2009-05-07
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received two documents relating to pairs from the conclusion of Question Time on Thursday, 7 May 2009 for the member for Johnston, whose pair is the member for Araluen; and for the member for Casuarina whose pair is for the member for Sanderson. That is for the rest of the sitting day after Question Time. The documents have been signed by both the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House on a range of public transport initiatives which the Henderson government has recently implemented in the Northern Territory. As the Minister for Transport, it gave me great pleasure last month to announce the commencement of the new Darwin bus service to Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven and the Convention Centre.
Importantly, this service also provides public transport options to the Tipperary Waters and Francis Bay areas, and a valuable link to the incoming and outgoing Mandorah Ferry Service which brings many Territorians to our city every day. The new service is a Northern Territory government initiative. It delivers on the 2008 election commitment, and complements our ongoing support for Territorians in providing free public bus travel for seniors, pensioners, carers and students.
Budget 2009-10 allocated $1m for the construction of three park-and-ride facilities in the Darwin rural area. This includes rolling out facilities by the end of 2009 at Humpty Doo, Coolalinga and Noonamah, while also expanding the rural bus network. This will deliver on another election commitment and improve commuter and social transport options in the rural area, cut travel costs for more people, and reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. Rural bus services will be coordinated into the orbital bus service to be introduced in 2010 which will provide for increases in service levels between Darwin, Palmerston and Casuarina.
The Henderson government has a clear commitment to the provision of free transport to major and special events. This initiative has proven road safety outcomes, eases traffic congestion and reduces pollution to our environment.
Recent examples of free bus services include a Rugby League match in Darwin, the Victoria Bushfire Benefit Concert, the NAB Cup match in Alice Springs, the opening of the Leanyer water park water slides and the new wave pool, the senior’s Easter lunch, and Anzac Day services. Furthermore, the local member for Daly, Rob Knight, recently announced a Darwin rural area free bus service will be provided for the first time to transport people to and from BassintheGrass, a great concert later this month. This service complements services already provided to Darwin and Palmerston residents. Madam Speaker, public transport rocks!
As we continue to expand and improve our public transport services, we are also ensuring people who work or travel on our public transport system can do so safely. In March, we launched a pilot project to enable travellers between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to have access to baby capsules on Greyhound Australia buses. This initiative not only makes travelling easier but also safer, and is a great example of this government working with the private sector for a positive outcome. I commend Greyhound Australia on their proactive and considerate approach to benefit Territorians.
Finally, I am committed to the development of a regional transport strategy for the Territory. Work has already commenced with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure developing a framework for the strategy. Extensive consultation with industry and broader community sectors is to commence soon, and the strategy is due to be completed by November. This very important work is critical to the future development of the Territory and will consider how best to provide transport links between our major and regional centres and communities.
Madam Speaker, the Henderson government is committed to building and growing the Territory, and the initiatives we are putting in place to expand and improve the Territory bus and public transport network are a fine example of this commitment.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report, and compliment him for bringing on board new bus services, and having a renewed focus on the rural area; something that we have spoken about before. After eight long years of this Labor government, it is about time, with the growing population in the rural area, they had a more adequate bus service.
Having a suitable bus service is important to get drink-drivers off our roads and getting people to and from town during the day, and at night when people are more likely to be drinking and driving. The Minister for Transport would be well aware of my private members’ bill on the Notice Paper related to drink-driving and getting drink-drivers off the road. I know the government is not willing to bring that on early to try to reduce the number of drink-drivers, but I acknowledge this bus service will go some way to improving that.
Also, I look forward to the development of the regional transport strategy. That is an important area we need to focus on, especially for the Minister for Transport, and for the Minister for Regional Development.
I was also interested to hear the member for Daly’s announcements - that is good. I am reminded of an announcement he made before the 2005 election, where he promised to build a bridge over the Daly - a bridge over the Daly where, for six months of the year, people who live there cannot get in. The member for Daly talks about Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program, SIHIP - $700m to build housing for Indigenous Territorians. It was an emergency - John Howard money, Mal Brough - it was an emergency. What has he done? How many houses has he built? None!
Members: None!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: The member for Daly is the man for announcements. He cannot build a bridge, he cannot build a house, but he can sit there and smirk.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I welcome the announcement by the government that the park/drive system is going ahead. It is a pity the Noonamah car park was built before they announced they were going to do the park/drive, because it is a bit of a debacle there at the present time. It is good you are doing that at Noonamah; you should also include a park/drive facility at Howard Springs, possibly near the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway.
In relation to free buses, after some lobbying from both the member for Goyder and me, I am glad the government did allow free buses to BassintheGrass. Minister, you announced all those venues and events you provide free buses for in Darwin; they should automatically include people in the rural area. We need more buses on the weekend. Young people in the rural area who are not old enough to have a licence cannot get to Palmerston late on Saturday, and not at all on Sunday. There definitely needs to be an improvement in services on the weekend to help young people get around.
The bus service should be extended to the Wildlife Park and the Berry Springs area. There is no reason why a public bus service cannot be involved in getting people to some of these tourism facilities. You already do it for places like Crocodylus Park; I do not see why you cannot do it for your own place. Elsewhere in Australia you can go to national parks and tourist facilities using public bus services.
The other area you have missed, minister, is there has been not one iota of bicycle path built in the rural area for at least 10 years. If we are looking at getting people off the road, getting people fit, giving people alternative transport, then the government needs to put its money where its mouth is and build some bicycle paths in the rural area. Also, let us not forget the option of rail as a future means of transport because buses are not the only way to carry people.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his contribution and the positive element on the new bus services.
In relation to drink-driving, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Review, which is an extensive consultation process, is seriously looking at this issue as well; so government has many initiatives on the table and, of course, the celebration with the Regional Transport Strategy is a great move forward. Then, unfortunately, we ran into some serious carbon emissions there.
I take note of the member for Nelson as a positive, well-spoken, and well-informed local member. I have taken on board your suggestions on locations, routes, and timetabling; that is really important and is the type of idea I feed into the agency - also on the bicycle paths. That gives me great information from the rural area. On the Noonamah car park, I have been there once each week and I am very pleased to see the improvements in that area ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I share with the House the recent success of Tourism NT’s annual product roadshow, the NT Muster. The NT Muster provides a unique opportunity for tourism operators to educate the national travel industry about Northern Territory tourism products. In today’s ever-changing travel marketplace, tourism products are distributed through multiple channels, ranging from online, retail shopfronts, to inbound and wholesale providers. NT Muster is an event which provides sellers from all these distribution channels with the skills and knowledge to promote the Northern Territory as a primary domestic tourism destination.
A key function of Tourism NT is to manage relationships with both trade and industry partners. As part of this charter, Tourism NT manage the NT Muster, which includes the coordination of Northern Territory operator attendance on the travelling roadshow, and ensures the cream of the national travel industry attend the show, thus providing the opportunity for the destination to turn interest into actual sales and visitor numbers.
This year, the muster was held in March, and Tourism NT escorted 39 NT tourism operators, representing 64 products and services, to Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth. The event provides a platform for operators to meet trade professionals in a short period of time, rather than undertaking months of sales calls, which is a time-consuming and costly exercise.
NT Muster offers Northern Territory tourism operators direct exposure to key markets which provide the Northern Territory with the greatest number of domestic visitors, and an opportunity to meet face-to-face with travel industry staff and deliver up-to-date product information. It also provides exposure of products and services to key travel media. In addition to the promotional opportunities, NT Muster provides Northern Territory operators with the opportunity to gain market intelligence directly from people who are actively selling Northern Territory holidays to their clients, and then to fine-tune their products to better meet the needs of visitors to the Northern Territory.
Attendance at this year’s Territory Muster has been strong, with 514 visitors attending the roadshow nationally. There was a feeling from NT operators that many of the attendees are considering the Territory as an important holiday alternative for their clients who would otherwise be considering an overseas holiday in pursuit of different cultures and unique landscapes. Following on from this event, Tourism NT will continue to work with NT operators to ensure they have the relevant tools in place to convert leads generated from NT Muster into actual sales.
Going forward, Tourism NT will distribute a database of all agents in attendance at the Muster to NT operators so they can effectively follow up and further build their relationships. Overall, remarks by participants have been very positive, especially in regard to the quality of agents and the organisation of the roadshow. A number of interstate agents and delegates have also commented the muster stands out in comparison to other states’ travel industry events.
In addition, the Destinations Editor for Travel Talk magazine attended the Perth show, which has resulted in an ongoing program of editorials in the magazine for the ensuing six months. Travel Weekly also attended the Sydney event, which inspired an editorial piece in the magazine featuring a new product in Central Australia - Central Australia Experience, or CAE, the new Indigenous tourism hub which represents Jungala Enterprises, RT Tours Australia, Black Tank, and Rainbow Valley Cultural Tours.
The strong attendance by agents at this year’s NT Muster demonstrated a genuine desire on agents’ behalf to better equip them to sell the Northern Territory to their clients. This is important as it demonstrates the continuing success of Tourism NT’s marketing program, Share Our Story, which works to create the desire and intention to visit the Northern Territory. Events such as the NT Muster ensure our trade partners have the knowledge and enthusiasm to convert that desire into actual sales for our industry.
The annual NT Muster is an important activity and aligned strongly with our focus on the domestic market at this time of downturn in international tourism.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. It is good to hear that NT Muster has again gone well. There is absolutely no doubt about it; we have fantastic tourism operators in the Northern Territory who get around, showcase their product and never fail to impress. It is great to see they have gone to Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. It is important they go to these marketplaces and meet the key agents who send tourists to the Northern Territory.
It might interest the minister to know that last week those agents - the key travel media and the key markets he was talking about in this report - were all here in Darwin. That is right. They were at probably the biggest tourism conference in Australia for the year – the ATEC Symposium. I know the minister spent 10 or 15 minutes giving them a blurb about the Northern Territory before he scurried off somewhere else. That was the last the minister had to do with them.
All of these agents were in Darwin to promote tourism and were very keen to look at our product. I know they were all very impressed with the Territory. I was completely disappointed and very embarrassed by the lack of commitment our government showed to that symposium. No Tourism Minister, no Chief Minister, or any other member of the government could be bothered going to talk to these people when they came to see us. We did not have to spend a fortune trucking our operators around the country. No, these guys came here and the Chief Minister and the Tourism Minister chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore them. I feel completely ashamed that I am involved with a government whose members cannot be bothered getting off their backsides to promote tourism in the NT, particularly when those agents come to the Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired. Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS (Tourism): This is the second time the member for Fong Lim has raised attendance at ATEC. I did attend. The somewhere else I had to go to after I gave my speech at ATEC was parliament. We know what the member for Fong Lim thinks about parliament - somewhere else. At ATEC I met with quite a number of industry people and I took the opportunity to meet with individuals and groups about Northern Territory tourism.
Mr Tollner: Rubbish. You buried your head in the sand.
Dr BURNS: In terms of attendance at a whole range of events, we have not seen …
Mr Tollner: You ignored they were here. You hung out with your comrades.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: … the member for Fong Lim at any public function - not one. I did not see him at the Seniors’ Easter Party at the Kalymnian Hall, either; I did not see him at any meeting associated with Arafura Harbour. This is the bloke with his head in the sand. He likes to go to fine wine deals, but not the nuts and bolts.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I report on the innovative work being carried out by my department of Regional Development in Tennant Creek, in regard to the Tennant Creek Foundation.
The Tennant Creek Foundation has been established to provide an overarching commercial vehicle to lease the facilities at Battery Hill Mining Centre and Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Cultural Centre. The foundation will provide a vehicle for economic development in the region and, most importantly, provide employment opportunities for Indigenous people.
Early in 2007, both Battery Hill Mining Centre and Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Cultural Centre approached the Northern Territory government. Both centres acknowledged their struggle to achieve sustainable commercial outcomes and their need to make a significant change in order to move forward. These two facilities are economically, historically, and culturally important to the community of Tennant Creek, and play an important role in the region.
Battery Hill Mining Centre is a well-established facility which runs an impressive mine tour and houses the McLaughlin Mineral Collection, and a social history museum celebrating Tennant Creeks’ gold rush days. The centre is also the home of the Tennant Creek Visitor Information Centre and the site of many corporate and community functions.
Opened in July 2003, the Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Cultural Centre is owned by the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation and is the home of a sacred site for the Warumungu people. The centre is a world-class, modern art gallery that houses important collections which celebrate local Indigenous history and culture. Both centres have enormous potential for further development. These centres provide tourists with good reasons to spend extra time stopping over in Tennant Creek supporting local hotels, restaurants, clubs and other businesses.
My department works with both Battery Hill Mining Centre Board and Julalikari to broker a fresh approach to the business conducted at the centres. Both boards worked exceptionally well together to establish the foundation. I especially acknowledge the leadership and hard work of Ms Pat Braham from Julalikari Council; Mr Derek McTadden from Battery Hill. Without their dedication and commitment to the foundation it would not have been possible.
On 13 March 2009, with the member for Barkly, I was privileged to be part of the community celebrations to mark the establishment of the foundation in Tennant Creek. The Tennant Creek council has committed over $258 000 per annum for the first two years of operation, and Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation has also committed to its ongoing support. The objectives of the foundation are to manage the business operations at the centre and to encourage learning, understanding and scholarship in relation to the Tennant Creek region and its history, culture and languages.
The foundation is administered by a board of directors who are commercially focused with experience in business. The inaugural Chairman is a well-known Territorian - well-known to all of us here as a well-respected businessman - Mr Bruce Fadelli. Mr Fadelli is a former Tennant Creek resident who has maintained a strong connection with, and a passion for, Tennant Creek. I am confident that under Mr Fadelli’s stewardship the foundation will meet its objectives.
Mr Elliot McAdam commenced with the foundation as its CEO in September 2008. As many in this House know, Mr McAdam is a strong advocate for the people in Tennant Creek and has a proud history of representing the region, including in this parliament as the previous member for Barkly. Since starting as the CEO, Mr McAdam has prepared both centres for the commencement of the upcoming tourist season; leased the caf at Nyinkka Nyunyu, and worked with the staff and accountants to achieve efficiencies. The board is currently focusing on establishment issues such as the potential for heritage listing for Battery Hill Mining Centre and improvements to the Visitor Information Centre.
Madam Speaker, the potential for product development at each centre is exciting and negotiations are taking place for new tours, increased cultural activities and greater use of attractions at both facilities. This initiative is another example of the Henderson government’s commitment to real jobs in the bush. It is an initiative that is already producing results.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Nyinkka Nyunyu and Battery Hill Mining Centre are great places. Every time I am in Tennant Creek I stop at Battery Hill. I do not always stop at Nyinkka Nyunyu, but I stop at Battery Hill. I was there not that long ago with the member for Fong Lim. We stopped at Battery Hill and had a look around – it is a great place.
I recognise the minister talking about the previous member for Barkly, I was sitting here listening and thinking …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: … where can I do some research about the previous member for Barkly. I was going to approach the member for Karama, because she is apparently a good friend of the previous member for Barkly, but I did not have time to approach her about her friendship with the previous member for Barkly.
I note the commitment to regional development, and looking after Elliot McAdam who is a good bloke. I recognise the $200 000 which was put forward to the Tennant Creek Foundation which looks after Nyinkka Nyunyu and Battery Hill Mines, and where the previous member for Barkly is employed as a consultant. I reflected on a previous minister working at the Chief Minister’s office in Palmerston and candidates working in Katherine and Alice Springs, and I said: ‘What have they done in Tennant Creek?’ Well, they have appointed the previous member for Barkly.
I notice the $200 000 which went to the Tennant Creek Foundation last year is really ensuring that the previous member for Barkly has a good job. In the upcoming budget, it has increased from $200 000 to $260 000 - a lot of money towards that.
Also, despite the fact that Tennant Creek Foundation or Nyinkka Nyunyuand Battery Hill Mine will get an increase of $60 000, the department of Regional Development, in what I consider to be a very important area, is getting a budget cut of $414 000 this financial year - that is in Indigenous businesses. You say you are committed to the region, but you are cutting the budget and giving your mates extra money keeping them in jobs …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, it is a shame the member for Braitling continues to play politics with these great initiatives. The member for Braitling …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: The member for Braitling has blown into the Territory in the last few years and puts down people like Elliot McAdam who are born and bred Territorians. It is a real shame and very disappointing that he continues to put Territorians down.
We have the budget this year from the Treasurer. We are investing $1.3bn into infrastructure right throughout the regions. We are about creating jobs and keeping jobs in the Territory. The Tennant Creek Foundation is just another example of how this government is intent on creating and securing jobs in the Territory, no matter where you live - whether it is Tennant Creek or Alice Springs. It is a disappointing response from the member for Braitling, who continues to put people down who were born and bred in the Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Continued from 17 February 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I seek indulgence of members because of the absence of the member for Araluen, who is unwell. I am sure we all pray for her speedy recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: I hope members will forgive me if my offerings to this House on this particular issue are not as comprehensive as they could have been. I will endeavour to cover the issues in the bill. It is not a long bill, and it can quickly be gleaned from the intent of the bill what is trying to be achieved.
Before I go into the intent of the bill itself, it is worth speaking about what I see as a maturing of the legal profession which has been occurring over the last 20 or 30 years. It is reflected in many areas of the pre-trial process. I am talking about both civil and criminal cases; I am speaking quite generally at the moment. There was a time when the trial was a vehicle by which to examine all issues. If you go back through the history of the development of common law to the 1200s and 1300s a trial was, basically, a process where, whatever the matter, it was sorted there and then on the spot, all evidence was adduced on the spot, and a judge sat in adjudication over the issue. Of course, there were many courts in those days; ecclesiastical courts as well as the common law courts were developing.
As time has passed, arguments and law have become more sophisticated. That is because the people who attend to matters legal have to deal with a much more sophisticated environment. You start to see this in books like Tyrannicide Brief which was written by Geoffrey Robertson, who wrote a book about the trial of Charles I. He juxtaposed the justice offered to Charles I to the justice – or lack of trials - offered to the prosecutors of Charles I by Charles II. If you ever want to see an expos on tyranny and how it compares with those seeking to find justice in our community, it is a worthwhile read, because it is from those systems and principles that we gain our legal system today.
Speaking of more recent times, the last century or so, the pre-trial process is far more comprehensive than what used to happen in pre-trial process. It is for this reason that, in the area of civil law particularly, we have elements like discovery and such things. It is notable that, in this day and age, the law is so well settled on so many issues that, when a person seeks legal advice in a civil matter, they often find themselves going through a process of exchanging letters with the other party, only to discover that the matter is already well settled in law and there is actually no dispute to bring before a Justice at all.
It is my belief about 90% of matters which start with threats of legal action end up without going to court, because wise lawyers offering good advice show, dare I say, judgment in favour of their clients. That judgment is often wise in the sense that they instruct their clients, quite honestly, that their cases would be, potentially, hopeless.
Part of that pre-trial process is the process of discovery. Discovery is a system by which one side of a civil dispute will be seen to extract out of the other side all evidence they can adduce for the purposes of determining the strength of their case. A common act in discovery is to extract from the other side of a litigation a whole pile of documents which will go a long way to either confirming or denying evidence of the matter the plaintiff would be alleging. In such circumstances, discovery and the rules around discovery have become well settled. What can be and what cannot be discovered is well settled and, as a consequence, often you can predict what the result of the trial would be and, in many instances, it would be a foolhardy litigant who would continue to pursue a particular matter. Indeed, in even more recent times, those lawyers who have supported foolhardy litigation themselves have become subject to criticism by the courts - and rightly so.
However, we are not speaking of civil matters. It is important to place what the legislation suggests into a modern context, regarding what happens in the pre-trial process. Whilst expert evidence has been around for some time, the nature of what is expert evidence has been changing in what is available as expert evidence to the courts. There was a time when there was very little expert evidence. Not much could have been adduced from the experts 150 years ago because the sciences and philosophies had not separated themselves to any great extent, and an expert witness may well have been seen by the court as little more than a soothsayer.
In more recent times with the advance of the sciences, particularly the forensic sciences, we now find ourselves in an environment where the soothsaying aspect is far removed and in its place is good, hard evidence to underwrite expert witnesses. Expert witnesses are often people of many years standing in professions and have dedicated themselves to particular fields of study. More recently there have been things like DNA evidence, which has only been around largely for 10 years and is a very recent manifestation of evidence that is available. A court, without any scientific structure around itself, needs to listen to these scientists and give weight to and determine the quality and strength of the evidence they hear It is not surprising, when DNA evidence originally started to be trotted out in courts, the way the numbers work in DNA evidence was misunderstood and, potentially, can be quite complex for the uninitiated.
If you consider this new philosophy of the pre-trial process where you expose more of your case to the other side, as well as the rising nature of expert opinion in evidence, then you find yourself in a wonderful new world.
However, through the criminal process there is a certain amount of protection granted to a person who is accused of a crime. This introduces a new aspect to the debate at hand. It is up to the prosecution, under the principles of our criminal justice system, to prove the allegation against a person beyond reasonable doubt. So, it behoves the prosecution to demonstrate they are able to make the criminal case they are alleging. That means the prosecution, should it go through a committal process for arguments sake, must lay out and bare its hand.
That stands to reason, if you think about it, because it is the Crown, essentially, prosecuting a person for committing a criminal act, as described by an act of this parliament or the federal parliament - or whichever parliament it may be. In such circumstances, it is more than reasonable to say to the prosecuting authority or to the Crown: ‘Make out your case, show us what you have, because we do not have to say anything’. This is where you get the element of the right to silence, a system to which we adhere. The theory is, if you want to allege something, then you make the allegation and you make proof of the allegation before I even have to say ‘boo’.
That is a hideous oversimplification but is, essentially, what happens in the criminal process. Through the committal process, a person who stands accused may not necessarily make a single utterance to the court, and will simply defer the matter for the magistrate to determine that it should be committed to the Supreme Court. Then, the defendant may rest silent until such time as the prosecution makes out its case in the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, it enables a situation to occur where a defence may choose to introduce, at the last moment, some matter of evidence which will cast a new light over the allegations of the prosecution.
However, there are practical considerations with this approach, and they are one of the issues this bill is seeking to address. The practical considerations I refer to are that lawyers are not experts in other fields - for argument’s sake, if you take the observation about DNA evidence. For the defence to seek to introduce an expert witness on DNA, which may take the prosecution by surprise, the physical process is the expert witness comes into the room and gives their evidence. If it is good evidence and supports the defendant’s case enormously, a prosecutor is essentially wrong-footed in such an environment, and may not know the correct questions to ask.
This brings me back to the point that I was making about the pre-trial process and how the civil process has advanced enormously in allowing a pre-trial trial, if you like, between the lawyers. We do not want to, in this place, denigrate or diminish the right of an individual to ask the Crown to make their case. Nor do we seek in this parliament to diminish the right of the defence to offer a defence on behalf of their client, or for a person who stands accused to offer a defence to the Court.
However, this bill suggests a more commonsense approach. It is not fair to a prosecutor to ask them to deal with an expert witness or the evidence they seek to adduce from that witness in an instant, which is why I turn to the explanatory notes. What the government is intending by this bill, and I quote section 331A(2)(a)(b) Notice of expert evidence:
Of course, this then challenges the concept of being able to offer a defence after you have seen all the evidence the prosecution has, and it creates a tension in the legal environment in the fact that the Crown must make out its case. However, the yardstick we have to use in such circumstances is necessarily the yardstick of procedural fairness.
It is procedurally unfair, in the opinion of members on this side, to determine that a prosecutor - who everyone knows is not an expert in DNA evidence or psychology, or anything of that nature - has a right to know exactly what the evidence is that is being proposed. The purpose of this comes under the microscope in an overall fashion, and it is this: what is fair in producing a fair trial. In terms of producing a fair trial, this is fair, because it will then enable the prosecution to make sufficient enquiries to discover a couple of things: (1) whether the expert evidence is going to be just token and, therefore, does nothing to diminish the quality of the prosecution case, or importantly, (2) the expert evidence is of such a nature that it actually challenges the prosecution case so successfully that it renders the prosecution case unviable. That is an important note to make.
The exchange of information is, essentially, part of a pre-trial trial, similar to the civil environment but, in this instance, the expert evidence may well provide information which will demonstrate the innocence of a particular defendant. That is an important thing we have to consider: the fairness of the trial process which we are turning our attention to here today. If we do not go down this path and we find witnesses are giving evidence and capturing or wrong-footing a prosecution through a tactical response rather than a response which is embedded in the principles of a fair trial, then a prosecution which seeks to challenge the witness evidence at a later date may find themselves having to recall that witness and challenge the evidence of that witness.
The problem of challenging the evidence of a witness after the witness has left the stand is that you come into a situation where you break the well-established rule in a case called Browne v Dunn. I will give honourable members a concept of what that was about.
Browne v Dunn was a case that dates back to 1893. It relates to a document which was signed in 1891 by a group of people. I shall not go into the details of the case at length, but it was signed by a group of people many of whom - not all - were later required to give evidence in relation to the document. The issue which arose out of the document was a civil one. It was a matter of what we now call defamation; in those days it would have been called liable. It was a defamation action, so it was a civil matter.
What came out of that was, at a later point, the defence ran a line of argument which went contrary to the 40 or so witnesses who had given evidence in relation to the document. At no point was it put to any witness in the process an allegation the document was, in any way, false. However, it was later raised as a defence. None of the witnesses who were able to attest to the genuineness or otherwise of the document had the question put to them; and that is an issue of procedural fairness.
Lord Herschell is worth reading in relation to the rule on Browne v Dunn. I will quote Lord Herschell, who was the Lord Chancellor who dealt with this. No, I will actually quote from the Companion to Uniform Evidence Law on page 78, in which Lord Herschell made some comments - but there are also some editorial notes which is why I am not quoting His Lordship directly.
I will not quote the whole quote from the book, but I will go on to a direct quote from His Lordship:
In other words, it is difficult for an alleging party - in this case, in a civil case - to assert after a witness has given evidence that some component of the witness evidence is wrong. I put that into the context of the modern criminal trial, and I will return to the issue of the rule of Browne v Dunn in criminal trial shortly. If you put that into the context of a criminal trial, what it basically says is that, if a prosecutor hears evidence from an expert witness which he was not expecting to have to deal with and, suddenly, finds he has not represented the case effectively, then it is difficult for the prosecutor to make certain assertions.
If an expert witness gives evidence and, because of the in-expertise of the prosecutor or defence lawyer - the rule, as I understand, works both ways - they cannot then go back and do research to discover there is a major flaw in the evidence the expert has given, and then come back into court and run some argument contrary to the witness' own testimony, because that is unfair to the witness and the witness has no chance to answer such an assertion. Consequently, that is why the rule in Browne v Dunn exists.
Then, you have to go through a complicated process, or there are challenges a prosecutor then faces in recalling the witness. It is possible to recall a witness, and I turn to that particular issue shortly. However, the rule of Browne v Dunn has found its way into Australian law. I turn to Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, Administrative Law Division: Hunt J [1983] New South Wales Law Reports at page 16, which refers to Justice Wells and Reed and Kerr, and makes comments in relation to the fairness of making assertions about witness evidence to which the witness was not able to respond. Justice Wells says two things. First, it deals with the common justice to the witness; and second, that it is based on the practical needs of the trial and the adversarial system that a judge or jury is entitled to have presented to them issues of fact that are well and truly joined on by the evidence.
So, once again, there is this urge in the courts to be able to protect the integrity of witness evidence; that if witness evidence is to be challenged then it is to be challenged in such a fashion that the witness has a right of reply. This has manifested slightly differently in the two jurisdictions as England and Australia have grown up. In England, of course, Browne v Dunn still has weight, but it enables a Justice to actually direct a jury.
I now quote from Uniform Evidence Law: Text and Essential Cases by Peter Bayne:
It goes on to say:
Which means if there is a final submission by a prosecutor which challenges a witness and there is no evidence to support the quality of that challenge, in England there is a capacity for the jury to be directed not to hear the evidence at all. However, in Australia, there is a slightly different variation on that theme. From Paric and John Holland Constructions, Justice Samuel said:
Slightly different in function but it is well established, both here and in England, that you have to deal with this rule because of procedural fairness - and that is what this bill is all about - it is about procedural fairness. Then you have the added challenge as a prosecutor, as you become aware of flaws in the expert witness evidence, of dealing with the matter which now flows from it. Say, for argument’s sake, there is a fundamental flaw in the quality of an expert witness evidence before the court. You then have to go through the very difficult process of reopening the case, or reopening criminal matters, and that is a problem. It has been a matter to which the Australian courts have turned their minds.
Probably one of the better guides is given by Chief Justice Gleeson in Seymour and Australian Broadcasting Commission. He says, at page 236:
This business of having to come back into court and demonstrate you have new information about the evidence the witness has given is a real challenge to the courts because it immediately throws up a question mark over the quality of the trial a defendant or an accused person has been subjected to. This bill seeks to avoid that occurring. If you want to see the complexities that arise out of such criminal cases, then I urge honourable members to read Shaw v R 1952. It is an Australian case where Justices Dixon, McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto went through a process of determining when you can reopen a criminal case.
The importance of all of this, as I have said several times, is fairness needs to be achieved. It is clearly a process of unfairness where technical and difficult evidence is examined for the first time, on the face of it, whilst the expert is sitting in the witness box. It has the potential to lead to an injustice, and it may be an injustice that works in either direction. It may convince a jury of the value of the expert witnesses’ strength that their client is innocent, but it may just as easily convince a prosecution of the innocence if they know in advance what this expert is going to say.
It is through the process of avoiding the rules of Browne v Dunn and trying to find a fairer criminal justice system that the Attorney-General has brought this matter before the House. I ask the Attorney-General a couple of specific questions in relation to the bill. I am sure she will assure me or direct me during her summation as to whether she has addressed the issues.
I seek the Attorney-General’s guidance on something. It is my understanding - and I cannot place my hand on it at short notice - that in New South Wales there is also a requirement for a declaration of some description to be made by the expert witness, or by the defence, as to the remuneration which is provided to the expert witness for the evidence they offer. The reason for this, I suspect, is to instruct, particularly a jury, about the bondage by which a witness finds him or herself bound to a particular case. For argument’s sake, if an expert witness in psychology was giving evidence on behalf of a defendant and it was determined the psychologist was receiving $0.5m for their evidence that day, a question might be raised in the jurors’ minds as to the veracity and integrity of that expert advice.
Whilst it is a highly subjective issue for a juror to contend with, and also an extreme example, one can understand why jurors would like to have that information before they place a certain weight or quality upon the information they receive from the expert witness. That being the case, I am wondering if the government has turned its mind to that particular issue as well, because it might be quite informative to a jury to know how much an expert witness is being paid. One of the great criticisms of the modern judicial environment is people with money tend to escape punishment for their crimes more often; that is, as the general argument goes, they can afford better defence.
If you look at the environment of the court system - I recently spent a day with the Legal Aid Commission, and I would like to thank Sue Cox for her indulgence in allowing me to spend a day, or two sessions, with the Legal Aid Commission just following their lawyers around - you start to understand how much of a truism that is. If you see a private firm which bills out $300 or $400 an hour, depending on the firm and the service they are providing, then you can buy yourself a certain quality of legal representation. Without for one second diminishing the passion of the lawyers who work in the legal aid profession, their caseloads alone leave you with the impression that they can only do but the very best under very limited circumstances.
The lawyer I spent the day with at Legal Aid was dealing with upwards of 30 or 40 clients. That, of course, means that the quality of his attention must be split amongst 30 or 40 clients. Whereas a lawyer hired privately probably deals with one or two matters in the lower courts on a bail and arrest day. That percolates through to the quality of the defence in a criminal trial. If, in the case of a criminal trial - and we are now talking about the Supreme Court - a defendant is calling in numerous expert witnesses to support an assertion, then I believe it is within the realms of fairness for the jury to know, and even the judge to know, what payment is being made to the expert witness. As I said before, it is a highly subjective thing, and a jury is best positioned to make a wise decision when it is fully informed of all of the facts, including the nature of what is happening in the trial process.
I ask the Attorney-General to turn her mind to that particular issue when she replies here today. I do not know if that has been looked at or not; I find no reference to it in the second reading speech or in the bill. However, I ask the Attorney-General to turn her attention to it.
As I said at the outset, we support this bill because it simply encompasses the principles of fair conduct. In conclusion, you will see the structures of the legal system have changed, particularly over the last 100 years. Expert evidence is far more technical than it used to be; far beyond the realms of mortal lawyers to understand psychological, DNA and forensic evidence of ballistics, and all those other things, sufficiently well to expect them to cross-examine on those particular issues without notice. The principles in this bill are designed to achieve an outcome which will not see breaches of the rule in Browne v Dunn but, rather, see an outcome where there are informed lawyers walking into a courtroom.
We, on this side of the House, acknowledge this in a small way diminishes the right of the defendants’ silence leading up to a criminal trial. It diminishes it inasmuch as the prosecutor will have to know in advance the details about the expert and, more importantly, information and the substance of the proposed evidence. To signal what the substance of the proposed evidence will be is, in part, to signal what you intend to run as a defence from a defence team.
This is not a matter I take lightly. As a legislator, I am aware of the principles our criminal justice system affords the accused. I am always cautious, as I am sure are all members on this side of the House, in diminishing those principles of protection of the rights of an accused to receive a fair trial. However, we then have to weigh the problems we have on the other side of the debate as to what is fair to the trial process. To ask a defendant to give notice of expert evidence and the substance of that evidence, enables parties to prepare for a trial more fully. It will avoid the nasty and difficult process you have to go through to reopen trials. It will avoid, in the worst circumstances, appeals being successful on the grounds the trial did not proceed properly. On balance of those two separate and competing considerations, I am of the opinion, as are members on this side of the House, that this is good law.
Madam Speaker, it is for that reason the government can enjoy our support in relation to this particular bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will probably be shorter; I do not have the legal background the learned member for Port Darwin has in relation to this bill. However, I understand the basics of it - to have a fairer process. To put it in simple terms, it is trying to stop sneaky business - someone surprising …
Mr Elferink: Yes, that is what I said.
Mr WOOD: That is right. … someone putting evidence forward at the last minute, which no one knows about, trying to get the accused off - that is not the legal terminology, but that is what it is about.
I have a few questions I would like to ask about the bill. I had a briefing from the department, and I thank the minister for that briefing. I ask these questions now because they might be dealt with when the minister speaks in reply. They relate to proposed new section 331A. My first question is in relation to proposed new section 331A(1). Why does this principle not apply in other courts? If we are trying to stop someone bringing in so-called experts at the last minute to try to win a case, could that same principle not apply in other courts?
The other question is regarding the proposed new section 331A(2)(b) in relation to the accused intending to produce expert evidence during the trial. The accused must give written notice in accordance with this section to the court and prosecution. It says: 'within another time allowed by the court'. I would like to know how that works in practise. The principle here was to give at least 14 days notice. The proposed new section 331A(2)(b), is basically saying we could allow less than 14 days. How would it actually work? How would someone apply to have less than 14 days to produce written notice?
Another question is in relation to proposed new section 331A(7). This section is mentioned in the last paragraph of the second reading. It says:
It says in the explanatory notes, not the second reading speech, there are sanctions for failure to comply with the notice requirements; namely, the trial can be adjourned, the jury can be discharged, or the court or the prosecution can make comment to the jury about the contravention. It uses the word ‘sanctions’, but there does not seem to be much sanction against the person who contravenes the requirement. My question is: is there any form of penalty to someone who contravenes this section of the act? I do not see that necessarily as a sanction. It is a cost to the taxpayer, but it is not necessarily a sanction on the person who was required to bring their expert evidence before the court at least 14 days before the start of the trial. I wonder what is meant by sanctions. I will leave those questions with the minister.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendment. If I feel the answers are not adequate, I will probably ask to go to committee, but we will just see what comes back in reply.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support this bill which, essentially, proposes amendments requiring the defence to notify of its intention to call expert evidence, which would make a trial process fairer, would reduce court time and costs, and reduce trauma to witnesses. These amendments to the Criminal Code bring the Northern Territory into line with other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas.
In this day and age, with advancements in technology and science, the nature of evidence has become much more complex, making the task of those in the judicial system all the more challenging. A quick Google of the words ‘expert evidence’ brings with it countless results to suggest it is not only an important field in the legal system, but one which has generated a good deal of research, study and surveys highlighting the growing complexity of expert evidence and indicating the need for some reforms.
From one paper I read, the key findings and outcomes, entitled Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence an Empirical Study, the authors write:
To have the ability to evaluate from a dispassionate standpoint may be fine for a judge who, in the course of their work, constantly comes in contact with expert evidence, but it is all the more difficult for a jury of men and women who do not have that familiarity and are very much the lay decision-makers.
However, one of the issues around expert evidence is highlighted in another paper entitled Access to Civil Justice Report by Lord Woolf in 1995, and it gets to the crux of the matter:
Cynical though this may sound, we must remember that an independent expert’s ultimate duty is to the court, not to the engaging party. It has long been accepted that specialised areas of knowledge, where relevant to the determination of a disputed factual issue, should be explained to the jury by experts in the field because the jury can be presumed to be unfamiliar with such areas. This does something to ensure that the jury does not draw erroneous inferences from the evidence before it, and it is properly equipped to determine how much weight, if any, to give to the evidence to which the expert relates. If the role of the expert is to assist the court to determine the issues in dispute, then the court must be able to assess the evidence put forward, including the independent expert’s opinion.
As the Minister for Justice said in her second reading speech, the fact that the Northern Territory, unlike the majority of jurisdictions in Australia, does not have legislation requiring defence to disclose an intention to call expert evidence means the prosecution can be taken by surprise during a trial. This means the prosecution is not afforded sufficient opportunity to assess or to scrutinise the evidence.
By making it necessary for the defence to notify the court of the intention to call an expert witness, it will provide a greater level of fairness in Supreme Court jury trials, where the prosecution is already required to disclose all evidence prior to the trial. It will improve the efficiency of jury trials by ensuring the calling of an expert witness does not increase the time taken for the trial by delaying the trial, and costs in resolving the court case are not increased as a result of delays. It will improve efficiency as the prosecutor knows the defence intends to call an expert and will know what the person’s opinion is assisting cross-examination of the witness and assessing the evidence.
This bill is about fairness and increasing efficiency in the Northern Territory’s criminal justice system. I also note the courts, members of the legal profession, and judges of the Supreme Court have been consulted with regard to proposed changes to the legislation, and the majority were supportive.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for Justice for this bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have listened closely to the debate so far. This amendment is non-controversial and, as I understand it, will improve the law. This is one of the very few occasions I have the opportunity to come into this place and say something the government has done improves the law, because it is not exactly their strong suit. When it comes to criminal activity and crime in the Northern Territory the government is pretty average, to say the least ...
Ms Purick: Very average.
Mr TOLLNER: Very average. In relation to this particular bill, I have concerns that the government has no plans in place to ensure that our courts are freed up, time is made available, and that our gaols are freed up. As we know, the courts are chock-a-block with cases and our gaols are chock-a-block. We are told that we are demolishing our existing prison and we are going to blow another $300m on a new prison which, we are informed, will be full within three years of its construction.
We are happy with this legislation because it gets the balance right between the rights and the responsibilities of the prosecutors and the courts but, obviously, it will put in place a few delays in trials and so on. Courts are currently chock-a-block; further delays are only going to exacerbate the problems. Sadly, this is something the Territory government has not turned its eye or attention to at all.
In my own electorate, there is only one issue of major concern to people and that is the issue of crime. Crime abounds, violent activity abounds, antisocial behaviour abounds. It never seems to stop. I am called up at all hours of the day and night by concerned citizens who cannot seem to get police around to their places. On many occasions I have attended places where there have been riots, violent activity, noise problems or antisocial behaviour problems, only to find that I arrive there before the police, irrespective of the fact that the police, in some cases, have been contacted five or six times ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know the member for Fong Lim is vitally interested in supporting this legislation, but it goes to relevance. He is straying far and wide now.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you of Standing Order 67, No digression from the subject, and remind you that this is legislation that is before the House. If you can direct your comments directly to the bill. I have already allowed you a level of latitude but if you could keep your comments directly related to the bill, which is about expert witnesses.
Mr TOLLNER: Of course, Madam Speaker, and that is exactly what I was talking about. It is no surprise to me that the Treasurer would again try to gag my discussion, try to shut me down ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! No one is trying to gag the member opposite and his …
Mr Tollner: Here we go, doing it again. As if you are not! What are you doing on your feet then?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … discussion. The Deputy Chief Minister merely pointed to an issue of relevance which goes back to the standing orders which govern the debate in this parliament. The member for Fong Lim should be aware of them.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, if you can continue and bear in mind the comments I made previously.
Mr TOLLNER: I heard you, Madam Speaker. It comes, as I say, as no surprise to me that the Leader of Government Business and the Treasurer would try to stand over me, try to stop my discussion on what is a very important bill. This is the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill. I believe I am talking about the Criminal Code. I believe the Criminal Code is inexplicably linked with crime and the way of dealing with crime. The fact is, we on this side of the House know that the government is soft on crime – absolutely soft on crime. They are wishy-washy.
It is great to see that they finally came up with a bill that seems likely to work. This mob on the other side is nothing but a pack of standover merchants and bullies …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr TOLLNER: … who are trying to constantly gag debate and discussion on something that is incredibly important ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please pause, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: I know the member for Fong Lim is keen to be kicked out of this Chamber. He is accusing members opposite him of behaviour that is offensive. I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, member for Fong Lim, I have reminded you of Standing Order 67. I would like you to refer to particular parts of the bill, or I will ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, this bill is at the front of my mind in this discussion. It is inexplicably linked with crime in our community; it is a measure of dealing with criminal activity. That is what this bill is about. It is about …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! As the member for Fong Lim has already been instructed, he is digressing from the point. I have participated in this debate. I have talked specifically about the bill. I believe the member for Fong Lim is taking an unacceptable degree of latitude in this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you once more to link your comments directly to the bill or the second reading speech, otherwise I will be asking you to resume your seat. Standing Order 67.
Mr TOLLNER: Certainly, Madam Speaker, and I will reiterate that the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill 2009 (Serial 32) has everything to do with crime in our community. I cannot understand why members opposite do not want to hear about crime in our community, because that is exactly what this bill is about ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, the member for Fong Lim has not read the legislation - it is not about crime in our community. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. It is about the defence having to provide notice of an expert they will call before a jury trial. The member for Fong Lim is really digressing widely from this legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have reminded you for the final time of Standing Order 67. Your comments need to relate to the bill, not about a general matter to do with crime; it needs to be related to the bill. You may continue with those comments in mind.
