have been built continue to happen on the ground at Groote Eylandt.
When I saw the comment about copper pipes - well, anyone who knows anything in the Health field knew that copper piping in houses went out about 20 years ago. With Earth Connect, there were issues about the quality of the materials and other things. That has been resolved. Territory Alliance, as I understand, has now had consultations with the community, as well as with the government and Anindilyakwa Land Council, and that seems to be resolved.
My concern in all of that - and the CTC has not had an opportunity to go, but I am certainly hoping my fellow members on the CTC will want to come to Jabiru, Gunbalanya and Maningrida – when we were in Groote Eylandt, I was concerned the other community where there was going to be substantial capital works in SIHIP was Gunbalanya, and the houses that were being built at Gunbalanya were not going to be held up at the expense of trying to sort through and work through this contract.
I acknowledge Andrew Kirkman from the Department of Housing, who has done a fantastic job. I acknowledge Andrew; in all of the discussions I have had with him in relation to Gunbalanya and housing within my electorate, he has been very efficient and effective. His handling and the work he has done with making sure the transition - particularly at Groote Eylandt when we went there, because there were some tensions. We did not know what the underlying tensions were; it was not until we got back to Darwin we realised what the underlying tensions were. However, Andrew Kirkman, the department and the minister, handled that transition very well. I say that particularly after talking to my constituents at Gunbalanya, who were very appreciative of the respectful way they have been treated, the consultation, and all the communication that has happened to them since Earth Connect was transitioned out. That was certainly a big fear of mine; that things would stop and nothing would happen. But, that could not be further from the truth. Things have certainly moved on, and continue to move on.
I believe we will see many of those houses being built, and that is something we all want. Despite constantly hearing the bleating that there has only been six or seven houses been built, it could not be further from the truth. Whilst I said Wadeye was going gangbusters and there was a lot of activity, it is the same at Nguiu on the Tiwi Islands; there is a whole lot of activity happening.
The minister for Housing and I went to the Tiwi Islands and looked at some of the houses, and inspected inside some of the houses. I believe the media was a bit put out because they could not follow us into the houses but the minister got to see some of these houses internally. I was also heartened to hear the Chairman say in his speech there was one house which the members for Katherine, Port Darwin, Fannie Bay, and I were looking at and we were told they were not going to paint the walls or the floors. When I went back with the minister, there had been many changes. I have promised the Chairman that on my next trip to the Tiwi Islands, in another week’s time after I come back from Alice Springs, I will take a photo of that house and bring it back for members because the transformation of that house has been quite dramatic.
It just shows, if putting some pressure and going around these communities and making sure things are going to be up to standard can be the role of the CTC, then that is a good thing.
Sorry, Madam Speaker, the member for Katherine is very distracting.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I will take that as a compliment, member for Arafura.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I did not mean it like that either, member for Katherine. Madam Speaker, I would like that expunged.
You have tickets on yourself, mate. We are spending too much time together, Willem, that is what it is.
Anyway, back to the CTC report which is what we are talking about, member for Katherine ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Arafura!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Recommendations 10 to 14 all relate to SIHIP. They are working in all the 21 communities. As the minister said during Question Time, seven new houses have been completed, and 80 are well under way. The 270 rebuilds and refurbishments have been completed or are under way so, by the end of the year, SIHIP will have completed at least 150 new dwellings and 1000 rebuilds and refurbishments across the Territory.
It has been a significant and complex program, and it will continue to be that, spanning a number of years. It is not just about building houses, and I believe that is what we often forget; that it is just about the house that is going up. All of us who worked and lived in remote communities know it is not just about building the house; it is about delivering the training, the employment, and ensuring we are going to deliver on the long-term outcomes for Aboriginal people in those communities. It would be good, at some stage, to get those figures; I believe we are exceeding the training targets. When I looked at the figures we received at the CTC, over 100 local, Indigenous people are in employment and training in this program. That is a good thing, because it is 100 Aboriginal people across these 21 communities who are employed in this program.
With the second report, we still have a long way to go. I welcome the member for Nhulunbuy who, I know, is going to enjoy the travel and getting around and talking to people. I have enjoyed the debates and discussions with the member for Port Darwin. There are many issues we have discussions and debates about. We often get consensus. It is a good thing to have that robust debate. This also applies to the members for Katherine and Nelson, as the Chair.