Mr TOLLNER: When it comes to the matter of expert evidence, expert evidence is being provided in criminal trials. Criminal trials involve crimes. I cannot understand how you can possibly talk about the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill without talking about the levels of crime in our community and how we deal with that crime. It is an absolute no-brainer. The objections I am hearing from the other side about talking about crime show me it is a government more obsessed with spin than actually looking at the real problems out there in the community - and here we go again ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is, wilfully, I believe, trying to be kicked out - that is his aim - ignoring your clear directions from the Chair. The member for Fong Lim likes to ignore the standing orders of this parliament. The standing orders of this parliament direct how our debates occur.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I will allow you to continue, but there is to be no digression. I will not take any more points of order at this stage, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I read from the second reading speech:
Let us talk about trauma to witnesses. What sort of trauma might witnesses have from being beaten up, which is a regular occurrence in our community? What sort of trauma are witnesses going to have who have their cars smashed to pieces and torched? What sort of trauma are witnesses going to have who are constantly assaulted in parks by drunken itinerants? That is what this debate is about. This debate is not just about expert witnesses. This debate is about a whole range of issues in relation to crime and trauma to witnesses.
I cannot understand how you can expect a person to talk about amendments to the Criminal Code without talking about crime - and crime is the single biggest issue we have in this community. It is the single biggest issue and all we have - here we go now, the minister for frivolous points of orders …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Could the member direct his comments through the Chair please, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you may resume, but you seem to be digressing. Keep the comments … I beg your pardon?
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I was just muttering under my breath.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. You may continue, bearing in mind, once again, Standing Order 67.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, crime is the biggest issue in our community. It is the single biggest issue Territorians are facing, and having to deal with. They are sick of being unable to use the parks because of drunken itinerants. They are sick of the levels of antisocial behaviour that occur on our streets. They are sick of the violent crime they are regularly confronted with. They are sick of having their houses and their cars broken into …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! As the Attorney-General, I say this is clearly a digression from the legislation before us. The bill is about criminal procedure, not crime itself, not crime where it occurs, not the levels of crime; it is about criminal procedure …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You gave an instruction to this House that you would take no more points of order from either side in relation to the issue of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: At that time, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: You are taking it now.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: I said I hear you are taking them now.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, member for Port Darwin.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have given clear instructions. I believe the member for Fong Lim is reflecting on your decision, and he is going against the decisions you currently made. He is reflecting on the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim made no reflection on the Chair at all. He did not even talk to the Chair, or about the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have asked you to recall that Standing Order 67 allows for no digression. This is your last opportunity to not digress from the topic, or I will ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I now get the point. The whole idea of this debate is we stand up here and we throw confetti all over the Attorney-General and tell her how wonderful she is. That is what this is about, because anyone who says anything which would be construed as not nice or not complimentary to the Attorney-General, is instantly sat down and shut up. That is what this whole debate is about. We cannot talk about crime …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member for Fong Lim is reflecting on the Chair and the standing orders of this parliament. I know a little about this legislation. This legislation is about putting procedures in place so people get a fair trial and ensuring evidence cannot be pulled out of a box at the last moment to get people off. There have been a couple of cases that were named, and if the member spoke to those cases he would be relevant.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Fong Lim?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, who has the call here?
Madam SPEAKER: Not you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Is the minister allowed to stand up and have a debate?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, I have repeatedly asked you to be mindful of Standing Order 67. Is it your intention to follow my direction?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, it always has been.
Madam SPEAKER: Then, you may continue. However, member for Fong Lim, if you do not follow my direction on this occasion, I will be asking you to resume your seat or to withdraw from the Chamber. Member for Fong Lim, you may continue.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am making every attempt to follow your direction.
I cannot divorce crime from the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill. As I said, even in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech she refers to crime, and she refers to court times and process fairness and reducing trauma to witnesses. I cannot understand how you can discuss this bill without discussing some of those issues. That is what amazes me. Every time I want to discuss some of those issues, because I do not say it in complimentary terms to the Attorney-General, I get a range of the comrades on the other side jumping up calling frivolous points of order.
It just goes to show, Madam Speaker, that these guys have absolutely no concern for crime in our community. They do not want to hear the issues that are of concern to constituents out there. They do not want to hear about the problems that concern people. All they want to do is gag debate and stop me talking about the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill, because it does not fit in with their plans on how this debate should run. That is what this is all about ...
Ms Lawrie: Standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER: That is exactly what this is all about. You stand up, you bleat, you carry on, you get on your high horse in order to shut down debate, to stop people talking about those issues that are a concern to the people in the electorate, the people out there in voter land. You want to shut down that sort of talk, and all you want to hear about is how glowing the member for Fong Lim can be about the Attorney-General and the wonderful job she has done in putting together a bill - probably for the first time since I have been in this place - that the parliament agrees on. Well, that is great.
I have already said we support this legislation. It is rare that we come in here and actually support something that the Attorney-General, in particular, puts together, because she has a reputation for tardiness and laziness - a reputation for being loose with the language …
Ms Lawrie: Is there anything about the bill? Anything at all about the legislation in what you have to say?
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about the legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have been listening - this is not about the bill. I ask you to resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move – To suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent me from dissenting from the most recent ruling made by the Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to suspend standing orders.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I have had a gutful of coming into this place and being constantly shut down, bullied, being stood over by members of the government, being told what I say is …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is talking about standover. He is leaning right over, almost right over this table and being aggressive. He should be directing his comments through the Chair. This is a parliament, not a pub …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, direct your comments through the Chair. Resume your seat, member for Katherine.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am directing my comments through the Chair. I have referred to the government, members opposite. No comment I have made has not gone through the Chair. The fact is I try my hardest to follow proper parliamentary procedure. Everything I do I try to go by the book, the standing orders of this parliament.
I am continually howled down. I know why I am continually howled down. I am howled down because some people in the government, over the other side, do not like what I say. They do not like what I say; they do not like hearing the truth. They do not like hearing the reality. The fact is, this is a government of standover merchants.
I have to tell them, Madam Speaker, I am not some businessman they can blackmail and dictate to, and standover and bully …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is accusing members of the government of blackmail.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is not an unparliamentary comment!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to withdraw the comments, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is not an unparliamentary comment.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is clearly being quite dismissive of your ruling …
Mr Tollner: All right. For these purposes, I withdraw.
Dr BURNS: … he is challenging the power of the Chair in this place. To move a motion of dissent is one thing, but to do what he is doing is quite another.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I said these guys were a pack of standover merchants and thugs. I intimated that I was not a businessman who could be stood over, intimidated and bullied – like some of them claim to be.
The whole exercise of this parliament is turned into a complete farce. We see at every opportunity the debate of issues important to Territorians being cut off at the knees. Here we are debating the Criminal Code amendment bill and you order me, Madam Speaker, to sit down.
You say I cannot talk about crime. That is why I am dissenting from your ruling. Crime and the Criminal Code amendment are inextricably linked. That is what all this is about. It is about locking up criminals, making sure we get our justice system right. For some reason we cannot talk about criminals and justice in the same sentence in the same debate. This is appalling. Why can we not talk about this? Because of the sensitive people over the other side - all the comrades. If someone actually says something nasty or they do not like, puts a little truth into the arena, they come out with all guns blazing. They are like schoolyard bullies...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: … absolute schoolyard bullies. Thugs and standover merchants …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: … who turn up, threaten, intimidate and the minute someone calls their bluff they chicken out …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Gutless; cowards and curs.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is using offensive descriptions of members. He has absolutely no regard to the decorum, the civility by which this Chamber operates under standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the last comments, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Which ones in particular, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: The one that referred to members in an unparliamentary fashion, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not realise – I withdraw - I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: This is the point, Madam Speaker, every time someone says something that is not particularly nice about members opposite, they get offended and soft. We know they are made of sugar, they all have glass jaws, and I am asked to withdraw a comment. Why? Why am I asked to withdraw a comment? Because they are so sensitive. I mentioned something last night about the member for Karama and a push to shut down the parliament at 9 pm because she was tired. Well, that was offensive and I had to withdraw that comment.
I had to withdraw comments because the member for Johnston has some twisted point of view on the term ‘gag girl’; he finds that somehow offensive. I had to withdraw that. Why? Because you were offended by it. What do we have? A pack of softies in this place; cannot say a word against you. Wrap them up in cotton wool, that is dead right ...
Mr Knight: Go up another octave, mate, you will be up to falsetto in a moment. Keep going.
Mr TOLLNER: You sit there and you laugh about it, you think it is all so funny, you think it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You think it so damn funny that you have managed to manipulate this place, twist it and turn it into a complete abrogation of what it is supposed to be. Well, shame on you all. Shame on all those who sit behind you and sit there and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The government continues with interjections. They razz us about interjecting regularly but, apparently, it is all right for them to interject.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I ask you to sit down, please. In fact, all members were interjecting then, not just government members. I remind you of Standing Order 51, honourable members.
Mr TOLLNER: Again, it seems that government can get away with whatever they want. They can sit in here, they can bag us, they can say whatever they like about us, call us drunks, say we are out at the pub, asleep in our cars, and there seems to be no recourse - absolutely no recourse. The minute you say someone on the other side wants to go to bed early, we have to withdraw those comments ...
Ms Lawrie: An absolute disgrace.
Mr TOLLNER: This place is a disgrace; you are dead right, member for Karama. This place is a disgrace, because we are discussing and debating the Criminal Code amendment, and you jump up and run so many points of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to make your comments directly to the motion you have put, which relates to the dissent for this particular motion, not these other broader comments.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I was doing. I was saying that when I was discussing the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill and talking about crime, you ruled that I cannot talk about crime. You say it has nothing to do with the bill. I cannot understand that logic, and you are wrong. You are dead wrong! That is why I moved this dissenting motion. You are wrong; you are full-on wrong, Madam Speaker. That decision you made is nothing but an extension of the attitude from the other side of the House.
Madam Speaker, I quite the like the way you try to be balanced and fair but, at times, I believe you get caught up with the government’s efforts to maintain whatever they are trying to do - maintain secrecy, soften dissent in the parliament, and that sort of thing. I believe, at heart, you are a decent person and you try to maintain some balance, but ruling me out of order for talking about crime in the matter of the Criminal Code amendment bill, just flies in the face of reason. It is an example of how this parliament is deteriorating.
It is not deteriorating because of you, Madam Speaker; it is deteriorating because of some of the sensitivities of members on the other side. Those members are so used to having things all their own way, where they can swagger around like the biggest bloke in the pub all covered with tats and nose rings and ‘look at me’, and scaring the daylights out of everyone.
Well, Madam Speaker, I am here to tell you, I am not going to back down from them - I am not going to back down from them. As I said to you, I try to follow the standing orders as best I can. I understand that we are all human; I understand at times I make mistakes. I am prepared to acknowledge that I make mistakes and withdraw comments I may have made in the heat of the moment. I have no problems with that. However, I am not going to have my whole argument just completely taken off the books because these guys do not want to hear it.
Every time a person talks about crime and law and order in this place, they are shut down. A classic example was the other day when the Leader of Government Business took the police ministerial statement off the Notice Paper …
A member: They do not want to talk about crime.
Mr TOLLNER: No, they do not want to talk about it. They know they are soft. They know that this is a big issue in the community. But, no, they do not want to talk about it. They do not want us talking about it. They do not want any member of the opposition talking about it. It must scare the daylights out of them when they turn up to this Chamber and put forward a bill called Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill because, goodness me, it could well be linked to crime. But, no, no, they have it sussed, they do not want anyone talking about crime: ‘Let us just talk about expert evidence and lawyers, and something that is just an extension of criminal activity, but not really criminal activity’. That is what they want to talk about.
What is worse, Madam Speaker, is a person like you, with a good heart who wants to be seen as balanced and independent and right in your decisions, gets caught up in that nonsense. I do not know how many times you asked me to stop and talk about relevance in this last debate. As I said to you at length, on a number of occasions, Madam Speaker, I do not understand how you can divorce criminal activity from the Criminal Code. However, for some reason you expect me to do it in a debate about the Criminal Code – we cannot talk about crime. How far are these guys prepared to take it?
Every day in Question Time we ask questions and get answers that have absolutely nothing to do with the questions, and drag on and on. How many questions did we fit in yesterday? Eight, six?
A member: Six.
Mr TOLLNER: Six. Out of what is proposed to be is 20. We get six out of 20. Why? Because these guys deem it is right to rabbit on like fools while the cameras are here, and tell everyone how good they are. Well, there are no cameras here right now, Madam Speaker, so they should have the courtesy to listen to a bit of debate.
I notice today we have a chock-a-block Notice Paper, but we all had to knock off at 7 pm last night. Why? Because you did not want to have to debate ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, they knocked off at 7 pm last night, because they did not want any debate. They did not want to discuss anything. We could have been sitting there last night talking about this. But, no, they knocked off. What will happen tonight? I have a very important matter of public importance. I had it there the other day, too. It got pushed off …
Dr Burns: By your own censure.
Mr TOLLNER: By my own censure, right. So, the processes of parliament cannot operate because now we are shutting down at 9 pm every night. What will happen tonight? Because you have completely filled up the Notice Paper, you know damn well we are not going to get that matter of public importance debated. Sorry, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, what has this to do with the motion before us?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, it does.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Digression - Standing Order 67.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business knows very well this matter of public importance will not be debated tonight because of their tactic to shut down any sort of debate we, on this side of the House, want to have.
That is what this whole dissenting motion is about; the fact that we are continually stifled, belittled, bullied and stood over by the government to ensure we cannot say anything they might deem as not nice to their cause. This whole government is just sickening. They are completely obsessed with spin and putting out their image – an image which is nothing like the reality. The reality is, we are sitting here and opposite, all the comrades, are not nice people.
As I say, I am not some Darwin businessman who can be stood over and intimidated and told what to do and what not to do by ministers in government and staff, and other true believers of the Labor Party. That is not me. I am not going to stand around and cop it, and I am sick of copping it. I have been copping it the whole time since I walked in here. You do not want to hear debate - you do not want to hear another point of view.
You fail to understand that the guts of our democracy is our robust debate. Robust debate can only happen in a free and open arena - a free and open Chamber. We do not have a free and open Chamber. It is all about political correctness and personal sensitivities. Some nights I like to get to bed at 7.30 pm too, member for Karama. But other nights you understand you have to work, you have to stay up, you actually have to put in some of the hard yards for the good of the people you are supposed to be representing. You should not just listen, but welcome debate from other points of view – it is what broadens your mind; it is what opens you up to different points of view. But not this government. This is a government obsessed with spin and with shutting out any dissenting voices whatsoever. That is what they are obsessed with.
Madam Speaker, you have been caught up in that. All the times you shut me down about relevance shows me you have been caught up in it. That is why I have dissented from your ruling just now. I do not mean you to take any offence, but maybe you could reflect on your attitude of independence and being balanced, because I know that is what you are trying to do. I know that, but at times you need to draw a breath and think: ‘Hang on, what is playing out here?’
I understand, Madam Speaker, that you have a party allegiance to members on the other side. That does not trouble me at all, because I believe you are above that. However, at times I think you fall into their little web of deception, of shutting down dissenting voices, of shutting down speakers who want to say anything that may be negative to them - people who actually highlight the truth of matters. They hate hearing the truth. That is one thing they do hate – they hate hearing the truth.
They are particularly sensitive in areas of crime, because they know what an issue it is in the community ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We see the Chief Minister bang on about all the extra police he has, and all the nonsense and palaver, but what do the people out in the northern suburbs think of him - in Malak, Karama, Sanderson, and Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and, probably even Howard Springs? It does not seem to matter where you go in the Northern Territory; the front-of-the-mind issue for everyone is crime and antisocial behaviour.
I am very fortunate to have the role of Tourism spokesman. I ask tourism operators what their biggest issue is; if there is one issue they want fixed, what is it? Is it more planes into Darwin, bigger hotels, open up new parks, put in more boat ramps – what is the issue? They do not say any of that. They say: ‘We want you to clean up the streets’ ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, can you please not digress from the topic that is before us; the motion that you have brought, Standing Order 67. The motion which relates directly to a dissenting motion.
Mr TOLLNER: That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: If you can keep your comments to that, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I am talking about. The issue of crime is the issue. It is what people out there want us to be talking about in here. That is what they want. Go and listen to any sector – that is what they want – it does not matter who they are: Indigenous people, business people, people at the hospitals. You wonder what nurses think. Nurses are working hard because of the level of crime in the Territory. What it comes back to, what people are so upset about, is the levels of crime.
We are debating the Criminal Code amendment bill and we cannot talk about crime. The government says we cannot talk about crime. When can we talk about crime? I know the Chief Minister does not want to talk about crime; I know the Leader of Government Business does not want to hear about crime. The member for Karama, who once described her own electorate as a war zone, does not want to hear about crime ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have listened to a lot of nonsense from the member for Fong Lim. He talks about this parliament not having the time to get to his MPI tonight. The motion before the Chair is a dissenting motion from the most recent ruling made by the Speaker. You have asked the member for Fong Lim to come to the point on a number of occasions now. He is not addressing the motion; he is rambling widely across a whole range of issues.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to call relevance and get the member to speak to his motion. It is the member who is wasting the time of this parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have moved a motion specifically about an issue and, coincidentally, it relates to Standing Order 67. Member for Fong Lim, please keep your comments relative to the motion you have moved.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is why I moved this motion. I moved this motion because you failed to allow any discussion on crime, despite the fact we are addressing the Criminal Code amendment bill. That is what this debate is about. I know the Chief Minister, the member for Karama, and the member for Johnston …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go, noisy up the back there, member for Daly; he has to throw his two bob’s worth in too. He does not want to hear about crime; he does not care about all the troubles out at Batchelor and some of the communities in his electorate. That does not seem to worry him at all. In fact, he wants to damp down the debate on crime as well. I can guarantee you, the second I sit down these guys will gag this debate - they will shut this debate down. Are they going to let anyone in this place speak to the motion? I can guarantee you there are some people in this place who would like to discuss this motion regarding dissenting your ruling.
There are people here who want to discuss that, but do you think they will get the opportunity? I bet London to a brick they do not. As sure as God made little apples, they will not get the chance to discuss this dissent motion. Maybe the member for Nelson might want to have a crack at it, being a man who has occupied the Chair on occasions. Maybe he will not, either. It may well be a debate he does not want to be a part of, but that is his prerogative.
That is what this is about: the prerogative of members being able to stand up in a free and open way, and talk about things that are of concern to them and the constituents in their electorates. That is what they should be allowed to do. But, no, we cannot. Why? Because the government is occupied by bullies and standover people, who are used to having their own way; having people shaking in their shoes when they turn up, scared they will say something wrong and raise the ire of the minister. That is what this is about.
This is about the new world for this government; having to come into this place and hear people say negative things about them, and they do not like it. They do not like it one bit. The truth hurts, and they are smarting ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go with interjections - continual interjections. No, Madam Speaker, your decision to call me irrelevant on this particular issue is wrong - absolutely wrong. There is no other way to put it, Madam Speaker. You brought this motion on yourself because you did it over and over again. I attempted, on numerous occasions, to explain to you how I was talking to the bill ...
A member: You have not even read the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: What would you know?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
A member: Continual interjections.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: There goes the nodding dog up the back; the one that sits in the back of a car as it goes down a bumpy road nodding and winking away. You know what he thinks about bills. Has he built a house? Has he built a road? Has he built a bridge? No, he is the minister for false promises. You are not alone; there are plenty to see - false promises everywhere. We get reams of them coming over these desks all the time that are just absolute nonsense. But the minute anyone tries to say something like that, they get shut down, bagged and pilloried by the government. It is absolute nonsense. They have allowed this place to deteriorate, to abrogate into something it is not supposed to be.
Madam Speaker, I urge members on the other side – I am sure there must be one amongst them who values democracy – to support my motion. You would think there would be one or two, maybe three. I am sure in their heart of hearts there are a number of them who support this motion, who think you have gone over the top with this ruling, Madam Speaker.
They know how this place has spiralled out of control. There must be one or two of them who have the courage of their convictions to support this motion. I call on their goodwill now. I call on their goodwill to support this and do something right, for a change. Strike a blow for freedom of speech. Strike a blow for democracy. Strike a blow for this parliament. That is what this is about. This is about being able to come into this place and talk freely and not be over-sensitive. Are you made of sugar? ‘Oh, you cannot say that. Oh, you cannot do this. Oh, you are not following this’. Precious pups – things go wrong and they all go nuts.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. I have to say I am completely convinced of my correctness with this motion. I believe you have overstepped the mark in a very big way by trying to shut down my discussion on a matter that is important to people in the community, in the electorate. That is what is important; that is what they want to hear us talking about. We should not hide our light under a bushel just because the Leader of Government Business says we have to. We should be able to come in here in a fearless way and say what is on our minds; say what is concerning us. We should not be constantly dictated to and pilloried, and bagged in the media because of some weird fixation some spin doctor up there has and does not like the tone of voice this bloke talks to you in. Have a spoon of cement – harden up. This is a parliament, for goodness sakes. They ruin the place.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to support this motion. There is nothing personal in this motion. I believe you are a person of integrity, but you have been caught up with the government and you have lost some sense of balance. The idea of this place is people can come in here and talk openly and freely. Madam Speaker, in the last few days and weeks you have been a part of stopping that; you actually take some of these frivolous, stupid points of order they come up with seriously. That is not right. That is why I am dissenting from your ruling today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have given this motion much thought, and I understand the politicking going on today, as there normally is in this place. The former member for Nhulunbuy once said: ‘This is about politics; this is a political place’. I know politics is happening today, because we have to jam a lot of work into a set number of hours, and we are not going to make it. This is what happened in the last sittings as well. I am going to put that to one side at the present time.
I am going to support this motion, Madam Speaker, not because I have anything against you personally, but because this relates to the way the government runs its business. I will give you a couple of examples, and it puts you in a difficult position. They raise a point of order, and you have to make a decision. Take last night, as an example, when we were discussing the HomeNorth bill, there were four or five points of order asking me to change the material I was discussing in relation to the third reading. That put you in a position where you had to make a decision. I might not have agreed with you, but I did my best to come around to that point of view. If those points of view were not being raised, I could have raised the issue I was trying to raise, and that would probably have been the end of it. However, in the end I was stopped, simply because you had to make a ruling after a number of points of order were raised by the government members.
There is also the issue as to whether the member for Fong Lim was addressing the bill, which is partly why the dissent motion has been put. You must look at things such as Question Time. During Question Time in this parliament, many answers are not relevant to the questions. They are as relevant as the minister talking about the man on the moon when asked a question about the cheese industry in the Northern Territory. Relevance can be a huge and wide interpretation and people are allowed to get away with that because that is the way standing orders are written.
I will give you another classic example. The member for Johnston the other night, talking on a very mundane bill, changed to the keeping of records – the archives bill. He started to talk about the member for Katherine’s statement on fishing, and he spoke about the opposition’s policy on commercial fishing versus amateur fishing because there had been some comment made in the paper. It would be very hard for me to believe that had any relevance to the bill, except there were bits of paper here that could possibly be put into the archives at some time.
We have this inconsistency, to some extent, when there is an interpretation about relevance. In theory, you can be relevant in Question Time and talk, more or less, about anything, but there is a different concept when it comes to debating a bill. There is a different concept again when we debate a third reading. I have the impression there is a tactic by the government to close down some debates simply by raising many points of order. That puts you, Madam Speaker, in a position of always having to make a decision.
I also find, at times, we are losing the beauty of our Australian language. I have some books by Steele Rudd, who wrote many years ago. He worked in parliament as either a stenographer or a recorder; he used to type out Hansard. When he wrote his books about Dad and Dave, he wrote about the member for ‘fill ‘em up again’. Obviously, that particular member of parliament may have had a drink too many at times. What I am saying is that we should allow a certain amount of character in the way we speak; that does not mean you should be offensive. I remember we were knocked back on the word ‘buggerlugs’; I use ‘buggerlugs’ all the time and have never even dreamt of it being offensive. I know the word ‘ratbag’ was used last night. I am not sure whether it was withdrawn, but it is a fairly common term in our society. It is a bit like saying: ‘bugger off’. It is not meant to be an insulting term; it is just an Aussie term to say knick off.
There are times when we get too precious about the language we use and sometimes, Madam Speaker, of course, you have to make a decision about those things.
The reason I am supporting it is not because I support everything the member for Fong Lim says. He says some things that probably could be put in a more delicate and diplomatic way. However, I know what he is getting at. I believe it is not so much about you; to some extent this is part of a game we now play in this House where the best way to deal with unwanted debate is to raise points of order and close it down.
If I was looking for something positive from this, we could have the Standing Orders Committee look at the issues raised today - at the issue of relevance - and at what are the rules when we debate, for instance, a criminal amendment bill – how far can we go from what we are debating? You might say it is already written in the big green book from the House of Representatives. It may be but we should look at how it is interpreted in this House.
Madam Speaker, this is not against you personally. I believe, in this case, there are some inconsistencies in the way points of order are raised. The member for Johnston has been raising totally irrelevant matters in regard to the archives, and then the member for Fong Lim gets hit on the head for talking about crime in relation to the Criminal Code amendment bill. They are the reasons I am supporting this motion. As I said, this is not against you personally; I think you are a great Speaker. However, I believe this issue lies firmly with the government.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is a very serious motion that is before the House. It is one which brings into question your ruling.
I listened very carefully to what the member for Fong Lim had to say and to the member for Nelson. It is frustrating for both sides of the House when you get called on relevance. The member for Nelson mentioned the other day in debate that I was called on relevance within the Information Act. Yes, this is a House of politics, as the former member for Nhulunbuy used to say, with members from both sides trying to introduce politics into the debate, and that is what I was trying to do with the Information Act.
I share your frustration. Last night, you wanted to speak about HomeNorth and there were questions of relevance called. There were questions of relevance called about the Information Act, and I accepted the ruling of the Speaker, and I got on with the debate.
What we are here to do is talk about the case in point, which the member has dissented from in relevance to the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill 2009. As was said repeatedly, the purpose of the bill is to require the defence to provide notice to the court and the prosecution if they intend to adduce expert evidence during criminal trials within the Supreme Court. That is really the focus of this particular bill.
This bill came about because there are instances of defence lawyers introducing, without any prior notice, expert evidence into court cases, some of which was quite questionable. If the prosecution had the capacity to question that expert evidence and really pull it apart and go over it, it may well have resulted in some people being found not guilty who may well have been found guilty if a fine-tooth comb had gone over that expert evidence. That is the focus of this bill before the House, and of the debate.
I can understand the member for Fong Lim - as I did the other night regarding the Information Act - trying to broaden it and get his political message across in this bill about crime, law and order, which is something we debate every day and the opposition has avenues through a whole range of ways of …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … introducing it into this House. However, instead of just pausing after he delivered, he said his piece - and said it quite well - but he persisted and persisted. Why did he persist? I believe he wanted to bring the House to this particular point today. From observing the member for Fong Lim, I know that he has been frustrated since he came into this House, and there are probably many reasons for that frustration.
This House has its standing orders; it has its rules by which we abide. There was talk about whether there are the numbers on this side in terms of more stewardship. I can say to this House that every member on this side respects the Speaker and holds her in the highest esteem ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: There have been times when the Speaker may be wrong in this, that or the other, but I accept what the Speaker says. The Speaker is the umpire in this place; the Speaker is the adjudicator. Whenever there is a lack of respect for the referee or umpire that is when sporting games get into turmoil. That is when there are fights; when things boil up between spectators and players alike. We cannot afford to let that happen in this place, Madam Speaker.
As I said last night, one thing I have noticed since the election last year is a lack of respect and courtesy from members opposite towards the Speaker. Because I am a personal friend of yours, Madam Speaker - and we should not be talking about personal things - I know you feel deeply about that because you are someone, I believe, who has always tried to be fair and impartial in every way. The member for Fong Lim, towards the end of his speech, backed away from any personal accusation against you regarding bias, as every speaker does. That is very important.
Madam Speaker, there was talk about the cameras not being here, and government performing in certain ways. I remind this House it was this government that brought cameras into Question Time.
I believe in August there will be continual visual streaming of all the business of this House from the time parliament opens until it closes. It will be incumbent on us, on all members, to watch our behaviour and to watch what we say. If people saw the way the member for Fong Lim behaved today, particularly the way he became quite aggressive, I believe they would be disgusted by that.
I do not accept this motion that, somehow, you ruled unfairly on the member for Fong Lim for digression. I counted six to eight times where you let him have his say and he did not really get into what this bill is about. He tried to extend it in a fairly blunt and flat-earth fashion and his equation completely lacked subtlety.
There is an important issue here today. I have been in this place now for eight years and what I observe from what has just happened is the member for Fong Lim is running his own game. He running this, and I do not believe he consulted with either his leader or with the member for Port Darwin …
Mr Tollner: Of course I did not consult! Do you think we planned this?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … on this particular issue. He is running stunts in this place because I believe he is frustrated for a whole range of reasons, not least of all his position in the opposition ranks, and maybe his lack of support. This is a direct challenge, as I said last night, to the Leader of the Opposition, who I believe …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For a man who is defending an argument based on relevance, I urge him to be relevant.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, if you keep your comments to the motion, thank you.
Dr BURNS: As I said before, this House and the conduct of this House is built on courtesy and respect, particularly for the Speaker. I know the Leader of the Opposition is a man with a lot of integrity who was bought up in a family which believes in courtesy and respect, and that is what I see in the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to bring some of his troops into order, and show you the courtesy and respect you deserve, Madam Speaker. I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Mr Chandler
Dr Burns Mr Elferink
Mr Gunner Mr Giles
Mr Hampton Mr Mills
Mr Henderson Ms Purick
Mr Knight Mr Styles
Ms Lawrie Mr Tollner
Mr McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms McCarthy Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the Member for Fong Lim be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Debate – on the motion that the bill be now read a second time - suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of some of the government electorate officers. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Minister for Health for misleading this parliament.
This is a matter that I initially assessed and I am offended by the capacity of someone to say one thing one time and, then, something different another time. I could have let it go but, when I find members opposite think this is a joke and truth is a dispensable item that can only be used at times of their choosing to prosecute a political point, I am offended. I believe a principle needs to be defended in this parliament.
If those members opposite want to have any credibility at restoring some confidence in the institutions that are in place and led by this government to deliver a result for Territorians, particularly young people, then how on earth can we have a situation in this parliament where it is treated so lightly …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I will continue, and I do not care whether every member of the other side chooses to leave. I will stand and defend this principle.
Even though it is a small lie, as someone who as worked with children, I treat that very seriously. Someone must show some respect for this institution. We have had a number of issues discussed over the last few days within this parliament, and have, in fact, been on it ever since the last election. What must be disturbing for members opposite, and perhaps, too, for this parliament, is that everything was nice when there were only four in the opposition. However, now there are 11 and government is being held to account. Now they squirm and they wriggle, laugh, scoff, and mock, but inside they are terrified. They will resort to pulling stunts like this and then laughing. We get to a low ebb when such things as the truth are treated with such contempt.
Despite the rape of a baby at Royal Darwin Hospital - the rape of a child, a baby; the loss of two children from Royal Darwin Hospital, one on two occasions; a damning report into security at Royal Darwin Hospital in 2002; a damning report into security at Royal Darwin Hospital in 2007; a damning report into security at Royal Darwin Hospital in 2009; and a damning report into the detention of patients at Royal Darwin Hospital by the Ombudsman, this minister has told this House and Territorians of the revelation that the Health minister before the last Health minister recognised there was need for legal protection of those who work in the health system, put it before this parliament and committed to fixing that problem four to five years ago. Then, the Ombudsman spoke, and the Ombudsman is attacked - just as we have the principles this parliament is founded upon under attack.
We have a core principle, which is the capacity to tell the truth, under attack. I will not stand for it, Madam Speaker. In spite of all that has been described in that list, how can we then believe this Health Minister who says everything is in order? How can you believe that? It seems such a small thing - perhaps truth is not that valuable. You say one thing here to achieve some political point, and you get caught out - well, it does not matter, you just change your story. There are some people who just are not constructed that way; they cannot do that comfortably. It may seem like a small thing, but it is not a small thing. This Chief Minister, this government, needs to reassure Territorians that all is in order.
How can you be trusted? If you have a friend who lies, you then put that friend in a different category. You do not tell them certain things and you do not trust them with certain things. It may be a small thing. There are people around, some people I know quite well, who can be quite casual with the truth. I make my judgment and I do not trust them to the degree of those who can tell the truth and value the truth. It may seem like a small thing, particularly for those who scoff and mock and think such things are not as important as protecting the image of government.
I find that sickening. How can you be trusted? You insist on attacking the Ombudsman as a defence. If you go through the Parliamentary Record, some of the wriggling and squirming that is now recorded for all to see reveals no real interest in addressing the core issue, which is the delivery of health and the building of integrity within our system. Those who are feeling ashamed working in the system, feel they have been made fools of once again, because your whole line of answering is to avoid personal responsibility and shift it on to someone else. That is not leadership. That does not build any core strength into any of our institutions, and it depletes and corrodes the core of this government. It depletes your strength and integrity.
You start building your civil institutions on lies and think a lie is okay - whatever it takes, it does not matter as long as we achieve the objective; that being power. When you get there you will find there is no power – none; no real power to effect good or change in anyone’s life, because it has all been about yourselves.
The question is this: if you cannot be trusted - and the saddest thing is that you do not recognise this - I ask you to reflect on the way you deal with your own children or young people. What do you expect of them? If this is not expected of you or those in the government, if this parliament can be used in such a way that it does not really matter and we can completely avoid any response to truth, and we can construct a response that shoots the responsibility onto the shoulders of others, where are we left with the notion of leadership in this community?
We now have the Ombudsman under attack - shoot the messenger; do not accept responsibility. You then criticise the Ombudsman. That was the subject of some of your responses. They are not answers; they are reactions and the core of that reaction is to defend yourself. Why would you do that?
Coroners are brought into question. The AMA is brought into question. Nurses are sometimes brought into question. How is it they are always wrong, but you, minister, are always right?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not particularly like moving censures, because members opposite live in a zone where they think all the business that goes on in this parliament does not have to be taken too seriously; it is really a game. I have heard that before. I have heard it from the member for Wanguri. When I have taken offence at particular times when matters are discussed in certain ways in this parliament, and certain processes are put in place - and everyone knows, we can all see it - designed to achieve the purpose of maximising the power of the government and reducing the capacity of the opposition, you do not care. You can use these processes. After all, it is a game, is it not? To you it is just a game.
It is not a game. If you think this is a game where you can go through a line of questions and these things will not be challenged and we will all live with a new, lower standard – well, there are some people who will stand and defend that patch, and I am one of them.
You are happy to walk away from this. You are happy to move the goal post wherever it suits, as long as it looks okay for you. That is a loser’s position. That is, ultimately, a loser’s position, because who is the winner? If you think it is a game where winning the trophy on election night is the goal …
Ms Lawrie: No, actually. It is improving the lives of Territorians.
Mr MILLS: I cannot believe you, because you think things like this are irrelevant.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.
Mr MILLS: You consider matters such as truth can be dispensed with, just to suit and advance your own image and reputation, with your snarling, whining, little comments and responses - it is all about you. Who can people trust if those they elected walk away and abandon them? This is a matter of some importance. As we have been discussing issues related to how the sovereign will of the people is expressed in a place of instrument such as this - a parliament - how is it we can allow these things to exist?
I will tell you one thing, and it is a personal matter, just to show this is not a game as far as I am concerned. I remember my daughter, when she was very young, told me an inconsequential lie. What she told me did not really matter. I could have let it go. She said she was doing this when she was, in fact, doing that. That was the first time I had ever heard my daughter tell me something that was not true. It was small, perhaps mischievous, but the subject matter was of no importance. I dealt with my daughter the first time I heard her tell a lie. I remember that moment, and it sticks with me. The issue at hand was not the issue. I knew, as a father, I would betray my daughter if I did not defend the truth at that point, and that stand continues today.
I could not leave this parliament at the end of a two-week session a comfortable man if I allowed that to go. I have respect for the man, but I have greater respect for the principle. I will defend that. On that basis, I believe this minister – but I will widen it; it falls upon the members opposite who thought this was a game and they can treat things such as the truth with such contempt. They are fully deserving of the censure of this parliament. It is that simple.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all I find it very curious that the Leader of the Opposition has been accusing me of lying. My personal belief is that I watched the particular film clip, which is so important, during Question Time. I said I watched the film clip - I do not deny I watched it - during budget reply time, but I do not keep time. I receive so many e-mails I do not keep the time. I may have watched it during Question Time; I do not deny I watched the film clip. The timing I do not recall and I apologise.
However, I take particular offence to the Leader of the Opposition having the audacity to stand up in this parliament and talk about principles and lies ...
A member: But you said you read the report as well.
Mr VATSKALIS: I would like to show you a media report that proves the Liberals lied, lied, lied about the INPEX project.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Minister for Health is on trial for his integrity here, not the Leader of the Opposition. For the minister to call the Leader of the Opposition a liar without a substantive motion is against the rules.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is not a trial.
Mr Elferink: It is a trial. That is precisely what it is.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please pause while I confer with the Clerk on this point of order.
Mr Mills: By the way, that headline is not my words. That is your mate at the NT News.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. Minister, I ask that you withdraw that statement, please.
Mr VATSKALIS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition talks about principles when he himself has told untruths. This is not my mate from NT News; Nick Calacouras is a well-respected reporter. He is not my mate; he is simply doing his job. Nick Calacouras reported:
To come here and talk about principles when you said something untrue - deliberately untrue - I do not accept. I accept criticism; I have no problem. Criticise me about my performance as a minister in the wrong, I will accept it. However, to come here and try to tell me about principles when you have been caught out deliberately saying untruths, I find unacceptable.
Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I said …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: And I say again …
Mr Mills: That is not true.
Members interjecting.
Mr Mills: You will have to do a heck of a lot better than that, mate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. Please cease interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say that I do not recall the time. It is my belief it was during budget reply; they say it was during Question Time. If I did not give the right time, I apologise. I am a human being. I open e-mails, I check e-mails. I apologise.
However, the issue here is not only about the principles of what we say. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon said the Ombudsman’s report I tabled yesterday referred to the missing children, to a rape. No, there was no rape. There was an alleged rape and the police never found any evidence of a rape. The police …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The police admitted they had no evidence to satisfy the issue of rape.
Regarding the missing children - it was brought up in this report by the Ombudsman to showcase the dilemma faced by personnel in Royal Darwin Hospital; how they have to tread a very fine line so they can detain somebody; and whether there should be legislation in place to prevent people leaving the hospital, and to make decisions on clinical grounds.
He comes here and says: ‘Where did we spend the $1m for the children? It is not in the budget books’. Of course, it is not; it is minor new works, and the money was spent. This issue with the children happened in September 2008, long before my time as the minister. I recall the opposition censured my predecessor for the alleged rape – months and months ago - and here it surfaces again.
This is not about me watching a DVD or a video; this is about the Leader of the Opposition trying to re-establish himself as the Leader of the Opposition. He was rocked by the member for Fong Lim’s performance today. He did not even know it was going to happen; he found out afterwards. He was so unaware of it, he even missed the division. This is not about little children; it is not about me watching a video. This is about a political in-fight for the leadership within the Country Liberals.
As I said before, this is surprising; the third day after the budget the issue that concerns the Territory: was Kon Vatskalis watching a video on his computer? However, the issue is when they were four they were a more effective and cohesive opposition. I recall, for days they were grilling the government about the budget – four of them. I suppose the member for Araluen is missing, so a really big chunk of the CLP is gone. It is for her own reasons she is not questioning the budget. Now they are 11, and where are the questions? Where are the questions about portfolios? None. Where are the questions about specific issues? None. What is the issue: were you watching a DVD?’
They talk about principles and demand the Chief Minister reprimand me. I do not recall the Leader of the Opposition reprimanding the member for Fong Lim when it was published in the newspaper that he was working on his Facebook site. He is still the spokesman for Tourism, Business and other things. If you come here and talk about principles, my advice is: if you live in glass houses, do not throw stones.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not say I did not watch a video; I said, yes, I did. I do not recall the time. If this is a lie, well, I do not know what I have to say. Should I give the time - an hour, a minute, a second - that I watched? I cannot recall it. In nine or 10 hours here, I open my e-mails, I check them, and I cannot tell you what e-mail I have seen five minutes ago.
This is not a censure motion about me or the Health portfolio - it is about me watching a video …
Mr Mills: No, it is not. It is about you telling the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: It is not only about me watching a video. It is such a weak censure motion I am not going to waste a lot of time on it, because it is wasting my time talking about the rubbish the Leader of the Opposition just brought on.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my officers deliver the best health services for Territorians. My job is to allocate wisely the $1bn budget for the hospitals and the services to provide health services for all Territorians. What is the offer, $900 000? Actually it was $1m, but he cannot add. My focus is to ensure there are enough doctors, nurses, equipment, and the oncology unit is running on time. Their focus? They do not want the oncology unit, they never wanted it, and they do not want it, and they try to undermine it.
This is not my focus. My focus is the best health service in Australia for Territorians. If the issue for them is watching a video clip, yes, I did watch a video clip. I do not remember the time, and if you have gone to a censure motion because I do not remember the time - so be it. I am not going to waste time on that.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have never - I mean this genuinely - seen such an enfeebled defence of a censure motion. This is the most extraordinary thing we have witnessed here today, because there was quite an unequivocal answer given in relation to the issue of him watching the video. Frankly, I could not care if he was watching a video or not. However, the issue in this House, in this crucible of democracy, is there is but one rule that is primary over all other rules; that is, we do not lie. This is why the accusation of uttering a lie in this place is seen to be so serious that the only way you can utter the word without being told to withdraw that word is by bringing on a motion to censure a person for lying.
The minister in charge of leading government business says the minister is not on trial for his reputation; I could not disagree more strongly. This man is entirely on trial for his reputation. The reason he is on trial for his reputation is because he did not tell the truth. That is the issue; it has nothing to do with what he was watching. That is a matter for the public to decide; whether they take him seriously as a Health Minister or not. However, to come into this place - this beautiful, sacred place where the truth is paramount amongst all things - and utter a lie, such an obvious and deliberate lie, is a great sin indeed. That is why their sword of Damocles is falling towards him after the thin thread has been cut.
There are a series of untruths in the answers that he gave today, not just one. The most obvious was the lie he told in relation to what time he was watching that material. It was a cute little quip to flick off to the media to say: ‘Oh, well, I was watching the rallies on my TV screen during the boring old budget reply’. A nice little barb back at the opposition that their budget reply was really boring ...
Dr Burns: How do you know he was not?
Mr ELFERINK: Because we saw him change his mind - he changed his story. Can you imagine this guy in the witness box? Could you picture this man as a credible witness in the witness box? I can see it now. There is the lawyer, the prosecutor saying: ‘Well, Mr … - I cannot say his name – ‘… Mr Casuarina, we have evidence to believe that you were doing a certain thing’. ‘Absolutely not, no, no, something else happened entirely’. ‘Are you absolutely sure of this?’ ‘Absolutely, I am sure of it’, said Mr Casuarina. ‘Oh, okay, very well’. Oops, here comes a suggestion that statement may have been untrue. ‘Well, I am not entirely sure when I said that. I could have said that over there or I could have said it then’. Could you imagine that in a witness box? Would you trust it, would you believe it? No, you would not. You would be the most incredible witness who had ever been cast to the four winds by the judge, who would tell the jury: ‘You cannot listen to that bloke; he might as well be in charge of James Hardie. You cannot listen to that bloke’.
That is what is happening here, Madam Speaker. He has come into this place and he has uttered a lie with the intent of deceiving members of this House. That is the crime that has been committed here, nothing else. That is what we are concerned about.
We heard him flippantly say: ‘Oh, yes, I read the report, but there is no mention of the kids in the report’. I am sure that is what I heard him say, and I am sure the Parliamentary Record will bear that out. He then had it pointed out to him that on pages 44, 45 and 46 of the report, there was a mention of the kids. I will go to page 45, where it said:
Nothing about kids going missing in that report, that is obvious. Maybe we stuck this in a little later on. ‘Oh yes’, he says in the next answer, ‘Oh yes, that is right, it is between pages 39 and 46’. Bully for you, minister, you found some more pages you had forgotten to read.
You are a minister of the Crown. You either remember reading that and decided to deceive this House; or you do not remember reading that and, if that is true - if he cannot remember what time he was doing something on his computer - and he cannot remember: ‘Oh yes, that business in the report, I cannot remember that, forgot about that’. It goes to his competence as a minister. He is either incompetent because he cannot remember anything, or he is lying.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, I believe it is the latter, not the former. I am sure I heard him say - and I stand to be corrected on this - in an earlier answer that all the money he spent last year on the 30 recommendations…
Mr Vatskalis: No.
A member: Where is it in this year’s budget?
Mr ELFERINK: The Parliamentary Record will bear it out, I can tell you. I pick up on the interjection from the Health Minister. If he has said that, then he has some questions to answer. There was a report on the security of the hospital which came down in January 2009, and it said, from memory, there were some 30 items that had to be attended to. We are assured that all of these items are going to be on minor new works, but we cannot find them. This is a $1m spend, from memory. However, there is no reference to it because it is all buried away in minor new works somewhere. If you go to Budget Paper No 4, there are lists of works on that which are much less than $1m …
Dr Burns: You do not understand. You have no idea.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: There are lots of little jobs there so it did not come up in the budget papers. Mate, something as important as this should be a single project, and come up as a single works item …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: … and here is something I do honestly believe, the money had been requested for the 2009-10 Budget and has been denied …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: I will be interested to see if it comes out in the wash, if that is not true, because it is my understanding that money has been denied.
Regarding the issue of the annual reports; we had reassurances from the ministers that annual reports were all in the pipeline and they were all being done in a timely fashion, other than the fact they were not there. In February, the minister said there never was a functioning medical board even in the CLP days. Really? Were there not some functioning medical boards in the CLP days? My word there were, and I have read a few of their reports. For the minister to come in and say there were never any functioning medical boards in the CLP days goes to a pattern of behaviour. We now have a minister who, in Question Time alone, in my opinion, has uttered two lies, and is now entrenched in a pattern of behaviour consistent with dishonesty.
The minister deceived the House over hospital boards, yet one of their own members held a seat on the Katherine Hospital Board. Mind you, there is no evidence it ever had a meeting, but the fact is there is a yawning chasm between what comes out of this minister’s mouth and the actual truth. It goes to the very heart of the integrity of government that they be honest with Territorians. That is what this is about.
We discussed bringing a censure motion in relation to this report prior to this sitting, and we actually decided against it. We were going to ask the questions and get on with the day, but the answers from the minister were so inconsistent with the truth, it was so incredible he came here and uttered the things he did, so shameful he conducted himself the way he did, we had no choice but to go to this censure motion. There is a time when the credible becomes incredible. Whilst this minister likes to portray himself as a likeable bloke, ‘Hail fellow, well met’ - I believe he was described as being a likeable rogue - the problem is a likeable rogue is a rogue nonetheless.
We have no comfort this man is capable, for political reasons, of telling the truth. What I do believe him to be capable of, for political reasons, is not telling the truth. Today we have seen it, an absolute statement of fact turned into: ‘I do not know how long it was going; an hour or a minute’. My goodness gracious me, he has the audacity to complain about the accounting ability of the Leader of the Opposition after they spin and twist the Leader of the Opposition’s words, but he cannot tell the difference between an hour and a minute. I would hate him to be the bloke taking my pulse.
I am surprised he has tried in such a facile and transparent way to pull the wool over our collective eyes. I do not believe that even in Grade 2 or 3 he would have been able to pull this one off. To launch into a tirade against the Leader of the Opposition as a form of defence is a remarkable response. Think about it. Someone comes in to the room and accuses you of lying and you say: ‘I can tell you, you lied, too’. That is the defence we just saw run in this place. He relied on an article headlined by something the journalist did not write - so the headline was wrong for starters. That is his defence: ‘Well, you lied, too. You lie’.
That is an astonishing defence. If you accuse me of being a liar, then you are a liar, too. That is not a defence; that is a confirmation of the allegation we are levelling at him today. I, too, will not waste the House’s time by using all of my time to speak on this particular issue. I ask members before they vote and pass judgment on this minister, to ask how this witness has performed in the witness box. Listen to the evidence he has given in defence of himself and pass judgment accordingly, because I can tell you, in any other court of law and, particularly the court of public opinion, this man stands condemned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, there was a common theme through what the opposition had to say here today, and it was about trial, punishment, judgment and evidence. This is a parliament; this is not a court. That is the first thing to remember. It is a trait the opposition have shown in the past and they continue to show it.
Their modus operandi is to be like the scribes and Pharisees with the Good Lord - try to trick you up with words; try to pose the question to you as they did with Question Time and, then, try to coat the answer and show that you have, somehow, transgressed divine law. That is the way they operate.
At the very basis of their prosecution of this case they seem to have discounted the obvious. Why could the member not be watching the video clip on YouTube at both times? Why is that? That is not something they canvassed. Was it? No, Madam Speaker. He said that he was watching it, so they excluded one possibility to suit their own ends, just as they did with this report.
As the member for Port Darwin said, this report does make mention, on page 45, of an absconding child in particular circumstances. What they failed to mention, as you read on to the next page, is the child was actually in the company of its auntie and it was further complicated by the fact …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You can shake your head. You confabulated, you confected, you have thrown confetti in the air, and you have tried to pin my colleague. What it says on the following page, on page 46 is:
That is what they did not read out. It is a very common occurrence - I know because I spent some time at RDH in various wards - particularly, with Indigenous people, to get a visit from the auntie, the mother; the auntie and the mother want to go shopping, the child wants to go shopping, too; and the child goes. This is something that happens every day at RDH. I am not saying it is not a problem; it is a problem - if that child needs medication at certain times; if that child should not be exposed to certain things outside the hospital - I am talking about infective agents here - they should not be going anywhere.
This is the very dilemma that the Ombudsman is reporting here. They are trying to link it to sexual abuse, to the incident that happened in Royal Darwin Hospital on the paediatric ward, trying to attribute some type of nefarious goings-on with this particular child when, really, the circumstances are about the treatment of that child, and the family circumstances around that child. They should have been honest enough to actually do that, but they did not. They selectively quoted from a report; they alluded to a former report, tried to draw it together and entrap my colleague, the member for Casuarina.
It did not work in my mind because I knew exactly what the Ombudsman and the Health Services Complaints Commissioner were talking about. I have exposed here exactly what this crowd is up to. Moreover, if one were to turn to the recommendations of this report, they go into the unjustified use of restraint and detention - a very important issue at Royal Darwin Hospital. I can tell a story here. At one level, it is a humorous story, but it is a very serious story.
I knew an Indigenous man - I have been friends with him for many years – who had TB. One day, I was going to work and saw this particular man, who is in his 20s, in his hospital pyjamas, at the Rapid Creek shops waiting for a bus. He was talking to a couple of Mormons who live up the road. I immediately knew what was going on. That gentleman should have been in hospital. It is an issue for a whole range of reasons: people who are demented, who have alcoholic dementia, who have infectious diseases, who have brain injuries - as my colleague alluded to in the media, there was an incident where someone who had a fractured skull and part of their brain protruding wanted to go out of the hospital, and would have been dead - there is the issue of people who have psychiatric illnesses who do not want to be restrained. Then there is that grey area where doctors say to patients: ‘You really should not be going out of here because you are not only putting yourself at risk’ - as in the story I told - ‘but you are putting others at risk. You should be staying here’. I believe what the Ombudsman is alluding to here is that very dilemma; in fact, she mentions it as a head chapter from which the opposition read earlier today.
If you go through the recommendations of this report there is not one which talks about children being in danger – not one. Yes, it is an important issue, and I will come to that in a minute. However, if it was an issue the Ombudsman or the Health Services Complaints Commissioner would have it up there in lights. She has pointed to a whole range of issues, which the department has acknowledged are important. So, instead of turning to the substantial aspects of her report, the opposition has, I believe in a fairly low way, tried to sensationalise this report, to turn it against the Health Minister and the department, which has undertaken to try to resolve these issues.
There is disagreement between the legal views the department has, and the view of the Ombudsman. I accept the position of the Ombudsman as someone who is charged with protecting people’s rights, and will have a certain view. The hospital administration and the doctors may have another view. I believe there is room for a debate here, and that is what is being called for by people such as Colin McDonald QC and Dr Len Notaras. As most people would be aware, Dr Notaras is not only a medical doctor but he has a law degree as well; let us not forget that. He is a very talented man and we are very fortunate to have his services. He has a particular view which, I have ascertained from media discussion, is at loggerheads with the Health Services Complaints Commissioner; so there is a debate.
Turning to some of the issues at hand - this is the hospital’s side of the equation. The Acting Executive Director stated:
c) Training and education of staff on an ongoing basis.
And further:
Dr BURNS: It has a lot to do with it. There is a whole range of things the Acting Chief Executive raised with the Ombudsman, and not one of them related to children - not one of them.
In relation to the questions which were put to my colleague about security at Royal Darwin Hospital, it is true that there were gaps; I acknowledged that as Health minister. That is why we had Jim O’Sullivan, former Police Commissioner of Queensland, and Mr Peter Foster do an audit and make recommendations on what was required, particularly in paediatric wards at Royal Darwin Hospital and, as my colleague just said, beyond that as well.
Security is an issue at our hospital. It is a vital issue and something we should probably debate as a parliament in a real and reasoned way, not in a back door way of alleging, as has happened here, that somehow my colleague is not up-front with showing $1m spent on security matters.
Madam Speaker, the Health department is a very big department. Royal Darwin Hospital has expenditure of $225m – it is a lot more now. I said to the department: ‘You need to find that from within existing resources somewhere; not necessarily the hospital, not bleeding the hospital dry, but you need to find that money to implement what O’Sullivan said’.
Incidentally, one of the issues O’Sullivan raised was about the paediatric ward within Royal Darwin Hospital and the steps to address the very human issue I mentioned about parents taking their children out. We know Indigenous people move as a group and the children want to be part of that group. If the group goes to Casuarina to shop or have lunch, the children naturally want to go with them. That is what this was all about.
I will come again to the assertion that my colleague has lied. You excluded the possibility he may have been watching a video in both instances. That was the first thing you excluded, in the sanctimonious, scribes-and-Pharisees performance that was put on. As I said as a point of order, he was the member for Macdonnell at that stage, and I remember sitting here and hearing the beautiful call for races. He was watching races while parliament was on, and he will not deny that.
We had the member for Fong Lim on his Facebook site. All of us do it, to some extent, because it is part of our job to gain information from the Internet on a whole range of things. I do not think the finger should be pointed at any of us because members on both sides utilise the Internet in one way or another.
I reject this censure motion. I believe it is a complete fabrication, it is a bitter and, as I said, almost a legal fit-up particularly by the member for Port Darwin and the Leader of the Opposition.
The government will be rejecting this censure motion. I move that the motion be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the proposed legislation amounts to a shift in balance between the prosecution and the defence. Some might argue the nature of our criminal justice system means the prosecution must prove its case, meet all defences, and the defence should not be obliged to show its hand at all.
There could be arguments against disclosure and I will just run through them - not saying I necessarily agree with them, but for the sake of knowing what they could be. It is argued that requiring defence pre-trial disclosure would infringe several fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. Requiring the defendant to provide information about the defence case before trial would be inconsistent with the principle that the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, which is required to establish guilt without any assistance from the defendant. Compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure might also operate, in practice, as a form of compulsion on the defendant, inconsistent with the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination.
It is also argued that compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure would be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration has acknowledged that pre-trial defence disclosure would infringe these principles, but considered that a disclosure regime was still justified on the basis of efficiency. However, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice concluded that compulsory pre-trial disclosure did not involve a breach of fundamental principles because the only difference between pre-trial disclosure and advancing a defence at trial was timing.
Another argument is that, like prosecution disclosure, compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure would impose an unacceptable burden on defence resources. The Working Group on the Right to Silence considered that any additional cost could be offset by savings resulting from the focusing of the defence on the real issues in the case.
One submission emphasised Legal Aid organisations require adequate resources in order to meet disclosure obligation, again relying on government commitment. Other submissions argued the compulsory defence disclosure would amplify the effects of the unbalanced resources available to the prosecution and defence. It is clear that it would be impossible for most unrepresented defendants to fairly and fully comply with compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure. Like compulsory prosecution disclosure, defence disclosure is criticised on the basis it could lead to injustice by giving the prosecution an opportunity to tailor its case in response to the disclosed defence or intimidate defence witnesses or fabricate evidence.
A related argument is being contacted and questioned by police, in itself an intimidating experience for many potential defence witnesses. Potential witnesses who have had a criminal history, particularly those on bail or parole, may feel extremely vulnerable. In response to this argument, it is argued that these criticisms may be adequately addressed by the protective measures discussed in the paragraph above.
One submission argued that compulsory defence disclosure would promote less investigation by police in the initial stages of the criminal justice system. It is argued also that compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure may cause injustice because there may be reasons for departure from the disclosed defence at trial which are not the responsibility of the defendant, including errors by the defendant’s legal representatives, late briefing of counsel, different advice received by new solicitors or counsel and changes in response to adjustments to the prosecution case. It is argued that it would be unfair to impose sanctions on the defence for non-disclosure in these circumstances.
Finally, compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure is criticised on the basis that it is likely to be ineffective. Research into limiting existing defence disclosure requirements indicates judges are generally reluctant to impose sanctions for non-compliance with these requirements. It is argued there is no reason to expect a general disclosure regime will be more rigorously enforced by the judiciary. You could say these amendments may infringe the fundamental integrity of the system which does not require the accused to assist the prosecution to prove its case.
Having said that, and on the balance of the information put forward from my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, and in the interests of fair balance and natural justice, we do not oppose the bill; we support the bill. It is important to point out there are quarters within the legal system which have a different view.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate.
The bill amends the Criminal Code to provide the defence must give notice to the court, and the prosecution, if it intends to call expert evidence in criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court. That is an important distinction and it goes to the question raised by the member for Nelson, which I will deal with. It has long been accepted that evidence dealing with specialised areas of knowledge, such as relevant material determining a disputed factual issue, should be explained to the jury by suitably qualified witnesses. The member for Port Darwin went into some detail on that. These are areas of knowledge beyond general knowledge of the community such as scientific evidence about DNA or evidence about gunshot residue.
Expert evidence assists in ensuring the jury does not draw erroneous inferences from the evidence before the court. Apparently, the defence is under no obligation to notify the prosecution or the court of an intention to call expert evidence, although I have been advised by the legal fraternity that, as a matter of practice, they often do. Prosecution, for its overriding obligation to disclose all relevant evidence, must disclose its intent to call expert evidence and provide a report or statement from the witness. Currently, the only disclosure the defence need make in criminal proceedings is notice of alibi. The amendment requires that the notice must contain certain information – the name, address and qualification of the proposed expert and the substance of the proposed evidence. If a report or statement containing the findings or opinion of the expert witness is in existence, then this must be provided with the notice. If it does not exist, then it must be provided as soon as it does come into existence.
Notice overcomes a potential unfairness to the prosecution by ensuring the ability to challenge the expertise or effectively cross-examine is not compromised. It also enables expediency in case management through saving court time, expense and stress, or inconvenience to witnesses. This bill brings the Northern Territory in line with a majority of jurisdictions in Australia and the United Kingdom. Relevant Northern Territory stakeholders were consulted.
I want to go through the consultation process. The Director of Public Prosecutions raised the issue that the majority of jurisdictions in Australia have legislative provision for defence disclosure of the intention to call expert evidence. He highlighted two cases in 2008 where the prosecution had been ambushed by defence calling expert evidence without notice. The sex-somnia case was, I guess, the most notable of those cases.
Prior to drafting, comments were sought from relevant stakeholders. Comments were received from the Chief Justice, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) and the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. The Chief Justice and NAAJA were supportive of the proposal; the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission did not support it. The majority of jurisdictions in Australia, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and South Australia and, to some extent, New South Wales have this provision; as does the United Kingdom.
I turn to the questions raised by members opposite. The member for Port Darwin asked whether government had considered including the notification of remuneration paid to experts for evidence. I am advised it is standard for expert witnesses to be provided with remuneration for their expertise. I am advised the remuneration paid to an expert does not reflect on the content of their evidence. I am advised an expert may be challenged on their evidence, and any contradiction in their evidence compared with other expert evidence. It may be the member for Port Darwin was referring to the remuneration of expert witnesses in civil proceedings in New South Wales, not criminal proceedings …
Mr Elferink: That is quite possible, yes.
Ms LAWRIE: These are found in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of 2005. Some of the rules relate to the court determining the rate of remuneration. The rule that Department of Justice suspects could be the one referred to by the member for Port Darwin is Rule 31.22. It goes to only to civil proceedings. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Act, where the provisions regarding giving notice of intention to call expert evidence are found; about the expert disclosing his or her fees. I repeat: these were matters the Department of Justice have provided to me. They are saying it is standard for those expert witnesses to be provided remuneration for their expertise; it is considered the remuneration paid to an expert does not reflect on the content of their evidence; and an expert may be challenged about their evidence, and any contradiction in their evidence compared with other expert witnesses.
In no other jurisdiction is the matter of remuneration regarding expert evidence as raised by the member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: It will be a trailblazer.
Ms LAWRIE: Picking up on the interjection, it is often the case where you are changing matters of this nature to be the trailblazer. At this stage, the Northern Territory is genuinely looking to address the matters the Chief Justice raised. We went through a consultation process to change anything of any significant material respect to what we would be proposing. As far as government is concerned, we are very satisfied with the legislation as it appears before the House.
I thank member for Nelson for getting the briefing. I know he had a series of questions he was able to have answered during that briefing. The first question was why this only applies to trials in the Supreme Court. The procedural unfairness caused by the defence calling expert evidence without notice really only applies in a jury trial. In such trials, the judge cannot give more than a short adjournment for the prosecution to investigate the matter and be in a position to effectively challenge or cross-examine the witness - otherwise you have the situation of a jury kept waiting.
I am advised the problem does not occur in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court because the magistrate can adjourn a hearing to a later date, if required in the interest of justice, to enable the prosecution to duly consider the expert evidence. The empanelling of the jury and the fact that the jury is there does not provide the opportunity to create an adjournment to test the expert evidence in the Supreme Court.
The second question was in regard to the accused being required to give written notice at least 14 days before the start of the trial: why does section 331A(2)(b) state they may also give notice within another time allowed by the court? That section provides for a time line of 14 days and provides for discretion by the judge. It will enable the court discretion to allow another type of notice to be given. It basically means it may allow a shorter period of time for notice. You must give at least 14 days, as prescribed in the legislation; this clause enables the judge to exercise discretion for a shorter period of time if a short period of time is the most effective way. It will ensure procedural fairness, and it avoids the possibility, I am advised, of an appeal or a miscarriage of justice.
The third question was why are there no penalties for contravention of the section, which is, failing to provide notice. Subsection (7) of the amendment contains the sanctions available to the court for contravening section 331A, that is, the court may, on application by the prosecution: discharge the jury; adjourn the trial; or make a comment about the contravention. I am advised any other penalty, such as a fine, is not appropriate for criminal proceedings.
The member for Fong Lim raised one point particularly relevant to the debate, which was regarding notification could cause delay in trials. I am advised the amendment will not lead to delays in trials. It avoids delays as notification enables the prosecution to be prepared. Also, if the prosecution agrees with what the defence expert says: (1) the trial maybe avoided altogether, or (2) the issues may be narrowed. I am advised the amendment, on experience elsewhere, saves the court time.
These were the questions raised in the second reading debate. I can advise the act will commence on assent. I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 6 May 2009.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, as the Northern Territory and Australia face the toughest economic times in a generation, Budget 2009-10 is certainly a ray of hope. It invests strategically to protect Territory jobs and to build the Territory for the future.
Against the backdrop of a record $1.3bn investment in infrastructure, Budget 2009-10 underpins our economy’s key industries. We are investing in more frontline services, with record health, police and education budgets to continue to deliver essential services to Territory families. We also continue our commitment to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and we are delivering for Territory families with a targeted focus of improving housing affordability and infrastructure.
I take this opportunity to speak to the strategic funding allocations across my specific portfolio responsibilities. Budget 2009-10 delivers a record investment in housing across the Northern Territory, with more land to grow, new places to buy and rent at an affordable price, and new public housing. The $390.3m allocation, a $187m or 92% boost on the previous year, reflects this government’s commitment to housing the Territory. These housing projects will create 355 jobs across the construction industry and give real opportunities to small businesses.
We are investing strategically to meet our largest demand areas in public housing, particularly for seniors and singles. Budget 2009-10 delivers $23.4m for more public housing. Seniors are one of our largest growing clientele groups for public housing and providing accommodation designed for their needs is an important focus of our investment in public housing.
$10m is provided in Budget 2009-10 for the construction of a 44-unit seniors village in the new suburb of Bellamack. We are revitalising older public housing complexes as we continue to tackle antisocial behaviour. $4m has been committed to upgrade complexes in Alice Springs and Darwin. A further $9.4m will be invested in building new and upgrading existing public housing dwellings.
We know housing affordability is placing stress on some Territory families. In Budget 2009-10 we are delivering a range of projects to help Territorians meet this challenge. Later this year, work will start on the new Parap Gateway Development. Starting with Wirrina flats and townhouses, public housing on Parap Road will be demolished and redeveloped. The Parap Gateway will be a mixture of public and private housing, including accommodation specifically for seniors and first homebuyers.
This government recognises dense public housing complexes do not suit their clientele and, over time, we will redevelop these complexes across the Territory. Our project to revitalise and sell the former public housing complex at 26 Emery Avenue to first homebuyers at an affordable housing price is well under way. This project is putting 16 new homes on the market and I look forward next month to announcing details of the ballot for the sale of this complex.
Budget 2009-10 delivers on our commitment to establish an affordable housing company. We know there is a growing demand for affordable rental properties. The housing affordability rental company will help meet that gap between the price of public housing and private rental properties currently available in the market. The Parap Gateway development will be the first of these projects.
The new Homestart NT initiative will commence on 1 June, focusing on helping low to middle income earners to buy their own home. Disappointingly, this initiative to help Territorians to buy their first home has not been supported by the opposition. Budget 2009-10 includes $26m to support this new scheme which offers higher purchase price limits and higher income caps than the old HomeNorth Extra. This means more Territorians will be able to access financial support to buy their own home, opening up access to 40% of our market without investing more than 30% of their household income.
With our focus on housing the Territory we are working with the Commonwealth to get job-creating projects out quickly and effectively. Like the Commonwealth government, we made a deliberate decision to go into a temporary deficit to protect jobs in tough economic times. In Budget 2009-10 we will continue to roll-out projects to upgrade and build new public housing with funding from the Australian government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan.
To date, the Territory has received $4.1m to upgrade 175 existing public housing properties. Twenty-three properties have received internal upgrades already, including kitchen repairs. A further 27 vacant properties, which have been out of service, will be put up for use by Territory families and include properties in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. Tenders are being awarded and assessed for the installation of solar hot water units and roof repairs and replacements. $2m of the $4.1m has been committed and allocated in Budget 2009-10. A further $7.1m, with $6.2m being allocated in Budget 2009-10, will be used to build 22 new homes in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Tenders for the first four homes to be built are now open.
I am currently working with the Commonwealth on specific projects for a further investment of $14.3m to be provided in 2009 to construct new housing. These projects will be carried out by local contractors, thus protecting Territory jobs and building the Territory.
The Henderson government is committed in tackling homelessness across the Northern Territory. This includes working with the Commonwealth to deliver the $15.8m A Place to Call Home program which will build 32 new houses by 2013.
In Budget 2009-10 we will deliver $1.29m to build another six new homes; $3.25m to provide services to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping, improve access to sustainable housing and improve social inclusion of homeless people and people at risk, with a further $2m for a new tenancy sustainability program to give Territorians life skills training and support to maintain their tenancies.
The Territory government will also provide $1.1m to continue financial and administrative support for community organisations that provide housing options to special needs groups. Working in partnership with our NGO sector is a key aspect of housing the Territory. Improving housing conditions is essential to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Better housing means healthier families, healthier lifestyles, stronger communities and a strong and growing economy.
The Australian and Territory governments are working together to deliver a record $1.76bn program over 10 years to improve Indigenous housing in the Territory. The funding investment will address over crowding, homelessness and the poor housing conditions we currently face in remote Indigenous communities. It includes $672m over five years for the landmark Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, SIHIP.
SIHIP will build and replace up to 900 houses and refurbish more than 1300 houses in 73 remote Indigenous communities and some town camps. SIHIP continues in Budget 2009-10 with $98m to build up to 100 new homes and associated infrastructure, $78m to refurbish more than 700 existing homes, and $44m for better tenancy and property management to support new and existing housing across remote Indigenous communities.
A sustainable workforce will be needed to get this work done. The Territory and Australian governments are committed to ensuring local businesses are utilised for these projects, protecting jobs in our key industry, namely construction. SIHIP is about more than improving housing conditions for Indigenous Territorians. A key focus of the program is providing real jobs and training opportunities for Indigenous people.
In Tennant Creek, 13 local Indigenous Territorians have already completed prevocational training through SIHIP, undertaking training with the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation. Another 12 will start this training soon. Work is under way on the Tiwi Islands to identify participants in two initial training courses. On Groote Eylandt, 10 community members have already undertaken OHS training, and a work ready training course will be held in the coming months.
Budget 2009-10 allocates $19.1m for major capital grants to improve Indigenous essential services. These include $1.4m for water-sourced development at Alpurrurulam, Barunga and Beswick; $3.1m to replace or upgrade water storage capacity at Palumpa, Warrawi, Ramingining and Willowra; $2.4m to connect Yuelamu to the Yuendumu electricity grid and a further $1.6m for a new power station at Alpurrurulam. We have also increased funding for contracting essential service operators - who do a great job - by $2.85m in this Budget 2009-10 to meet the increasing costs and also further improve essential service training programs for local people - local people undertaking local jobs in their own communities.
Budget 2009-10 also provides additional Commonwealth funding of $20m for the delivery of municipal and essential services. Included in this funding is $4.5m for capital grants to improve remote infrastructure. This work is about growing the Territory services, investing in our regions, and delivering real results for Territorians.
This government remains committed to providing ongoing support to local government. We are committed to working with local government to support the expansion of their services into unincorporated areas. Just over $51m has been allocated for financial assistance grants for local government services. A further $1.7m is allocated under Closing the Gap to allow community representation in local government and provide infrastructure to support local community governance. The Australian government funding of $10m will be delivered to help build and retain a skilled workforce in regional and remote communities. The funding will support the transitioning of Indigenous Territorians working in local government under the previous CDEP scheme into fully-funded jobs.
The Northern Territory government made an election commitment in 2008 of $4m to upgrade facilities in Darwin's Bagot Community. As part of Budget 2009-10, $2m will be invested in the community to focus on improving infrastructure such as lighting, fencing and community services. Upgrades will be done in consultation with the community.
More than a third of Territorians speak languages other than English and can face significant challenges when accessing information and services. Ensuring these Territorians fully understand information about health, justice, education and other vital topics, has a positive impact on their lives. This is why Budget 2009-10 includes ongoing funding of $350 000 for the interpreter and translator services to alleviate communication barriers for non-English speaking Territorians. $140 000 will be invested in the recruitment, training, and accreditation needs of interpreters, many of whom are recruited from remote communities, and this will create opportunities for those people. $210 000 will also be invested in the Aboriginal Interpreter Service to meet the recent increase in demand for interpreting services as a result of the Australian government’s intervention.
The budget provides $2.15m for water safety and animal welfare. Much of the Territory’s great lifestyle revolves around the outdoors and, in the Top End particularly, around water. Our Safe Pool Grant was very successful with over $10.5m used to upgrade pool fencing across the Territory. Our commitment to water safety continues, and a key component of the Water Safety Unit’s work is the Water Safety Awareness Program. The program entitles parents of children aged between six months and five years to five free water safety sessions. Since commencement in late 2003, almost 6000 children and their families have participated in this valuable program. To continue improvement in the areas of water safety and animal welfare, this budget continues to support the Water Safety Advisory Council and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
This government has delivered, and continues to deliver, record infrastructure spends. I am proud to be the Essential Services minister and look forward to working with the staff and management of Power and Water Corporation on the roll-out of Budget 2009-10's five-year infrastructure investment program now reaching $1.4bn. We are committed to growing our economy and protecting jobs.
In order to meet projected growth in demand and improved system security, major investment in new assets will be undertaken. This infrastructure investment program will see a steady increase in the delivery of reliable and robust electricity, water, and sewerage services throughout the Northern Territory. This program will reduce the risk of major equipment failure through a large increase in spending on asset replacement and upgrade. This investment will contribute to the success of a number of important growth initiatives for the Territory, including the substantial program of land release and associated infrastructure upgrades in Darwin, Alice Springs and remote communities. Demand growth throughout the Northern Territory will be met through the expansion and strengthening of the power network, commissioning of new power stations, developing new and augmenting existing water supply sources, and greater investment in wastewater treatment facilities.
The Henderson government understands increasing reliability for customers will benefit Territory industries. We will protect local jobs and Power and Water will give priority to local development in its tendering evaluations and provide extensive briefings to local suppliers. In order to help Power and Water deliver the infrastructure investment program and achieve financial sustainability, the government authorised significant and necessary increases in electricity, water, and sewerage tariffs over the next three years. This was a tough decision, but necessary to build the utility following decades of under-investment.
This government will not make the same mistakes as the CLP which cut jobs and stripped the corporation of its profits. We will continue to provide a dividend moratorium for the corporation. The dividend moratorium and the necessary tariff increases shows the Henderson government is serious about ensuring Power and Water has the financial capacity to meet the substantial capital investment required to deliver efficient and reliable essential services for Territorians.
I now turn to the independent review of our power networks system done by Mervyn Davies earlier this year. His recommendations have been implemented as a matter of priority. The Remedial Asset Management Program, or RAMP as it is called, was established immediately to oversee the restoration of the Casuarina Zone Substation, to ensure the condition of Power and Water’s power system assets, and to manage critical remedial and maintenance works. Budget 2009-10 provides the necessary financial backing to ensure Power and Water implements all the recommendations completely, as soon as possible. The infrastructure investment program will ensure major projects are well under way. Some of these projects include continuing work on the new Weddell power station to service customers in Darwin, Palmerston and the link between Katherine and the rural area. This is $88m over the next five years, and a total project figure of $164m.
Further, building the new Owen Springs Power Station in Alice Springs is $82m over the next five years; a total of $132m for that project; implementing the Darwin Sewer Strategy, including closure of the Larrakeyah Outfall and augmenting the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant, a total of $56m; continuing works to underground power in Darwin’s northern suburbs; building the new Archer Zone Substation for Palmerston, and upgrading and replacing generators in power stations at Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Yulara.
Further still, raising the Darwin River Dam wall to increase water storage capacity - that is $14m over the next five years; the continuing works to bring Manton Dam back online as a secondary water source - some $153m over the next five years; building the new Palmerston transmission main; upgrading the Roe Creek bore field in Alice Springs, and the further restoration works on the Casuarina Zone Substation.
Power and Water is well placed to deliver safe, efficient and reliable essential services for our remote communities. In Budget 2009-10, the Territory government will invest $67m to upgrade electricity, water supply, and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities. Power and Water, through the Indigenous essential services program, is implementing strategies to ensure it can meet current demand and deliver increasing services for the future in remote Indigenous communities.
The Henderson government makes no apologies for increasing frontline public service numbers. More police, teachers and nurses are front and centre in the Henderson government’s priorities. Through the Commonwealth intervention and Closing the Gap we have also seen increases in the Northern Territory public sector staffing levels, which are providing very important services such as improved child protection. Disturbingly, the Leader of the Opposition continues to question the expertise of Territory public servants. In his budget reply yesterday, he repeatedly talked about the lack of efficiency in the service as if some departments are actually on holiday camps. Complete nonsense! Hard-working Territorians delivering important services for our communities; that is what they are doing.
We expect public sector employees to do their job, and we should respect the work they do. We have increased the total budget of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment to $10.169m, an increase of $2.6m. The Commissioner’s office is to lead the implementation of this government’s commitment to introduce a scholarship program to support Northern Territory government employees undertaking specialist training, or academic studies, to further their careers in the NTPS; an NTPS graduate recruitment and career development program, and the Chief Minister’s Public Sector Medal scheme, to recognise high performing employees for their innovation and services to the community.
This year, we will increase our focus on reforming and revitalising the NTPS. The OCPE will, through that program, complete the review of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, PSEMA, and introduce the NTPS Workforce Planning framework; develop a knowledge management strategy to retain the benefits of employees’ knowledge and experience when they leave the NTPS, and implement the Innovation, Recognition and Rewards strategy for the Northern Territory Public Service. Further, it will establish a new Indigenous employment and career development strategy to increase the numbers of Indigenous Territorians employed in the NTPS; develop a new willing and able strategy to improve opportunities available in the Northern Territory Public Service to Territorians with a disability, and also introduce biennial staff surveys to improve our understanding of Northern Territory Public Service employees.
In conclusion, this budget delivers real results for Territorians. It makes major investments in housing and infrastructure, delivering for Territory families and protecting Territory jobs. Budget 2009-10 protects Territory jobs in the face of the global economic recession, and provides strategic investment in essential services.
I congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister on a strong, balanced budget, reflective of the surrounding economic climate while delivering on the Henderson government’s policies and commitment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, in every budget there is good and bad - and this budget is no different. Every budget is quite hard for the ordinary person on the street to understand, and they take their understanding from what they read in the newspapers or see on television.
One of the problems we have with delivering the budget to the ordinary person on the street is there tends to be an amount of spin because, although the government says we are in tough times, it also wants to tell people there is some good news as well. From a general point of view, people need to know the nitty-gritty. Sometimes when you read what the Treasurer has said, you have to dig down to discover what it means. For instance, in the Budget speech the Treasurer said:
I do not have an argument about the jobs, but I do about the figure. The figure is not actual; it is what, in theory, they will spend, but, in fact, do not. If you go to page 15 of the Budget Paper No 4, you will see there is $1.076bn worth of capital works the government says it is going to spend. From that, you have to take $116m which is part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, a one-off stimulus package the Commonwealth government is putting into the Territory and is included in the minister’s $1.3bn figure - which leaves $960m of capital works. The government will not spend $960m worth of works because it revotes money in and out. In the column headed ‘cash,’ is the amount of money it expects to spend on these programs. So, capital works appears at $960m but, on the ground for this financial year, it will spend $537m.
That might be what the government in an accrual accounting format might like to say, but I believe people on the ground want to know how much the government is going to spend this financial year. When it comes to capital works, the facts are the total amount of actual hard cash it will spend will be $537m. We have to put these figures into perspective.
You will notice the difference between the amount of cash which will be spent compared to the figure publicly put forward. The government says total capital works will be $960m - the cash will be $537m. That is what will be spent. The nation building program is $116m - that is the works program; in the cash column you see $116m as well, because the federal government wants that money spent right now. That is where you can see how much money is actually being spent.
The other side of the coin is to say: ‘This is the budget for this year, but what is that relying on?’ It relies on these things. On page 25 of Budget Paper No 2 it states:
upward revision of Territory taxation revenue of $12.8m …
We have made more money from taxation in the Northern Territory than last year;
a reduction in GST revenue of $161.8m in 2008-09 and $210.6m in 2009-10 …
There has also been increased tied funding from the Commonwealth of $401m this year as against $241.8m last financial year. We also have increased mining royalties from $136.6m in 2008-09 to $224.6m this year; and increases in agency revenue. We have had reductions in tax equivalents and dividends related to the Power and Water Corporation.
There is also a page here we should note. This was raised at the Chamber of Commerce lunch and relates to user charges. This is one of those silent taxes you have to keep an eye out for if you want to see from where government increases its revenue. It is called User charges under the heading Other Revenue on page 79 of the same paper. It says:
I move down further:
This is another area that could be a likely source of revenue, but could also be a likely source of pain for those people who may have to pay those charges.
I am asking: what is running our budget for this next financial year? The big question I ask of government is: what happens if, for instance, the reduction in GST continues? And the increased tied funding – a part of which is in the stimulus package which has to be spent now - so it is unlikely we will have it in the next financial year, which means it is unlikely we will have the same large amount of money, the $401m we have as increased tied funding this year? We talk about increased mining royalties, yet all the discussion I have heard from the mining industry is not to expect the same amount of royalties you get this year, next year. It looks like we might have a reduction in our royalty funding from mining.
What is going to happen if we do not get that income next year? If things are tight now, if GST does not increase, if mining royalties do not increase, and if tied funding is reduced, where does that leave us when it comes to next year’s budget? Although we are discussing this year’s budget, the government need to tell us what its plans are for next year. Who knows, if the recession keeps going we need to plan for that as well. We cannot plan just one year ahead.
I would like to talk about some of the local issues we have to deal with in the rural area. There are a number of good things in the budget, but, overall, the rural area has been left out, well and truly; there are few things in the budget to get excited about, because if you compare that amount of money to the total budget, it is a pittance. There is $1m for Coolalinga traffic management - which has been on the plans for at least six or seven years. There is the Defence Hub intersection on Thorngate Road. This will not affect rural people because the Defence Hub is just an industrial site the government built partly in a swamp, by the way, and they are upgrading the intersection.
The Humpty Doo bus exchange and the Park and Ride - there are two figures in the budget, and I am confused as to whether they are the same thing. There is $0.5m for the Humpty Doo Bus Exchange, and also $1m for the Park and Ride. Both those, if they fit into the same category, are a great initiative for government. I have no problem saying it is good that government is promoting the idea of people leaving their cars and catching a bus. However, the issue is: how secure will the cars be. We know what it is like at boat ramps, and we do not want the same when people leave their vehicle all day, catch the bus, and come back and find the rear wheels missing, or the car has been broken into. Security is the key if Park and Ride is to be a success.
There is an upgrade of the Stuart Highway into Deviney Road. I am probably pinching this from the member for Drysdale; I believe his area covers that, but the boundary between Nelson and Drysdale is the centre of the Stuart Highway. I have been pushing this for a while. I asked the minister if there could be some changes to the Stuart Highway to alleviate the traffic back-up in that area. This program of $1.9m is to put in an extra lane. I would like to see a lane go through the 11 Mile, Pinelands, and Holtze area. Hopefully, this will help alleviate some of the traffic problems in that area. Once Tiger Brennan Drive goes through it will be different, but that is still a quite a way off.
The other money is for the primary schools. The Chief Minister announced the 37 schools and I was happy that the Lutheran School received some money, but I am sad that Howard Springs Primary School, which is much older, has to wait for the second round. There is very little for schools in the rural area. Many schools in the northern suburbs have been upgraded; in fact, Parap Primary School has been upgraded twice. In the meantime, poor old Howard Springs is starting to fall apart. It is old and it needs urgent refurbishment. Again, that is really money from the stimulus package.
Then there is the Henning Road/Girraween Road intersection which has been on the plans for nearly six years. I am still waiting for a briefing on what that intersection will look like. There is $1m there. If I took out the Nation Building and counted up the total for the rural area, I come to $4.5m to $5m for the rural area.
There are other things in the budget which, make you think: well, they got even with the rural area. If you pick up the Regional Highlights you will notice there is an area they call Palmerston and Litchfield, but that includes development in the port, and sometimes development at Litchfield National Park. So, if you read that you would think we were doing well; but if you dig down a little deeper, the rural area has not done well at all.
It is good the government has put some money into dental services. Many people, especially those on lower incomes, have to wait enormous lengths of time to get their teeth fixed. I do not know how people who have major dental requirements wait 12 months or two years for treatment. By that time they probably do not have any teeth left. It is good that the government is trying to improve dental services.
The GP clinic at Palmerston: I presume that is the one with 24-hour service, which is going to be updated. I have heard the government is not going to build it where it is; they are going to build it somewhere else. We have a health service there; we have a block of land there. I would be interested to know from the Minister for Health, is it a whole new building they are going to build? Why do we not attach it to the existing, relatively new, health centre already on the corner of Temple Terrace and Roystonia Street? I would be interested to know if this money will be put into something separate from what is already there; there is certainly plenty of land there, so I hope it is not going somewhere else.
I mentioned before the idea of boxing, which is part of the police youth clubs - it is a great idea to put $50 000 that way; that is great. The water tank rebate scheme is a start, but when you divide the cost of a water tank into $150 000, it will be interesting to see how much money people get for that. Pensioner concessions are great too. There has been some lobbying from COTA and NTCOSS and similar organisations, asking for the government to look at the NT Pensioner Concession Scheme. One area which has missed out badly is rates. Rates are capped at a certain amount, about $200, so once rates keep going up there has been no system to ensure the rebates keep up with the increase in rates. It is a big cost to pensioners and I ask the government to see if it is possible to change the scheme so it can be fairer for pensioners.
I note the $1.5m for swimming pool at Humpty Doo is not shown in the revoted columns anywhere. I do not know if it is off the agenda at the moment. It will not be enough money and my guess is the YMCA will start to look somewhere around the $8m mark, at least. We will see.
There is a curious budget note saying there are two road projects in Litchfield National Park and for some reason one of those roads is put in Top End Rural, and the other is put in as Palmerston Litchfield. I do not know how whoever identifies which area they belong to, arrives at that.
What is missing in the rural area? You have heard it before: we have been struggling for a bicycle path. I know the Minister for Transport made a statement about buses, and it is good to hear about the bus improvements. But I was slightly wrong; the government has built about 300 m of bicycle path for the new Lutheran School on Whitewood Road, so I take that back. That is 300 m in close to 20 years. The bicycle path along the Arnhem Highway is very old and needs a new seal on it. No one seems to worry about it but it is used by many people and has not had any maintenance for a long time. That is the last time the government built any form of bicycle path in the rural area.