The committee is a good one and there are other areas we need to look at. I am looking forward to going to Alice Springs next week because, whilst we tend to focus on the Top End, there are challenges we need to get on top of in Central Australia. We need to ensure we understand those challenges and can achieve the outcomes so people in Central Australia, particularly in those communities, can get the same level of attention and services as everyone else expects. I am looking forward to travelling with the CTC in Central Australia.
Madam Speaker, I support the report and look forward to the government’s response.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I also speak to this unanimous report from this parliamentary committee. I say at the outset I have had a good hard look at the member for Katherine and I am not in the least bit distracted. Perhaps that is something the member for Arafura can explain to the House at some other point.
There are some very serious issues raised in this report. I ask honourable members to recall, when I quote from this report, it is a case of ‘so say all of us’, which means the Labor members, the Independents, and the Country Liberals members on this committee.
I quote from page 7 of the report, dealing with findings, particularly in relation to the shut down of the power supply in November last year. It is a short quote:
- The Council of Territory Cooperation believes that the introduction of EOSG was essentially a gamble.
I heard the member for Nelson repeat those words in his address; that the introduction of early off-specification gas was a gamble involving millions of dollars.
To remind members of what has occurred, essentially, last November the power was shut down to the whole of Darwin, Katherine, and Palmerston. It was shut down very suddenly and without warning. The reason it was shut down was because a staff member of NT Gas turned the gas off. I presume he cranked off one of those great big stop cocks near the coalescers just outside of the Power and Water Corporation’s fence. That would, under normal circumstances, have been seen as an abhorrent act of vandalism. The fact is - and I had not heard anyone say it here, but it should be said - that particular employee did a commendable job. They did the right thing. I do not know who that person was, but I certainly hope NT Gas passes on to that employee the Council of Territory Cooperation’s unanimous belief that they did the right thing and they should be commended for the courage of their decision.
The reason it was a courageous decision is he or she was standing not far away from a couple of coalesces which had filled up with fluid. Those coalescers should never have had much, if any, fluid in them at all. But, as it turns out, those coalescers had been overwhelmed, not only on that day, but had been nearly overwhelmed on two occasions in previous days. Coalescers collect fluid in a pipe, and those fluids were overwhelming coalescers all the way back to Ban Ban Springs, basically, where the first coalescers exist. That is because the amount of fluid in that pipe was far in excess what the designers of the pipe had ever contemplated having in them.
Consequently, what occurred is, for some reason, fluids entered the pipe - and we are not talking about water, we are, essentially, talking about hydrocarbons. A total of 27 000 L of those hydrocarbons, namely diesel, were deliberately injected into the pipe. Also, there was no way of monitoring how much fluid - hydrocarbons and water - was entering the pipe from the supplier; namely, the ENI Gas supplier.
The reason all of this was occurring was because the Northern Territory government had determined they wanted to take gas which was outside of the specifications the pipe was designed to carry. That sounds like a fairly irresponsible process. The reason they wanted to pump 27 000 L of diesel into that pipe was because they wanted to inhibit corrosion, as they were scared water was going to get into the pipe. That pipe was never designed to carry water. The reason it was not designed to carry water was because it was to carry gas of a certain specified type. The question then begs: why would the Northern Territory government seek to have a gas supplier that is contracted to supply gas, push a gas down a pipeline which had the potential to damage the pipe? The reason was because the Northern Territory Power and Water Corporation was asking for it.
It would sound almost reckless to go down that path, but there was a logical reason the Power and Water Corporation chose to go down that path. That reason was because they were paying for huge amounts of diesel to run the generators, particularly at Channel Island. It was costing tens of millions of dollars.
Under normal circumstances, when an organisation like ENI promises to provide a certain product by a certain date, and they fail to supply that product, then damages flow to the party who is injured. What that, basically, means is if they break their promise, they have to pay for any losses suffered. ENI did not come close to providing the gas required by the Power and Water Corporation on 1 January 2009, when they were supposed to supply it. Indeed, they failed to supply that gas at an effective rate at all in the whole of 2009, and did not start supplying that gas until well into 2010.
When the Northern Territory government negotiated the supply of gas with ENI, what they allowed to occur was a cap on liquidated damages. These are the damages I referred to earlier, when the party which fails to keep its promise has to pay for the costs of any losses suffered by the other party in a contract. I am aware of what that liquidated damages cap is, but I will not mention the figure because it is a commercial-in-confidence figure, and I certainly will not betray it to this House. What I can say, however, is that it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that cap had already been reached in either May or June 2009, and government was fundamentally aware that cap was going to be reached so early, because they already started negotiations with NT Gas, the organisation which owns the pipeline, to try to push early off-specification gas down that pipeline.