We need to expand the town water. I have said time and again that we have too many private lines in the rural area. Even if they made a decision to invest $200 000 for expanding the town water supply into the rural area and got rid of all those private lines that travel up and down the road. This is how hard it is to change things. The government has knocked that idea time and time again. I have asked for it and I have just about given up writing letters. Instead, Power and Water put out a letter to people in Mahaffey Road, Howard Springs, saying if you would like town water it will cost you $19 500. It put out a survey and expected everyone to say they would spend $19 500. A bore will cost $15 000. They had three people out of 50 people in the street who said yes. There is no way you are going to encourage people to connect to the town water supply or get rid of their private lines if you are going to charge them $19 500. The government needs to put out a program to expand the town water without that cost put on people who have already, at their own cost, put in private water lines. The problem with the private water lines is that they deteriorate and leak and cause all types of problems.
Freds Pass Reserve is the major recreation centre in the rural area. We have polocrosse, pony clubs, equestrian, Rugby League, Rugby Union, cricket, soccer, archery, paint-ball; we do not have hockey, we had softball but they have moved somewhere else as there is not enough room at the moment.
We have so many cricket teams there are not enough ovals. The Under 13s are chockers with kids and cannot take any more. If we have so many kids who want to play sport and we simply do not have the facilities, then I say: ‘Come on, government, put your money into Freds Pass’. They do not put much money there - occasionally they supply a little burst - compared to Marrara and other places. How much money are they offering Palmerston? I believe it is $24m in upgrades to sport. Sorry, Palmerston members, but, dear old Freds Pass, which has relied on a lot of volunteer work, should be recognised as a major contributor to the health and wellbeing of many of our youth in the rural area. It needs more investment.
The Rugby League people will tell you they do not have enough room. If you go there tonight, you will see kids everywhere. The Rugby Union people are trying to build their own field by scraping together a bit of equipment here and there because they do not have enough room. The Rugby League people are pushing in on them and they are trying to find more space. It is really an eye opener; if the minister for Sport would come down to Freds Pass at this time of year on a Thursday, he would be amazed at the number of kids playing at Freds Pass Reserve.
There are issues such as the road infrastructure at the Howard Springs tip and also at the 15 Mile community, which is called Palmerston Indigenous Village. There were plans drawn up about eight years ago to put a gazetted road to the Palmerston Indigenous Village. They do not have a formal entrance; they drive along the Power and Water easement - that is not good enough. The government of the time built this village and yet those people still have no formal road connection to their community. There are internal roads, but no proper, external, gazetted road connected. That also applies to the Howard Springs tip, or Transfer Station, which was also supposed to get a new entrance further away from the lights at Howard Springs.
Also missing in this budget is the regional waste facility. A number of people in this House remember the debate regarding the closing of the Humpty Doo Landfill. I am not going into the pros and cons of that, but the government said it would do a scoping study for a regional waste facility at least four years ago. I believe they have buried that and made rural people pay the cost of sending their rubbish to the Shoal Bay Landfill. There is nothing in this budget to say the government is considering establishing a regional waste facility. I say to the government: if you are not considering it, if you are not serious, allow the rural area to build its own landfill at Sunday Creek. What other shire has to take its rubbish from Berry Springs Landfill all the way to Shoal Bay? As far as I know, Dundee rubbish is collected by Parks and Wildlife and delivered to Shoal Bay. Surely we can produce a reasonable landfill site closer to where the rubbish is produced. It is 55 km from Berry Springs to Darwin, which is a lot of carbon if you are talking about carbon-related industries - and we are carting rubbish that far every day from Berry Springs to Shoal Bay. If the government is not interested in the regional waste facility, allow Litchfield to put one closer to where people live.
Howard Springs Nature Reserve: I see the media release from the minister saying there is $8m for parks. There is not too much information in that media release, but I hope some of that money, minister, will be allocated for upgrades and changes to the Howard Springs Nature Reserve. I was there a couple of Saturdays ago, a day you would expect to be as busy as a bee, and there were four cars in one car park and one or two cars in the other. Years ago they would be full; there would be people at the barbecues, in the water - people everywhere; you would be pushing to get a car parking space.
Unfortunately, it has dropped off substantially mainly due to the lack of swimming facilities. A bus came down early the other day and, yes, all the tourists loved the barramundi and the turtles, but they were not interested in going for a swim. If we can get it back to some of its former glory, whether by upgrading the pool or with a small water park - we would not want to go as big as Palmerston with another $5m water park; It is only the rural area. Hopefully, we get something that pushes things along.
I notice a Berrimah Fire Station in the budget. It is quoted in the budget speech, but I cannot find it in the documents. Perhaps the Minister for Police, Fire, and Emergency Services can tell us where it is. There is also a Berrimah water storage tank and I do not know where it is either; it is $30m, so it is not to be sneezed at.
On prisons: I am getting mixed messages about the prisons. I know the government wants to move it, and I am not a fan of moving it, and I see $21m for the headworks. If you left it where it is or moved it onto Berrimah Farm that would be $21m more or less saved. This is some of the costs I spoke about. Then I see money like this: 'Increased prisoner capacity at Darwin, Alice Springs Correctional Services'. So, we are going to spend $6.86m - that is what we did last year - $9.15m this year, $10.57m next year, and $10.57m the year after. That is about when the other prison should be built. We are spending a large amount of money on increasing prison capacity at the moment. I am not sure where we are heading with all that. There is also another $1.39m, it says, 'for correctional centres Stage 2, construct short-term and medium-term accommodation to meet rising prisoner numbers in Alice and Darwin'. I see all these figures and I am not 100% sure what they mean, except it looks like we are spending a large amount of money on facilities that will be pulled down later.
The other area of prisons is a work camp - a terrific idea; no problem with that, minister. We need more of them and, I believe, we need mobile ones. If we had more of those, we could have a smaller prison, one that would fit at Berrimah; and that would be a better way to go.
There is an interesting statement in this paper. This may be something for the Minister for Lands and Planning to answer. It says: 'Payment for transferring the management responsibility of single user access roads to the lessee/owner of pastoral leases - $2.5m'. I do not know what that means, but I am interested in finding out.
I notice there is also a 3% efficiency cut – which worries me. There must be places that cannot have any more efficiency cuts. You can go on …
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move the member for Nelson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Goyder. The 3% efficiency cut: since I have been in this parliament they keep saying every department has to have an efficiency cut. I remember getting a complaint from people in a scientific area of government who said: 'We have been cut so much, we cannot even get into a car to go out and do the work we are meant to do'. You have to be very careful. As I said on the news the other night, it is no good employing people if they sit at a desk and cannot do any work because they have no equipment to do the work. If a scientist is doing some work, he needs to go out and check the water, look for crocodile eggs or whatever. They have now been cutback on the number of vehicles they have to share, and it is on a roster and they might be able to go out in two weeks. You are going to lose those people because they will lose their enthusiasm. They are going to say: 'This is too hard. I will go south and get a job, or I will join private industry'.
It is great to have efficiencies, but they must be worked out realistically. Some departments will not have efficiency cuts; it mentions that, and some small departments with less than 30 people – I am trying to work out which they would be – have smaller efficiency cuts. I am very worried about some of our government departments operating as they should be. Efficiency cuts might sound good, but let us not kill the enthusiasm of people who work in our departments, because people do not just work, they enjoy their jobs and we want that enthusiasm.
I will give you an example of where we have to change the way we think. If you look at tourism, in 2008-09 tourism received approximately $39m, and will get approximately $42m this year. If you take the Territory Wildlife Park, which is a major tourist attraction, it received $10.099m in 2008-09, and will get the huge increase of $10 000 in 2009-10. The Territory Wildlife Park is regarded as a GBD: ‘Government Business Divisions are Territory-controlled trading entities which follow commercial practices and are required to comply with competitive utility principles’.
If the government is not going to give them enough money and they find infrastructure is not looked after simply because they do not have the money - I looked at repairs and maintenance and for the two parks it has not increased – and we are putting them under the control of a department, then it will not work. Places like the Territory Wildlife Park have to get their vehicles from NT Fleet; ask how much it costs to lease cars from NT Fleet. Give them a chance to do their own thing. You have a set of guidelines that Territory Wildlife Park has to operate on, but you must give people incentive. People working at those parks love working there. They would like to be able to improvise, and to look at new ways of attracting people there.
I mentioned today the public bus service. It could not only go to the Territory Wildlife Park but it could pick up people from Berry Springs and maybe even Darwin River. You would be encouraging people, maybe backpackers who cannot afford to get on a tourist bus, to visit that park.
We should take some of the shackles off these parks and give them an opportunity, give them a right. You will still have to give them money, because if you had to recover all the costs of running a park you would be charging people $100 to get in, and we do not want that; we want families and tourists to visit them. Naturally, the parks need money, but let the people who work in them have some lead, let them use their initiative, and see if they can make these places get up and go.
I mentioned that NT Fleet is a fairly costly item. Perhaps there are other ways. Do they have to get their vehicles from the fleet? Can they find other ways of operating their business? That is what it is - a business - although it has government help. We could make these parks better. They are great parks; I have been to both of them and they are fantastic. But if I hear they are running down due to lack of maintenance, and I can see the amount of money they are receiving is less, the only way they are going to get money, or the same amount, is to increase the cost of getting in. If you increase the cost of getting in, perhaps fewer people will go there.
Local Government and Housing: I notice the income in Budget 2008-09 was $365m; now it is $424m. That is quite a big increase, about $80m. I will be interested to see where that money is going, especially when places like Litchfield do not get any operating funds; they raise 64% of their money from rates. The government has now put in these super shires and I hope there is an even-handed approach towards those councils which are part of the super shires. I believe they have a right to some Northern Territory government money as well.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about a number of things yesterday and one was the prison farms. I said to the member for Barkly that I agree with it, and I am happy to also agree with the Leader of the Opposition. The only issue that concerns me is the heavy industry precinct the Leader of the Opposition spoke about. I heard a little whisper it might be at Gunn Point prison, and I would disagree totally with that; and the reason simply is that you are nowhere near the water you would require to have a jetty. You need to be close to deep water, and that is why Glyde Point was picked.
I say to the opposition: rethink; have a look at the draft plan for that area. I am not totally happy with the draft of the Glyde Point Industrial Area. I believe it needs some adjustment but the advantage of Glyde Point is deep water, which is what you need for shipping.
Shoal Bay, which is where Gunn Point Prison Farm is, is a big shallow bay which goes right out forever. You would also destroy the concept of the township which was planned to go there, Murrumujuk, because you would have the industrial area and this beautiful town on Shoal Bay, and the two do not complement each other. If you put the industrial area at Gunn Point prison you would stop the development of the town and you are not in the right place for a deep water port. When you consider it, the government bought the corridors. If it was done, re-thought, and there was no major destruction of the mangroves - the area around Glyde Point also has some rainforest, but that could be protected - you could do this and do it well. I am glad the government and the opposition are thinking of keeping heavy industry, as much as possible, out of that area.
Previously, there was talk about education and some debate about using Indigenous education as a political football. I would like to look at it overall. I have these figures from the NAPLAN results from 2006 to 2009-10 and it is interesting to see even in non-Indigenous education we have failings. Reading for Year 3, we have 85% non-Indigenous kids. In the 2009-10 Budget we are estimated at 80%; we have gone down. In Indigenous we have 40%, and have gone down to 26%. That is one example. Another example is writing: non-Indigenous kids, 86% in 2006; 82% in 2009. With Indigenous kids it was 30% in 2006, and down to 24%. Another example is numeracy - Year 5 non-Indigenous from 89% down to 87%; and Year 5 Indigenous from 32% down to 31%.
Of course, the Indigenous figures are terrible. To be honest with you, we have gone back further and further, and I am not playing political football. We are in the ninth year of the government now, and I remember standing up year after year quoting these figures. I thought we would start to see an improvement, maybe only a minor improvement, but we are going down and getting worse. I am concerned if you take these figures, non-Indigenous education seems to be dropping off. People argue that NAPLAN is not the right way to go; that you must take into account the conditions in which kids learn and all those types of things. I understand that, but it is a little surprising that even non-Indigenous results are dropping off, and it is alarming that the Indigenous figures are worse than I expected, and worse than the government estimated.
There are a million and one things I could speak about because the budget is a big book and it has many things in it. I would like to talk about it more as there are good and bad things in it. The government is trying, under fairly hard conditions, to keep its head above water. I believe we are in for tough times, but the real question for me will be: if things change, if mining royalties drop off, if tied funds drop off, if GST does not move up, what will happen next year? I hope the government has some plans, because things are going to get harder if that is not the case.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Treasurer’s comments the other day of how pleased she was that all industry groups had given a resounding tick to the budget. That is to be expected; of course they are going to say that. It is more than their jobs or their lives are worth to be critical of a budget. Yes, they were tempered in what they said, but this government is well-known for its vindictiveness and how it deals with industry groups. I will leave it at that for now.
In a very short period of time the world financial crisis has engulfed both developed and developing countries. We have been confronted with the prospect of an economic cataclysm and world leaders have announced huge support for interventions to try to prop up their failing economies. A transformation of the world economy is in progress which, we trust, will contain the excesses of the unregulated financial markets. In the last six to eight months, we have seen sizeable and severe disruption of countless hundreds of millions of people around the globe. In Australia, we have seen similar disruptions, particularly with jobs. Thousands of people have lost their job prospects; projects have been put on hold and numerous families disrupted. We have seen stimulus packages by our federal government which have not stimulated anything, let alone anyone, and not created one new job.
In the Territory, we have experienced various levels of the impact of the global financial meltdown. Whilst some areas of business and industry are operating reasonably well, many are not. We have seen large job losses in the mining industry, many workers put off in the supporting contract industry, and a considerable downturn in business levels across the industrial sector. Coupled with this are extraordinarily high levels of rent, land and house prices which are causing people to leave town because they cannot get suitable accommodation.
In the public housing sector there are massive waiting lists. Many people leave town as they get fed up with waiting. During this time of financial upheaval the Northern Territory government received an unexpected bonus from mineral royalties of some $136m which they did not anticipate - they were expecting around $88m. Government received $224m this financial year in royalties; then they have the hide to say they are good economic managers. I put it to you that they are hiding behind a very thin veneer trying to make out they are good economic managers, which is a load of codswallop. It was the unexpected rise in royalty money that saved them from an even bigger deficit. If it was not for those royalties coming in we would be in more trouble than we are.
A successful budget outcome and the effectiveness of government as a participant in the economy depends on a broadly similar approach, I would argue, to a major sporting contest and should include qualities such as self discipline, sacrifice, fitness, skills, training, playing to the rules of the game, and good strategic planning. Unlike sport where the rules of the games, the referee and the playing field are predetermined, government not only participates or competes in the economy by supplying and purchasing goods and services, it also lays down many of the rules through legislation and regulation, and acts as a referee.
Often government also acts as a groundsman, levelling the playing field for all participants, making sure the spectators can see the game and also policing the behaviour of the crowd. Being a good government requires good solid practice. The majority of government actions have financial effects and are reflected in the government’s budget which, in turn, reflects the government’s involvement in the economy and in society. Accordingly, the budget must show how well the activities of government fit together in a sustainable and affordable way.
Sadly, this government has failed on all fronts: it has failed as a participant in our community; it has failed as a manager; a good strategic planner; a leader; and failed to deliver a robust or solid budget. Indeed, this Labor government has delivered a deficit budget which will add extra burdens on all Territory families. Territory families will suffer. This budget lacks vision, direction and substance. It is a sad state of affairs when the best infrastructure project the government can come up with is a new gaol we do not need.
We do not need a new gaol as the current facility could continue to be used. There is nothing wrong with the existing gaol facilities or its location. The current facilities could be extended and improved; but, no, let us waste money and build a new gaol which, by the government’s own admission, will be filled to capacity by 2018 following completion of phase three in 2016. If ensuring the gaol is full after completion of phase three is a key performance indicator by government, we have a sad state of affairs in the Territory with regard to law and order and ensuring the Territory is a safe and secure place to work and live. The government says it has allocated $21m for preliminary work on the new gaol and $4.5m for Jenkins Road upgrade, presumably to service the new gaol.
Jenkins Road is in the Litchfield Shire and it is a Litchfield Shire road. From my discussions with the Litchfield Shire Council I understand this government has had no discussions with that council regarding the placement of the gaol in the shire boundaries. I suspect they would have had no discussions about maintenance or repair of the road after the government does the upgrade.
Has government done any work on the costs associated with operating a new gaol, such as travel to and from the courts, given the extended distance from courthouses? Has government done any work on what the extra costs will be to service the gaol and its operations from a supplier and contractor perspective given the extra time to travel to and from the site? More time on the road to get to a destination means more costs which the supplier will pass on, rightly so, as a business. What about the extra cost of public transport to and from the gaol? Has this been factored into the equation at all? Public transport to and from the rural area is substandard at best, and I cannot see this changing dramatically in the future. Or is it the government’s intention to provide a free shuttle bus for people wanting to visit their relations and family members in gaol? If so, prisoners will be getting better services than people in the community. What about the essential services required to support the gaol - power, water, and sewerage services? What are the costs in supplying these services?
In the Engineers Australia's NT infrastructure report card released a couple of years ago, they stated in the communiqu to the report:
I am hard pressed to see where that statement and a new gaol fit together.
Let us look at what this government has delivered in seven years, or thereabouts, in infrastructure. We have a wave pool, a convention centre, an upgraded Lake Leanyer, a soccer stadium, two new fire stations - playgrounds and playthings for the people of Darwin and the northern suburbs and nothing for the rest of the Territory. They say they will commit funds to the expansion of a new port. However, $60.7m is revote money; a commitment this financial year for work not done and carried over to the next year. The real figure of new project money is a mere $8m.
Where did the money go which should and could have been spent on infrastructure? I believe the money has gone on parties. We had the opening of the convention centre party - $500 000. We had parties for the Greek community winning the World Cup, but no other community had parties when they had world wins. We had countless dollars spent on glossy brochures about the wave pool, INPEX, and the $100 sign-at-the-bottle shop information. All these brochures turned up in many post boxes, costing an enormous amount of money ...
Mr Tollner: What about the anti-nuclear waste stuff?
Ms PURICK: Anti-nuclear waste was also there. That is where the money went; not on infrastructure projects which would have generated wealth for the Territory.
Let us look at what the Country Liberals produced previously, which fits in with the true and proper definition of the word 'infrastructure': Parliament House where we sit today; the Supreme Court; the railway; East Arm port; the export cattle yards; Litchfield Park; Elizabeth River and Joe Fisher Bridges - just to name a few. Some of these infrastructure projects were visionary, some were problematic. However, previous Country Liberal governments knew they were all needed to help develop the Territory in the right way. Into the future, the Country Liberals will work with industry, in partnership, so new projects are identified for future delivery of essential services for the benefit of all Territorians.
What this government has delivered is an appalling situation of projects falling behind time for development, and no vision or planning at all. A point in case is the Weddell Power Station - five years behind schedule. It is questionable that the output of 40 MW will be sufficient in the near future, let alone the longer term.
Look at Bellamack. One of the main reasons for the delay in this development is the Power and Water Corporation's inability and lack of capacity to deliver the required essential services. The simple explanation is they do not have the resources because the government raided their coffers to the extent of $80m, limiting them in the delivery of core services. What about planning for the future water supply of the expanding Darwin and rural areas; and planning for Alice Springs’ future water supplies? Where is the planning for remote communities and their water supply and quality of water? Many bores in remote communities are of limited capacity and supply water with substandard quality parameters including hardness, salinity, acidity and levels of heavy metals, fluoride, arsenic or other undesirable chemicals naturally occurring in the ground. As a consequence, the supplied infrastructure, including domestic fixtures, suffers deterioration from corrosion, as well as providing poor quality water.
I hear and see nothing on this final aspect of healthy living for many Territorians. Any new dam to service Darwin and growth into Weddell will take 10 years to fill to capacity yield, and then there will be the settling period. Supporting infrastructure will be required in the form of pump stations, pipelines, and treatment plants. Where is the planning for these projects? The government will say the Darwin River Dam wall is being raised and this will fix all our water problems in the future, along with taking back Manton Dam water supply. I say that is extremely short-sighted. It is bandaid treatment for a growing problem area.
Then there is the horny old issue of bores in the rural of the Top End. Many people have town water in the rural area, although some of the delivery is substandard. With growth and development applications, what will government do into the future? What restrictions will government put on existing bores and new bores? I have information which says the government is looking to limit the number of bores by not supporting future development applications for either residential subdivisions or future horticultural programs. This comes from the Department of NRETA. If this is true, where does government plan to have the next food bowl in the Top End?
Where are future major projects? Put INPEX aside for now as we do not have final financial commitment and, to use the Treasurer’s words at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon: ‘We do not know if INPEX is definite’. What else is on the drawing board? Where is our next major mine? What about the Ord River Scheme expansion? Where is the next major hospital to service Palmerston, the rural area and Weddell? Where is the planning for a new airport? With landing charges and passenger movement charges at $13.60 per person, in and out, plus $16 per person for security outward bound travel, perhaps it is time to have some competition in the airline/airport marketplace. Instead of berating the owners of the private airstrip at Noonamah and threatening to take their land from them, why does the government not look at maximising the facility and working with the owners and associated business people? Why not upgrade the strips so they could cater for other planes and other businesses?
With the advent of the Willowra rock deposit mine being developed in 2010, what is the government doing to facilitate this development? I would say not much, despite giving it major project status. Is it promoting and supporting a spur rail line to Tennant Creek? Is it supporting and promoting a spur line or a line from Tennant Creek to Mt Isa? That company is undertaking feasibility studies on the rail line, but what if the sums do not add up and the company has to use the road system to transport the commodity to Tennant Creek? What planning has the government done if, and I say if, the product has to be transported by road? Hundreds of triple road trains per year will be required to move the material planned to be mined. What is planned for the Barkly Highway upgrade if this turns out to be the case?
What about alternate power supply? Why not consider the high voltage direct current line from Queensland? I know government has pooh-poohed this concept previously, however, it is these big vision projects we need to look at into the future. Where will the next gas supply come from to enable us to turn on our lights in the future? The Blacktip gas field has 1.1 trillion cubic feet of recoverable resource which will ensure supply for around 20 years. Then what? What if the field does not yield the full reserve amount and depletes before 20 years?
The nature and scope of these projects means the planning is done years, if not decades, in advance. What is the government planning for future gas supply for the Northern Territory? I would say nothing, a big fat zero, in regards to planning. No, to all of the above, because that would be visionary, something this government does not understand or know the meaning of.
Yes, we have to ensure our schools, hospitals, police and emergency services are well supported and funded. However, if you have no wealth-generating industries and projects, you will not have the money to do anything properly.
I turn my attention now to housing. For seven years under a Labor government waiting lists for public housing have spiralled upwards to four-plus years; maintenance of public housing is a disgrace. The high level of unpaid rent is reprehensible and would not be tolerated in the private sector. Why is it tolerated in the public sector? There are huge issues with law and order in public housing areas which the government seems unable to manage, or refuses to manage, resulting in social upheaval for the surrounding residences and businesses.
The majority of public housing tenants are good tenants who are grateful for the assistance. Sadly, a minority treat their dwellings and their neighbours with complete contempt. It is these tenants who do not pay rent; it is these tenants who trash the dwellings and it is these tenants who should be turfed out.
Public housing stock is being sold at an unprecedented rate; public housing stocks are being depleted with no replacement. No wonder the waiting lists are expanding in length. The Country Liberals would maintain the quantity of public housing stock and maintain the option for good public housing tenants to purchase the home they live in, provided there is one-for-one replacement for every house sold.
There would be a review of Territory Housing to move away from the Labor government’s position of one-size-fits-all, with a suite of local housing models to provide local solutions to local problems. The Minister for Housing stated previously in this House that the Parap Gateway, when developed, would be ideal for first homebuyers. I do not believe so. Maximum house blocks are going for around $420 000; valuations in the Parap area have been upwards of $500 000 plus. I do not believe first homebuyers would be able to get into that market.
Mr Knight: There are units.
Ms PURICK: Units would be the same. This Labor government has strangled land release; there has not been efficient release of land across the Territory. Bellamack was announced in late 2007 and yet there has not been a sod of dirt turned on any block of land. This government continues to talk about Bellamack; sadly this is now Bellamight, or perhaps it will be Bellanev. Let us look at the facts. Tenders were advertised in late 2007. We are now coming up to mid-2009 and we know the tender documents have not been signed off. It is unlikely these blocks will be available till mid-2010.
Alice Springs is no better. It only had 12 extra rateable properties last year, and will have only 80 blocks released in the Mt John area, 40 of which may be released in the next 12 months. Alice Springs needs a minimum of 100 blocks per year to survive. They are no different to Darwin, with high rents and high land prices and it is becoming very hard for businesses and government agencies to attract staff and young people to settle there.
I have a few comments in regard to my electorate of Goyder. I welcome the Minister for Transport and the government’s commitment to public transport improvements for pensioners and to people with various cards, and to young people and students and also the park-and-ride situation for the Noonamah, Humpty Doo, and Coolalinga areas. In regards to the Noonamah area, there has been some work done there which is not entirely satisfactory. I ask the minister to seriously consider the requests which have been put forward to provide lighting for the Noonamah park-and-ride; also a bus shelter for the Noonamah area because students who are dropped off at this location in the Wet Season, have nowhere to shelter. They cannot shelter on the verandah of the hotel because that contravenes the licence, and they cannot shelter in the service station. I urge the government to look at this issue seriously, and I have written to the minister in this regard.
I welcome the money which has been given to schools, including Middle Point Primary School, which is sometimes overlooked in government’s funding. It is an excellent school, it has a long history and they are doing a really good job with the students, and the teachers are coming ahead in leaps and bounds in how they go about their business there.
There are some public housing units allocated to Humpty Doo, behind the tavern and shop area, and that is good news because we have a large number of seniors or elderly people in the rural area and it is that kind of housing they tend to gravitate to as they get on in life.
It is disappointing there is no real commitment to future funding for the pool. Prior to the election the government committed approximately $1m to the pool, in partnership with the YMCA. I know, and the minister knows, $1m is not going to be nearly enough to meet the commitment of putting in a pool and facilities. I urge the government to consider further funding for the pool. We know we will need upwards of $5m so people in the rural area can experience the joys of having a safe swimming place, as do the people in Darwin and the northern suburbs.
There was no comment or allocation of any funding or support for future health services in the rural area, and by that I mean any consideration for a possible hospital or hospital site - again, no vision by this government. It is a long drive from the rural area into Royal Darwin Hospital for treatment. This issue will be exacerbated when the Weddell development starts and the gaol goes ahead. It is a very long hike from Jenkins Road to Royal Darwin Hospital and the government knows there are many people who require transport to destinations such as the gaol and the hospital.
The final area I would comment on is the government’s commitment to build a retirement complex in Palmerston. I urge the government to look seriously at a similar type of complex in the rural area because there is a large elderly population there who do not want to go anywhere else. They do not want to go into retirement complexes in the city or Palmerston, so I urge the government to seriously consider this kind of support and proposal in another budget.
Mr Wood: Hear, hear! So there is a place for your mum.
Ms PURICK: That is right, so there will be somewhere I can send her where she will be out of mischief.
Mr Knight: And the goats.
Mr Wood: Member for Goyder, into the Daly electorate.
Mr Knight: They will not take goats there.
Ms PURICK: Into the Daly electorate? I will cull all the goats.
As I said in my opening comments, the budget lacks vision; it lacks direction. It really is not a wealth-generating budget; it is a deficit budget and there is nothing of substance in it. I have no issue with funding going towards hospitals, police, schools and education, but the government has really missed the mark in regard to growing the Northern Territory and providing solid, decent infrastructure on which we can build wealth to benefit all Territorians.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak in support of Budget 2009-10 with particular reference to the role the budget will have in improving services provided to Northern Territory families. My colleague, the Minister for Health, has talked about the overall budget for the Department of Health and Families and, as the Treasurer observed, Budget 2009-10 has been the toughest to frame in the Northern Territory’s history; it has been framed against a backdrop of global recession and collapsing GST revenues.
This government has made a very deliberate decision to go into temporary deficit because, unlike members opposite, we are a government committed to protecting Northern Territory jobs. Through protecting the jobs of Territorians, we will ensure we are best placed to take advantage of the economic rebound when it comes.
Despite the extraordinarily difficult economic times, $1bn - a record in a Territory context - will go to Health and Families in 2009-10. As a government we are proud of the extent of our commitment to the health and wellbeing of Territorians. As significant as the ground-breaking figure of $1bn might be, the programs managed by the Health and Families in Budget 2009-10 are not dependant on the quantum alone. Budget 2009-10 has been framed to ensure funding is properly targeted.
I now turn to the outputs for Children and Families: Budget 2009-10 provides $224m for Northern Territory families and children, mental health, and aged and disability services. This represents an increase of 150% since the 2001-02 financial year and reflects the emphasis this government places in these areas.
It is clear our commitment to the mandatory reporting of domestic violence has also seen a massive increase of $15m over the next three years. I am pleased to say 10 safe houses are now open across eight remote communities. Women’s safe places are open in Kalkarindji, Lajamanu, Ntaria, Peppimenarti, Maningrida, Nguiu and Ngukurr. Men’s cooling-off places have opened in Aputula, Nguiu and Ngukurr. Safe places are an important community resource for women, children, and men who are escaping violence or need a safe place to stay in their community.
I recently also opened the safe place and the men’s cooling-off centre at Ramingining. Each safe place employs two full-time staff and a pool of casuals. All employees are local people from the community and they are paid real wages. The safe places work closely with police, Night Patrols and clinics. I have been pleased to attend some of the official openings of safe houses across the Northern Territory. It is heartening to see local people are involved, and the Northern Territory government is committed to this project.
Perhaps the greatest news for families and children in this budget is the announcement of secure care facilities for young people and adults with complex needs in Darwin and Alice Springs. $13.9m has been committed in 2009-10 and 2010-11 to construct the stand-alone secure care facilities, with additional beds in Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals. Operational funding of $11.4m will be provided. A secure facility provides a physical, 24-hour care environment which ensures the safety of the client and the community. For clients requiring behavioural intervention and support, services will be intensive and designed to ameliorate, where possible, behaviours that result in risk to the client and others. Where this is not possible, the focus will be on maintenance and management of behaviours.
There are two levels of service: Tier 1, assessment and stabilisation, will provide clients …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is terrible. No one is listening to the member for Arnhem. I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim, you are correct. Ring the bells, please. A quorum is now present. Member for Arnhem, you have the call.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the member for Fong Lim who is concerned about my budget reply.
Tier 1, assessment and stabilisation, will provide clients with a high level of physical security that eliminates their exposure to the risks which place them in a high to extreme risk category of harm to themselves and/or to others. The client will receive necessary treatment to address the immediate difficulties they are experiencing and reduce their level of risk of harm to self and/or the community. Comprehensive clinical assessment and development of future case management of the client will also be undertaken at this time. Tier 1 will provide an additional six beds in Alice Springs and five in Darwin.
Tier 2, medium-term secure and transition care services, will provide transitional care for young people and longer-term care for some adults. Clients will receive intensive daily support and therapeutic intervention as part of a multidisciplinary case management approach. Tier 2 will provide an additional 16 beds in Alice Springs and 16 in Darwin. The services will be available for young people and adults exhibiting high-risk behaviours. Typically, these clients engage in high risk taking, aggressive or disturbed behaviours that are likely to result in imminent risk of extreme harm to themselves and/or others.
Across the sites, there will be 96 additional staff. Staffing will comprise a range of therapeutic staff and disability and youth workers for daily care. Therapeutic staff will include nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists and behavioural educators.
Tier 1 services will be co-located with Mental Health Services at both Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital.
Budget 2009-10 will also provide an additional $1.12m to expand emergency accommodation for young people at risk in Alice Springs. This will see additional safe accommodation for children and young people as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan.
Budget 2009-10 continues initiatives to close the gap in health outcomes for Indigenous people. Under this campaign, the Department of Health and Families will receive $15.6m to continue and expand on these vital initiatives which include: $2.1m to expand therapeutic and residential care services; $2m to expand services for children in care; $1.8m for continued development of Aboriginal child protection and family support services in regional centres; $1.5m to provide for additional child protection workers across the Northern Territory by 2011-12 - these will come in addition to the more than 90 frontline child protection workers we have already recruited since 2001; $1.5m for integrated family violence and support services in remote communities; $1.2m to continue the expansion of sexual assault referral centre services in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and Katherine, and enhanced services to remote communities. In conjunction with Police and Justice, $6.2m will go towards expanding the Child Abuse Task Force, with additional staff to increase investigative activities in remote communities.
The budget continues to improve services to people with disabilities. Budget 2009-10 will mean a third year of expanded funding to implement recommendations under the Disability Services Review. Some $5.2m will be provided to continue the expansion of disability services.
The Pensioner Concession Scheme has been improved to provide greater concessions to eligible clients. The Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme remains the most competitive scheme in Australia. The scheme continues to provide assistance to pensioners, carers, and certain categories of low income earners. Our government has kept its election commitment by introducing free bus travel for all seniors, pensioners and carers from January this year. From 1 July 2009, driver’s licences will be free, and motor vehicle registration concessions will increase from $104 to $154 per year for eligible members of this scheme. This will see another election commitment fulfilled. Concessions provided under the scheme include subsidies on spectacles; council property rates and garbage rates. Seniors can access interstate and overseas travel subsidies or, alternatively, these groups can elect to use their travel concession to bring a relative or a friend to the Northern Territory.
In 2008-09, the department secured additional one-off funding from the Australian government. Negotiations on an extension of Commonwealth funding have now been completed, with a commitment from the Commonwealth to continue a number of worthwhile programs in 2009-10. This additional funding will result in further improving services to Territorians. It has not yet been reflected in Budget 2009-10, but the budget will be adjusted accordingly with the official sign-off of these agreements. This adjustment will be evident in family violence and sexual assault services, and community support services for frail aged people and people with a disability.
Madam Speaker, I now turn to Statehood, for which I am the responsible minister. I take this opportunity to welcome an avid and very passionate supporter for statehood, Ted Dunstan, who is in the gallery today. We welcome his support of statehood for the Northern Territory. I am pleased to say Territorians will be able to have their say on the future of statehood, with a 12-month, Territory-wide education and consultation campaign due to commence later this year. Some $1.1m will be allocated to the Statehood Steering Committee over the next two years to run education campaigns and workshops. I also thank the member for Goyder, the shadow minister for Statehood, who works passionately on the Statehood Steering Committee in terms of the very bipartisan and respectful approach this parliament has in walking together towards statehood with our recent visit to Canberra.
The statehood workshops will give Territorians the opportunity to participate and have their say on statehood issues. The Statehood Steering Committee will host a series of workshops in all major towns and communities across the Northern Territory which will allow Territorians to have their say on the future of the Territory. The work of the steering committee is vital in driving discussions and education on statehood across the Northern Territory. The Statehood Steering Committee, which comprises 20 community representatives, is currently working to refine the statehood workshops program before they commence later in the year.
Madam Speaker, I commend the budget.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, hoodwinked, I believe is the correct term we should be using for the Infrastructure budget, that broad announcement about the multibillion dollar infrastructure announcement with many accolades and write ups in the paper - $1.3bn. It is interesting when you go through the 2009-10 Budget and have a close look at what the figures really tell you. I am looking at page 15 of the budget. When you drill down into the budget, you will see this current year – we look at the 2008-09 - the budget for new capital works, both major and minor, totalled $840.6m with $32.2m going to program management. Interestingly, only $355.6m will actually be spent. That is $485m from this current year’s budget will be carried over into next year. $130m more will be revoted than is carried over to the following budget than will actually be spent.
You are saving more than you are actually spending. It is amazing how the government can applaud itself with these accolades about how much money it is spending. To explain that further, around 60% of this current year’s capital works, an estimated capital expenditure budget, will not be spent. It will be carried over.
Let me give examples of some of the current works for this year’s budget which will not be undertaken this year. Here we go: Alice Springs - fire protection, airconditioning and remediation work, expanding renal facilities, emergency power and electrical facilities and upgrading the Emergency Department of Alice Springs Hospital. The government does not like to talk about what it is doing at these hospitals, when you talk about how it is upgrading in Alice Springs. $5.573m was supposed to be going to the Emergency Department at Alice Springs but was not done this year – it will not be done - carried over until next year. We will put that $5.5m into the capital works budget for next year and that will help escalate to $1bn plus the $300 000 on repairs. Meanwhile, the people in Alice Springs are still waiting for the upgrading of the Emergency Department. This government has form; it likes to revote all the time. The Emergency Department at Alice Springs has been revoted for some time; that is, carried over. While we hope and pray, in Alice Springs, that our Emergency Department will be upgraded, there is no certainty. We do not know if the Emergency Department will be upgraded next year.
Tennant Creek Hospital, stage three: fire safety upgrading including the installation of fire security system – revoted.
Ms Lawrie: Under way, under way.
Mr GILES: Katherine sobering-up shelter. We all know about the Katherine sobering-up shelter, it was supposed to be done this year – not being done.
Ms Lawrie: It will be built.
Mr GILES: We will leave that to next year. We cannot talk about Tennant Creek sobering-up shelter because, strangely enough, it is not even in the budget. It is not happening at all. I was not in the Chamber this time last year so I was not here for the budget, but I am sure at that time I remember the much applauded biggest infrastructure budget spending ever, but 60% of it is being carried over until next year. It is not being done.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. 71% expenditure this year to date already.
Mr GILES: 60% is being carried over to next year. These are only the minor new works from the current year’s budget.
The Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre, construct staff accommodation - not done. Upgrade to the health centre in Jilkminggan and Ngukurr, $1.4m - not done; not getting done this year. The list goes on. I do not know where to stop as it is so exhaustive. Here is one members might be interested in: construct radiation oncology unit. Is that going to be done this financial year? I do not think so. There is a list I could go through; I am only looking in the Health and Families component. There is a long list.
We could look at housing. We could talk about the SIHIP program - that is a good one to start with; the SIHIP program and the number of houses that have been built. When you look at Budget Paper No 3, in the area of housing, you see this year 20 staff houses have been built. And you think, you have $700m and it was an emergency in 2007, so surely they will build some houses next year. But you have a look through here and you ask: how many replaced dwellings will they build? Twenty-eight. $700m and they are going to replace 28 houses. Surely you are going to build some new houses. $700m is a bit of coin, so you would think we would get a few houses. So, how many do we have here? Next year, 65 houses are going to be built which, I read in here, are estimated to cost around $550 000 each; $550 000 is the average cost of new remote dwellings. Recognising this is federal money, but 65 new dwellings out of $700m in two years when it is a national emergency, renders me quite surprised. I will not go through the long list; that is only on the infrastructure side.
We quite often hear how bad our roads are in the Northern Territory. Members have heard me talking at length about how bad the roads are. The Stuart Highway is a federally funded road, yet we cannot get the grass beside it mowed; you cannot see where you are going.
Keeping in mind nearly 60% of this year’s infrastructure budget will not be spent; it will be carried over to next year, and not forgetting what was not done last year, and was carried over into this year. We look closely at the budget and we see $373.5m of this year’s 2008-09 infrastructure budget will not be spent. Have a look through some of those revoted works. Tiger Brennan Drive has been hanging around for a while. The member for Solomon got us that money. He also got us the oncology unit, but we still do not see these things being delivered.
This is the government which likes to give itself accolades, applaud itself, and not deliver. As we say: watch what they do, not what they say. We can write $3bn worth of infrastructure budget but it does not really mean much. It will get you a headline, but if you do not do anything, you really have to ask: what is the point?
If you look at this year’s budget for capital works, we see the much lauded $1.076bn. That sounds good, but when you have a closer look you will see there is $485m in this budget carried over from this current year, and we are spending $38.2m to manage the works of $653.8m. I know that these numbers are confusing for some, but basically it means the government is not doing its job. The budget is only $683m, not the much lauded $1bn. Let us not forget the $653m they are carrying over, $485m. In other words, we do not have a $1bn budget; we have a budget somewhere around $650m for capital works. That is not including the variations which will come through that further delay the projects growing the current $422.8m potentially to $596m in revoted works, going by last year’s inflated numbers from an estimate of $202m to $485m which is an increase, from estimate to actual, of 41%. That would mean we would potentially have, based on last year’s numbers, $480m being spent and $596m being rolled over. We will end up, again, spending less money than we carried over in revoted works.
Looking at the new works being undertaken in this budget, you really have to ask: what will get done? The list of works carried over from last year is amazing. My colleagues have asked me as the shadow for Infrastructure: 'What is getting done this year?' And I say: 'Members, listen closely. I do not know if anything will get done. They could not do it the year before, they are not doing it this year, so are they going to do it next year?'
National network new works - Stuart Highway, heavy vehicle diversion around Katherine CBD - $10m: the member for Lingiari was a party to this. The $10m is all federal money; the government has carriage of it and they like to announce it - $10m. Yes, that is part of $1.3bn. I believe the $10m came from the feds ...
Ms Lawrie: We secured it.
Mr Henderson: We get our share.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I believe the $10m came from the feds. And let us not forget what else came from the feds – the Nation Building and Jobs Plan ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! How often do you remind us of Standing Order 51 at their urging? I urge you now to remind them of Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. I have been calling order frequently.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nation Building and Jobs Plan: upgrade and improve rail crossing boom gates. This is $1.68m, but there is $2.7m in some areas and $2.5m in others. This is an important issue because three crossings in Alice Springs will be done; one at Espie Street and two in my electorate. I have written a letter to Mr Albanese - I might not have posted it yet, but I have written the letter to the federal Infrastructure minister, and also the federal member for Lingiari, thanking them for putting my electorate on the list. I recognise it is borrowed funds and our kids will be in debt for 20 years but, if they are going to blow it, there are crossings in my electorate which need it. So, I have written a letter to say thank you. It is interesting that it is in this budget because it is federal dollars. Where does this government get off?
A Remote Area Zone Strategy …
Mr Henderson: Eighty percent of our funding comes from the Commonwealth, you clown.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: A Remote Area Zone Strategy, $1.8m; Stuart Highway, Darwin to Katherine overtaking lane, $5m; community beef and mining roads – Maryvale Road, Plenty Road, Tanami Road. I wonder if these will get carried over to next year. Who knows what is going to miss out this year? The pastoral industry is asking: 'When are they going to fix our roads? They did not do it last year; they are not doing it this year. What about next year?' Who knows? What did the Territory put in? Sweet, very little ...
Ms Lawrie: $322m.
Mr GILES: Very little. Community, beef, and mining roads; the Treasurer would be well aware they put barely anything into it. It is federal dollars; it is the feds who are looking after pastoralists, not this government - they have forgotten about the pastoralists. They have forgotten about the bush. However, I digress.
I have just run through a few items which may and may not be included. We have spoken about Tiger Brennan Drive, and we know Rosebery school is in this year’s budget to uplift this year’s budget, but it is carried over to next year’s budget. We heard about $20m for headworks in Palmerston which are supposed to start in the second quarter of this coming financial year. I am from Alice Springs but I am quite sure the Wet Season starts around then. I am not sure how you install light poles, and do roadworks and headworks in the Wet Season; we will see a bit of slippage there. I could be wrong, but I am predicting that.
There is $64m for expansion at Darwin Port. That is great. I asked a question that related to the port in Question Time today. If we look at the Darwin Port Corporation, how much money was carried over from this current year for its expansion? $60.8m, not spent this year. They are not going to expand it this year. Maybe they are going to do it next year. The total budget: you have minor new works of $1.6m and major new works of $2.4m. The total budget for this year for the Darwin Port is $64.8m. How much will they be spending this year? $64m, nearly $65m, is a lot of money. It would really help our logistics if we could cut down the costs, improve our port efficiencies, and reduce the cost burden for people living in Darwin and right across the Northern Territory. But, hang on. What is this number? $47.9m will be carried over until next year again. Not next financial year, the year after. Surely, they cannot be counting the $47.9m into the $1.3bn? Surely they cannot. ‘Well, we will just pump that number up.’ How do we know those numbers are true? 'We could write any number on this page we like, because we are not going to spend it'. It could be anything.
There are other works we do not know will get done. We have the $4m boat ramp which keeps being carried over. We have the seniors village in Palmerston at $10m; will that get done? I do not know. $7m for Darwin Waterfront, I presume that will get done. It is interesting with all this money that goes up that you would think the Department of Planning and Infrastructure would need more money to manage $1.3bn. When you look at the DPI budget it has gone from $101m down to $86m. How can you do more work with less money? I am not quite sure, but we will cover that one at a later date. I am sure the $2.67m forecast to be spent on the refurbishment of Development House will go through.
We know we have been hoodwinked with this budget. It is not $1.3bn, it is not even half that. We have a bit over $500m which will get spent on infrastructure, if it gets spent, and approximately $200m of that is coming from the federal government. This Territory government does not give a hoot about Territorians. They want the front page headlines, but the headline tomorrow should be ‘hoodwinked by the reds’, because that is what has happened: we have been hoodwinked. This is not $1.3bn.
What has not made the front pages and has not been spoken about is the fuel price. We know the Territory has the highest fuel price in the country and the government is not doing anything about it. The Treasurer says supply and demand impacts on the price of fuel in the Northern Territory. I understand how it works. I understand the price of oil in Singapore and how it comes back through the Vopak terminal. I get it, I get the whole lot. I also get the demand side for diesel. I understand that 75% of all diesel sold goes to the commercial sector, and only about 25% goes to the private sector. You say there is massive demand from the commercial industry for diesel which is inflating the price for people who want to buy diesel for their private cars. And you think, why is the demand so high, especially now? The Treasurer likes to blame her incompetence on the global financial crisis, but why is the demand so high?
You would think, with mining going down, industry going down, we hear about doom and gloom and lock the doors, we are all in trouble with the GST, but there is one thing, and I had a chat to fellow members here about why diesel demand is so high, then I remembered, we run all our electricity on diesel. The green government runs electricity on diesel
We know grocery prices in the Territory are dear. We know that rentals are dear. We know that house prices are dear. We know the cost of living is dear. These are all tough things and, as Territorians, we recognise that about where we live. Sometimes we like to have some assistance. But what does this government do? With the global financial crisis, people are losing jobs all around the Territory. There is a forecast of 8% unemployment in the Northern Territory, and what does the government do? It puts the petrol price up - adding to inflation in the Northern Territory, and allows shipping companies to go to Townsville without getting in the way, further pushing up the cost of living in the Territory. This is an inflationary government.
There were not many goodies in the budget for Alice Springs. I recognise the hard work of the members for Macdonnell and Stuart in Central Australia and what they do for Alice Springs. There were not many goodies in the budget for Alice Springs and, unfortunately, there was nothing about land release and nothing that could start to resolve our housing crisis.
I have stood in this Chamber, and outside this Chamber, and applauded the government’s Buildstart package. It is a good initiative. I have said that before, and I will say it again. I had a number of queries from my constituents about Buildstart, about the way it works, so I did some research on the computer to check some things. This is where it is a negative for Buildstart - and my printing has not worked well here - it says there are about 90 blocks of land available in Alice Springs which can be utilised for Buildstart. That would be okay. It also talks about the contract for the land, the building has to start six months after the signing of the contract, and all construction has to be undertaken 18 months later. The 90 blocks of land that are available in Alice Springs include 80 blocks at Mt John Valley. I can tell you, the headworks and the titles have not been issued and they will not be issued before 1 July. So 80 out of the 90 are already gone, and there are 10 sitting around somewhere. I will come back to that.
There is concern about 39 blocks of land available at Albrecht Drive. I am reliably told that there will be no titles issued for those blocks either, so those people cannot actually get the Buildstart project to work at Albrecht Drive.
I know one person who has had Buildstart in Alice Springs, there have been three applications, and that person lives on the north side of town. There are other people who are trying to get Buildstart in the same area, in the same street, who cannot get it because the builders cannot start the work within that six month period, they will be a week late before they can turn the first sod, so these people are not eligible for Buildstart. Unless the numbers have fallen from one to two that I am not aware of, the numbers for Buildstart are false. You cannot say there are 90 blocks available if you do not have the titles for any of them, so those 10 extra places which are in the northern part of town are completely false.
I believe it is a great program and I asked the Treasurer if she could extend the program, provide some leniency for people. There are people coming through my office, conveyancers, lawyers, real estates agents, and property purchasers who are trying to get involved in the industry, and they cannot. I ask the Treasurer to make a variance and allow people in Alice Springs to do that.
Ms Lawrie: You are doing a bit of a catch up are you? I have already spoken to industry. You are trying to do a bit of a catch up.
Mr GILES: If you could do that, I would be very happy. I notice in the budget the Mereenie Loop works are nowhere to be seen. We have spoken about revoted works and they have been in there before, but they are not in this budget. I am not sure if it is a typographical error or the government is not committed to Mereenie Loop anymore. We are in May, we have May and June, plus another 12 months, 14 months for it not to be in there. Maybe next year, next May, the Treasurer and the government might put it in the budget so they can increase the size of the budget again and get another headline. We have been hoodwinked. We will wait and see.
The election promise of a $6m CBD upgrade knocked down to $400 000. I am not sure how much of an upgrade that will be for $400 000. However, we will get a $6m upgrade of the police station and that is a good thing. The police need to be resourced, serviced, and they need to be given the tools and the environment to support the occupation they are in, because law and order is out of control in Alice Springs. This government has lost it on law and order across the Territory. It has gone from 7000 protective custodies last year to 13 800 this year. How do you go from 7000 protective custodies to 13 800 in one year? Yet you say law and order is not out of control. Clearly there is a problem which relates to alcohol. I cannot see anything in the budget, but I will come to that. I cannot see anything in the budget about how they are going solve that problem.
$11.9m worth of works is scheduled for Alice Springs Hospital. We have already spoken about that, it could be last year, it could be this year, maybe next year, who knows. I will flip a coin.
Additional plant works of $4.73m will be spent converting ANZAC High in Alice Springs to a middle school, which I believe is now called Gillen and Anzac campus. The $4.7m for that is a good thing. Whatever we can do to address educational standards in Alice Springs and the wider region is positive. I compliment the previous Minister for Central Australia and the new Minister for Central Australia for fighting for this.
I do not have the figures in front of me, but a 30 bed facility for accommodation; I am not sure if it will be built this year or next year but that is good. It will make a big difference to our town. I thank the members for Macdonnell and Stuart for fighting hard, and I thank the Treasurer for allowing that fight to be had and to be won. I hope it happens sooner rather than later; I am not sure of the timing, I have not checked that out. I know it is happening and it is a positive thing.
We need to keep in mind that, of the $1.076m for infrastructure and estimated capital expenditure budget, $485m is carried over from the current year not used and the government even advises that $422m will not be used next year; despite the fact that $4.5m is set aside for airconditioning the Araluen Arts Centre, and the Desert Peoples Centre is supposed to get an extra four buildings. These were supposed to be done this year, but it might be next year. Who really knows? We will flip that coin again.
You cannot trust this government or believe it. This government is only as good as what it does. You walk out this door and see people who are homeless; you walk down the street and there is homelessness everywhere; alcohol issues all over the place; Royal Darwin Hospital is probably another flogging - but they have the headlines for $1.3bn - happy days!
I move onto another portfolio of mine, Aboriginal Affairs. The government claims in 2006-07, 52.4% of the budget was spent on Indigenous outcomes. It is very hard to work out exactly how much of this current year’s 2009-10 budget will be directed towards Indigenous Territorians. That figure of 52.4% was a couple of years ago, and the results are clear in regard to Indigenous Affairs, in particular imprisonment rates, recidivism rates, closing the life expectancy gap, chronic alcohol abuse, levels of violence and antisocial behaviour on our streets and, more worrying, Indigenous student outcome levels . It seems to be another government result - all talk and no action. I know there are people working hard, but no outcomes.
In terms of outcomes, there are reports which place Indigenous imprisonment rates at 80%, gaols are over capacity and recidivism rates at around 70%. This is atrocious. I understand the social issues. I have been criticised for politicising Indigenous affairs but I am in politics; this is the Chamber and my job in the opposition is to hold the government to account. If people want to get personal about it they can, but it is my job and my duty. Eighty per cent of the prison population is Indigenous; and gaols are overfull by around 25%.
On page 236 of Budget Paper No 3 under Housing and Infrastructure, 65 new dwellings will be built under the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program in next year’s budget This is the third year after $700m was given by Mal Brough and John Howard - those solid economic managers - for a national emergency, and the government has not built a house in two years, and next year will build 65. I will give an award to the member for Daly if he can do it. He has not built a bridge over the Daly River although he made that commitment in 2005. He is selling off public housing assets all over the Territory when people are homeless. This is the minister for homelessness, not the Minister for Housing. It is a crisis everywhere and he is in charge, he is at the wheel.
The Country Liberals in government would target prisoners by seeking to re-educate and rehabilitate them through numerous secure prison farms dealing with low ranked criminals and referrals from courts, including the alcohol court.
What is in the budget about a 30% participation rate in education programs in gaol is not that - it is 30% of prisoners who are eligible for education programs. I believe every prisoner should be going through an education program, not 30%. We would have everyone participating: learning how to read, how to write, learning job skills, growing vegetables, repairing cars, undertaking carpentry skills development. We would not take the approach of ‘come and sit down, have a bed and three meals a day, plug in a PlayStation and enjoy life’. That is not what it is about. With that approach this government gets 70% of prisoners back in gaol. The only way the Minister for Housing can house Indigenous people in the Territory is in gaol. He cannot build a house.
It is interesting when you work out $300m for a prison to contain 1000 extra prisoners which will be full within three years of construction. If you calculate $300m by $500 000 per house, that is a lot of houses - that is 600 houses you can build. If you had a three-bedroom house and five people to a house, that is 3000 people you can house for $300m. That is a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation; you can house 3000 people through a back-of-the-envelope equation. I do not understand why you would put $300m into a prison instead of building houses for people …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Braitling be given an additional 10 minutes to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: I think I had one minute to go; it was not finished.
Madam SPEAKER: No, you did not; your time had actually expired but I allowed you the indulgence of the Chair.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker; I appreciate your indulgence and that of members opposite.
So, you are going to spend $300m on a prison which will be built before the houses under the emergency housing program are built. I do not understand the priorities. You are building a prison to house people, but you are not building the houses to house people. I do not get it.
Despite $700m emergency housing funding for Indigenous Territorians not one house has been built, other than government employee housing, two years after we received the money from the Howard government. It is ironic that this government presents a budget with a clear focus on building a gaol, while singing and dancing about building houses we know the member for Daly cannot deliver. We on this side of the Chamber say: 'Do not listen to what they say, watch what they do’. Nothing.
Talking of law and order issues, I argue that alcohol is a problem throughout the Territory, yet there is nothing new for alcohol management in the budget, apart from increasing alcohol management plans from five to 13. This is a good thing. We have a long way to go, but it is a start.
I also find it interesting that the sobering-up shelter for Tennant Creek is not in the budget; it was previously. It is good to see the increase in alcohol management plans, but recognise there are not 73 or more, because there are more than 73 locations of residences in the Territory. It is also interesting that the estimate of expenditure for Alcohol and Other Drugs Services in the budget is $23.616m for this current year, the 2008-09 year. Next year, it will be $22.286m - a decrease of $1.3m.
Family violence and sexual assault services: $23.484m for this financial year; next year, $3.44m less. Community support for frail aged people and people with disabilities: this year $72.8m; next year, $6.6m will be scrapped out of that. Do not worry about the people who are frail, aged and people with disabilities; take $6.6m out of the budget. I can go on, but I will not.
There was much discussion regarding education in yesterday’s budget reply speech. Understand, within my party room, I am forthright, front and centre on my portfolio responsibilities - Central Australia, Alice Springs and the residents of the electorate of Braitling. It is on the issue of Indigenous affairs which I now speak. Like all members of the Country Liberals team, I recognise we have all failed: both sides of the Chamber and all levels of government. I am genuine in my attempts to make change, to hold government to account, to make improvements, to have rigorous debate today, tomorrow and in the future. It is not 1976, 1987 or 1998; it is the year 2009. We must work from where we are now, and yesterday’s criticism of not making Indigenous children’s education a political position is ridiculous. As a government you must be held to account for your feeble attempts in the budget; they are outrageous.
The forecast for Indigenous reading at Year 3 level last year, this current year, was at 48%, and to downgrade that for the coming year to 29% is saying it is acceptable to have 71% of Year 3 Indigenous students not pass the national benchmark – it is a disgrace. I have a whole chart of them. Year 5 reading: Indigenous 46% to 24% - 76% not passing the national benchmark - that is okay; Year 7 reading: Indigenous, 73% not passing the national benchmark - that is okay. Let us not forget that 20% of Indigenous students did not even sit the test. Year 3 writing: Indigenous, 65%; Year 5, 73%; Year 7, 78% not passing the national benchmarks - that is okay. Well, it is not okay, and government needs to be held to account on this. You cannot lower expectations.
The previous Treasurer for this government, the former member for Nhulunbuy, used to talk about how good it was that so many children were getting their school education certificates. Well, those kids learnt how to read, write and count during the CLP’s time. I do not want to politicise this, but it is a problem right now. This government is in right now. The previous member for Nhulunbuy used to say how good it was to get kids through to Year 12. They learnt to read and write and count under the CLP. I admit we did not do the best job, we failed in lots of areas. Where are we going now? We have a budget which downgrades expectations for Indigenous education - that is an absolute disgrace. And it is not just a disgrace for Indigenous education. Non-Indigenous education cops a flogging too, and I heard the member for Nelson also talking about this. This coming year, 90% of Year 5 non-Indigenous reading students will be at 90%; next year it will be at 85%. Are we saying it is all right for 15% - it has gone from 10% to 15% - not to make it?
That is not good enough, and it goes right through; it fails education right through, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. You cannot lower expectations - you raise the bar. If you do not reach it, you work out why you did not and you make improvements - you do not lower the bar. You are telling these kids throughout the Northern Territory that they do not have to make it. It is an absolute disgrace. The government should be condemned for this.
We have a political leader who genuinely wants to cut through the crap and commit to fixing the problems of the past, who recognises what needs to happen and is willing to do what it takes to make change, regardless of whether it is politically popular, but because it is the right thing to do. Unlike your leader, mine is committed.
Yesterday, in referring to education, the Leader of the Opposition announced our preference for a service to be modelled for 15 communities in the Territory. We anticipate the service centre to become towns, in effective, with long-term or freehold lease. They will have a boarding school to cater for primary, secondary and VET schooling, with a potential for preschool. The schools will be managed by a community board, such as community controlled health organisations, but with a mix of experienced business people, or similar, to ensure sustainability. This model would be similar to a non-government organisation service delivery model, with our challenge being to equip people with the skills to fill these positions while investing in capacity. Students will be bussed in on Sunday nights and returned to their communities and families on Fridays, therefore providing respite for families and children and ensuring students get a sound nights’ sleep, food and exercise and be fit for school during the week.
We are not taking the same approach to government proposals for outstations. While we do not agree with continuing to forever fund outstations from government coffers, we believe Aboriginal Territorians should have the right to live on their land. They must accept responsibility for sending their children to school where they work together with government and land councils to develop transport and economic models to sustain residents of outstations and smaller communities, supporting the spoke in the hub-and-spoke model. That is why we will develop integrated transport systems modelled on economic and community analysis transporting Territorians on a daily basis between the spokes and the hubs, accessing goods and services like any normal town. Other jurisdictions in the country cannot survive on five towns and we should not expect the Territory to go down a different path, nor should we force Aboriginal Territorians off their land but, we have to get kids to school.
We must get kids to schools, and we must ensure all Territorians access health services. We need to get a way from the one teacher, part-time outstations that cannot offer a suite of services to students. We must fund regular transport to and from communities to the service centres. The same model will apply for health working with AMSANT, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, to support their regional model of servicing, dovetailing with a transport logistics model between hubs and spokes and seeking to replicate it for other services. This must be a federal/Territory partnership. The federal government has to show there is more to it than symbolic gestures. Ultimately, I will pursue the establishment of business models not welfare models in communities. Key services are required first, or simultaneously, if there is the opportunity. Other services include motor vehicle registry, Centrelink offices, bakeries and clothes shops, as examples.
This style of initiative can only be funded through a joint approach between Territory and federal governments. That is why the Country Liberals propose the establishment of a joint office of Indigenous Affairs to review current programs, remove duplication, refine programs and oversee the delivery of programs and services for Indigenous Territorians as we move from a welfare-dominated state to an economic model with regular service provisions with a hand-up not a hand-out approach. Supporting the joint office will be a traditional owners’ corporation or board including a mix of traditional owners and representatives of key organisations to guide both policy development and implementation to further pursue improved outcomes for Indigenous Affairs.
I commend this to the House. There is a plan to make improvements in Aboriginal Affairs. I condemn the government for seeking to hoodwink the Territory public on its infrastructure budget of not $1.3bn, but around $500 000 or $524 000, of which around $200 000 is federal dollars. This government is hoodwinking Territorians. They do not have the money, and they do not have the commitment. They do not have the tick or the rigour or the value to put the real effort into Territorians.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, that policy just sounds too familiar. It sounds like the policy we have under our National Partnership Agreement with the Commonwealth government.
It is with great pleasure I outline the budget for the portfolios of Parks and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, Arts and Museums and Indigenous Policy. I will start with my portfolio areas in NRETAS.
Budget 2009-10 provides $139.2m to do our job in NRETAS through eight output groups: parks and reserves, biological parks, natural resources, environment and sustainability, heritage conservation, scientific and cultural collections, arts and screen industry support, and Environment Protection Authority. I will go through these in turn.
Parks and Wildlife: I am pleased to announce that a total of $34.7m will be spent on our 87 parks and reserves in Budget 2009-10. Our parks and reserves are our most precious and iconic assets. Not only are they crucial to biodiversity, they also provide jobs for Territorians and see millions of dollars injected into our economy. It is estimated 2.8 million visitors will enjoy our parks in the next year. In Budget 2009-10 more than $8m in additional funding has been provided for infrastructure in our parks over the next four years. On top of this $8m, we will be making additional infrastructure commitments to Litchfield, the West MacDonnells and Nitmiluk.
Budget 2009-10 also commits $3.8m to park joint management programs to establish partnerships with the local traditional owners. Our parks and reserves are not only there for us to relax and enjoy their beauty, we can also learn from our parks and reserves. In Budget 2009-10, $16.5m is provided for parks and reserves visitor management programs. This money will create educational and recreational opportunities for Territorians and tourists alike.
$14.3m will also be invested in our parks and reserves conservation management programs. Our parks and reserves cover 5 million ha of land and address issues such as weeds, fire and feral animal management, and are important to protect the natural and cultural assets within these areas.
This government has committed $1.8m over the next three years towards establishing stage one of the Eco-Link initiative. This will involve the creation of wildlife corridors from one end of the Territory to the other and involve government and non-government agencies working together with landowners and community groups to conserve, restore and connect landscapes and ecosystems. This is an ambitious project but one which will reap rewards for the Territory’s environment in years to come.
Biological parks: I am pleased to announce Budget 2009-10 provides $10.9m for the Territory’s biological parks which include support for the Desert Park in Alice Springs and the Territory Wildlife Park at Berry Springs. This $10.9m also supports operation of Windows on the Wetlands as a visitor facility interpreting the nature and cultures of the wetlands around Adelaide River. The George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens also receives support from this funding for its on-going management as a state level facility.
Natural Resources: In Budget 2009, $43.7m has been provided to fund the Natural Resource Output Group which provides services for the Territory’s natural resources and, with the involvement of community and land managers, deals with the threats of erosion, weeds, bushfires, floods and feral animals. Much of this work is done in the bush so it often goes unnoticed by many. I make special mention of the additional $1.09m this government will invest over two years in Budget 2009-10 for a strategic weed management program.
Weeds pose one of the greatest threats to the Territory’s biodiversity invading native vegetation, causing fire management problems and soil erosion. The strategic risk management program will work towards reducing the impact of high risk weeds in the Northern Territory. This government will provide Bushfires NT with $750 000 in Budget 2009-10. This funding ensures our hard-working volunteer fire fighters have the resources to do their job.
Budget 2009-10 also provides an additional $1.4m to improve our flood forecasting service. In 2009-10, flood forecasting services will undertake the installation of new sites with improved technical equipment which will ensure better information on river levels. We will also invest in our water resources to enable effective planning for allocation, use, control and protection of our precious water resources. I also draw your attention to this government’s commitment of $500 000 in Budget 2009-10 to deliver on water allocation planning and transparency in regulation as required by the National Water Initiative. This government recognises the importance of preserving the health of our rivers. Budget 2009-10 allocates $510 000 to be spent assessing and monitoring the biodiversity and other natural resources associated with land and vegetation management in the Daly River catchments.
The environment and sustainability output received $6.4m in Budget 2009-10. The budget commits $700 000 to establish and support the ongoing running of an air quality program in Darwin. Tenders have been called for the supply, delivery and installation of air quality stations in the Territory. These stations will expand our current air quality monitoring capacity beyond particles from bushfire smoke to a range of other key air pollutants.
We know climate change is real and real action needs to be taken to address it. This government is committed to tackling climate change in a sustainable way and Budget 2009-10 directs $840 000 to implement a variety of initiatives to support businesses and households to respond to climate change issues. These initiatives will be simple yet effective changes of behaviour Territorians can easily implement to reduce the effects of climate change and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
Budget 2009-10 also provides $580 000 for Environment NT grants available to individuals, community groups, wildlife and conservation organisations, schools, local government and industry groups. I am also pleased to announce the government’s 2008 election commitment to provide $160 000 in funding to the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory and the Arid Lands Environment Centre is also met in Budget 2009-10
We know the importance of the Territory to our heritage. Budget 2009-10 provides $3m to be invested in heritage, including $1m for repairing and maintaining government owned heritage assets; and a further $200 000 to the NT Heritage Grants Program to individuals, community groups and non-profit organisations working on projects relating to significant heritage sites in the Territory – and we have plenty of those in the Northern Territory.
Budget 2009-10 provides $29.6m for the scientific and cultural collection areas including facilities such as MAGNT, the Araluen Arts Centre, the Northern Territory Archive Service and the Strehlow Research Centre. I am very pleased to include the Northern Territory Library in my portfolio this year. The Northern Territory Library has a budget of $10.5m in 2009-10 and provides Territorians with access and information, and collects and preserves the documentary heritage of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Library also provides support to library services provided by municipal and shire councils in remote schools. There are 33 public library sites in the Territory with 22 situated in isolated and remote communities. The Northern Territory Library also delivers public library services at Humpty Doo and Nhulunbuy, in partnership with the Department of Education and Training.
Madam Speaker, I also draw your attention to $160 000 in Budget 2009-10 for the 2008 election commitment Remembering Territory Families Program. This program is to record the history of major Territory families who have contributed to the making of the Territory, and will be an invaluable reference of Territory life when completed.
In the arts and screen industry, this government is committed to ensuring we place arts and culture at the heart of Territory life. That is why Budget 2009-10 allocates $10.1m for arts. This year we will be undertaking a major review of how our funding is allocated to ensure we are meeting our priorities. We will do so by empowering regional communities to determine their arts and cultural priorities and supporting those priorities through partnerships and brokerages. We will work closely with other departments to support regions across the boundaries of art, environment, education and health to provide holistic responses and opportunities for interpretation and creative expression. We will build stronger partnerships nationally with agencies which can partner us in delivering our vision. We will forge partnerships within existing structures, including local governments, to deliver strong and sustainable programs which support community arts activities.
I am pleased to announce in Budget 2009-10 an increase in community-based arts projects of $100 000, bringing the total to $400 000. We will support the educational goals of government by supporting artists and arts programs in educational environments. In this way we will position creativity as fundamental to all learning and encourage greater retention and literacy, especially amongst Indigenous students. We will fund and showcase events which offer the community access to great art, local art and art from other from other places. For example, Budget 2009-10 provides $150 000 allocated to touring programs for Aboriginal music.
Effective arts projects and events require expert leadership to meet community needs. We will support a network of regional arts organisations, art form peak bodies and art facilitators to provide both inspiration and practical assistance. The Abgrants programs will balance long-term certainty and access to funding with stringent monitoring and accountability. We will provide a one-stop-shop of resources for artists, arts and community organisations by moving our systems online and increase our community presence in remote areas.
We will continue our focus in supporting remote, regional and major arts festivals across the Northern Territory. We will increase our focus on linking festivals into an annual calendar of events both publicly, through marketing and promotion and, strategically, through improved planning and program brokering and support. I am pleased to say that in Budget 2009-10 this government’s support for regional and community arts festivals is now $1.5m.
We will support an increase in regional access to major events such as the NT Music Awards by encouraging new collaborations between regions and organisations. We will continue to partner local government to increase skills and capacity in managing public art commissions and projects. We will extend this work from municipal councils to regional shires focusing on Art in Public Space as an important part of regional culture plans.
In another area of my department, the EPA, Budget 2009-10 provides $864 000 to the Environment Protection Authority, an independent statutory board, to provide independent advice to government, industry and the community on environmental issues. The Environment Protection Authority, formed in March 2008, has already undertaken some important, strategic works including a review of environmental impact assessment procedures; an investigation of existing governance frameworks in relation to the development of Darwin Harbour; and developing sustainability principles for the Northern Territory. We are fully committed to a strong and independent EPA.
I now turn to the area of Indigenous Policy. Before I deal with the broader issues, I would like to focus on a very important agency which often gets forgotten - the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. The AAPA plays a crucial role in protecting our sacred sites, while also providing certainty to developers across the Territory that they are carrying out their work in the right place and the right way. I am very pleased to announce that AAPA has been allocated an additional $1.3m in Budget 2009-10 to improve its capacity to protect sacred sites and provide a timely and accurate service to developers.
This will be a significant year for Indigenous Policy in the Northern Territory. In the next few weeks, the Chief Minister and I will be announcing a comprehensive Indigenous Policy package, fully consistent with the new COAG National Policy Framework and developed in partnership with the Australian government.
I have said before in this Assembly that we need to target our resources to ensure they have an impact. We need to get the dollars to hit the ground. Budget 2009-10 delivers for Indigenous people and for remote Territorians.
We have already heard from the Treasurer this year’s budget delivers $808m for education and training, this includes substantial investment in remote areas of the Territory for school infrastructure upgrades. Schools must be places where children want to go, and places where children can learn. With a growing population and increased efforts to make sure children go to school regularly, we need more teachers and intensive operational support for remote and regional schools. With Indigenous students demonstrating low educational outcomes, this intensive support is critical if we are to make headway on Indigenous education outcomes. Better preschool services, including five new mobile preschools will service 25 remote communities; and four Indigenous community and family centres will link childcare, early learning, health and family support services. This is a huge leap forward for early childhood outcomes in remote areas.
Budget 2009-10 also delivers for Indigenous health. Funding for remote health services will employ teams of midwives and Aboriginal Health Workers in Darwin and Alice Springs to support Aboriginal women leaving remote communities to give birth. Additional funding will target child protection, therapeutic and residential care unit workers, and expand chronic disease programs. We will continue to improve safety outcomes for our remote communities through extra police and a child abuse task force; family and sexual violence support and prevention services; offender rehabilitation; alcohol management and treatment initiatives; and additional funding for courts, Corrections officers and witness assistance services.
We are one hundred percent committed to securing a working future for Indigenous people in the remote Territory. Budget 2009-10 continues the government’s effort to increase Indigenous employment. Our efforts will continue to target increased Indigenous participation in public sector employment. Our goal is to reach 10% by 2012; we are already at 8%, up from 5% in 2003. Increased opportunities for Indigenous rangers; we know that engaging local people in land and sea management has significant beneficial outcomes for Indigenous people and their broader communities, and this is an area in which we will continue to invest.
We will support apprentices in remote areas, and invest in vocational education so Indigenous people in remote communities are skill-ready when jobs are identified. We are investing in Indigenous business and jobs in the tourism industry, and we will continue to support the start up and expansion of small Indigenous businesses. We will continue to invest in critical infrastructure and essential services for remote areas.
Budget 2009-10 makes a substantial investment in Indigenous housing, telecommunications and IT. A total of $67m will be dedicated to improve power, water and sewerage services in remote communities across the Territory, including a new grid connection to Yuendumu Power Station; a new power station for Alpurrurulam; and upgraded water storage facilities to Palumpa and Warruwi.
Our work, and our joint work with the Australian government, is making a huge difference to the lives of Indigenous Territorians. We are seeing improvements in the areas of housing, education, health, jobs, safety, culture and governance. We need to maintain momentum and Budget 2009-10 delivers this.
Budget 2009-10 maintains the momentum required to close the gap and provide a working future for Indigenous Territorians. I congratulate the Chief Minister and the Treasurer for making sure the jobs of Territorians are protected and there is infrastructure building in the Northern Territory, because we know infrastructure building creates more jobs, and we want to keep Territorians in jobs.
When you look at the budget across the board and what is in these regional highlights, we are lucky to have a government committed, not only to some areas of Indigenous affairs, but to the whole area of Aboriginal children, Aboriginal families, and Aboriginal communities. It is building the capacity not of just an isolated group of people, but the whole family structure, the whole community structure and therefore building the capacity, knowledge and understanding throughout the whole community and the whole region.
The member for Braitling has said it is his job and he has the right to speak in this House. No one has ever said anyone does not have the right to speak, but people who speak in this House should have an understanding of Indigenous problems, know Indigenous problems and understand that education comes with understanding the family structure, the community structure and the whole aspect of culture. If you cannot understand those aspects of Aboriginal people, then what you are doing in this House is using Indigenous people as a political football. I reiterate that he has said he will remove children and have them go to school in a college situation and take them home every weekend. We have that at St John’s, Kormilda College and Yirara College, and it is not working. That is because Indigenous families have to be involved with their children. Children will go away to sports weekends and will get homesick for their parents, and they will just run away.
This government is taking the initiative to build from the ground up, through the community, through the family, in order for children to have the knowledge and power to understand that education is the key to move them to whatever choice they want to make in their life, of living at Yuendumu, Papunya or Hermannsburg, or living in Melbourne or Adelaide.
It takes people like me, like the member for Arnhem and the member for Stuart, who are born and bred Territorians, who have culture - it is very important to have that culture - because that is the foundation of who you are, and you understand the movement and the problems that Indigenous people suffer. It is through the knowledge of my colleagues and me inside this House that we make this government the strongest government to service not just Indigenous Territorians, but all Territorians.
I have said quite openly in this House that we have worked on the basis that there is an Aboriginal way to do things and there is a white way to do things. There is not - there is the right way to do things. There is a right way to deliver education, there is the right way to deliver housing and there is the right way to deliver health. If you look at the highlights you will see this government’s input, the seriousness of where it is starting to target, not just the children, but the parents and the community, in order to move all Territorians forward equally.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the budget and it a pleasure to follow from my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, and the impassioned closure to her speech. On this side of the House, we have a driving passion to close that gap on Indigenous disadvantage and much of the work we do in Cabinet, through budgets and our daily work as ministers, is focused on that issue. We are starting to see significant changes and improvements across the Territory.
In parliament this week we have seen something I cannot recall in my time in observing parliamentary politics in the Northern Territory. The government brought down a budget on Tuesday, it is probably the single most important bill we debate every year, and on Thursday in Question Time there was not one question on the budget. The opposition has an absolute responsibility to hold the government to account on behalf of all Territorians, and could not find in Question Time today one question on a $4.5bn budget across all areas of policy in the Territory - economic policy, social policy, health, education, environment, law and order - not one question.
It was an absolute low in this parliament in terms of the responsibility of this parliament to scrutinise governments and hold government to account. I am absolutely dumfounded with 11 members opposite that not one of them could find a question on the budget this year in parliament; it is absolutely unprecedented.
The debates we have had in this parliament shows the choices have never been clearer in regard to government and the opposition and the priorities of government and opposition at a time when the world is seeing the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Some members opposite were at a budget breakfast this morning where an economic analyst from the Commonwealth Bank gave a presentation, similar to presentations I have seen many times over the last months and year - about where we were, what has happened, where we are now, and our prospects for the future.
What has happened all around the world is truly quite astounding. Trillions of dollars have been found by governments to pump into their economies to hold financial institutions stable, to keep consumption going, to minimise the impact on people around the world and minimise unemployment and business failures. We are a small government in the Northern Territory with a relatively small budget in the scheme of things and we have gone down the path all expert commentators and economists around the world have identified - the need for governments to step in and go into deficit to keep consumption strong, keep the economy as strong as we can to stave off the tide of unemployment this financial crisis is causing around the world.
Right at the heart of the philosophy for framing this budget was protecting jobs in the Northern Territory. The heart of the CLP’s response has been to lower the deficit. That is the crux of the issue. We are about protecting jobs. They are about lowering the deficit which would see unemployment rise across the Northern Territory. Never have the policy positions on the economy been so stark between the opposition and the government. So uncommitted are they to addressing and debating the issues of the global financial crisis and what is actually happening to Territory businesses and to Territorians that after two days they gave up, stopped debating it and focused on a third order issue regarding what my colleague, the member for Casuarina, may have been watching on his computer at the time.
This is an absolute abrogation of the responsibility of the opposition to hold government to account. If that is where the Leader of the Opposition is going, no wonder he has people over there on his back, looking for his job. It was appalling leadership.
Before I comment on my portfolio areas, I have to respond to the member for Braitling. I listened to his speech and I accept the member for Braitling has not been here very long, however, he went on and on about the capital works budget being underspent and projects delayed. A total of 71% of the capital works budget for the 2008-09 Budget has already been spent. You are never going to spend 100% of it in one year. It is like getting your salary every week and, yes, some people do spend their salary every week. But if your salary is there to cover the cost of paying off your mortgage, you do not pay it off in one year; you do not pay off the car in one year. You commence projects, you commence budgets, and projects move from year to year for many reasons which are unforeseen at the beginning of the budget time.
From the time of self-government under CLP, budgets to budgets we have brought down, of course there are projects which slip from year to year; of course, there are projects that cross years. There is always a carryover of expenditure; that is just the way budgets are. Additional items are committed to the budget because of unforeseen circumstances during the course of the year. It patently showed his ignorance of how the capital works budget works.
We had the debate before about the SIHIP project; obviously, he was not listening when I responded in good faith last time. The time lines for this project have been set by the Commonwealth, and we are on track. There are two main issues which have contributed to where we are today. One, the Commonwealth has mandated - under his friend and colleague, the former Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, and his agencies, and carried on by the new Australian government - an alliance contracting model that has never been used in the Northern Territory before. Businesses and industry in the Northern Territory had no idea about the alliance contracting model, and it was a requirement of the Australian government that we use this particular contracting model which is quite unusual in the rest of Australia; it had been used intermittently in Queensland on a couple of big projects. So there was the whole issue of getting industry and government agencies around the concept of the alliance contracting model.
The other issue was the requirement to negotiate leases to build houses. We all know there is not a great deal of difference between his mate, Mal Brough, and our new Indigenous Affairs minister, Jenny Macklin, regarding the requirement for leases. Mal Brough wanted a 90-year lease; the current Indigenous Affairs minister is looking at 40-year leases. It is an absolute requirement for government to secure a lease before we invest more public money and put in place a management model. Negotiating those leases has been difficult. It has not been the fault of this government that we have not built any houses; it has been an issue in securing the leases.
He also talked about failures. Mal Brough was so keen to at least build one house - and my colleague, the member for Daly went out there and did everything he could, and finally secured the leases on some outstations. I believe the cost of the houses - just so Mal Brough could stand up and show that he had built one house in the Northern Territory - came in at around $900 000! We are not going to go down that path; we are not going to spend $900 000 building one house on an outstation near Port Keats just to satisfy the television cameras and Mal Brough’s thirst for publicity.
The member comes in here with all his rhetoric, and a lot of it is rhetoric, but I also acknowledge much of it is heartfelt passion to actually make a difference, to make a change. We are all here to make a difference and see changes. He comes in with this rhetoric that we are incompetent and cannot spend money; but there are fundamental reasons, mandated by the Commonwealth when his mates were in government, and now our mates are in government and, essentially the same principles apply, which have led to delays in rolling out these houses. But it is going to happen this year.
The member also talked about Tiger Brennan Drive. I believe, all up, the component parts of Tiger Brennan Drive will be around $100m, or more. You do not spend a $100m on a road in one year. You just cannot do that. This is not China, we cannot get 10 000 people to build a road. So that project will roll across a number of years, but you have to commit the funding to get the contractors to bid for the job and know the money is there to build it. Of course the money is in the budget this year. You are not going to deliver a $100m project in one year, and it is absurd to think you could.
He went on about this money being from the Commonwealth, that money being from the Commonwealth, again showing his total misunderstanding of the Northern Territory/Commonwealth financial arrangements. Eighty percent of all funding to the Territory government comes through Commonwealth revenues; 80% through the Grants Commission formulae and through the GST pool. Then there are also Specific Purpose Payments, like the stimulus package, which flow through the budget from time to time. To say we are not putting money in - well, what would he do? Raise taxes in the Northern Territory? Actually raise taxes so we have more of our own money to put into projects? Or say no to Commonwealth money: ’No, we do not want your money because we want our share to look better.’ It is a nonsensical argument.
At least the Rudd government in Canberra has noted the total failure of Commonwealth governments under Howard to actually fund infrastructure in Australia, and many of the economic difficulties we face is a lack of infrastructure. At least it is Commonwealth money coming to the Territory for infrastructure; up to $200m for schools across the Northern Territory and, at COAG, I signed up to it. The Leader of the Opposition would not have signed up to it and we would not be seeing those upgrades to schools, to Territory housing, to roads, to boom gates, across the Northern Territory. We are a government which says yes to Commonwealth money. We want to work with the Commonwealth, whether it is a Liberal/National Party government or a Labor Party government. It is incumbent on any government in the Northern Territory to work with the Commonwealth and take our share of Commonwealth funding, not get into some nonsensical debate about where the money is coming from.
He also talked about the gaol and the targets in the budget paper for education and training; well, exactly, Shylock, that is why we are spending $300m on a new gaol because the current infrastructure at Berrimah, and the overcrowding at Berrimah, the age of the facility at Berrimah means there is no capacity to run education programs. There are very poor facilities for training and we need a new, purpose built facility so we can achieve all the outcomes we want to achieve: that medium- and long-term prisoners, even short-term prisoners, come out of gaol better educated and qualified than when they went in. You cannot do that at Berrimah, and I doubt the member for Braitling has ever been in that awful place. I went there and any assertion that prisoners are leading a very comfortable life, lying back in the airconditioning, with three gourmet meals a day, playing DVDs is not what I saw when I went to that facility. It is just arrant nonsense.
We had the debate in parliament but he obviously did not listen. I am quite happy to prepare a briefing for him, as Education minister, about the targets in the budget papers for literacy and numeracy. We explained to him that last year was the first year we had national testing in Australia, and the revisions in the numbers are because last year was the first year we had national testing in the Northern Territory, and a result of national testing profiles recalibrated the benchmarks from where we moved. I agree, member for Braitling, in terms of – I will just pick any of them - Year 7 reading for Indigenous students, the estimated number of students who completed and passed benchmark in 2008-09 at 24% are estimated this year for 27%. That is not something to be proud of. It is not okay that only 27% of Indigenous kids are getting to the benchmark, but you are not going to put 100% in there and expect in the space of 12 months that kids will go from 27% to 100%.
Of course we want 100% of kids to get to benchmark - Indigenous kids and non-Indigenous kids. But to say if you put a target of 27% in there, and all these targets I am advised by educators in the Northern Territory are stretch targets which will be challenging to meet, particularly with the attendance profiles, that this government thinks that that is okay - we do not think it is okay! It is nowhere near good enough. But if you think you can go from 27% of Indigenous kids in 2008-09 getting to a Year 7 benchmark the following year, within 12 months, to 90% that is absolute nonsense.
We are being open, transparent, and accountable and shining a light for the first time, nationally, on the underperformance not only of the education system but the failure of too many Indigenous parents, and non-Indigenous parents, in getting their kids to school. The first thing you need to do to deal with a problem is to have an honest look at it, put a light on it and work to change things; not come out with some nonsense that this government is somehow happy with those numbers. We are not happy, and we are committed to changing those numbers.
He then went on and spoke about the hub-and-spoke service delivery model. We dealt with this the other day. This is not some fabulous new idea the CLP has dreamed up. This government has been working on this with the Australian government for some time now. He obviously does not read the national media or look at the COAG declarations or understand that this Territory government, together with all the other states and territories, have signed, or are about to sign, national partnership agreements for remote service delivery with the Commonwealth government. There is nothing new in what the CLP is portraying, but what they are portraying is good.
We agree with all of that, but it is actually being done and this government has been at the forefront of the policy development for this; at the forefront in the national debate, working with the Australian government and working with all the states. We are going to have a COAG meeting here on 2 July, on the current timetable, on these Indigenous service delivery and Closing the Gap issues.
For the member for Braitling to say this is all the mighty leader’s great idea - it is great they are on board, Madam Speaker, and it is great we all agree on this - but do not try to claim it is all your idea. We have been at the forefront of this policy reform for quite some time now, and that has been very much accelerated since I became leader of this side of the House.
I will move very quickly to the reforms in the budget affecting my areas. We have engaged in the most aggressive facilities upgrades in schools in years; we have delivered major reform to secondary education through the Middle Schools Program; we have completely revitalised the moribund Distance Education Program which we inherited from the previous government, and we have delivered secondary education to the bush and now have over 116 students living in remote communities who have graduated with an NTCE. We have done a lot. There is much more to do.