The existence of that cap on liquidated damages meant the Northern Territory government, or the Power and Water Corporation, had to grab some dice and have a crap shoot, and try to deliver any sort of gas they possibly could down the pipeline, because they were unable to secure a supply of gas that conformed. The reason for that was, after about May or June, the Northern Territory government, or Power and Water Corporation, would have had to have paid the full tote odds for the diesel they were burning. That was going to cost tens of millions of dollars. That is the reason they took the crap shoot - and they lost. The consequence of that gamble was you saw this massive shutdown of power supply to the people of the Northern Territory when the non-specified gas overwhelmed the coalescers along the system and managed to get through to the customer itself, the Power and Water Corporation.
There is a very serious problem built into this. It would be an interesting observation up until now, except for one thing; that is, the potentiality of another problem. This parliamentary committee took evidence that demonstrated one of the new generators at the Weddell Power Station suffered damage to one of its turbines. At the time of reporting, and at the time I make this speech, it is still not known to me or the committee why or what caused that damage. However, it is almost an irresistible finger to point at off-specification gas coming down the pipeline.
This, then, is a problem, because it is clear from the correspondence that I have seen that NT Gas made it abundantly obvious to the Power and Water Corporation there would be hydrocarbons coming down the pipe. The Power and Water Corporation said: ‘Turn it on anyhow, make it happen’. So, the Power and Water Corporation took this gas. It is possible some of these hydrocarbons found their way into the Weddell generator system because we know one of them broke. One of them was very seriously damaged and, if it does turn out some of these hydrocarbons did make their way down the pipeline and into those turbines and damaged the turbines, General Electric will not come good on the warranty those machines naturally carry.
There are several questions that yet need to be answered, and those issues are touched on in the report. Essentially, the question is: what was the source of the damage to the turbine at Weddell generator? If it was hydrocarbons, was it as a result of gas that overwhelmed the coalescers and carried hydrocarbons into the turbine? If it was, what is the effect on the warranty? If that is the case, and all of these are entirely possible, what is going to be the cost to the taxpayer of the Northern Territory because warranties have been voided by General Electric, the manufacturers of the damaged turbine?
Today, we had the Statement of Corporate Intent delivered to this House by the owner of the Power and Water Corporation, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, having to bail out that organisation to the tune of $218m-odd over the next three years. It is conceivable the Northern Territory government will have to spring even more millions of dollars to the Power and Water Corporation because of this.
Madam Speaker, the questions which are really important now are: what did the government know about these arrangements, and did the government approve of the application of early off-specification gas down the pipeline? If they did, then they have a duty to the people of the Northern Territory, either through this parliamentary committee or in this House, to explain why they allowed it to occur and why they took this crap shoot? If they did not know then the questions have to be asked: why were they not told and why have they lost so much control of their organisation, which they own, that it was taking gambles with Territory taxpayers’ assets, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars?
It is important, and it behoves this government, to report, and make its ministers report to this House or, more importantly, to the council itself, so they can be cross-examined as to what their knowledge was and what instructions they gave, if they, indeed, knew anything.
As a consequence, I remind and draw members’ attention to Recommendation 3 on page 9 of the report which says:
- The CTC recommends the Minister for Essential Services and the Treasurer attend a CTC hearing to determine their involvement and level of knowledge of what had transpired.
I look forward to both those ministers standing in this House today or, as soon as possible in relation to this debate, and explaining what they knew and what instructions they gave in relation to the supply of early off-specification gas to the Power and Water Corporation. It is a failure of the negotiation process which enabled ENI to take advantage of a cap on liquidated damages that caused the Northern Territory’s Power and Water Corporation, and probably the Northern Territory government, to take a risk that has, ultimately and potentially, led to a loss totalling tens of millions of dollars, let alone the loss of power for a whole day to every citizen who lived in Darwin, Palmerston, and Katherine.
I also turn my attention to the findings on SIHIP. We all believe, as members of the CTC, that:
- The council believes the port-SIHIP review standard of housing refurbishment will continue to embarrass governments because they are below the promised standard.