We intend to deliver more with a focus on attendance levels, improving the quality of teachers and education provided, and getting more young Territorians to benchmark. The centrepiece of these reforms will be Transforming Indigenous Education. I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Arafura, the previous Education minister, who started this significant policy reform that I have had the honour of taking over. Significant resources from Territory and the Commonwealth will focus on this outcome. Fundamental to this is operational funding of $10.6m in 2009-10 as part of the five year commitment of $48.2m and $37.8m for infrastructure to close the educational outcome gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
This will include: early development and learning programs; six school counsellors, increasing to a total of 10 by 2011-12 to improve child protection outcomes; a school attendance strategy and evaluation of school and education campaigns to improve Indigenous attendance; six mobile preschools servicing 30 communities; 16 additional teachers in remote schools to respond to increased enrolments and attendance; provision of additional information technology resources for students and teachers, and scholarship placements under the Wesley Lanhupuy scholarship program.
The Territory is investing significant funds during 2009-10 to participate in the Commonwealth National Partnership Agreements; $7.1m, or $51.75m over five years, for low socioeconomic status school communities; $4.46m over two years to develop and implement whole-of-school approaches to literacy and numeracy; $1.45m for the productivity places program in 2009-10, and $3m to improve computer availability in all secondary schools.
Funding for the Northern Territory government election commitments include: an additional $1m per annum for 10 000 apprentice commencements; expansion of the Work Ready program with an additional $500 000; an additional $500 000 doubling the investment in the Build Schools program; $1.05m to enable an increase in the back-to-school vouchers from $50 to $75; funding of $2.6m as part of the five year commitment to the Families As First Teacher program; $2.3m ongoing funding to increase non-contact time for primary school teachers of 30 minutes in 2009, increasing to 60 minutes in 2010; $2.8m ongoing for improved pay incentives to attract quality teaches to remote schools; and continuing additional funding of $1.7m, ongoing, to assist students with intellectual disabilities and students with high level behavioural and emotional difficulties. That is a total of $5m, Madam Speaker.
There will be a record level of education infrastructure, combined with the Commonwealth’s commitment. This will be delivered across the Territory and includes: $54m for the continuation of the Rosebery Primary and Middle schools; $3.2m to continue upgrading Ross Park Primary School in Alice Springs; $3m to upgrade Dripstone Middle School science facilities; $3m for new multipurpose sports facilities at Tennant Creek High School; $2m to upgrade homeland learning centres at various schools across the Territory; $1.25m each for schools at Angurugu, Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, Lajamanu and Numbulwar; $400 000 for additional office space for student councils at Gunbalanya and Nhulunbuy. The first round of the Territory government’s election commitment to provide $300 000 to every primary school will be delivered through the minor new works program.
The Commonwealth’s commitment to the economic stimulus package and other infrastructure initiatives under the national partnerships will also deliver: $91m for the Primary Schools for the 21st Century initiative; $11m of the national POT school pride program, under which every school will receive $200 000 for new or refurbished work; $1.3m to build the Tennant Creek Trade Training Centre, and $4m for the family and children centres at Wulagi and Palmerston. I thank the Commonwealth government for this first rate initiative.
In 2008, my government announced initiatives to better coordinate the development, attraction and retention of workers to the Territory. One of the initiatives was the establishment of the Employment Division within the Department of Business and Employment. Jobs are the number one priority for the government; they are our ongoing focus in both private and public sectors. In this current economic climate it is vital the government and private sector maintain a solid training regime.
The current market conditions will, in time, reverse themselves. By maintaining our training effort and retention of skilled labour so when economic growth returns, the Territory will be well placed to tackle future areas of skills needs. Building on election commitments, my government has commenced working on a new employment strategy as the current Jobs Plan comes to an end. The new strategy will draw on extensive consultation with industry, unions, government agencies and the non-government sector.
The 2009-10 Budget delivers $1m for an Indigenous training and employment program with an additional $1m provided by the Australian government. The program is managed collaboratively across governments to ensure successful organisations develop initiatives which focus on industry-specific Indigenous workforce development and employment opportunities.
The 2009-10 Budget provides $500 000 for the establishment of regional job hubs in Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. This builds on my government’s key election promise to focus on local employment and connect training and real jobs in the regions. The best place to get local information is from locals themselves, and the jobs hubs will be an important source of intelligence on local labour market profiles, employment opportunities and barriers, emerging job prospects, and the skills that local workers and job seekers already have.
This budget directs $1m over three years to Workforce Growth NT with $350 000 allocated in 2009-10 to match labour skills with the specific needs of the Territory. It will include offices in Katherine and Alice Springs to influence greater workforce retention in the Territory. $400 000 is allocated in 2009-10 for an enhanced national skilled worker marketing campaign and the interstate NT Job Shows, designed to profile the Territory’s lifestyle and connect potential employees within Australia with job opportunities.
In regard to the Department of Chief Minister, gas projects are my highest priority; ensuring economic growth in the Territory is securing the INPEX gas projects. The project is estimated at over $US20bn and the onshore components around $12bn, providing some 2000 jobs at the peak of construction, and a further 300 ongoing jobs. As I said at the budget breakfast this morning, full front-end engineering and design is now under way for offshore, the pipeline to Darwin, and the LNG plant. Although a final investment decision has not been made, we are very confident of one during 2010.
Strong trade links also ensure continued economic growth by attracting new investment in infrastructure and services. In the year to February 2009, Northern Territory exports increased by 57.5%, and imports by 55.8%, increasing the Territory’s trade surplus by $793m to $2.09bn. Our new international trade strategy for the Territory will be released in 2009. The strategy will provide the blueprint for trade growth over the next five years. Most recently, in response to global economic uncertainty, the Trade Support Scheme was extended for a period of 12 months to encourage our exporters and potential exporters. This will allow them to undertake and sustain export marketing activities, and help maintain their international market profile. The scheme now features increased financial parameters in a range of areas to make international marketing activities more affordable for Territory-based business.
The Shanghai World Expo in 2010 will become a showpiece for the Territory to strengthen its bilateral relations with China and, importantly, bring the world to our doors to open new trade and investment opportunities. The NT government will participate in the Shanghai World Expo 2010 as a silver partner in the whole-of-nation Australian pavilion and associated business programs.
The NT engagement with the Asian regions to advance Territory interest remains a high priority for government. The Asian region includes the Territory’s key trade and investment partners, and there are links in many other fields including tourism, education, culture and sport. The NT government maintains its engagement with Asia by way of ministerial and official travel focused on specific interests and opportunities; leading or supporting outward business missions and encouraging inwards visits; undertaking selective cooperative projects with regional neighbours, providing funds support for trade developments …
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of 10 minutes to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, honourable members. We continue to work really hard to develop our trade and investment links with our neighbours in the region, and my colleague, the minister for Asian Relations and Trade is on his way to Jakarta, as I speak.
I established the Territory Growth Planning Unit in September. Its role is to bring together strategic thinking areas across government around key growth issues to the Territory. It was given three strategic projects: the development of Territory 2030, the development of the strategic housing policy, and the development of growth models for our cities and towns. In the coming year, I intend to give the Territory Growth Planning Unit further briefs on growth in the Territory. A key, ongoing challenge will be to build the performance management and data collection systems for Territory 2030.
Multicultural Affairs is another portfolio area I have responsibility for, and very proudly so. My government will provide support for projects which promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the Territory through the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program of $782 000 including cultural and linguistic awards totalling $50 000. Operational assistance is also provided to migrants and ethnic community organisations. The Charles See Kee Awards, which recognise and celebrate people, organisations and initiatives, are highly valued. A further $250 000 will be allocated under the Ethnic Communities Facility Development Program.
In the southern region, the Department of the Chief Minister has been working with other government departments and the Alice Springs Town Council to expand the CCTV system in Alice Springs CBD. My government has contributed $1.1m to this project, which will see an expansion of the current infrastructure to provide greater coverage and monitoring, to improve public safety and confidence.
Last week’s opening of the much anticipated wave lagoon marks an exciting year ahead for the waterfront development. I urge all members to see what a fantastic facility this is. It will add so much to the lifestyle of the Northern Territory because it will not only be Darwin kids who will be in that wave lagoon, but every kid who comes to Darwin on a school excursion will head there and it will provide much fun and enjoyment for thousands of people, and also add to our tourism industry.
The Waterfront project has transformed 25 ha of industrial wasteland into a new playground for community, tourists and business. Water recreation, seaside promenades, parklands, landscaped gardens, hotels and restaurants are all fantastic aspects adding to the vibrancy of the precincts. Both the Medina and Vibe hotels opened in March 2009 and Territorians, visiting conference delegates and holidaymakers have been taking advantage of the hotels and facilities ever since. I was advised last week when I was there that those hotels already have occupancy rates of around 75% in April and May, which is fantastic for this time of year.
The Darwin Convention Centre has been a tremendous success since opening in June 2008. A total of 65 conventions have been booked by the operator, AEG Ogden, which are expected to attract 30 875 delegates to the Territory and result in significant tourism and business opportunities as we showcase our wonderful city to the world. That is what government is all about - leadership, vision, delivering for all Territorians; that is nearly 31 000 people coming to the Territory who would not have come without that facility.
I will now talk in regard to the budget for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. Budget 2009-10 continues the government’s focus on tackling antisocial behaviour and crime, and improving community safety. The Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget is $279.6m in 2009-10, an increase of 104% since we won government in 2001. Funding is provided to increase the number of firefighters by 20 and police by 54, and provide the department with more resources to better support the community.
Budget 2009-10 provides significant resources to boost firefighter numbers and capacity in the year ahead. With projected growth in the Territory remaining at high levels, the government recognises the need for a modern, flexible and adaptable fire and rescue service to adequately service the community in the future. Funding of $12.3m is provided for a new fire station at Berrimah. The site will be secured in 2009-10; design will be undertaken in 2010-11, and construction will commence in 2011-12. We will provide $1m in 2009, and $2.1m in 2010-11, for nine extra firefighters in Alice Springs, and 11 extra firefighters in Darwin, to increase the capacity of the Fire and Rescue Service.
Budget 2009-10 also provides increased resources for our police. Funding of $9.3m is provided in 2009-10 for a further 25 police officers in urban areas, bringing the total number of new police officers under the Safer Streets initiative to 60 since 2008. These extra police will increase the capacity of our force to address crime and disorder issues in urban centres.
Safer Streets also provides for 10 additional police auxiliaries to support frontline police in the communications centre. The government’s commitment to the Police Beats Initiative will also result in additional police numbers in 2009-10, and funding of $2.5m to establish Police Beats in shopping precincts at Alice Springs, Nightcliff and Karama has been provided. This will result in an additional 12 police officers and six police auxiliaries in 2009-10.
An additional Police Superintendent is also approved for 2009-10 to implement the whole-of-government coordinated approach for getting young people in Alice Springs back to school, away from crime and other antisocial behaviour activities.
In total, Budget 2009-10 provides for an increase of 38 police officers and 16 auxiliaries. Our police officers are further supported by a range of initiatives including a $13m upgrade of police communications, which continues to help police respond rapidly and effectively; and $1.6m is provided as part of Budget 2009-10 to establish and maintain more closed circuit television systems around the greater Darwin area. The $6m upgrade of the Alice Springs Police Station will commence this year to bring the station in line with modern policing requirements.
Funding of $2m is provided to convert the existing Numbulwar Police Post to a police station providing essential services for housing, communications towers, boat shelters and a generator. The continued commitment to community safety in the remote regions of the Territory remains a priority for government. Budget 2009-10 includes $4.2m for the Child Abuse Task Force and $2.3m to improve remote area policing.
The Territory will be affected by the global financial crisis; that goes without saying. However, we are well placed to avoid the worst consequences. More to the point, we are well placed to prepare for the future when there will be a turnaround nationally and internationally. We cannot afford to go on as though nothing is happening. It is imperative our actions are geared to protecting Territory jobs and building the Territory whilst we are still in growth. We must do this aggressively; we must do it with optimism about our future in the best place to live and work - the Northern Territory.
Budget 2009-10 will achieve these objectives. I commend the Budget to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, being my first budget reply, I had to take time to seriously consider where I might start this task. My initial glance suggested it was going to be easy; I had all the figures at hand, surely the budget papers could be trusted and it would simply be a case of reviewing each of the budget lines and asking a few important questions. I was mistaken and seriously look forward to the Estimates process.
The first thing that comes to mind is the rubbery use of figures using revoted projects from previous years to substitute total works for this year. While I appreciate this is a reality with major works, why continue to blow your own trumpet on previously announced projects? Why add these to the totals when presenting your spin to the media? While I appreciate even a cursory look will reveal this, it may not be clear to all Territorians who believe this government is delivering record budgets and spending more this year than ever before.
The message is spun well. Time and time again we hear the term ‘record spend’. I sincerely believe the average person can cope with two figures being presented - that is, new works, meaning new money, and a second figure demonstrating works previously approved - not as a grandiose statement announcing a $1.3bn spend this year. The reality is a fair amount of this work will not be completed this year. In fact, going on this Labor administration’s track record, the track record of actually delivering anything more than glossy announcements, is dismal and speaks for itself.
Let us look at page 2 of the budget. The first thing you notice is the extent of federal money and associated projects. We all appreciate federal money is being used to fund some major projects in the Northern Territory. In fact, the majority of our funding comes from the federal government, but to use it to gloss up your own budget is misleading.
Page 3 shows figures and a graph that do not even add up. That side of the House yesterday made much of a $100 000 discrepancy which, by the way, was accounted for had that side of the House bothered to pay attention. The figure I refer is in regard to cash allocations to infrastructure in 2009 where a bar graph indicates $887m, while the corresponding spreadsheet suggests $885m. Either this is sloppy accounting or an example of this government’s level of management. I appreciate with these figures there would be a level of rounding, but $2m is a fair leveller.
Page 6 refers to a number of items paid for or substituted by the federal government; items that should have been constructed years ago; like Tiger Brennan Drive so Palmerston and rural residents would not be in the day-in-day-out traffic congestion more akin to places like New York. On a number of occasions I have been unable to go through a green light on Roystonea Avenue due to the number of cars on the other side of the intersection. Gridlock in city of 27 000 people; gridlock that could have been prevented with good planning. I mentioned in an adjournment speech the other day, when first arriving in 1985 I looked at Bagot Road and the future planning where very few cars were on a very big, major road. I mentioned how well the planners at that time had taken action to secure a good road system for the Northern Territory.
Gridlock in a city of 27 000 people could have been prevented by good planning. The Tiger Brennan duplication will address much of these concerns, but it demonstrates a fundamental failure by this government, and that is their propensity for a run to failure approach, particularly, in regard to infrastructure. At what cost? How much would have been saved had this infrastructure - the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication - been done five or six years ago? It is another example of this government’s priorities where Palmerston and the rural area have missed out in recent years and, further demonstrates the lack of leadership and influence the previous Palmerston members had in this House.
Across the page it talks about land release; another gross example of mismanagement by this government. For years they have spruiked about land release; but how much has actually been released? I am looking at a graph that is indicative of the price of land in Palmerston. It shows a block of land costing around $27 000 in 1993 rising steadily to around $50 000 by 2003 and rising significantly to over $200 000 by 2009. What we have here is a rather lean curve for nearly 10 years, an increase from $27 000 to $50 000; an increase of around $23 000 overall. While some would argue the return for investors was certainly lower, that is, any capital gain was lower through that period, the cost kept up with the average wage.
In the period between 2004 and 2009, a five year period, we have witnessed huge rises from $50 000 to $60 000 for an average block, up to an over-inflated cost of $200 000. Without unpacking the reasons for this, after speaking with the developers, the access to land is the major contributor to this price hike. The only real benefactors have been this government, through additional stamp duty paid on over inflated prices on land. With no new land releases and, therefore, infrastructural headworks required in recent years, they have laughed all the way to the bank.
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. I also note $7.1m over two years to build 22 new homes, units and duplexes in Darwin, Palmerston, Humpty Doo, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. This is welcome and needed but, really, two years to build 22 dwellings? Given they are spread over five localities does that mean there will only be four new dwellings in each locality? How many have they sold off in recent years? How long is the waiting list? How many dwellings are currently vacant or have tenants who have not paid rent? Four new dwellings in each locality is a joke, and demonstrates again where this government’s priorities are.
I move to page 11 where it demonstrates approximately $3.28bn worth of highlights with well over half of them targeted in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. Regional areas of the NT must feel like they are second cousins.
On page 12, it talks about continuing to support students with intellectual disabilities - like they have a choice. Of course, this support should continue. In fact, it should increase dramatically and include providing further support of inclusion support assistance in our schools. It then suggests it will increase - note the play on words here - the Back to School payment from $50 to $75. I am confused here. Most people know the increase has already occurred this year. An increase, therefore, would suggest it is perhaps going from the current $75 to $100. However, if it means to continue the Back to School payment, then I suggest you use the word 'continue', not 'increase', because that has already occurred this year.
On page 18, where we start to look through environmental initiatives, it would be fair to say the government has dropped the ball. The information is confusing, and there is little to suggest the environment is even considered by this government. $2.1m to support business and households to respond to climate change? Get real! What is this going to achieve? It also mentions supporting the Eco-Links program to the tune of $600 000. However, when you look into Budget Paper No 4, page 47, it states $500 000. Just to compound things just a little further, page 257 of Budget Paper No 3 states under Budget Highlights for the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, $100 000 for the Arafura to Alice eco-link. So, what is it - $100 000, $500 000 or $600 000? Again, I look forward to the estimates.
On the same page, it suggests $1m for redevelopment for Litchfield Park - $1m to redevelop one of our jewels, one of our national parks. Imagine how much we could have spent if we were not building a new prison.
It also speaks of $5m for a new Palmerston water park - no doubt very welcome news for the many families who call Palmerston home. However, what about the price of land? You cannot blame the owner of the land wanting a fair market value for that land. 'Fair market value' just might come back to bite this government given its own policies have created the current high prices for land. If the $5m is to cover the cost of land and the water park, I am seriously worried about how much will be left. We might have enough for a plastic blow-up pool from Target.
Let us look at that process. We all know this government came out late during the last election with a grandiose promise for Palmerston residents. It would appear even before they had secured the land - and that is obvious - and well before, it would appear, it had even consulted with the local council. It is poor planning, indeed, and another demonstration of this government’s propensity to announce things before they have figured out how they will deliver it.
What about the ongoing costs? The next line indicates how much it cost to maintain the Leanyer Water Park - $2.4m. Who will maintain the Palmerston Water Park? Will the council be expected to run and maintain this facility? A $2.4m management cost would be a huge impost on Palmerston ratepayers. In fact, in a yearly budget of around $10m, an impost such as the cost to run the Leanyer Water Park would be dramatic. 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 - which is interesting because I am aware your own costs to put a new boat ramp at Palmerston was $5m, but you have only budgeted for $4m. Does that mean we get 80% of a boat ramp? Or perhaps the concrete will drop off at the end of the high water mark.
I move to page 255 of the Budget Paper No 3, where it indicates a $10m reduction on last year’s $170m budget for NRETAS. Given last year’s budget was a $40m blowout, I worry that the $10m reduction will be partly funded through the loss of jobs. To quantify that, I refer to page 271 which indicates a reduction of $3.305m in employee expenses. If that is not a cut in jobs, and I recall the Treasurer’s grandiose posturing about this budget being all about jobs - I do not know what is. $3.305m is around 35 to 40 or more jobs.
Budget Paper No 4 talks about more federal money - $10m for the Palmerston super clinic. We are talking federal money but it is in a Northern Territory budget. When the super clinic is finally built, it will certainly be welcome news in Palmerston. The reality is, you are glossing up your own documents with more public funding. Page 22 talks about Police, Fire and Emergency Services capital works. Guess what? Nothing for Palmerston. Where is that shopping centre police beat promised in the last election? While I consider there is a better way to use police resources, I would certainly trade your chief’s office of failed politicians and publicly paid election campaigners for a police beat.
Page 42 points out a major sum of revoted works. Can this government deliver anything in the year it was proposed? $50m is a large amount and I make the point that an additional $50m makes this year’s budget just that little rosier for the average person. Page 48 indicates a total of $561 000 in revoted works, and only $200 000 towards new work for this year for the Territory Wildlife Park. So, in this year that they talk about providing jobs, and a budget that is going to deliver jobs, they provide $200 000 additional works. $1.3bn on infrastructure and this government spins it as loud and as strong as it possibly can - a $1.3bn program. It actually plans to spend half that amount. What is it, $653m, with the Commonwealth providing the bulk? Unexpected budget GST payments have been wasted when they could have been used to keep us out of deficit.
Consider financial year 2007-08. That year Labor pocketed $330m in unexpected revenue and, in addition, $80m in dividends from the Power and Water Authority while allowing it to struggle with a run-to-fail mentality instead of maintaining infrastructure. Imagine if that $80m was put back into maintenance, or perhaps the $330m of unexpected revenue was put back into maintenance - we would not have the catastrophic failures and a minister for darkness that Territorians have had to put up with in recent times.
On that subject, this government’s only response was to blame a previous administration that has not been in government for more than eight years. I do not want to point out the obvious here, but that was eight years ago, and guess what? Infrastructure will age somewhat over eight years, and to blame an administration from eight years ago for what has occurred today is wrong. The infrastructure eight years ago was certainly in better shape and condition than it is today. For heaven’s sake, I have certainly aged over the last eight years, and my maintenance requirements are far higher today than I needed eight years ago. So to argue a case on the condition of equipment eight years ago being the reason for recent failures is an abrogation of responsibility.
Maintenance backed up with adequate resources was required, not raking an agency of $80m. That is the real reason Territorians have had to put up with a third world electricity supply. And now to have the audacity to ask Territorians to pay for this is woeful; and they will pay for it through a 25% price rise in electricity over the next few years. What will be the results of this?
I raise the point of jobs. This government states loudly that this budget is all about jobs. What will these latest price rises do to the job market? I worry that this government does not understand how business works and, therefore, will not understand or appreciate the risk these prices will have on jobs. A $1.3bn spend on infrastructure could have gone a long way towards replacing, fixing, and maintaining our Power and Water electricity grid. It could have ensured gas was flowing into Channel Island instead of spending, and, therefore, on-charging to Territorians each and every day, approximately $71 000 worth of diesel fuel. This is also a great demonstration of how important this government considers our environment. With power about to go up by a whopping 25% it demonstrates clearly to Territorians who is going to pay for their mismanagement of our power and water infrastructure.
In 2008-09, this government included infrastructure projects worth $220m in the pool of revoted works. At budget time last year, just like this year, ‘a record spend’. What did we get and, the big question is, where did the rest go?
This government has demonstrated time and time again that it makes promises on infrastructure but continually fails to deliver. While this government continues to sprout about their $1.3bn program and openly provides the community with this perception, the reality is they actually plan to spend half that amount. What did I say, $653m? And we all know the bulk of this money is being provided by the Commonwealth. If that is not misleading the public, I do not know what is. Before you all get antsy - I can see one over there getting antsy - I appreciate that governments all over Australia revote works; we understand how it works for any number of reasons. It can be demonstrated year after year that this government promotes revoted works as new spending. It most certainly demonstrates a lack of direction and mismanagement by this government - while it continues to hark and bark about how good they are and continues to control this House every time this side of the House wishes to raise some level of criticism, criticism I might add, that is well and truly deserved.
I refer to the current economic debate in this country, led by our own Prime Minister who continues to talk down the economy to such an extent one feels the real strategy is all about protection rather than focusing on how best to manage the situation. This debate has been bought into by our own Treasurer who also continues to talk down the economy as a way of positioning government where, whether the current fiscal policy works or not, it again will be someone else’s fault. If the current policy works, it must have been good management but, if it fails, that is someone else’s fault. They will not, and perhaps cannot, accept that their own policy, their own management of our local economy has no effect on it whatsoever. The truth is it has much more an effect than they will ever admit and it is quite clear that they know, just as the federal government knows, that much of their policy and results are not quantifiable.
It is akin to a gambler or an alcoholic, and until they can admit they have a problem, they cannot and will not work towards addressing the problem. This government takes no responsibility whatsoever; it is all someone else’s fault. Any of our recent problems whether they relate to health, education, law and order, they cannot, and they will not take responsibility for poor outcomes; it is all someone else’s fault. They do not run departments, it is not their responsibility, they say.
Yesterday, they spoke ill of good public servants, and that in itself is wrong, but it raises an interesting point. Every time they do not take responsibility when a serious issue is highlighted, and stick their CEOs in front of the camera whenever there is bad news to be delivered, but stand up as grandiose as they want when there is some good news; the moment they devolve their responsibility and blame someone else, they are blaming public servants in a very big way, in an underhanded way. It demonstrates the quality of people Territorians are forced to deal with for the next few years.
The reality of running a successful business where its success creates jobs is affected every day by the policy this government sets. Its fees and charges for government services affect business. Its fees and charges affect mums and dads and young people starting out. Its abysmal track record in releasing land affects just about everyone. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how this government will not take responsibility for our current high cost of living, our high crime levels, our lower than acceptable remote education standards, our abysmal power infrastructure and so many other current issues their own policy, fiscal management and strategic management has created.
Yesterday, I listened intently while the Treasurer openly stated the government had absolutely no responsibility for the high cost of fuel in the Northern Territory. I am not sure if the Treasurer has ever run a business, but I can assure her that everything from the price of electricity to run fridges and electric fuel pumps, the cost of staff, payroll tax, and vehicle registrations all have a direct impact on the cost of running a business.
Those businesses we want to promote in the Northern Territory, those businesses that create jobs and are the real backbone of the Australian economy, are affected by this government. It is disgraceful that our own Treasurer does not appreciate it. She does not accept the fact that business is affected by the costs passed on by government, and to suggest this publicly should be seen as a major concern to our business community; our own Treasurer does not understand the basics of good business. She clearly demonstrated this at the NT Property Council breakfast. She does not understand how her own government negatively affects business.
To suggest the price of fuel in the Northern Territory is not affected in any way by this government is an absurdity. I make reference again to an alcoholic or a gambler: until they recognise the problem they will not, they cannot move towards resolving the issue. That is a terrible tragedy. If the Treasurer really believes that her policies, her government and their fees, their charges, higher electricity costs, etcetera, do not have an impact on the cost of business in the Northern Territory, we are all in for a lot of trouble.
Let us see what the impact of the 25% increase in power costs alone will have on business in the future. I have already been told by businesses it will cost jobs. That is a shame, particularly given this government’s propaganda suggesting this current budget is all about jobs. I have to agree, it is about jobs - how many will be lost because of their mismanagement which all Territorians will have to pay for. Ponder this scenario for one moment: if only a small amount of the $1.2bn in extra revenue over the last few years was saved or used to pay off debt, even last year’s additional GST revenue was saved; perhaps we would not need to go into deficit.
In recent years this government has enjoyed the spoils of so much unexpected GST cash it must have been like winning lotto time and time again, year in and year out. What have they spent that on? It has not been on infrastructure. Perhaps it has been on the 5th floor, perhaps it was in the printing office, or perhaps it was used to publicly fund election campaign offices in Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs.
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 this deception. It is deception, if members of the public believe $1.3bn of new money is going to be spent this year on infrastructure.
I look forward to the estimates process next month.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Port Darwin to make a very short personal explanation. I remind honourable members that this is not a debate.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in normal circumstances I would not speak, however, I need to make a personal explanation in relation to what was reproduced on the ABC News and, before the assertion becomes fact, place on the public record that the assertion made by the Leader of Government Business that I had the races on in parliament is incorrect.
What occurred on that day, I believe about a decade ago, a member of parliament - and I do not remember who the minister was - made a statement in relation to a website which, I believe, was for tourism. I went to that website and followed a link to the Alice Springs races website and, because I did not have the sound turned down on my computer, it then bugled a race call.
I did not have the races on in parliament, and I do not make any allegations of impropriety on the part of the Leader of Government Business. It was, I believe, about a decade ago and it was an unfortunate incident. However, I certainly did not have the races on in parliament.
TABLED PAPER
Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10 and Reference to Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10. The SCI 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, the Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first Government Owned Corporation, GOC, on 1 July 2002. The 2009-10 SCI is, therefore, the corporation’s eighth.
Consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI tabled today on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information which no private sector business would be expected to release.
The SCI forecast nett profit after tax of $51.6m in 2009-10. This accounting profit forecast takes account of extraordinary revenue resulting from asset write-backs of $77.4m. If not for these extraordinary asset write-backs, the corporation would have made a loss, notwithstanding the tariff increases from July 2009. As asset write-backs are, in effect, accounting concepts rather than real money, this demonstrates that tariff increases are necessary to secure the corporation's long-term financial sustainability, and to ensure it can deliver reliable services and meet growing demand. While some jurisdictions have announced higher tariff increases, the government has tried to keep tariff increases as low as possible because of concerns abut the impact on small business and households, especially in the current economic climate.
The announced increase in tariff is in the mid-range of electricity, and below the average for water and sewerage when compared with tariffs applying around the rest of Australia. For example, electricity tariff increases are about half of what was recommended by the independent consultant commissioned by government to undertake a review of the financial position of the corporation. In allowing lower tariff increases, government will need to absorb the shortfall in expected revenues. Government has also made a commitment that pensioners, carers and seniors will not be worse off as a result of the tariff increases. Again, government will need to absorb the shortfall in revenue.
The tariff increases will result in immediate improvement in the corporation’s financial performance, enabling it to meet capital and operational outlays necessary to meet increasing demand, replace depleting and ageing assets, and meet standards for reliability expected by the community. This, of course, was the main finding of the Reeves Report released in January 2009.
The 2009-10 SCI contains plans for the largest ever capital and maintenance investment program in the corporation. $1.129bn of capital investment will be made between 2009-10 and 2013-14. This infrastructure program has been developed to ensure service reliability and the corporation is able to meet growing demand. In relation to repairs and maintenance, some $269m is projected to be spent over the SCI period. However, to be confident that the corporation's capital and maintenance programs are sufficient, but not in anyway excessive, I will be asking the Utilities Commission to undertake a detailed review of the corporation’s capital and asset management programs.
As members are aware, the government has a uniform tariff policy for most customers, including small businesses and households. This means these Territorians pay the same for electricity, water and sewerage, irrespective of how much it costs to provide these services in different locations and conditions. Notwithstanding the tariff increases, government will continue to provide Community Service Obligation, or CSO, funding to cover the gap between the price Territorians pay for these services and what it actually costs the corporation to deliver these services. Government will be providing CSO funding of some $342m over the five-year period covered by the 2009-10 SCI. Also, government has advised the corporation it will not require any dividends over the next few years, even if the corporation should make an accounting profit.
Madam Speaker, as the 2009-10 SCI will be considered by the GOC Scrutiny Committee, I will not go into any more detail now. In accordance with section 39(7)(A) of the GOC Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I table the Power and Water Corporation’s 2009-10 Statement of Corporate Intent. I move that the statement be referred to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for examination and report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I am going to seek a bit of guidance here, Madam Speaker. I am going to move that the debate be adjourned, because I have not seen the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the motion actually is a referral motion, and it has to be referred to the Estimates Committee. What occurs is, it is scrutinised at the Estimates Committee and referred to the Chamber; a similar tracking process that occurs with the budget papers, and then the debate comes back into this Chamber.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am starting to see where you are coming from. I was told this was merely a procedural motion and I was under the impression, Madam Speaker, this was being suddenly dropped on the table. I now understand the motion. I did not hear the motion, because I was being advised the motion was coming on, exactly while you were talking about it, so it was a little bit difficult, so please excuse my situation here.
Just confirm for me: we pass the motion, it gets referred, so we go through it in detail on the Friday afternoon of Estimates and, as a result of the Estimates Committee, we come back here and we can talk about it?
Ms LAWRIE: That is exactly right, Madam Speaker. That is what happens.
Madam SPEAKER: I will read the motion: That the Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10 be referred for consideration by the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee to be established to examine the 2009-10 operations of the Power and Water Corporation.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I thank the House for their indulgence. There is no problem with that.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 12 February 2009.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his Report to the Legislative Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted during the six months to 31 December 2008.
My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest and concern.
In respect to financial statement audits, it is pleasing to note that all bar two were unqualified. The qualifications to the Power and Water Corporation Financial Statements relates to a difference of opinion on the discount rates that were applied when determining the value of some assets in 2005-06. This flowed through to subsequent years, but will cease to be a qualification from 2009-10 onwards. It is important to note that the issue has been resolved and will not arise again.
In the case of NT Build, the Auditor-General was not satisfied that all revenue due to NT Build under the Long Service Levy had been captured. The board is aware of the problem and, in conjunction with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, is pursuing necessary amendments to both the Building Act and the Planning Act. NT Build has instituted a range of mechanisms to identify prescribed construction projects, and whilst the board acknowledges that the level of uncertainty may always exist, they are confident there is a high level of compliance.
As part of the audit on the financial statements of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, a methodological issue concerning the valuation of the Darwin Convention Centre was noted, which has been clarified with the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General has again undertaken a compliance audit of travel entitlements paid to ministers and the Leader of the Opposition through the Department of the Chief Minister for the 2007-08 financial year. I am pleased to report the Auditor-General identified a continued and significant improvement in the department’s administration of ministerial travel. The Auditor-General was satisfied the control procedures provide a reasonable assurance that payments in relation to ministerial travel comply with the requirements of the Remuneration Tribunal.
The Auditor-General carried out information security audits on three agencies. The Department of Health and Families: processes around information security were considered appropriate and physical security was good, however, it was recommended that some procedures be formalised, changes to improve communication and business continuity strategies finalised.
At the Department of Business and Employment, the Auditor-General found the agency had good control over physical assets in three of the four sites tested and security responses and physical security were generally adequate. The audit revealed some weaknesses in the Northern Territory government’s staff awareness of information security policy. There were instances where staff revealed access details in response to telephone calls or e-mails from unauthorised personnel posing as service centre staff. DBE has taken steps to address this and also encouraged other agencies to increase NTG staff awareness of information security policies.
The third information security audit was undertaken for the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The findings were that the agency was aware of the need to align its information security framework with good practice principles, that they were in the process of implementing a number of initiatives which would improve information security and that a number of other opportunities for improvements had been identified.
A compliance audit of the Community Benefit Fund, currently administered by the Department of Justice, found that the management of the fund was generally in compliance with the requirements of the Gaming Machine Act and Regulations. However, the Auditor-General found that Justice had breached two provisions of section 68 of the Gaming Control Act, in that the fund should have been maintained as a separate entity, rather than a part of DOJ’s operating account; and that discrepancies between Justice’s gaming records and accounting records did not allow for adequate identification of payments into the fund.
The Auditor-General carried out a compliance audit of the Motor Vehicle Registry and made a number of findings relating to policy and procedure deficiencies.
As part of the audit of the Northern Territory government and Public Authorities Employees Superannuation Fund, the Auditor-General noted that volatility in national and international markets had resulted in the $51.5m decline in the nett market value of investments.
On behalf of my colleagues I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report. I fully support his continued work in upholding the standards of government and accountability on behalf of the parliament, the Northern Territory government, agency heads and the Territory community.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, my contribution will not be a lengthy one. I always eagerly read the Auditor-General’s Report and, I confess, with one eye on the opportunities I might be able to get out of it to bring news to the people of the Northern Territory. However, I note that the Auditor-General has made his observations about all of the departments and I have no recollection of anything particularly leaping out of it, save two areas.
The Auditor-General notes there is an equity improvement between the financial year 2007-08 in the Power and Water Corporation. There is quite a history here between Power and Water Corporation and the Auditor-General’s office about the application of certain accounting standards. To cut a long story short, the argument between the Power and Water Corporation and the Auditor-General basically turned on the way they accounted their assets.
Historically, I have some concerns about the way Power and Water did count its assets because there was a case, and I am not sure if it has gone through the courts yet, so I will speak about it in the most general terms only, where a former staff member of the Power and Water Corporation was found to have some $100 000 worth of equipment and assets belonging to the Power and Water Corporation in his shed at home. I make no allegations against that person just in case it has not gone to trial. This was a year or two ago, so I suppose it has, but in case it has not, I will keep my comments as general and as non-specific as possible.
What concerns me is the circumstances of that property being discovered in the shed were not due to any auditing system of Power and Water Corporation alone; it was by another means. I found it surprising even with an organisation the size of Power and Water Corporation they did not notice $100 000 of gear going missing. I hope their internal auditing processes have improved since that time. That is as an aside.
The actual matter of assets overall in relation to the Power and Water Corporation caused a write-down of some $80m in their asset base one or two years ago when the Auditor-General finally had his wicked way with Power Water and won the argument. Finally, we hope the Power and Water Corporation will stop getting qualified audit reports from the Auditor-General. It must be very irritating for both the Auditor-General and the accountant’s staff of the Power and Water Corporation that every time they open an annual report there is a qualified audit report from the Auditor-General.
One would hope that all government areas received unqualified reports. I know Treasury gets a qualified report from time to time. Hopefully, that has been fixed now with the introduction of the new Australian Accounting Standards. But the situation with the Power and Water Corporation is they did suffer that asset write-down and, of course, is in the unfortunate situation where into the future they will be carrying an increasingly large debt.
This brings me to page 102 of the Auditor-General’s report which focuses on the equity situation. From the balance sheet perspective in 2007, $555.410m, not a bad equity position, increasing to $614.370m which is fine, but the Power and Water Corporation is going to be taking a large slice of the borrowing hit. If you read the non-financial public sector balance sheet in Budget Paper No 2 around page 104 you will discover the projections for the non-financial public sector, where Power and Water Corporation actually has an impact on the budget papers, that the projections are unhealthy. You will see in the non-financial sector balance sheet, on page 107, that the nett debt situation sharply rises during that period. Most of that will be caused by debt carried by the Power and Water Corporation as a result of its borrowing program.
This $1.3bn, depending when you listen to it - originally it was released as $800m, then $1bn, now it is $1.3bn borrowing program to fix its assets - I suspect the balance or the equity position of Power and Water Corporation will fundamentally shift as a result of that over the next couple of years. Indeed, we have just seen the tabling of the Statement of Corporate Intent by the Treasurer and the Statement of Corporate Intent reflects those fees and charges increases which have seen so much publicity in relation to this government’s need to rescue Power and Water’s situation.
I note the reporting person, whose name escapes me at the moment, who reviewed the financial situation of Power and Water was actually recommending a much larger increase over the next several years to bring the Power and Water Corporation up to commercial sustainability; not just near sustainability. The government has shied away from that for reasons best known to them. They claim it is an issue of cushioning the blow. More cynical people would suggest it is a case of cushioning the blow for the next election; particularly in relation to the timing of these increases, presuming the electoral memory is not that good. That is an aside.
The fees are going up. I remember getting a briefing from the Treasurer in relation to this. When we were briefed, there was a figure that surprised me. The equity situation of Power and Water Corporation by the end of the last financial year was $615m. I suggest it is carrying a huge debt burden; that the debt to equity ratio for the corporation will easily fall within the parameter of unsustainable. A ratio of 4:1, a figure of 400% was mentioned during the briefing. I do not recall whether it was in relation to 'if things had been allowed to go on as they were' or 'this is what happens after the power increases come'.
However, in either case, the debt to income ratio and asset ratio means the equity position will be on the wrong side of the ledger as at next year, I expect - if not next year, the year after. As a consequence of that, Power and Water, as an authority, will essentially become a charitable institution as far as government is concerned. As a GOC, its function was to operate as a corporation under the corporations law of the country with one shareholder, the Treasurer. Now, of course, it will become the Treasurer’s albatross to a large degree, inasmuch as the Treasurer will have to carry part of this burden into the future.
With the borrowings which have to go on within the Power and Water Corporation, as demonstrated by the non-financial public sector balance sheet on page 107 of Budget Paper No 2, it is clear the debt problems facing this government are much greater than they are talking about at the moment. Add this to the superannuation liabilities and you have the situation in a few years’ time - I think it is 2011-12 financial year – where superannuation liabilities plus the nett debt situation will take us to $6bn worth of liabilities and debt in the Northern Territory - not an edifying place to be, particularly on the tail end of such good income over the last few years. It is disappointing Power and Water has to go into this situation. It is the product of years of neglect.
I am concerned the minister’s statement to this House in relation to the future of Power and Water’s R&M budget remains unamended, and the minister responsible made an assertion that around $50m, give or take, will be the R&M budget for the next five years for the Power and Water Corporation. I invite the minister to correct those sets of figures, if he so chooses. I suspect in the borrowings of this organisation, the R&M budget will increase because, if it does not, then those of us who have failed to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.
That is precisely what this minister’s announcements about the non-increases in the R&M budget, tracking at about $50m for the next five years, will achieve. It is what has brought us to this point of decay of the infrastructure as a result of a $40m, give or take a million, over the preceding five years before the structural collapse of the Casuarina Substation. That was a wake-up call to government and the reports that flowed from that, both in relation to the transmission network and its condition, as well as in relation to the financial capacity and situation of the Power and Water Corporation, certainly leaves you with the impression this is going to be a sick puppy for quite some time to come.
I hope it will be able to find sufficient income from those resources to be able to service its debt without becoming too much of a burden for the taxpayer. Of course, if it is not the taxpayer paying, it is the consumer of the electricity itself. One way or the other, it is not a long bow to draw to say most taxpayers are consumers of power anyhow, so they get slugged one way or the other. I suspect what we will see in next year’s annual report is the equity situation of the Power and Water Corporation will have parentheses around it - and that is the last thing you want to see if you are a corporation. If you did not have a government guarantee of support, you would actually be insolvent.
That is the problem this GOC will be facing into the future. As a corporation, I would not be sticking it on the stock market just now, because I suspect you would not be getting a huge amount of money for it.
Tonight I do not wish to focus much on the comments by the Auditor-General. Suffice to say, I am not reassured enormously by some of the numbers I am seeing for TIO Banking and Insurance. The problem with TIO is as an organisation people put their savings into, or invest in, those investments always come to a crystallisation date; that is the date when the person who has invested in the organisation walks up to the front door and goes, knock, knock: ‘Can I have my money, plus my 7% part of the contract back?’, or whatever the deal is. What I am concerned about, and I have not drilled into the books deeply enough, and it is not expressed in the Auditor-General’s statement, is the exposure of TIO to those liabilities it carries in terms of money it is paying to people who invested in TIO and the various products it sells.
If I understand these systems correctly, that money then gets invested somewhere else, and if the TIO, and I am not suggesting for one second that they are operating outside of APRA guidelines before anybody gets twitchy about that, but like so many financial institutions they will have been carrying exposure, and now those people who have signed up to particular deals will be expecting their money. Depending on how much money, or how many of these arrangements crystallise in the future, will depend on how much TIO is exposed to liabilities ongoing. If TIO is carrying those types of liabilities, it will be starting to look for different ways to meet those liabilities. I note TIO had on the market - I believe it has been sold - Territory House, which was a property of TIO. The closure of two branches of the Territory Insurance Office is also some cause for concern because, from the outside looking in, and like most Territorians I merely have my nose pressed up to the glass, one starts to get the impression they are engaged in some austerity.
Madam Speaker, that is not to suggest that anyone’s investments are in trouble because, like banks now, they carry a government guarantee. I was concerned when the Prime Minister signalled he was moving to guarantee savings in bank accounts because, almost immediately, I thought of TIO, but it turned out to be other organisations as well. I was less worried about TIO, because of the Territory government guarantee, that people would start to engage in what would, essentially, be runs on non-bank institutions. People who have money in financial institutions that are not banks do not have a guarantee; they are usually small organisations so, all of a sudden, people run down to the bank, hence the term ‘run’, and withdraw all their money and whack it into a bank because the Prime Minister has offered a government guarantee on savings.
That issue seems to have mellowed out and, of course, I acknowledge that TIO has always carried such a guarantee for Territory investments, so that the exposure of TIO is, in fact, an exposure of government.
Whilst they are organising themselves as a business at the moment, and I can well understand why the TIO Board seeks to continue to operate like a business, hence the sale of assets, closing down of branches; the fall back position is always there. But, of course, if TIO does find itself in trouble in the future, then it would be no one other than the Territory taxpayer footing the bill. That, of course, would be a greater debt burden to government and the rest is history; it would mean us coming in here and bellowing and screaming about the poor fiscal management of government. Government running its lines saying: ‘It is dreadful that Wall Street has taken a hiding as a result of the sub-prime mortgage arrangements.’ At which point we would say: ‘No, no, it is all nonsense’, and the same game would be played.
With those observations, I thank the Auditor-General with his ongoing, dedicated work. Few people really appreciate how much work he does and how little of what he does appears in these reports because there is so much more he does, and his work is ongoing and endless.
If you think about the number of annual reports he audits in a very technical and detailed way, as well as producing two of these suckers every year, looking at the government, it is a very full agenda for a bloke who has three or four staff - himself, another auditor and a couple of administration staff. I know he occasionally flicks stuff out to private auditing firms, I believe Deloitte’s picks up a bit of work, but I could be wrong about that. It is just astonishing the amount of work that this small office produces. People also forget the person who fills this position is not an organ of government but rather an organ of this parliament. That is very important distinction to make.
The government has its own auditing process. This bloke works for us and so he reports to us without fear or favour and sees us primarily as his number one client - not government and not government departments. Consequently, the capacity for the government to interfere in the functions of this person is very limited indeed.
I acknowledge his independence. There is only one other person who enjoys such independence, and that is the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is also an officer of this parliament, not an officer of government, and it is between the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General that we get some of the few insights into the operation of government. If you look at the work of the Ombudsman over the last couple of years, she has been thorough and fearless in her task, as has been the Auditor-General.
I am concerned that the government, rather than listening to the Ombudsman and taking heed of her advice, is now choosing to turn on the Ombudsman and single her out for criticism rather than accepting the things she is saying.
Whilst we may not always agree with what the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General have to say about issues, they are officers of the parliament. It is another aspect of the way this government operates, turning on officers of this parliament rather than accepting their advice in a constructive way, is a matter of concern. However, I have courage and faith that both the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman will continue to do their job fearlessly and thoroughly, as is their duty.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s Annual Report. The Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, is always thorough in his investigations. This government makes it absolutely clear that we expect all agencies to comply with the Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations.
For the Department of Local Government and Housing, the Auditor-General found that Territory Housing improved its nett surplus and tenants are paying the appropriate rent. The Auditor-General also found that Territory Housing has a strong asset position which has grown over the previous year. This reflects our increasing investment in new housing and real improvement in housing maintenance and management. There is much more work we will be doing with respect to repairs and maintenance and management; I flagged that with the review of Territory Housing. With the rent collection, we have a specific task force on that and rent arrears are dramatically reducing.
A key finding of the Auditor-General was that the accounting and control procedures were satisfactory. He also noted that past audits have indicated system issues which required enhancement; and the department has taken appropriate action in response this. They have done a great deal of work, and I congratulate all the staff and the CEO for that work.
The agency’s Asset Information System and Government Accounting System have been updated. Over the next 12 months the department will replace its software system to ensure its systems not only meet the Auditor-General’s requirements, but improve the agency’s efficiency. One of the things the new CEO has done was to acquire a new asset management system, and we will see the results of that in the near future.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Local Government, if I could just interrupt. Given it is nine o’clock, you have the opportunity to extend for another 10 minutes or you may stop now and carry on at the resumption.
Mr KNIGHT: One more minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will conclude. I thank the department for all the work they have done. We accept the findings of the Auditor-General and we have implemented a system to ensure practices comply with all his recommendations. I thank Frank McGuiness for all his work. As always he did it very studiously and we look forward to more scrutiny next year.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and thank you, Chief Minister. I was intrigued today when the Chief Minister was asked the first question of Question Time in relation to Hai Win. Hai Win is the shipping company that ships goods and services between Darwin and Shanghai. I was somewhat baffled that the Chief Minister put Hai Win’s withdrawal solely down to a commercial decision; and government expended all the energy they possibly could to see Hai Win stay in the marketplace. Hai Win is one of only three shipping companies that operate out of Darwin, the other two being Swire and Perkins Shipping. So you could say the companies using the port have been knocked back by a third, which is quite dramatic.
I find it an appalling situation. We, on this side of the House, recognise how important international trade, logistics and transport are for the Territory. We have the luxury of being in a unique and strategic location in the world and we should be utilising that location for the benefit of all Territorians. To see a company like Hai Win pull out is disturbing. The reasons they pulled out are: berthing costs are twice that of Townsville, and storage costs are increasing. There are also problems with quarantine and the times it takes to offload and on-load cargo to ships. The problems are with AQIS - a federal government agency.
Having heard the new federal government and the states are going to work cooperatively together and we no longer have the blame game, it stuns me the Territory government cannot do more to speed up some of the quarantine measures in place. Hai Win is moving to Townsville because Townsville does not have the quarantine issues we have in Darwin. This is going to impact dramatically on Darwin.
China is a major trade centre, and Hai Win is an incredibly important company for a whole of range of businesses in the Northern Territory - developers, gas producers, large industry businesses are all users of that service. They will suffer and, if they suffer, Territorians will suffer. What it means is that products coming from or going to China will now have to come from China to Townsville and then on a truck to Darwin, or from Darwin on a truck to Townsville, and to China, massively increasing the time taken to get product there, and massively increasing costs for Darwin businesses and companies.
I do not have a lot of time to speak on this, but I know the government is very keen to promote their support of international trade. I have a copy of the International Trade Strategic Summary from the Department of Chief Minister. It is all gloss, of course, because whilst they talk about China being the number one trading partner in the Territory, they are quite happy to see a business like this leave the Territory - a business so important to Territory businesses. I cannot comprehend how the government can be so nonchalant in relation to this business. I am sure they should be doing much more, and I encourage the government to do a lot more to retain Hai Win at our port ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure I report tonight on the 58th Seminar of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure at Westminster, which was held from 1 to 13 March 2009 in London, which I had the honour to attend. This is the seminar for members of parliament and Clerks.
First, I place on the record my thanks to the United Kingdom Branch of the CPA for their generosity, in particular to the Secretary of the Branch, Mr Andrew Tuggey and also to the coordinator of the seminar, Ms Elspeth Macdonald. This is a very extensive, comprehensive and intensive seminar over a two-week period, which is largely funded by the CPA UK, for around 70 delegates from around the Commonwealth.
The aim of the program was to learn more about accountability and legislative mechanisms; study the structure, administration and funding of parliament and the work of its key office holders; to examine methods to represent and engage better with communities including a constituency visit; to explore contributions parliamentarians can make on the issue of climate change and the global financial crisis; to interact and exchange views with members and officials at Westminster; and to mark and celebrate Commonwealth Day.
The program covered, in general ways: the Westminster parliamentary system; the role of the Speaker; bicameralism; Question Times and different kinds of questions; debates and different types of debates; parliament’s role in taxation and public expenditure; public accounts; the committee system; scrutiny of the Prime Minister; the legislative process; parliamentary standards; Hansard; party discipline; register of members' interests; a constituency visit; a session on industry and parliament trusts; the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme and young people in the parliament; engaging the next generation, as well as a variety of presentations on the Electoral Commission, women in parliament, challenges and opportunities for MPs using the Internet, broadcasting parliament, and engaging with the media. It had very extensive presentations, in particular on the global financial crisis and climate change.
Many of the issues spoken about at this seminar I am hoping we might be able to discuss in this parliament at some time, particularly the matters to do with industry and the parliament - Parliament Trust. This is a trust which has been set up in the United Kingdom where industry leaders come into the parliament, learn about legislation, about how legislation is made and how members of parliament spend time in businesses across the country. It has been very successful over many years. I have had an initial conversation with some business people about that, and I am looking forward to discussing it with members of the House at a later stage.
They have a more extensive version of the Armed Forces Program, which some of us have been involved with here. I have been invited by the Defence Force to go out in the next couple of weeks and be involved in learning about some programs they have. It would be good for our parliament to invite members of the Defence Force to look at legislation, legislative processes, and how you can lobby members of parliament to have different bills put on the agenda. I have spoken to the Commander of Northern Command about this, and I will be making some approaches to them about the possibilities for the future.
Honourable members, I seek leave to table the papers associated with this seminar for the benefit of all members.
Leave granted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the House in relation to a couple of activities I have taken part in over the past two weeks or so.
Last weekend was the Katherine Country Music Muster, which I spoke about in adjournment two nights ago. On the same weekend, I was very fortunate to go to Timber Creek for the annual Big Horse Creek Barra Classic, which was held there over a number of days; sponsored, organised and run by the Katherine Game Fishing Club. I acknowledge the member for Drysdale who made the effort to come to Katherine over the weekend and attend those events with me. He came out to Timber Creek; it is a fairly long drive and it was nice to have some company and also someone to share the driving.
The competition went extremely well. There were 190 competitors who registered and competed in the event, which is probably down slightly on past years but, given the economic crisis, that is not surprising. Overall, the competition was strong. Unfortunately, the numbers of fish were down on past years but, notwithstanding that, there were still some very good fish caught. The largest barramundi was a 130 cm fish caught by a chap from Kununurra. A bit of a shame someone from across the border won a Northern Territory competition, but it was well deserved, and a good effort to land such a fish.
I thank the Katherine Game Fishing Club for organising that event; they are a strong club in Katherine. They have many members and, looking at the number of people from Katherine who went to Timber Creek over the weekend, it is certainly a testament to the hard work and dedication of the organising committee. Although I do not recall the names of all those who were involved in organising it, I acknowledge Greg and Darilyn Wright, and also Merv and Lorna Fischer, who were integral in the organising committee. Also a special mention of Ben Coutts, a local Katherine fellow who has been around forever - I believe he was born in Katherine. Ben compered and MC’d the presentation night, which was a great success.
I was very pleased to show some support for the amateur fishermen who are a very important group to the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory economy; they deserve the support of government. I note from the budget, this government has shown some support in providing monies to upgrade boat ramps and other infrastructure for amateur fishermen. I welcome that inflow of money to the fishing sector.
It is important to record that this side of the House, the opposition, very strongly supports the amateur fishermen and their lobby. We realise the important part they play with input into managing the fisheries across the Northern Territory. They, with the Seafood Council, provide balanced views about how the fisheries should be managed. I look forward to further interaction with those groups in the hope we can bring about some real change and revolution to the fishing industry, and make it a far more sustainable industry in the future.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, on 12 March this year the Hoops 4 Health basketball challenge team conducted a coaching clinic at the Alice Springs Basketball Stadium with children from the Irrkerlantye Learning Centre and various town camps in Alice Springs. At the same time, the ITC athletes had the opportunity to train with and against the remaining members of the Hoops 4 Health basketball challenge team. The feedback from this training session was very positive.
On Friday, 13 March, the Hoops 4 Health team visited the children’s ward and patients from the Alice Springs Hospital, with patients and staff from the rehabilitation centre in Alice Springs. The Hoops for Health mascot, Hooper, was a big hit with the children at the hospital, and the parents and nursing staff had the opportunity to have their photos taken with Hooper and with Anthony ‘the Man’ Mundine. A big thank you to the staff at the Alice Springs Hospital and, in particular, thanks to Chelsea Rogers from the Alice Springs Hospital for organising this fantastic event.
The Friday evening game of the Hoops 4 Health challenge was played in Alice Springs. It was a huge success with a big turnout. The Hoops 4 Health Brown and Hoops 4 Health Blue teams were the two women’s teams that played the curtain raiser to the main game. These teams were made up of Indigenous ladies from Alice Springs, and three from Darwin. The Hoops 4 Health Blue team won this very high standard game.
The Hoops 4 Health men’s team was far too strong for the Alice Springs representative side, but the game was very entertaining with great skill shown by both teams. Hooper, the mascot, again entertained the audience throughout the night, along with the Yirara boys band, which was also a big hit. Half time entertainment was dancing by the Doombul dancers -young Indigenous children who do traditional dancing. A big thanks to Lee and Graeme Willis and the kids for fantastic entertainment.
On 13 March, the Hoops 4 Health team visited Ti Tree School in my electorate of Stuart. Timmy Duggan, the Director of Hoops 4 Health committee, with Anthony ‘the Man’ Mundine, who is the patron, Leroy Loggins, who is an ex-Brisbane Bullets star, Rodney Oge, the courtside announcer for the Sydney Kings, and Andre Moore, another ex-Brisbane Bullets star, conducted coaching clinics at the Ti Tree School. The theme for the Hoops 4 Health team at the school was all about school retention. With great support and help from Zania Liddle, the principal at the Ti Tree School, and Ebony Miller the Sport and Recreation officer with the Central Desert Shire, at Anmatjere country, the trip to Ti Tree was a great success. The kids were entertained by Trendy Trev, who spoke about how important it was to stay at school and get a good education. The children were able to show off their skills to the members of the Hoops 4 Health team, and there may be a few NBL stars of the future at Ti Tree.
At the conclusion of the coaching clinic the Hoops 4 Health team, with all the students from the Ti Tree School, enjoyed a big lunch together, which I was also pleased to attend. The Ti Tree community put on a BBQ at the local park which, I believe, was put on by the Tangentyere Job Shop, the local job network provider, so people could meet and discuss issues around employment, and also catch up with the Hoops 4 Health team, in particular Anthony ‘the Man’ Mundine, who was a huge hit, particularly with the men.
I say a big thank you to the Alice Springs Basketball Association, the sponsors, Kungas Can Cook, Yeperenye Centre Management for all their help and support in making the Hoops 4 Health Basketball challenge a great success.
I congratulate the Binjari community on the fabulous one day art and cultural festival they held late last year. It was truly an original event with the Djilpin dancers from Beswick, the Springwater Band from Barunga, and Pine Creek School leading the excellent entertainment. People travelled from as far away as Ngukurr and Darwin to this family event, which was the first of its kind at the Binjari community.
The Binjari community, in conjunction with Katherine Regional Arts, staged the festival, with a focus on community pride. Due to its success, it will now become a regular event. I wish to pass on my congratulations to the organisers, in particular Toni Tapp Coutts from the Regional Arts Board, and all those involved in making it a great day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I referred in the Auditor-General’s debate to a debt-to-equity ratio of 400% as a possibly projected ratio of the debt.
I have had a chance to look over the Statement of Corporate Intent tabled earlier, and I note and state publicly the debt-to-equity ratio of Power and Water Corporation will be 140% in the year 2011-12. I correct that record in case that information comes back to haunt me. What I recall from the briefing was where they would have been if nothing had changed.
I would also like to speak to a matter arising out of the appropriation debate earlier today and put on the record my appreciation for the speech delivered by the member for Braitling. Not so much for what was in it, but for what it caused to happen.
Members were probably unaware of it, but that was quite a coup de etat this evening for the member of Braitling; because the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, who would have used his appropriation response to outline the vision for the future of government, spent two thirds of the time available to him responding entirely to the member for Braitling; a man who has been in this parliament for less than a year. Yet he has spoken with such vigour and put such pressure on the government, that the Chief Minister was forced to spend two thirds of his budget reply dealing with issues raised by the member for Braitling.
That was a coup beyond measure. It would be the equivalent of a junior shadow minister in the federal parliament capturing Kevin Rudd’s appropriation response; taking Kevin Rudd right off message. A remarkable achievement. I believe the member for Braitling should be proud that within a short time in this House he is able to bring such pressure to bear upon the government of the day that it is forced to seek an extension of time for the Chief Minister, so he can get through his business.
I finish on this note. Yesterday we had the ridiculous situation where the government shut down the debate at 7 o’clock last night. After that I received a telephone call from the Government Whip, in my role as the acting Whip, who told me there was going to be an appropriation bill, six speakers from their side of the House; the A-G report, seven speakers from their side of the House, a few other bits and bobs; I believe it added up to about 21 speakers from their side of the House on various issues.
I find it absolutely remarkable they have not been able to get through that business. I knew the moment I received the call there was no chance the government would be able to get through that business. Yet, last night they shut the House down at 7 pm. For the Leader Of Government Business to stand there and lecture us about getting ourselves organised, and then see this performance of a tired, jaded government cranking along like an old army tank, bits falling off it left, right and centre, tells you how tired and disorganised they are.
Whilst I appreciate their contempt for parliament is complete and without any form of contrition, when that contempt for parliament leaches into their own capacity to do their jobs effectively, then shame on them. They could not with a straight face come into this place - not that they are here at the moment, not one of them - and talk about our side of the House getting organised, to then put on a performance like that is really embarrassing. If any one of them were here, I am sure they would be replying to this. Of course, they are not; they are away doing other things. The Chamber is empty. This would be a breach of standing orders for me to say, but there is no one …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, reference to members not present is not allowed, and you are aware of that.
Mr ELFERINK: There is no one to take the issue up on their behalf.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the Chair, I do, and those comments are disallowed.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Johnston and Member for Araluen; and Member for Casuarina and Member for Sanderson
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Johnston and Member for Araluen; and Member for Casuarina and Member for Sanderson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received two documents relating to pairs from the conclusion of Question Time on Thursday, 7 May 2009 for the member for Johnston, whose pair is the member for Araluen; and for the member for Casuarina whose pair is for the member for Sanderson. That is for the rest of the sitting day after Question Time. The documents have been signed by both the Government Whip and the acting Opposition Whip.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Public Transport Initiatives
Public Transport Initiatives
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House on a range of public transport initiatives which the Henderson government has recently implemented in the Northern Territory. As the Minister for Transport, it gave me great pleasure last month to announce the commencement of the new Darwin bus service to Cullen Bay, Bayview Haven and the Convention Centre.
Importantly, this service also provides public transport options to the Tipperary Waters and Francis Bay areas, and a valuable link to the incoming and outgoing Mandorah Ferry Service which brings many Territorians to our city every day. The new service is a Northern Territory government initiative. It delivers on the 2008 election commitment, and complements our ongoing support for Territorians in providing free public bus travel for seniors, pensioners, carers and students.
Budget 2009-10 allocated $1m for the construction of three park-and-ride facilities in the Darwin rural area. This includes rolling out facilities by the end of 2009 at Humpty Doo, Coolalinga and Noonamah, while also expanding the rural bus network. This will deliver on another election commitment and improve commuter and social transport options in the rural area, cut travel costs for more people, and reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. Rural bus services will be coordinated into the orbital bus service to be introduced in 2010 which will provide for increases in service levels between Darwin, Palmerston and Casuarina.
The Henderson government has a clear commitment to the provision of free transport to major and special events. This initiative has proven road safety outcomes, eases traffic congestion and reduces pollution to our environment.
Recent examples of free bus services include a Rugby League match in Darwin, the Victoria Bushfire Benefit Concert, the NAB Cup match in Alice Springs, the opening of the Leanyer water park water slides and the new wave pool, the senior’s Easter lunch, and Anzac Day services. Furthermore, the local member for Daly, Rob Knight, recently announced a Darwin rural area free bus service will be provided for the first time to transport people to and from BassintheGrass, a great concert later this month. This service complements services already provided to Darwin and Palmerston residents. Madam Speaker, public transport rocks!
As we continue to expand and improve our public transport services, we are also ensuring people who work or travel on our public transport system can do so safely. In March, we launched a pilot project to enable travellers between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek to have access to baby capsules on Greyhound Australia buses. This initiative not only makes travelling easier but also safer, and is a great example of this government working with the private sector for a positive outcome. I commend Greyhound Australia on their proactive and considerate approach to benefit Territorians.
Finally, I am committed to the development of a regional transport strategy for the Territory. Work has already commenced with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure developing a framework for the strategy. Extensive consultation with industry and broader community sectors is to commence soon, and the strategy is due to be completed by November. This very important work is critical to the future development of the Territory and will consider how best to provide transport links between our major and regional centres and communities.
Madam Speaker, the Henderson government is committed to building and growing the Territory, and the initiatives we are putting in place to expand and improve the Territory bus and public transport network are a fine example of this commitment.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report, and compliment him for bringing on board new bus services, and having a renewed focus on the rural area; something that we have spoken about before. After eight long years of this Labor government, it is about time, with the growing population in the rural area, they had a more adequate bus service.
Having a suitable bus service is important to get drink-drivers off our roads and getting people to and from town during the day, and at night when people are more likely to be drinking and driving. The Minister for Transport would be well aware of my private members’ bill on the Notice Paper related to drink-driving and getting drink-drivers off the road. I know the government is not willing to bring that on early to try to reduce the number of drink-drivers, but I acknowledge this bus service will go some way to improving that.
Also, I look forward to the development of the regional transport strategy. That is an important area we need to focus on, especially for the Minister for Transport, and for the Minister for Regional Development.
I was also interested to hear the member for Daly’s announcements - that is good. I am reminded of an announcement he made before the 2005 election, where he promised to build a bridge over the Daly - a bridge over the Daly where, for six months of the year, people who live there cannot get in. The member for Daly talks about Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program, SIHIP - $700m to build housing for Indigenous Territorians. It was an emergency - John Howard money, Mal Brough - it was an emergency. What has he done? How many houses has he built? None!
Members: None!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr GILES: The member for Daly is the man for announcements. He cannot build a bridge, he cannot build a house, but he can sit there and smirk.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I welcome the announcement by the government that the park/drive system is going ahead. It is a pity the Noonamah car park was built before they announced they were going to do the park/drive, because it is a bit of a debacle there at the present time. It is good you are doing that at Noonamah; you should also include a park/drive facility at Howard Springs, possibly near the corner of Howard Springs Road and the Stuart Highway.
In relation to free buses, after some lobbying from both the member for Goyder and me, I am glad the government did allow free buses to BassintheGrass. Minister, you announced all those venues and events you provide free buses for in Darwin; they should automatically include people in the rural area. We need more buses on the weekend. Young people in the rural area who are not old enough to have a licence cannot get to Palmerston late on Saturday, and not at all on Sunday. There definitely needs to be an improvement in services on the weekend to help young people get around.
The bus service should be extended to the Wildlife Park and the Berry Springs area. There is no reason why a public bus service cannot be involved in getting people to some of these tourism facilities. You already do it for places like Crocodylus Park; I do not see why you cannot do it for your own place. Elsewhere in Australia you can go to national parks and tourist facilities using public bus services.
The other area you have missed, minister, is there has been not one iota of bicycle path built in the rural area for at least 10 years. If we are looking at getting people off the road, getting people fit, giving people alternative transport, then the government needs to put its money where its mouth is and build some bicycle paths in the rural area. Also, let us not forget the option of rail as a future means of transport because buses are not the only way to carry people.
Mr McCARTHY (Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for his contribution and the positive element on the new bus services.
In relation to drink-driving, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Review, which is an extensive consultation process, is seriously looking at this issue as well; so government has many initiatives on the table and, of course, the celebration with the Regional Transport Strategy is a great move forward. Then, unfortunately, we ran into some serious carbon emissions there.
I take note of the member for Nelson as a positive, well-spoken, and well-informed local member. I have taken on board your suggestions on locations, routes, and timetabling; that is really important and is the type of idea I feed into the agency - also on the bicycle paths. That gives me great information from the rural area. On the Noonamah car park, I have been there once each week and I am very pleased to see the improvements in that area ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
NT Muster – Tourism Roadshow
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I share with the House the recent success of Tourism NT’s annual product roadshow, the NT Muster. The NT Muster provides a unique opportunity for tourism operators to educate the national travel industry about Northern Territory tourism products. In today’s ever-changing travel marketplace, tourism products are distributed through multiple channels, ranging from online, retail shopfronts, to inbound and wholesale providers. NT Muster is an event which provides sellers from all these distribution channels with the skills and knowledge to promote the Northern Territory as a primary domestic tourism destination.
A key function of Tourism NT is to manage relationships with both trade and industry partners. As part of this charter, Tourism NT manage the NT Muster, which includes the coordination of Northern Territory operator attendance on the travelling roadshow, and ensures the cream of the national travel industry attend the show, thus providing the opportunity for the destination to turn interest into actual sales and visitor numbers.
This year, the muster was held in March, and Tourism NT escorted 39 NT tourism operators, representing 64 products and services, to Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth. The event provides a platform for operators to meet trade professionals in a short period of time, rather than undertaking months of sales calls, which is a time-consuming and costly exercise.
NT Muster offers Northern Territory tourism operators direct exposure to key markets which provide the Northern Territory with the greatest number of domestic visitors, and an opportunity to meet face-to-face with travel industry staff and deliver up-to-date product information. It also provides exposure of products and services to key travel media. In addition to the promotional opportunities, NT Muster provides Northern Territory operators with the opportunity to gain market intelligence directly from people who are actively selling Northern Territory holidays to their clients, and then to fine-tune their products to better meet the needs of visitors to the Northern Territory.
Attendance at this year’s Territory Muster has been strong, with 514 visitors attending the roadshow nationally. There was a feeling from NT operators that many of the attendees are considering the Territory as an important holiday alternative for their clients who would otherwise be considering an overseas holiday in pursuit of different cultures and unique landscapes. Following on from this event, Tourism NT will continue to work with NT operators to ensure they have the relevant tools in place to convert leads generated from NT Muster into actual sales.
Going forward, Tourism NT will distribute a database of all agents in attendance at the Muster to NT operators so they can effectively follow up and further build their relationships. Overall, remarks by participants have been very positive, especially in regard to the quality of agents and the organisation of the roadshow. A number of interstate agents and delegates have also commented the muster stands out in comparison to other states’ travel industry events.
In addition, the Destinations Editor for Travel Talk magazine attended the Perth show, which has resulted in an ongoing program of editorials in the magazine for the ensuing six months. Travel Weekly also attended the Sydney event, which inspired an editorial piece in the magazine featuring a new product in Central Australia - Central Australia Experience, or CAE, the new Indigenous tourism hub which represents Jungala Enterprises, RT Tours Australia, Black Tank, and Rainbow Valley Cultural Tours.
The strong attendance by agents at this year’s NT Muster demonstrated a genuine desire on agents’ behalf to better equip them to sell the Northern Territory to their clients. This is important as it demonstrates the continuing success of Tourism NT’s marketing program, Share Our Story, which works to create the desire and intention to visit the Northern Territory. Events such as the NT Muster ensure our trade partners have the knowledge and enthusiasm to convert that desire into actual sales for our industry.
The annual NT Muster is an important activity and aligned strongly with our focus on the domestic market at this time of downturn in international tourism.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. It is good to hear that NT Muster has again gone well. There is absolutely no doubt about it; we have fantastic tourism operators in the Northern Territory who get around, showcase their product and never fail to impress. It is great to see they have gone to Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. It is important they go to these marketplaces and meet the key agents who send tourists to the Northern Territory.
It might interest the minister to know that last week those agents - the key travel media and the key markets he was talking about in this report - were all here in Darwin. That is right. They were at probably the biggest tourism conference in Australia for the year – the ATEC Symposium. I know the minister spent 10 or 15 minutes giving them a blurb about the Northern Territory before he scurried off somewhere else. That was the last the minister had to do with them.
All of these agents were in Darwin to promote tourism and were very keen to look at our product. I know they were all very impressed with the Territory. I was completely disappointed and very embarrassed by the lack of commitment our government showed to that symposium. No Tourism Minister, no Chief Minister, or any other member of the government could be bothered going to talk to these people when they came to see us. We did not have to spend a fortune trucking our operators around the country. No, these guys came here and the Chief Minister and the Tourism Minister chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore them. I feel completely ashamed that I am involved with a government whose members cannot be bothered getting off their backsides to promote tourism in the NT, particularly when those agents come to the Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired. Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS (Tourism): This is the second time the member for Fong Lim has raised attendance at ATEC. I did attend. The somewhere else I had to go to after I gave my speech at ATEC was parliament. We know what the member for Fong Lim thinks about parliament - somewhere else. At ATEC I met with quite a number of industry people and I took the opportunity to meet with individuals and groups about Northern Territory tourism.
Mr Tollner: Rubbish. You buried your head in the sand.
Dr BURNS: In terms of attendance at a whole range of events, we have not seen …
Mr Tollner: You ignored they were here. You hung out with your comrades.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim.
Dr BURNS: … the member for Fong Lim at any public function - not one. I did not see him at the Seniors’ Easter Party at the Kalymnian Hall, either; I did not see him at any meeting associated with Arafura Harbour. This is the bloke with his head in the sand. He likes to go to fine wine deals, but not the nuts and bolts.
Tennant Creek Foundation
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I report on the innovative work being carried out by my department of Regional Development in Tennant Creek, in regard to the Tennant Creek Foundation.
The Tennant Creek Foundation has been established to provide an overarching commercial vehicle to lease the facilities at Battery Hill Mining Centre and Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Cultural Centre. The foundation will provide a vehicle for economic development in the region and, most importantly, provide employment opportunities for Indigenous people.
Early in 2007, both Battery Hill Mining Centre and Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Cultural Centre approached the Northern Territory government. Both centres acknowledged their struggle to achieve sustainable commercial outcomes and their need to make a significant change in order to move forward. These two facilities are economically, historically, and culturally important to the community of Tennant Creek, and play an important role in the region.
Battery Hill Mining Centre is a well-established facility which runs an impressive mine tour and houses the McLaughlin Mineral Collection, and a social history museum celebrating Tennant Creeks’ gold rush days. The centre is also the home of the Tennant Creek Visitor Information Centre and the site of many corporate and community functions.
Opened in July 2003, the Nyinkka Nyunyu Art and Cultural Centre is owned by the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation and is the home of a sacred site for the Warumungu people. The centre is a world-class, modern art gallery that houses important collections which celebrate local Indigenous history and culture. Both centres have enormous potential for further development. These centres provide tourists with good reasons to spend extra time stopping over in Tennant Creek supporting local hotels, restaurants, clubs and other businesses.
My department works with both Battery Hill Mining Centre Board and Julalikari to broker a fresh approach to the business conducted at the centres. Both boards worked exceptionally well together to establish the foundation. I especially acknowledge the leadership and hard work of Ms Pat Braham from Julalikari Council; Mr Derek McTadden from Battery Hill. Without their dedication and commitment to the foundation it would not have been possible.
On 13 March 2009, with the member for Barkly, I was privileged to be part of the community celebrations to mark the establishment of the foundation in Tennant Creek. The Tennant Creek council has committed over $258 000 per annum for the first two years of operation, and Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation has also committed to its ongoing support. The objectives of the foundation are to manage the business operations at the centre and to encourage learning, understanding and scholarship in relation to the Tennant Creek region and its history, culture and languages.
The foundation is administered by a board of directors who are commercially focused with experience in business. The inaugural Chairman is a well-known Territorian - well-known to all of us here as a well-respected businessman - Mr Bruce Fadelli. Mr Fadelli is a former Tennant Creek resident who has maintained a strong connection with, and a passion for, Tennant Creek. I am confident that under Mr Fadelli’s stewardship the foundation will meet its objectives.
Mr Elliot McAdam commenced with the foundation as its CEO in September 2008. As many in this House know, Mr McAdam is a strong advocate for the people in Tennant Creek and has a proud history of representing the region, including in this parliament as the previous member for Barkly. Since starting as the CEO, Mr McAdam has prepared both centres for the commencement of the upcoming tourist season; leased the caf at Nyinkka Nyunyu, and worked with the staff and accountants to achieve efficiencies. The board is currently focusing on establishment issues such as the potential for heritage listing for Battery Hill Mining Centre and improvements to the Visitor Information Centre.
Madam Speaker, the potential for product development at each centre is exciting and negotiations are taking place for new tours, increased cultural activities and greater use of attractions at both facilities. This initiative is another example of the Henderson government’s commitment to real jobs in the bush. It is an initiative that is already producing results.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Nyinkka Nyunyu and Battery Hill Mining Centre are great places. Every time I am in Tennant Creek I stop at Battery Hill. I do not always stop at Nyinkka Nyunyu, but I stop at Battery Hill. I was there not that long ago with the member for Fong Lim. We stopped at Battery Hill and had a look around – it is a great place.
I recognise the minister talking about the previous member for Barkly, I was sitting here listening and thinking …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: … where can I do some research about the previous member for Barkly. I was going to approach the member for Karama, because she is apparently a good friend of the previous member for Barkly, but I did not have time to approach her about her friendship with the previous member for Barkly.
I note the commitment to regional development, and looking after Elliot McAdam who is a good bloke. I recognise the $200 000 which was put forward to the Tennant Creek Foundation which looks after Nyinkka Nyunyu and Battery Hill Mines, and where the previous member for Barkly is employed as a consultant. I reflected on a previous minister working at the Chief Minister’s office in Palmerston and candidates working in Katherine and Alice Springs, and I said: ‘What have they done in Tennant Creek?’ Well, they have appointed the previous member for Barkly.
I notice the $200 000 which went to the Tennant Creek Foundation last year is really ensuring that the previous member for Barkly has a good job. In the upcoming budget, it has increased from $200 000 to $260 000 - a lot of money towards that.
Also, despite the fact that Tennant Creek Foundation or Nyinkka Nyunyuand Battery Hill Mine will get an increase of $60 000, the department of Regional Development, in what I consider to be a very important area, is getting a budget cut of $414 000 this financial year - that is in Indigenous businesses. You say you are committed to the region, but you are cutting the budget and giving your mates extra money keeping them in jobs …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, it is a shame the member for Braitling continues to play politics with these great initiatives. The member for Braitling …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: The member for Braitling has blown into the Territory in the last few years and puts down people like Elliot McAdam who are born and bred Territorians. It is a real shame and very disappointing that he continues to put Territorians down.
We have the budget this year from the Treasurer. We are investing $1.3bn into infrastructure right throughout the regions. We are about creating jobs and keeping jobs in the Territory. The Tennant Creek Foundation is just another example of how this government is intent on creating and securing jobs in the Territory, no matter where you live - whether it is Tennant Creek or Alice Springs. It is a disappointing response from the member for Braitling, who continues to put people down who were born and bred in the Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (EXPERT EVIDENCE) BILL
(Serial 32)
(Serial 32)
Continued from 17 February 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, at the outset, I seek indulgence of members because of the absence of the member for Araluen, who is unwell. I am sure we all pray for her speedy recovery.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: I hope members will forgive me if my offerings to this House on this particular issue are not as comprehensive as they could have been. I will endeavour to cover the issues in the bill. It is not a long bill, and it can quickly be gleaned from the intent of the bill what is trying to be achieved.
Before I go into the intent of the bill itself, it is worth speaking about what I see as a maturing of the legal profession which has been occurring over the last 20 or 30 years. It is reflected in many areas of the pre-trial process. I am talking about both civil and criminal cases; I am speaking quite generally at the moment. There was a time when the trial was a vehicle by which to examine all issues. If you go back through the history of the development of common law to the 1200s and 1300s a trial was, basically, a process where, whatever the matter, it was sorted there and then on the spot, all evidence was adduced on the spot, and a judge sat in adjudication over the issue. Of course, there were many courts in those days; ecclesiastical courts as well as the common law courts were developing.
As time has passed, arguments and law have become more sophisticated. That is because the people who attend to matters legal have to deal with a much more sophisticated environment. You start to see this in books like Tyrannicide Brief which was written by Geoffrey Robertson, who wrote a book about the trial of Charles I. He juxtaposed the justice offered to Charles I to the justice – or lack of trials - offered to the prosecutors of Charles I by Charles II. If you ever want to see an expos on tyranny and how it compares with those seeking to find justice in our community, it is a worthwhile read, because it is from those systems and principles that we gain our legal system today.
Speaking of more recent times, the last century or so, the pre-trial process is far more comprehensive than what used to happen in pre-trial process. It is for this reason that, in the area of civil law particularly, we have elements like discovery and such things. It is notable that, in this day and age, the law is so well settled on so many issues that, when a person seeks legal advice in a civil matter, they often find themselves going through a process of exchanging letters with the other party, only to discover that the matter is already well settled in law and there is actually no dispute to bring before a Justice at all.
It is my belief about 90% of matters which start with threats of legal action end up without going to court, because wise lawyers offering good advice show, dare I say, judgment in favour of their clients. That judgment is often wise in the sense that they instruct their clients, quite honestly, that their cases would be, potentially, hopeless.
Part of that pre-trial process is the process of discovery. Discovery is a system by which one side of a civil dispute will be seen to extract out of the other side all evidence they can adduce for the purposes of determining the strength of their case. A common act in discovery is to extract from the other side of a litigation a whole pile of documents which will go a long way to either confirming or denying evidence of the matter the plaintiff would be alleging. In such circumstances, discovery and the rules around discovery have become well settled. What can be and what cannot be discovered is well settled and, as a consequence, often you can predict what the result of the trial would be and, in many instances, it would be a foolhardy litigant who would continue to pursue a particular matter. Indeed, in even more recent times, those lawyers who have supported foolhardy litigation themselves have become subject to criticism by the courts - and rightly so.
However, we are not speaking of civil matters. It is important to place what the legislation suggests into a modern context, regarding what happens in the pre-trial process. Whilst expert evidence has been around for some time, the nature of what is expert evidence has been changing in what is available as expert evidence to the courts. There was a time when there was very little expert evidence. Not much could have been adduced from the experts 150 years ago because the sciences and philosophies had not separated themselves to any great extent, and an expert witness may well have been seen by the court as little more than a soothsayer.
In more recent times with the advance of the sciences, particularly the forensic sciences, we now find ourselves in an environment where the soothsaying aspect is far removed and in its place is good, hard evidence to underwrite expert witnesses. Expert witnesses are often people of many years standing in professions and have dedicated themselves to particular fields of study. More recently there have been things like DNA evidence, which has only been around largely for 10 years and is a very recent manifestation of evidence that is available. A court, without any scientific structure around itself, needs to listen to these scientists and give weight to and determine the quality and strength of the evidence they hear It is not surprising, when DNA evidence originally started to be trotted out in courts, the way the numbers work in DNA evidence was misunderstood and, potentially, can be quite complex for the uninitiated.
If you consider this new philosophy of the pre-trial process where you expose more of your case to the other side, as well as the rising nature of expert opinion in evidence, then you find yourself in a wonderful new world.
However, through the criminal process there is a certain amount of protection granted to a person who is accused of a crime. This introduces a new aspect to the debate at hand. It is up to the prosecution, under the principles of our criminal justice system, to prove the allegation against a person beyond reasonable doubt. So, it behoves the prosecution to demonstrate they are able to make the criminal case they are alleging. That means the prosecution, should it go through a committal process for arguments sake, must lay out and bare its hand.
That stands to reason, if you think about it, because it is the Crown, essentially, prosecuting a person for committing a criminal act, as described by an act of this parliament or the federal parliament - or whichever parliament it may be. In such circumstances, it is more than reasonable to say to the prosecuting authority or to the Crown: ‘Make out your case, show us what you have, because we do not have to say anything’. This is where you get the element of the right to silence, a system to which we adhere. The theory is, if you want to allege something, then you make the allegation and you make proof of the allegation before I even have to say ‘boo’.
That is a hideous oversimplification but is, essentially, what happens in the criminal process. Through the committal process, a person who stands accused may not necessarily make a single utterance to the court, and will simply defer the matter for the magistrate to determine that it should be committed to the Supreme Court. Then, the defendant may rest silent until such time as the prosecution makes out its case in the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, it enables a situation to occur where a defence may choose to introduce, at the last moment, some matter of evidence which will cast a new light over the allegations of the prosecution.
However, there are practical considerations with this approach, and they are one of the issues this bill is seeking to address. The practical considerations I refer to are that lawyers are not experts in other fields - for argument’s sake, if you take the observation about DNA evidence. For the defence to seek to introduce an expert witness on DNA, which may take the prosecution by surprise, the physical process is the expert witness comes into the room and gives their evidence. If it is good evidence and supports the defendant’s case enormously, a prosecutor is essentially wrong-footed in such an environment, and may not know the correct questions to ask.
This brings me back to the point that I was making about the pre-trial process and how the civil process has advanced enormously in allowing a pre-trial trial, if you like, between the lawyers. We do not want to, in this place, denigrate or diminish the right of an individual to ask the Crown to make their case. Nor do we seek in this parliament to diminish the right of the defence to offer a defence on behalf of their client, or for a person who stands accused to offer a defence to the Court.
However, this bill suggests a more commonsense approach. It is not fair to a prosecutor to ask them to deal with an expert witness or the evidence they seek to adduce from that witness in an instant, which is why I turn to the explanatory notes. What the government is intending by this bill, and I quote section 331A(2)(a)(b) Notice of expert evidence:
- If the accused intends to adduce any expert evidence during the trial, the accused must give written notice in accordance with this section to the court and the prosecution:
Of course, this then challenges the concept of being able to offer a defence after you have seen all the evidence the prosecution has, and it creates a tension in the legal environment in the fact that the Crown must make out its case. However, the yardstick we have to use in such circumstances is necessarily the yardstick of procedural fairness.
It is procedurally unfair, in the opinion of members on this side, to determine that a prosecutor - who everyone knows is not an expert in DNA evidence or psychology, or anything of that nature - has a right to know exactly what the evidence is that is being proposed. The purpose of this comes under the microscope in an overall fashion, and it is this: what is fair in producing a fair trial. In terms of producing a fair trial, this is fair, because it will then enable the prosecution to make sufficient enquiries to discover a couple of things: (1) whether the expert evidence is going to be just token and, therefore, does nothing to diminish the quality of the prosecution case, or importantly, (2) the expert evidence is of such a nature that it actually challenges the prosecution case so successfully that it renders the prosecution case unviable. That is an important note to make.
The exchange of information is, essentially, part of a pre-trial trial, similar to the civil environment but, in this instance, the expert evidence may well provide information which will demonstrate the innocence of a particular defendant. That is an important thing we have to consider: the fairness of the trial process which we are turning our attention to here today. If we do not go down this path and we find witnesses are giving evidence and capturing or wrong-footing a prosecution through a tactical response rather than a response which is embedded in the principles of a fair trial, then a prosecution which seeks to challenge the witness evidence at a later date may find themselves having to recall that witness and challenge the evidence of that witness.