This is the Labor Party members, the Independents, and the Country Liberals saying with one voice that this government has to acknowledge the post-review refurbishments are an embarrassment, and will continue to be so.
This government will accept houses whose walls have not been repainted under the refurbishment process. They will then place people into those houses and say: ‘Look after this place, treat it as your own home’, when they will not even treat it as a decent landlord would treat a house. It will be sufficient for this government to receive occupancy and ownership of a house which will be merely pressure cleaned as a result of the changes to SIHIP.
SIHIP was lauded as such a triumph by the federal government and, more importantly, the Territory government which had carriage of the implementation of this program at such a premature time, that expectations were raised to a level subsequent maladministration could not hope to achieve. By the time this program has been wrested away from the Northern Territory government and back to the federal government - because of the excruciatingly embarrassing front pages in The Australian outlining what a monumental disaster this government had turned SIHIP into - and by the time they had finished reviewing what was left, they had to cut corners. The infrastructure component had to be dropped away; that now is a cost impost on the Northern Territory taxpayer. The quality of the houses that were promised in the first instance were lowered and, more importantly, were made smaller, and the quality of the refurbishment and rebuilds had gone from a very high standard to mere pressure cleaning and doing the wet areas. That should be an excruciating embarrassment to this government.
Presiding over all I have spoken about today has been one minister - the member for Daly, the minister, whom we would really have to now call the 200-Million-Dollar-Minister, because that is largely what I would calculate at the moment he has cost Territorians. He has cost SIHIP an absolute bomb because of maladministration. The Aboriginal people who live in these remote communities will get less than they were originally promised because he did not place his hand on the tiller and guide the craft.
It was this minister who must have signed off on the decision to allow for early off-specification gas to come down the pipeline, which may well be found to have led to the destruction of one of the machines he is supposed to be the guardian and protector of. This is the minister who introduced a local government computer system which will cost $5m to fix because he had taken his hand of the tiller and failed to guide the ship of state for which he was responsible.
Whilst we have not done it on this occasion, I remind members of the original dissenting report members from the Country Liberals put to the first report of this parliamentary committee. I stand by what I said in that original report - but plus, plus, plus now. This minister is not a bad person, but he is just not capable of doing the jobs the Chief Minister gives him and he is costing Territorians hundreds of millions of dollars.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members it now being 9 pm pursuant to Standing Order 41A, we will now complete the item of business before the Chair.
Debate suspended.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 41A, the Assembly now stands adjourned.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, today I pay thanks to the Alice Springs RSL for, once again, hosting a wonderful Anzac Day. The night before Anzac Day we celebrated the 49th Annual Anzac Eve Dinner, put on by the RSL through the President, Dennis Parker, and the Vice President, Kevin Rockemer.
It was a fantastic event. I believe 86 people were in attendance, including Dennis and Kevin. We had the prayer by Aidy Viney from the Salvation Army; 1RSU were in attendance; many American Defence personnel from interstate; the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan; the Labor Senator for the Territory, Trish Crossin, and the federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon. It was good to see Margaret Larkin, the new head of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap, there for her first 49th Annual Anzac Eve dinner. It was a fantastic night; I believe it was better than last year. I really look forward to the 50th anniversary next year, and will be more than happy to MC that event again.
The Dawn Service on Anzac Day was fantastic, with a great crowd from Alice Springs. When they say standing room only, there was not even that. They were all the way down the hill at the Dawn Service, and the 10.30 am service was the same - people all the way down the hill. Next year we will have several hundred extra people coming to town to attend the Dawn Service. I am unsure how we will get extra seats up Anzac Hill, however it will be fantastic.
I laid a wreath at the 10.30 am service, and I sponsored several of the schools in my electorate of Braitling to lay a wreath: Larapinta Primary School, Living Waters School, Braitling Primary School and OLSH.
I thank student representatives from Larapinta Primary School who presented a wreath; it was fantastic they were involved. Anzac Day is a hugely patriotic event and it is exciting and very important we pass on that education to our youngsters, our young students, our young leaders of tomorrow.
I thank student representatives Thomas Boyce and Christie Heffernan from Larapinta Primary School, and I thank the Assistant Principal, Ashlea Farrell, for coming along, and the Principal, Stewart Moyses for allowing them to come. It was great.
From Living Waters School, I thank the Principal, Eunice Stoll, and the Assistant Principal, Amanda Seidel and, in particular, the student representatives who attended and presented the wreath, Donovan Brown and Courtney Synnott.
From Braitling Primary School: Principal, Sue Crowe, who I work very well with, and the Assistant Principal, Peter Hirst. It was fantastic for Braitling Primary School to want to be involved in this. The student representatives were Jacob Crowe and Cassie Boyd. It was great to see them there. They are the first two school captains Braitling Primary School has ever had, and are doing a great job and I wish them well. I am getting involved in the leadership group at Braitling Primary School when in Alice Springs, and I offer all the assistance I can to Jacob and Cassie; they are doing a good job.
I also thank OLSH, with Brother Paul Gilchrist, the Principal, and Janice Patterson, the Assistant Principal, and student representatives, Anthony Geppa and Stephanie Johansen, who presented the wreath.
Next year I would like to see Yipirinya School coming along as well. The other school I have in my electorate, St Philip’s College, presented their own wreath, which I did not sponsor. As the government closed down ANZAC Hill High School this year, I did not get involved with those guys because they are now part of middle schools in the member for Araluen’s electorate. I thank those people.
Moving on to another matter, I thank the Housing minister, the member for Johnston, for providing me with an answer in Question Time today where I asked: ‘Is it true $19m has been spent on Groote Eylandt when we do not have a house built?’ He has kindly and very generously answered that question and confirmed: 17 new houses have been commenced; there are 19 refurbishments; rebuilds complete, and nine are under way. Allowing for the full up-front payment for all of those based on $450 000 average for a new house and $75 000 for a refurbishment, that comes to $9.75m. Despite that, they have spent more than $19m. Once again, we have seen a rip-off by this government in SIHIP.
It was disappointing reading and receiving the Northern Territory budget this week. I paid attention to Luke Bowen and the Cattlemen’s Association about their need for roads, particularly pastoral roads in the Northern Territory. I have not tabulated the exact dollar figure, however I note pretty much the only money put into the pastoral industry came from the federal government; the Northern Territory government completely neglected the pastoral industry and roads infrastructure. In particular, in the Transport minister’s electorate of Barkly, I found it surprising the minister turned his back on them. That is how it goes; we live and learn.
In my shadow portfolio of Infrastructure, the port is not going to be addressed; they put money in the budget which will not be spent. We know they have lied regarding the roads. They have made a couple of small commitments: $3m in the member for Karama’s electorate, but did not think to duplicate the road all the way to the Stuart Highway, including McMillans Road.
We have seen the cost of registering cars and trucks go up. In Regional Development, we have seen a complete and sustained attack on the regions, not only by not investing in roads, also by previous incursions into the regions through the shire rating system. With this great, big, new tax by Kevin Rudd, coupled with the more than 10% increase in the mining royalties tax by the Northern Territory government - something which will have a negative effect on our economy – we will, potentially, see mining companies pull out. We saw one pull out yesterday - Toro Energy pulled out of Central Australia. We will see in the future, especially if this federal tax goes ahead, and the Northern Territory one, mining projects life tenures rolled back. We will also see an attack on jobs, community development, and infrastructure.
I thought this Labor government supported the land councils, but there will be less money going to land councils now. There will be less money going to Aboriginal people in royalties, and less money going towards infrastructure to support community development. I find it surprising a Labor government, which gets votes from Indigenous people in the bush to keep members in power, would attack these people. My job as Regional Development spokesperson is to support and grow the regions, not attack them like the Labor government, with this great, big, new tax, from the Territory budget and the impending federal budget. I condemn this government for those actions.
Moving back to an old subject, I again call on the Transport minister to resign his portfolio for his speeding infringement, which I understand he may or may not have paid. I am interested if you could clarify that for us: has it been paid or has it been withdrawn by the government.
I would also like to see the member for Daly apologise to Territorians for setting up this appalling SIHIP, which has spent nearly $200m out of a $672m budget - a quarter of the budget - and seven houses built. We have spent a quarter of the budget on seven houses. I ask the member for Daly to apologise to people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish everyone all the best until estimates.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to respond to some assertions by the member for Johnston during an adjournment debate speech on 4 May where, amongst other things, the member for Johnston stated the member for Sanderson was telling the school council totally incorrect and untrue information about the school-based constable program. I am astounded the member for Johnston has not done his homework very well. That is his prerogative.
I quote from the adjournment speech by the member for Johnston:
- As a local member, and now as Education minister, I value the opportunity to attend school council meetings; I take great interest in these meetings. It was of great concern to me to learn that only last month the member for Sanderson told a school council totally incorrect and untrue information about the school-based constable program. We all know he has been spreading rumours for a long time in the community about the school-based constable program being axed. That was about 10 years ago and it is still here.
The only reason the school-based constable program still exists is because of the extraordinary amount of support it receives from the community, the school community, the general policing community - the mums, dads and school councils. It is not 10 years as the member for Johnston said; he has that wrong - it is actually nine years. With a bit of luck, under the freedom of information legislation we have, I will get the letter dated November 2001 where the then minister for Education, and also Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Syd Stirling, wrote to the commissioner requesting the school-based policing program be axed. No consultation - nothing. Three paragraphs in a letter and there you go - get rid of it. I am hoping we can bring that letter to the House to show the lack of support the current government has given over the years. As a former school-based police officer, I have heard the rhetoric: ‘Oh, yes, we support it’.
The second issue in the quote from the adjournment debate speech by the member for Johnston says:
- It was of great concern to me to learn that only last month the member for Sanderson told a school council totally incorrect and untrue information about the school-based constable program.
He goes on and says:
- However, on 13 April, the member for Sanderson took it to a new level at the Sanderson Middle School Council meeting. I am taking this straight from the minutes of the meeting.
The next part of the quote is - and he is quoting from the alleged minutes of the school council meeting from Sanderson Middle School. It says:
- Peter Styles MLA – Informed Council that the new Commissioner of Police was to remove School Based Police Officers from the school and then this would be followed by the removal of the School Nurse program as well.
It is really amazing; that is incorrect. These are uncirculated minutes; no one has had an opportunity to read them, nor have they been signed by the Chair of the meeting, who was there.
It is an incorrect account of what occurred at the meeting, and it is interesting because the minutes were taken by the Sanderson Middle School Secretary who also happens to be, I believe, President of the Karama/Sanderson Branch of the Australian Labor Party - interesting.
I relayed the same thing to all my other school councils seeking their ideas and feelings on the issue. There are strong concerns, based on some very strong rumours, the new Police Commissioner is going to take school-based police officers out of schools and put them in police stations. I had numerous people contact me. As a former school-based police officer, I was probably the obvious choice for people to talk to. I had constituents, parents, school council members, education and police personnel, retired police officers, to name a few, express their deep concerns about the review of allocation of police resources, in particular the taking of school-based police officers out of the schools and putting them into police stations.
That is the issue I put to all my school councils. I have to say they were unanimous everywhere. I noticed there was some at one meeting who chose not to vote, but the rest voted overwhelmingly in favour of retaining school-based police officers to operate in schools at all times; not be part of a police station, or on a roster anywhere else. That was the question.
It is interesting when you see what the Police Commissioner said; I will quote from a statement by the Police Commissioner, Mr John McRoberts. At least the Police Commissioner has the ability to get it right. It says here:
- I consider it unfortunate if the school council minutes are correct, that Mr Styles has quoted me with regards to school-based police without consulting me first.
I can assure this House and the Police Commissioner, I did not quote him. Unfortunately, the member for Johnston sits there skulking down in his seat because it has been shown he is incorrect.
I would like to talk about some of the issues for the wider community. The whole school-based policing program is about reducing anxiety levels of young people, educating them in relation to what happens in a community, and how they can protect themselves. Going into classrooms, as school-based police officers have for many years, although I believe it is going to change, school-based police officers teach young people how to deal with bullying; they empower them. They help them realise there are people in the community who will help them. When talking to young girls at school you teach them from a very young age that they do not have to put up with bullying. That leads to improved behaviour where they will not put up with bad behaviour from partners, from husbands, things like that. We have the ability to reduce the amount of domestic violence in our community by teaching people at a very young age, by people in authority who they can actually relate to, not to put up with this type of behaviour.
What happens in the real world - unfortunately I do not believe the member for Johnston realises this - when you give young people the ability to walk around in ones or twos because their anxiety levels are down and their confidence is up - they know there are people in the school, on the way to school, on the way home from school, and they have the confidence to walk about; they do not have to congregate in groups, they do not have to get into gangs. I have seen it happen. I have helped remedy some of these issues - when young people get together the groups get bigger and bigger, and that is when you have gang problems in our community.
A range of issues occur because we have had a reasonable school-based police program while this government has been in power. Prior to that time, we had an excellent school-based policing program. Right from day one this government did not want to support it.
There are a number of problems I foresee. One, the commissioner, at the end of paragraph 8 in his statement says: ‘They will remain police officers and will support frontline police activity’. Paragraph 7 says: ‘They will be directly involved and aware of local policing issues’. Directly involved? What does that mean? Does that mean they are general duties officers, or are they school-based police officers? My understanding of what the Police Commissioner said is they start and finish at a police station. Is there going to be flexibility in rostering? Can they go out and do these types of things? Will they have to have guns? If they are going to be frontline police officers, they will wear utility belts and have guns. It will be interesting to see what the NT Police Association will say about their officers whilst kitted up, working one up. Procedures within the police department say if you are going out to be active, you need a partner. How is that going to work? Are we going to have two police officers in schools so they can work together? The flexibility of rostering is going to be interesting. Police General Orders will have to change, and I am sure the Police Association will have something to say about police officers being kitted up and working on their own.
What about the education policy? The Education department and guns in schools - that will have to change as well. I wonder what school councils will say when they have police officers in schools with guns, kitted up, capsicum spray, a range of kit and caboodle they need to perform frontline police activity.
Has there been any community consultation in relation to school-based police officers with guns in schools as opposed to general duties officers responding to operational requirements? There will be operational requirements for police to respond to reactive things. However, we are talking about proactive duties and the ability of the local sergeant or superintendent to recall that police officer, put him back into frontline policing, if the officer in charge of the police station deems it necessary, because they are, and remain, police officers and will support frontline police activity. Where is the detail?
This is the thin edge of the wedge to get school-based police officers out of schools, back into police stations where they can be absorbed into operational police numbers. It also helps the government say: ‘We have all these extra police officers around the place’, and quote the number of operational police officers they have. There is an enormous amount of work school-based police officers do voluntarily after hours, and I am wonder how much of that will happen. How will officers feel about going out there? I suspect some of this is more about fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles than worrying about where these people start and finish.
A great adage says: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Prevention is better than cure and, in fact, is far cheaper. The police shoulder badge motto is: ‘To serve and protect’. I always believed prevention is protecting, however it seems we are going to have less protection and more police officers trying to clean up the mess due to the lack of prevention and community policing this government is prepared to put into our community. I am appalled at the statements by the member for Johnston.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Deputy Speaker, before I get into my electorate adjournments, I have to say the contribution heard from the member for Sanderson is nothing short of disgraceful and shows absolute contempt for, not only this parliament, but also the Police Commissioner. I can categorically rule out right here, right now, that our police force and our school-based constables will be wearing guns in schools. What the member for Sanderson has stated tonight is nothing short of disgraceful. He is not fit to be a member of parliament by coming into this House without a shred, a skerrick, of evidence.
He stands here knowing this parliament is broadcast, that journalists are listening, that people may be viewing this on the Internet, and making a statement that our school-based police constables will be wearing guns in schools. That is absolutely …
Mr Styles: I did not say that; I said ‘maybe’.
Mr HENDERSON: … disgusting …
Mr Styles: Maybe.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … and disgraceful, and goes to show what a grubby, rumourmongering, rumour pedalling, contemptuous piece of work the member for Sanderson is.
I state very clearly on the record: there is absolutely no intention by the Police Commissioner, or by this government, of removing school-based constables from our schools. I put on the record there is absolutely no intention by the Police Commissioner to kit up and arm our school-based constables in our schools in the Northern Territory. It goes to shows what a grub, and what a pedalling rumourmonger the member for Sanderson is. He is nothing short of an absolute disgrace to his former profession, which I hold in very high regard.
He is saying the minutes of this meeting were wrong. I have spoken to other people who were at that meeting and they have confirmed he stated the commissioner was going to pull school-based constables out of the schools. He said he had people coming up to him saying: ‘This is what the commissioner is going to do. We are going to pull these school-based constables out of schools’. Instead of going from school to school around the northern suburbs pedalling rumours - you are a member of parliament, after all, member for Sanderson - he could have contacted directly …
Mr Styles: These were concerns of constituents.
Mr HENDERSON: … either me, as Police minister, or the Police Commissioner, and said: ‘Police minister, Police Commissioner, these rumours are being spread around. Are they true or are they not true? I need to be informed because I am a member of parliament and people are saying this to me, and I need to be informed’. No, he does not do that. He squirms around the northern suburbs, slinking and sliding into school council meetings, peddling rumours …
Mr Styles: Rubbish! Openly asking the questions.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … peddling rumours and misinformation for his own sleazy, grubby, political gains. He has been caught out red-handed. Then, he heaps insult onto self-inflicted injury by coming into this House tonight, after the Police Commissioner had to clarify the peddling of misinformation by a former school-based constable for his own grubby political ends and had to write to schools and say: ‘This is not true. I am not withdrawing our school-based constables from our schools. I am looking at how better to integrate and inform our school-based constables to what is happening around our schools’.
In that memo to schools, the Police Commissioner had to clear up the misinformation and rumourmongering from the member for Sanderson. He certainly did not state school-based constables would be wearing guns into the schools …
Mr Styles: And nor did I.
Mr HENDERSON: You spent about five minutes, member for Sanderson, saying this would be the outcome of these decisions ...
Mr Styles: No, I am asking questions.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: You are nothing short of an absolute grub! If you had any concerns, you could have raised them with me, or with the Police Commissioner. Did you ring the Police Commissioner’s office this afternoon and say: ‘Commissioner, I am very concerned about this letter. I have interpreted this as school-based constables possibly wearing guns in schools’? No, you come into this House tonight knowing you had a media audience to run your grubby little game.
Member for Sanderson, I have lost absolutely all respect for you tonight. You worked long and hard to get into parliament, and I believe you would do better as someone who fought hard to represent your electorate. What you said tonight was an absolute disgrace - there is no way our school-based constables will be wearing guns on school grounds.
Getting on to more pleasant things in my electorate, I would like to talk about Henbury School - fantastic special school in my electorate. I congratulate a new Principal, Carolyn Edwards, who was appointed Principal of the school four to five weeks ago. Carolyn is doing a fantastic job. There is significant funding to upgrade Henbury School in this budget. It is a school which has served thousands of students well over many years, and has a very special place in my heart as member for Wanguri.
The school has successfully opened an opportunity shop, which has moved to Millner, and has proven to be a great success story, because it provides opportunities for students to work in an employment situation, and provides a unique and powerful impact within disability services in the Northern Territory. The students have completed a mural on the wall, and there have been very favourable public comments on the artwork. Many people now smile and drop in to say hello to the students working in the op shop. It goes to show, with a bit of creativity, how our special schools can provide real opportunities for children to be engaged and understand what it is to be in the workplace; and it certainly puts real smiles on the faces of those students.
Wanguri Primary School Principal, Jenny Robinson, has just returned from an international conference in the UK on Constructing Trust. She presented a paper at the conference on that subject. I have had a number of discussions with Jenny about how we build successful workplaces, and how those workplaces function very much on a matter of trust. Jenny has been studying very hard and I look forward to seeing her paper. The study examines how stakeholders use and understand the concepts of trust. I am looking forward to catching up with Jenny and getting a copy of that paper.
Wanguri also held a special Anzac Day ceremony several Wednesdays ago. Unfortunately, I could not be there - I was in Canberra for the COAG meeting. Around 40 Defence personnel attended, followed by morning tea, and students contributed to the program for the ceremony.
At Holy Spirit Catholic School, Principal, Bernadette Morris and the school are really proud. Their Community of Learners Garden is proving to be very successful; it is a fantastic garden, and shows the community what a great school Holy Spirit is. It promotes special relationships with pets, growing fresh produce and eating the end result. Some low life broke into the school and stole one of the chickens - the kids were pretty disappointed about that - I do not know who on earth would steal a chicken. Putting that aside, it is a fantastic initiative from the school. I was very pleased to contribute a number of plants, and it provides a very peaceful environment for our students to enjoy.
Henry Gray and Leanyer Primary School certainly keep going from strength to strength. I had a delegation of Year 5 students come to my office in Wanguri expressing their concerns about the impact on the environment of flatback turtles. I believe most members of parliament have been bombarded with e-mail messages regarding that. The kids have picked up on that issue and presented me with their concerns. I have responded to them with a commitment by our government to protect our marine environment.
Our Leanyer Year 6 students developed a program for Anzac Day with Defence personnel in attendance and I am very proud of Anzac Day at Leanyer School. All classes made wreaths, and the students were responsible for raising the flag and commemorating Anzac Day.
Our schools in the Wanguri electorate keep going from strength to strength, and I look forward to catching up with them soon.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016