The problem of challenging the evidence of a witness after the witness has left the stand is that you come into a situation where you break the well-established rule in a case called Browne v Dunn. I will give honourable members a concept of what that was about.
Browne v Dunn was a case that dates back to 1893. It relates to a document which was signed in 1891 by a group of people. I shall not go into the details of the case at length, but it was signed by a group of people many of whom - not all - were later required to give evidence in relation to the document. The issue which arose out of the document was a civil one. It was a matter of what we now call defamation; in those days it would have been called liable. It was a defamation action, so it was a civil matter.
What came out of that was, at a later point, the defence ran a line of argument which went contrary to the 40 or so witnesses who had given evidence in relation to the document. At no point was it put to any witness in the process an allegation the document was, in any way, false. However, it was later raised as a defence. None of the witnesses who were able to attest to the genuineness or otherwise of the document had the question put to them; and that is an issue of procedural fairness.
Lord Herschell is worth reading in relation to the rule on Browne v Dunn. I will quote Lord Herschell, who was the Lord Chancellor who dealt with this. No, I will actually quote from the Companion to Uniform Evidence Law on page 78, in which Lord Herschell made some comments - but there are also some editorial notes which is why I am not quoting His Lordship directly.
After reading the document, his Lordship stated the facts from which it arose, and said that it was hopeless for the appellant to contend, with regard to the six signatories who had given evidence for the defendant, that the document was not perfectly genuine, drawn up in a perfectly legitimate way, and really intended by the parties to be what it appeared on the fact of it to be.
I will not quote the whole quote from the book, but I will go on to a direct quote from His Lordship:
- My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give him an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him and, it seems to me, that it is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of the case, but is essential to fair play and fair dealing with the witnesses.
In other words, it is difficult for an alleging party - in this case, in a civil case - to assert after a witness has given evidence that some component of the witness evidence is wrong. I put that into the context of the modern criminal trial, and I will return to the issue of the rule of Browne v Dunn in criminal trial shortly. If you put that into the context of a criminal trial, what it basically says is that, if a prosecutor hears evidence from an expert witness which he was not expecting to have to deal with and, suddenly, finds he has not represented the case effectively, then it is difficult for the prosecutor to make certain assertions.
If an expert witness gives evidence and, because of the in-expertise of the prosecutor or defence lawyer - the rule, as I understand, works both ways - they cannot then go back and do research to discover there is a major flaw in the evidence the expert has given, and then come back into court and run some argument contrary to the witness' own testimony, because that is unfair to the witness and the witness has no chance to answer such an assertion. Consequently, that is why the rule in Browne v Dunn exists.
Then, you have to go through a complicated process, or there are challenges a prosecutor then faces in recalling the witness. It is possible to recall a witness, and I turn to that particular issue shortly. However, the rule of Browne v Dunn has found its way into Australian law. I turn to Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, Administrative Law Division: Hunt J [1983] New South Wales Law Reports at page 16, which refers to Justice Wells and Reed and Kerr, and makes comments in relation to the fairness of making assertions about witness evidence to which the witness was not able to respond. Justice Wells says two things. First, it deals with the common justice to the witness; and second, that it is based on the practical needs of the trial and the adversarial system that a judge or jury is entitled to have presented to them issues of fact that are well and truly joined on by the evidence.
So, once again, there is this urge in the courts to be able to protect the integrity of witness evidence; that if witness evidence is to be challenged then it is to be challenged in such a fashion that the witness has a right of reply. This has manifested slightly differently in the two jurisdictions as England and Australia have grown up. In England, of course, Browne v Dunn still has weight, but it enables a Justice to actually direct a jury.
I now quote from Uniform Evidence Law: Text and Essential Cases by Peter Bayne:
- The commonsense notion is that ‘if a witness is not cross-examined on a particular matter, upon which he has given evidence, then that circumstance will often be a very good reason for accepting the witness’s evidence upon that matter’.
It goes on to say:
- If W’s evidence has not been challenged at all, or only by evidence of a ‘flimsy or equivocal character’, there is a view that the trial judge may refuse to permit the submission to be put in address to the jury, or might direct the jury to ignore the submission, (or so instruct her or himself on a trial by judge alone).
Which means if there is a final submission by a prosecutor which challenges a witness and there is no evidence to support the quality of that challenge, in England there is a capacity for the jury to be directed not to hear the evidence at all. However, in Australia, there is a slightly different variation on that theme. From Paric and John Holland Constructions, Justice Samuel said:
- While I do not think that it would be right to conclude that the absence of cross-examination entailed an acceptance of the evidence given, it certainly enables that evidence to be regarded by any tribunal of fact with a greater degree of assurance than might otherwise have been the case.
Slightly different in function but it is well established, both here and in England, that you have to deal with this rule because of procedural fairness - and that is what this bill is all about - it is about procedural fairness. Then you have the added challenge as a prosecutor, as you become aware of flaws in the expert witness evidence, of dealing with the matter which now flows from it. Say, for argument’s sake, there is a fundamental flaw in the quality of an expert witness evidence before the court. You then have to go through the very difficult process of reopening the case, or reopening criminal matters, and that is a problem. It has been a matter to which the Australian courts have turned their minds.
Probably one of the better guides is given by Chief Justice Gleeson in Seymour and Australian Broadcasting Commission. He says, at page 236:
- This kind of problem may arise at different times the litigation. It may arise during the trial. Thus, where a party fails to cross-examine a witness at all or on a particular matter, it may be prudent for the trial judge at the time to draw the attention of counsel in an appropriate way to the effect this may have on later conduct of the trial. It may be that the question arises at a later stage in the trial when counsel seeks to call evidence contradicting the witness or discrediting evidence, or seeks to address upon the basis that the witness’ evidence is untrue. The trial judge may then have to determine what course should be followed. Sometimes the interests of justice may be served having the witness recalled for cross-examination. Sometimes the circumstances may be such that the only way in which justice can be achieved is directing that, for example, it is not open to counsel, in address, to make such a suggestion. What is to be done will depend, as I have said, upon the circumstances of the case.
This business of having to come back into court and demonstrate you have new information about the evidence the witness has given is a real challenge to the courts because it immediately throws up a question mark over the quality of the trial a defendant or an accused person has been subjected to. This bill seeks to avoid that occurring. If you want to see the complexities that arise out of such criminal cases, then I urge honourable members to read Shaw v R 1952. It is an Australian case where Justices Dixon, McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto went through a process of determining when you can reopen a criminal case.
The importance of all of this, as I have said several times, is fairness needs to be achieved. It is clearly a process of unfairness where technical and difficult evidence is examined for the first time, on the face of it, whilst the expert is sitting in the witness box. It has the potential to lead to an injustice, and it may be an injustice that works in either direction. It may convince a jury of the value of the expert witnesses’ strength that their client is innocent, but it may just as easily convince a prosecution of the innocence if they know in advance what this expert is going to say.
It is through the process of avoiding the rules of Browne v Dunn and trying to find a fairer criminal justice system that the Attorney-General has brought this matter before the House. I ask the Attorney-General a couple of specific questions in relation to the bill. I am sure she will assure me or direct me during her summation as to whether she has addressed the issues.
I seek the Attorney-General’s guidance on something. It is my understanding - and I cannot place my hand on it at short notice - that in New South Wales there is also a requirement for a declaration of some description to be made by the expert witness, or by the defence, as to the remuneration which is provided to the expert witness for the evidence they offer. The reason for this, I suspect, is to instruct, particularly a jury, about the bondage by which a witness finds him or herself bound to a particular case. For argument’s sake, if an expert witness in psychology was giving evidence on behalf of a defendant and it was determined the psychologist was receiving $0.5m for their evidence that day, a question might be raised in the jurors’ minds as to the veracity and integrity of that expert advice.
Whilst it is a highly subjective issue for a juror to contend with, and also an extreme example, one can understand why jurors would like to have that information before they place a certain weight or quality upon the information they receive from the expert witness. That being the case, I am wondering if the government has turned its mind to that particular issue as well, because it might be quite informative to a jury to know how much an expert witness is being paid. One of the great criticisms of the modern judicial environment is people with money tend to escape punishment for their crimes more often; that is, as the general argument goes, they can afford better defence.
If you look at the environment of the court system - I recently spent a day with the Legal Aid Commission, and I would like to thank Sue Cox for her indulgence in allowing me to spend a day, or two sessions, with the Legal Aid Commission just following their lawyers around - you start to understand how much of a truism that is. If you see a private firm which bills out $300 or $400 an hour, depending on the firm and the service they are providing, then you can buy yourself a certain quality of legal representation. Without for one second diminishing the passion of the lawyers who work in the legal aid profession, their caseloads alone leave you with the impression that they can only do but the very best under very limited circumstances.
The lawyer I spent the day with at Legal Aid was dealing with upwards of 30 or 40 clients. That, of course, means that the quality of his attention must be split amongst 30 or 40 clients. Whereas a lawyer hired privately probably deals with one or two matters in the lower courts on a bail and arrest day. That percolates through to the quality of the defence in a criminal trial. If, in the case of a criminal trial - and we are now talking about the Supreme Court - a defendant is calling in numerous expert witnesses to support an assertion, then I believe it is within the realms of fairness for the jury to know, and even the judge to know, what payment is being made to the expert witness. As I said before, it is a highly subjective thing, and a jury is best positioned to make a wise decision when it is fully informed of all of the facts, including the nature of what is happening in the trial process.
I ask the Attorney-General to turn her mind to that particular issue when she replies here today. I do not know if that has been looked at or not; I find no reference to it in the second reading speech or in the bill. However, I ask the Attorney-General to turn her attention to it.
As I said at the outset, we support this bill because it simply encompasses the principles of fair conduct. In conclusion, you will see the structures of the legal system have changed, particularly over the last 100 years. Expert evidence is far more technical than it used to be; far beyond the realms of mortal lawyers to understand psychological, DNA and forensic evidence of ballistics, and all those other things, sufficiently well to expect them to cross-examine on those particular issues without notice. The principles in this bill are designed to achieve an outcome which will not see breaches of the rule in Browne v Dunn but, rather, see an outcome where there are informed lawyers walking into a courtroom.
We, on this side of the House, acknowledge this in a small way diminishes the right of the defendants’ silence leading up to a criminal trial. It diminishes it inasmuch as the prosecutor will have to know in advance the details about the expert and, more importantly, information and the substance of the proposed evidence. To signal what the substance of the proposed evidence will be is, in part, to signal what you intend to run as a defence from a defence team.
This is not a matter I take lightly. As a legislator, I am aware of the principles our criminal justice system affords the accused. I am always cautious, as I am sure are all members on this side of the House, in diminishing those principles of protection of the rights of an accused to receive a fair trial. However, we then have to weigh the problems we have on the other side of the debate as to what is fair to the trial process. To ask a defendant to give notice of expert evidence and the substance of that evidence, enables parties to prepare for a trial more fully. It will avoid the nasty and difficult process you have to go through to reopen trials. It will avoid, in the worst circumstances, appeals being successful on the grounds the trial did not proceed properly. On balance of those two separate and competing considerations, I am of the opinion, as are members on this side of the House, that this is good law.
Madam Speaker, it is for that reason the government can enjoy our support in relation to this particular bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will probably be shorter; I do not have the legal background the learned member for Port Darwin has in relation to this bill. However, I understand the basics of it - to have a fairer process. To put it in simple terms, it is trying to stop sneaky business - someone surprising …
Mr Elferink: Yes, that is what I said.
Mr WOOD: That is right. … someone putting evidence forward at the last minute, which no one knows about, trying to get the accused off - that is not the legal terminology, but that is what it is about.
I have a few questions I would like to ask about the bill. I had a briefing from the department, and I thank the minister for that briefing. I ask these questions now because they might be dealt with when the minister speaks in reply. They relate to proposed new section 331A. My first question is in relation to proposed new section 331A(1). Why does this principle not apply in other courts? If we are trying to stop someone bringing in so-called experts at the last minute to try to win a case, could that same principle not apply in other courts?
The other question is regarding the proposed new section 331A(2)(b) in relation to the accused intending to produce expert evidence during the trial. The accused must give written notice in accordance with this section to the court and prosecution. It says: 'within another time allowed by the court'. I would like to know how that works in practise. The principle here was to give at least 14 days notice. The proposed new section 331A(2)(b), is basically saying we could allow less than 14 days. How would it actually work? How would someone apply to have less than 14 days to produce written notice?
Another question is in relation to proposed new section 331A(7). This section is mentioned in the last paragraph of the second reading. It says:
- (7) If the accused contravenes any provision of this section:
- (a) the court may, on application by the prosecution:
- (i) if the jury have been sworn - discharge the jury and adjourn the trial; or
(ii) otherwise - adjourn the trial; and
- (b) the court or prosecution may make comment to the jury in relation to the contravention (but must not suggest that, because of the contravention, the accused is guilty of the offence to which the trial (relates).
It says in the explanatory notes, not the second reading speech, there are sanctions for failure to comply with the notice requirements; namely, the trial can be adjourned, the jury can be discharged, or the court or the prosecution can make comment to the jury about the contravention. It uses the word ‘sanctions’, but there does not seem to be much sanction against the person who contravenes the requirement. My question is: is there any form of penalty to someone who contravenes this section of the act? I do not see that necessarily as a sanction. It is a cost to the taxpayer, but it is not necessarily a sanction on the person who was required to bring their expert evidence before the court at least 14 days before the start of the trial. I wonder what is meant by sanctions. I will leave those questions with the minister.
Madam Speaker, I support the amendment. If I feel the answers are not adequate, I will probably ask to go to committee, but we will just see what comes back in reply.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support this bill which, essentially, proposes amendments requiring the defence to notify of its intention to call expert evidence, which would make a trial process fairer, would reduce court time and costs, and reduce trauma to witnesses. These amendments to the Criminal Code bring the Northern Territory into line with other jurisdictions in Australia and overseas.
In this day and age, with advancements in technology and science, the nature of evidence has become much more complex, making the task of those in the judicial system all the more challenging. A quick Google of the words ‘expert evidence’ brings with it countless results to suggest it is not only an important field in the legal system, but one which has generated a good deal of research, study and surveys highlighting the growing complexity of expert evidence and indicating the need for some reforms.
From one paper I read, the key findings and outcomes, entitled Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence an Empirical Study, the authors write:
With the use of expert evidence increasing and its complexity at times being alienating for lay decision-makers, the perspective of the judiciary is important because judges, more than any other participants in the civil, family law and criminal justice systems, consistently see expert witnesses and reports and have an opportunity to evaluate them from a dispassionate standpoint.
To have the ability to evaluate from a dispassionate standpoint may be fine for a judge who, in the course of their work, constantly comes in contact with expert evidence, but it is all the more difficult for a jury of men and women who do not have that familiarity and are very much the lay decision-makers.
However, one of the issues around expert evidence is highlighted in another paper entitled Access to Civil Justice Report by Lord Woolf in 1995, and it gets to the crux of the matter:
- Expert witnesses used to be genuinely independent experts. Men of outstanding eminence in their field. Today they are in practice hired guns. There is a new breed of litigation hangers-on, whose main expertise is to craft reports which will conceal anything that might be to the disadvantage of their clients.
Cynical though this may sound, we must remember that an independent expert’s ultimate duty is to the court, not to the engaging party. It has long been accepted that specialised areas of knowledge, where relevant to the determination of a disputed factual issue, should be explained to the jury by experts in the field because the jury can be presumed to be unfamiliar with such areas. This does something to ensure that the jury does not draw erroneous inferences from the evidence before it, and it is properly equipped to determine how much weight, if any, to give to the evidence to which the expert relates. If the role of the expert is to assist the court to determine the issues in dispute, then the court must be able to assess the evidence put forward, including the independent expert’s opinion.
As the Minister for Justice said in her second reading speech, the fact that the Northern Territory, unlike the majority of jurisdictions in Australia, does not have legislation requiring defence to disclose an intention to call expert evidence means the prosecution can be taken by surprise during a trial. This means the prosecution is not afforded sufficient opportunity to assess or to scrutinise the evidence.
By making it necessary for the defence to notify the court of the intention to call an expert witness, it will provide a greater level of fairness in Supreme Court jury trials, where the prosecution is already required to disclose all evidence prior to the trial. It will improve the efficiency of jury trials by ensuring the calling of an expert witness does not increase the time taken for the trial by delaying the trial, and costs in resolving the court case are not increased as a result of delays. It will improve efficiency as the prosecutor knows the defence intends to call an expert and will know what the person’s opinion is assisting cross-examination of the witness and assessing the evidence.
This bill is about fairness and increasing efficiency in the Northern Territory’s criminal justice system. I also note the courts, members of the legal profession, and judges of the Supreme Court have been consulted with regard to proposed changes to the legislation, and the majority were supportive.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for Justice for this bill and I commend it to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have listened closely to the debate so far. This amendment is non-controversial and, as I understand it, will improve the law. This is one of the very few occasions I have the opportunity to come into this place and say something the government has done improves the law, because it is not exactly their strong suit. When it comes to criminal activity and crime in the Northern Territory the government is pretty average, to say the least ...
Ms Purick: Very average.
Mr TOLLNER: Very average. In relation to this particular bill, I have concerns that the government has no plans in place to ensure that our courts are freed up, time is made available, and that our gaols are freed up. As we know, the courts are chock-a-block with cases and our gaols are chock-a-block. We are told that we are demolishing our existing prison and we are going to blow another $300m on a new prison which, we are informed, will be full within three years of its construction.
We are happy with this legislation because it gets the balance right between the rights and the responsibilities of the prosecutors and the courts but, obviously, it will put in place a few delays in trials and so on. Courts are currently chock-a-block; further delays are only going to exacerbate the problems. Sadly, this is something the Territory government has not turned its eye or attention to at all.
In my own electorate, there is only one issue of major concern to people and that is the issue of crime. Crime abounds, violent activity abounds, antisocial behaviour abounds. It never seems to stop. I am called up at all hours of the day and night by concerned citizens who cannot seem to get police around to their places. On many occasions I have attended places where there have been riots, violent activity, noise problems or antisocial behaviour problems, only to find that I arrive there before the police, irrespective of the fact that the police, in some cases, have been contacted five or six times ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know the member for Fong Lim is vitally interested in supporting this legislation, but it goes to relevance. He is straying far and wide now.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I remind you of Standing Order 67, No digression from the subject, and remind you that this is legislation that is before the House. If you can direct your comments directly to the bill. I have already allowed you a level of latitude but if you could keep your comments directly related to the bill, which is about expert witnesses.
Mr TOLLNER: Of course, Madam Speaker, and that is exactly what I was talking about. It is no surprise to me that the Treasurer would again try to gag my discussion, try to shut me down ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! No one is trying to gag the member opposite and his …
Mr Tollner: Here we go, doing it again. As if you are not! What are you doing on your feet then?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … discussion. The Deputy Chief Minister merely pointed to an issue of relevance which goes back to the standing orders which govern the debate in this parliament. The member for Fong Lim should be aware of them.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Member for Fong Lim, if you can continue and bear in mind the comments I made previously.
Mr TOLLNER: I heard you, Madam Speaker. It comes, as I say, as no surprise to me that the Leader of Government Business and the Treasurer would try to stand over me, try to stop my discussion on what is a very important bill. This is the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill. I believe I am talking about the Criminal Code. I believe the Criminal Code is inexplicably linked with crime and the way of dealing with crime. The fact is, we on this side of the House know that the government is soft on crime – absolutely soft on crime. They are wishy-washy.
It is great to see that they finally came up with a bill that seems likely to work. This mob on the other side is nothing but a pack of standover merchants and bullies …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr TOLLNER: … who are trying to constantly gag debate and discussion on something that is incredibly important ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please pause, member for Fong Lim.
Ms LAWRIE: I know the member for Fong Lim is keen to be kicked out of this Chamber. He is accusing members opposite him of behaviour that is offensive. I ask him to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. However, member for Fong Lim, I have reminded you of Standing Order 67. I would like you to refer to particular parts of the bill, or I will ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, this bill is at the front of my mind in this discussion. It is inexplicably linked with crime in our community; it is a measure of dealing with criminal activity. That is what this bill is about. It is about …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! As the member for Fong Lim has already been instructed, he is digressing from the point. I have participated in this debate. I have talked specifically about the bill. I believe the member for Fong Lim is taking an unacceptable degree of latitude in this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek some advice. Member for Fong Lim, I ask you once more to link your comments directly to the bill or the second reading speech, otherwise I will be asking you to resume your seat. Standing Order 67.
Mr TOLLNER: Certainly, Madam Speaker, and I will reiterate that the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill 2009 (Serial 32) has everything to do with crime in our community. I cannot understand why members opposite do not want to hear about crime in our community, because that is exactly what this bill is about ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, the member for Fong Lim has not read the legislation - it is not about crime in our community. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. It is about the defence having to provide notice of an expert they will call before a jury trial. The member for Fong Lim is really digressing widely from this legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have reminded you for the final time of Standing Order 67. Your comments need to relate to the bill, not about a general matter to do with crime; it needs to be related to the bill. You may continue with those comments in mind.
Mr TOLLNER: When it comes to the matter of expert evidence, expert evidence is being provided in criminal trials. Criminal trials involve crimes. I cannot understand how you can possibly talk about the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill without talking about the levels of crime in our community and how we deal with that crime. It is an absolute no-brainer. The objections I am hearing from the other side about talking about crime show me it is a government more obsessed with spin than actually looking at the real problems out there in the community - and here we go again ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is, wilfully, I believe, trying to be kicked out - that is his aim - ignoring your clear directions from the Chair. The member for Fong Lim likes to ignore the standing orders of this parliament. The standing orders of this parliament direct how our debates occur.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, I will allow you to continue, but there is to be no digression. I will not take any more points of order at this stage, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I read from the second reading speech:
- This bill aims to make the trial process fairer, reduce court time and costs, and to reduce trauma to witnesses.
Let us talk about trauma to witnesses. What sort of trauma might witnesses have from being beaten up, which is a regular occurrence in our community? What sort of trauma are witnesses going to have who have their cars smashed to pieces and torched? What sort of trauma are witnesses going to have who are constantly assaulted in parks by drunken itinerants? That is what this debate is about. This debate is not just about expert witnesses. This debate is about a whole range of issues in relation to crime and trauma to witnesses.
I cannot understand how you can expect a person to talk about amendments to the Criminal Code without talking about crime - and crime is the single biggest issue we have in this community. It is the single biggest issue and all we have - here we go now, the minister for frivolous points of orders …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Could the member direct his comments through the Chair please, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you may resume, but you seem to be digressing. Keep the comments … I beg your pardon?
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I was just muttering under my breath.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. You may continue, bearing in mind, once again, Standing Order 67.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, crime is the biggest issue in our community. It is the single biggest issue Territorians are facing, and having to deal with. They are sick of being unable to use the parks because of drunken itinerants. They are sick of the levels of antisocial behaviour that occur on our streets. They are sick of the violent crime they are regularly confronted with. They are sick of having their houses and their cars broken into …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! As the Attorney-General, I say this is clearly a digression from the legislation before us. The bill is about criminal procedure, not crime itself, not crime where it occurs, not the levels of crime; it is about criminal procedure …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You gave an instruction to this House that you would take no more points of order from either side in relation to the issue of relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: At that time, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: You are taking it now.
Madam SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?
Mr ELFERINK: I said I hear you are taking them now.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, member for Port Darwin.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have given clear instructions. I believe the member for Fong Lim is reflecting on your decision, and he is going against the decisions you currently made. He is reflecting on the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim made no reflection on the Chair at all. He did not even talk to the Chair, or about the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have asked you to recall that Standing Order 67 allows for no digression. This is your last opportunity to not digress from the topic, or I will ask you to resume your seat.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I now get the point. The whole idea of this debate is we stand up here and we throw confetti all over the Attorney-General and tell her how wonderful she is. That is what this is about, because anyone who says anything which would be construed as not nice or not complimentary to the Attorney-General, is instantly sat down and shut up. That is what this whole debate is about. We cannot talk about crime …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe the member for Fong Lim is reflecting on the Chair and the standing orders of this parliament. I know a little about this legislation. This legislation is about putting procedures in place so people get a fair trial and ensuring evidence cannot be pulled out of a box at the last moment to get people off. There have been a couple of cases that were named, and if the member spoke to those cases he would be relevant.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Fong Lim?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, who has the call here?
Madam SPEAKER: Not you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Is the minister allowed to stand up and have a debate?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, I have repeatedly asked you to be mindful of Standing Order 67. Is it your intention to follow my direction?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, it always has been.
Madam SPEAKER: Then, you may continue. However, member for Fong Lim, if you do not follow my direction on this occasion, I will be asking you to resume your seat or to withdraw from the Chamber. Member for Fong Lim, you may continue.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am making every attempt to follow your direction.
I cannot divorce crime from the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill. As I said, even in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech she refers to crime, and she refers to court times and process fairness and reducing trauma to witnesses. I cannot understand how you can discuss this bill without discussing some of those issues. That is what amazes me. Every time I want to discuss some of those issues, because I do not say it in complimentary terms to the Attorney-General, I get a range of the comrades on the other side jumping up calling frivolous points of order.
It just goes to show, Madam Speaker, that these guys have absolutely no concern for crime in our community. They do not want to hear the issues that are of concern to constituents out there. They do not want to hear about the problems that concern people. All they want to do is gag debate and stop me talking about the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill, because it does not fit in with their plans on how this debate should run. That is what this is all about ...
Ms Lawrie: Standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER: That is exactly what this is all about. You stand up, you bleat, you carry on, you get on your high horse in order to shut down debate, to stop people talking about those issues that are a concern to the people in the electorate, the people out there in voter land. You want to shut down that sort of talk, and all you want to hear about is how glowing the member for Fong Lim can be about the Attorney-General and the wonderful job she has done in putting together a bill - probably for the first time since I have been in this place - that the parliament agrees on. Well, that is great.
I have already said we support this legislation. It is rare that we come in here and actually support something that the Attorney-General, in particular, puts together, because she has a reputation for tardiness and laziness - a reputation for being loose with the language …
Ms Lawrie: Is there anything about the bill? Anything at all about the legislation in what you have to say?
Mr TOLLNER: I am talking about the legislation.
____________________
Statement by Speaker Relevance to Debate - Member for Fong Lim
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I have been listening - this is not about the bill. I ask you to resume your seat.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to resume your seat.
____________________
Motion
Dissent from Speaker’s Ruling
Dissent from Speaker’s Ruling
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I move – To suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent me from dissenting from the most recent ruling made by the Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: You do not need to suspend standing orders.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I have had a gutful of coming into this place and being constantly shut down, bullied, being stood over by members of the government, being told what I say is …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is talking about standover. He is leaning right over, almost right over this table and being aggressive. He should be directing his comments through the Chair. This is a parliament, not a pub …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, direct your comments through the Chair. Resume your seat, member for Katherine.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am directing my comments through the Chair. I have referred to the government, members opposite. No comment I have made has not gone through the Chair. The fact is I try my hardest to follow proper parliamentary procedure. Everything I do I try to go by the book, the standing orders of this parliament.
I am continually howled down. I know why I am continually howled down. I am howled down because some people in the government, over the other side, do not like what I say. They do not like what I say; they do not like hearing the truth. They do not like hearing the reality. The fact is, this is a government of standover merchants.
I have to tell them, Madam Speaker, I am not some businessman they can blackmail and dictate to, and standover and bully …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is accusing members of the government of blackmail.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is not an unparliamentary comment!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to withdraw the comments, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is not an unparliamentary comment.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is clearly being quite dismissive of your ruling …
Mr Tollner: All right. For these purposes, I withdraw.
Dr BURNS: … he is challenging the power of the Chair in this place. To move a motion of dissent is one thing, but to do what he is doing is quite another.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I asked you to withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I said these guys were a pack of standover merchants and thugs. I intimated that I was not a businessman who could be stood over, intimidated and bullied – like some of them claim to be.
The whole exercise of this parliament is turned into a complete farce. We see at every opportunity the debate of issues important to Territorians being cut off at the knees. Here we are debating the Criminal Code amendment bill and you order me, Madam Speaker, to sit down.
You say I cannot talk about crime. That is why I am dissenting from your ruling. Crime and the Criminal Code amendment are inextricably linked. That is what all this is about. It is about locking up criminals, making sure we get our justice system right. For some reason we cannot talk about criminals and justice in the same sentence in the same debate. This is appalling. Why can we not talk about this? Because of the sensitive people over the other side - all the comrades. If someone actually says something nasty or they do not like, puts a little truth into the arena, they come out with all guns blazing. They are like schoolyard bullies...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: … absolute schoolyard bullies. Thugs and standover merchants …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr TOLLNER: … who turn up, threaten, intimidate and the minute someone calls their bluff they chicken out …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Gutless; cowards and curs.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He is using offensive descriptions of members. He has absolutely no regard to the decorum, the civility by which this Chamber operates under standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw the last comments, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Which ones in particular, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: The one that referred to members in an unparliamentary fashion, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not realise – I withdraw - I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: This is the point, Madam Speaker, every time someone says something that is not particularly nice about members opposite, they get offended and soft. We know they are made of sugar, they all have glass jaws, and I am asked to withdraw a comment. Why? Why am I asked to withdraw a comment? Because they are so sensitive. I mentioned something last night about the member for Karama and a push to shut down the parliament at 9 pm because she was tired. Well, that was offensive and I had to withdraw that comment.
I had to withdraw comments because the member for Johnston has some twisted point of view on the term ‘gag girl’; he finds that somehow offensive. I had to withdraw that. Why? Because you were offended by it. What do we have? A pack of softies in this place; cannot say a word against you. Wrap them up in cotton wool, that is dead right ...
Mr Knight: Go up another octave, mate, you will be up to falsetto in a moment. Keep going.
Mr TOLLNER: You sit there and you laugh about it, you think it is all so funny, you think it …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You think it so damn funny that you have managed to manipulate this place, twist it and turn it into a complete abrogation of what it is supposed to be. Well, shame on you all. Shame on all those who sit behind you and sit there and …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The government continues with interjections. They razz us about interjecting regularly but, apparently, it is all right for them to interject.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I ask you to sit down, please. In fact, all members were interjecting then, not just government members. I remind you of Standing Order 51, honourable members.
Mr TOLLNER: Again, it seems that government can get away with whatever they want. They can sit in here, they can bag us, they can say whatever they like about us, call us drunks, say we are out at the pub, asleep in our cars, and there seems to be no recourse - absolutely no recourse. The minute you say someone on the other side wants to go to bed early, we have to withdraw those comments ...
Ms Lawrie: An absolute disgrace.
Mr TOLLNER: This place is a disgrace; you are dead right, member for Karama. This place is a disgrace, because we are discussing and debating the Criminal Code amendment, and you jump up and run so many points of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to make your comments directly to the motion you have put, which relates to the dissent for this particular motion, not these other broader comments.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I was doing. I was saying that when I was discussing the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill and talking about crime, you ruled that I cannot talk about crime. You say it has nothing to do with the bill. I cannot understand that logic, and you are wrong. You are dead wrong! That is why I moved this dissenting motion. You are wrong; you are full-on wrong, Madam Speaker. That decision you made is nothing but an extension of the attitude from the other side of the House.
Madam Speaker, I quite the like the way you try to be balanced and fair but, at times, I believe you get caught up with the government’s efforts to maintain whatever they are trying to do - maintain secrecy, soften dissent in the parliament, and that sort of thing. I believe, at heart, you are a decent person and you try to maintain some balance, but ruling me out of order for talking about crime in the matter of the Criminal Code amendment bill, just flies in the face of reason. It is an example of how this parliament is deteriorating.
It is not deteriorating because of you, Madam Speaker; it is deteriorating because of some of the sensitivities of members on the other side. Those members are so used to having things all their own way, where they can swagger around like the biggest bloke in the pub all covered with tats and nose rings and ‘look at me’, and scaring the daylights out of everyone.
Well, Madam Speaker, I am here to tell you, I am not going to back down from them - I am not going to back down from them. As I said to you, I try to follow the standing orders as best I can. I understand that we are all human; I understand at times I make mistakes. I am prepared to acknowledge that I make mistakes and withdraw comments I may have made in the heat of the moment. I have no problems with that. However, I am not going to have my whole argument just completely taken off the books because these guys do not want to hear it.
Every time a person talks about crime and law and order in this place, they are shut down. A classic example was the other day when the Leader of Government Business took the police ministerial statement off the Notice Paper …
A member: They do not want to talk about crime.
Mr TOLLNER: No, they do not want to talk about it. They know they are soft. They know that this is a big issue in the community. But, no, they do not want to talk about it. They do not want us talking about it. They do not want any member of the opposition talking about it. It must scare the daylights out of them when they turn up to this Chamber and put forward a bill called Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill because, goodness me, it could well be linked to crime. But, no, no, they have it sussed, they do not want anyone talking about crime: ‘Let us just talk about expert evidence and lawyers, and something that is just an extension of criminal activity, but not really criminal activity’. That is what they want to talk about.
What is worse, Madam Speaker, is a person like you, with a good heart who wants to be seen as balanced and independent and right in your decisions, gets caught up in that nonsense. I do not know how many times you asked me to stop and talk about relevance in this last debate. As I said to you at length, on a number of occasions, Madam Speaker, I do not understand how you can divorce criminal activity from the Criminal Code. However, for some reason you expect me to do it in a debate about the Criminal Code – we cannot talk about crime. How far are these guys prepared to take it?
Every day in Question Time we ask questions and get answers that have absolutely nothing to do with the questions, and drag on and on. How many questions did we fit in yesterday? Eight, six?
A member: Six.
Mr TOLLNER: Six. Out of what is proposed to be is 20. We get six out of 20. Why? Because these guys deem it is right to rabbit on like fools while the cameras are here, and tell everyone how good they are. Well, there are no cameras here right now, Madam Speaker, so they should have the courtesy to listen to a bit of debate.
I notice today we have a chock-a-block Notice Paper, but we all had to knock off at 7 pm last night. Why? Because you did not want to have to debate ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, they knocked off at 7 pm last night, because they did not want any debate. They did not want to discuss anything. We could have been sitting there last night talking about this. But, no, they knocked off. What will happen tonight? I have a very important matter of public importance. I had it there the other day, too. It got pushed off …
Dr Burns: By your own censure.
Mr TOLLNER: By my own censure, right. So, the processes of parliament cannot operate because now we are shutting down at 9 pm every night. What will happen tonight? Because you have completely filled up the Notice Paper, you know damn well we are not going to get that matter of public importance debated. Sorry, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, what has this to do with the motion before us?
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, it does.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Digression - Standing Order 67.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business knows very well this matter of public importance will not be debated tonight because of their tactic to shut down any sort of debate we, on this side of the House, want to have.
That is what this whole dissenting motion is about; the fact that we are continually stifled, belittled, bullied and stood over by the government to ensure we cannot say anything they might deem as not nice to their cause. This whole government is just sickening. They are completely obsessed with spin and putting out their image – an image which is nothing like the reality. The reality is, we are sitting here and opposite, all the comrades, are not nice people.
As I say, I am not some Darwin businessman who can be stood over and intimidated and told what to do and what not to do by ministers in government and staff, and other true believers of the Labor Party. That is not me. I am not going to stand around and cop it, and I am sick of copping it. I have been copping it the whole time since I walked in here. You do not want to hear debate - you do not want to hear another point of view.
You fail to understand that the guts of our democracy is our robust debate. Robust debate can only happen in a free and open arena - a free and open Chamber. We do not have a free and open Chamber. It is all about political correctness and personal sensitivities. Some nights I like to get to bed at 7.30 pm too, member for Karama. But other nights you understand you have to work, you have to stay up, you actually have to put in some of the hard yards for the good of the people you are supposed to be representing. You should not just listen, but welcome debate from other points of view – it is what broadens your mind; it is what opens you up to different points of view. But not this government. This is a government obsessed with spin and with shutting out any dissenting voices whatsoever. That is what they are obsessed with.
Madam Speaker, you have been caught up in that. All the times you shut me down about relevance shows me you have been caught up in it. That is why I have dissented from your ruling just now. I do not mean you to take any offence, but maybe you could reflect on your attitude of independence and being balanced, because I know that is what you are trying to do. I know that, but at times you need to draw a breath and think: ‘Hang on, what is playing out here?’
I understand, Madam Speaker, that you have a party allegiance to members on the other side. That does not trouble me at all, because I believe you are above that. However, at times I think you fall into their little web of deception, of shutting down dissenting voices, of shutting down speakers who want to say anything that may be negative to them - people who actually highlight the truth of matters. They hate hearing the truth. That is one thing they do hate – they hate hearing the truth.
They are particularly sensitive in areas of crime, because they know what an issue it is in the community ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: We see the Chief Minister bang on about all the extra police he has, and all the nonsense and palaver, but what do the people out in the northern suburbs think of him - in Malak, Karama, Sanderson, and Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and, probably even Howard Springs? It does not seem to matter where you go in the Northern Territory; the front-of-the-mind issue for everyone is crime and antisocial behaviour.
I am very fortunate to have the role of Tourism spokesman. I ask tourism operators what their biggest issue is; if there is one issue they want fixed, what is it? Is it more planes into Darwin, bigger hotels, open up new parks, put in more boat ramps – what is the issue? They do not say any of that. They say: ‘We want you to clean up the streets’ ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, can you please not digress from the topic that is before us; the motion that you have brought, Standing Order 67. The motion which relates directly to a dissenting motion.
Mr TOLLNER: That is correct, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: If you can keep your comments to that, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I am talking about. The issue of crime is the issue. It is what people out there want us to be talking about in here. That is what they want. Go and listen to any sector – that is what they want – it does not matter who they are: Indigenous people, business people, people at the hospitals. You wonder what nurses think. Nurses are working hard because of the level of crime in the Territory. What it comes back to, what people are so upset about, is the levels of crime.
We are debating the Criminal Code amendment bill and we cannot talk about crime. The government says we cannot talk about crime. When can we talk about crime? I know the Chief Minister does not want to talk about crime; I know the Leader of Government Business does not want to hear about crime. The member for Karama, who once described her own electorate as a war zone, does not want to hear about crime ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have listened to a lot of nonsense from the member for Fong Lim. He talks about this parliament not having the time to get to his MPI tonight. The motion before the Chair is a dissenting motion from the most recent ruling made by the Speaker. You have asked the member for Fong Lim to come to the point on a number of occasions now. He is not addressing the motion; he is rambling widely across a whole range of issues.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to call relevance and get the member to speak to his motion. It is the member who is wasting the time of this parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have moved a motion specifically about an issue and, coincidentally, it relates to Standing Order 67. Member for Fong Lim, please keep your comments relative to the motion you have moved.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, that is why I moved this motion. I moved this motion because you failed to allow any discussion on crime, despite the fact we are addressing the Criminal Code amendment bill. That is what this debate is about. I know the Chief Minister, the member for Karama, and the member for Johnston …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go, noisy up the back there, member for Daly; he has to throw his two bob’s worth in too. He does not want to hear about crime; he does not care about all the troubles out at Batchelor and some of the communities in his electorate. That does not seem to worry him at all. In fact, he wants to damp down the debate on crime as well. I can guarantee you, the second I sit down these guys will gag this debate - they will shut this debate down. Are they going to let anyone in this place speak to the motion? I can guarantee you there are some people in this place who would like to discuss this motion regarding dissenting your ruling.
There are people here who want to discuss that, but do you think they will get the opportunity? I bet London to a brick they do not. As sure as God made little apples, they will not get the chance to discuss this dissent motion. Maybe the member for Nelson might want to have a crack at it, being a man who has occupied the Chair on occasions. Maybe he will not, either. It may well be a debate he does not want to be a part of, but that is his prerogative.
That is what this is about: the prerogative of members being able to stand up in a free and open way, and talk about things that are of concern to them and the constituents in their electorates. That is what they should be allowed to do. But, no, we cannot. Why? Because the government is occupied by bullies and standover people, who are used to having their own way; having people shaking in their shoes when they turn up, scared they will say something wrong and raise the ire of the minister. That is what this is about.
This is about the new world for this government; having to come into this place and hear people say negative things about them, and they do not like it. They do not like it one bit. The truth hurts, and they are smarting ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go with interjections - continual interjections. No, Madam Speaker, your decision to call me irrelevant on this particular issue is wrong - absolutely wrong. There is no other way to put it, Madam Speaker. You brought this motion on yourself because you did it over and over again. I attempted, on numerous occasions, to explain to you how I was talking to the bill ...
A member: You have not even read the bill.
Mr TOLLNER: What would you know?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
A member: Continual interjections.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Cease interjecting.
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: There goes the nodding dog up the back; the one that sits in the back of a car as it goes down a bumpy road nodding and winking away. You know what he thinks about bills. Has he built a house? Has he built a road? Has he built a bridge? No, he is the minister for false promises. You are not alone; there are plenty to see - false promises everywhere. We get reams of them coming over these desks all the time that are just absolute nonsense. But the minute anyone tries to say something like that, they get shut down, bagged and pilloried by the government. It is absolute nonsense. They have allowed this place to deteriorate, to abrogate into something it is not supposed to be.
Madam Speaker, I urge members on the other side – I am sure there must be one amongst them who values democracy – to support my motion. You would think there would be one or two, maybe three. I am sure in their heart of hearts there are a number of them who support this motion, who think you have gone over the top with this ruling, Madam Speaker.
They know how this place has spiralled out of control. There must be one or two of them who have the courage of their convictions to support this motion. I call on their goodwill now. I call on their goodwill to support this and do something right, for a change. Strike a blow for freedom of speech. Strike a blow for democracy. Strike a blow for this parliament. That is what this is about. This is about being able to come into this place and talk freely and not be over-sensitive. Are you made of sugar? ‘Oh, you cannot say that. Oh, you cannot do this. Oh, you are not following this’. Precious pups – things go wrong and they all go nuts.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. I have to say I am completely convinced of my correctness with this motion. I believe you have overstepped the mark in a very big way by trying to shut down my discussion on a matter that is important to people in the community, in the electorate. That is what is important; that is what they want to hear us talking about. We should not hide our light under a bushel just because the Leader of Government Business says we have to. We should be able to come in here in a fearless way and say what is on our minds; say what is concerning us. We should not be constantly dictated to and pilloried, and bagged in the media because of some weird fixation some spin doctor up there has and does not like the tone of voice this bloke talks to you in. Have a spoon of cement – harden up. This is a parliament, for goodness sakes. They ruin the place.
Madam Speaker, I urge members to support this motion. There is nothing personal in this motion. I believe you are a person of integrity, but you have been caught up with the government and you have lost some sense of balance. The idea of this place is people can come in here and talk openly and freely. Madam Speaker, in the last few days and weeks you have been a part of stopping that; you actually take some of these frivolous, stupid points of order they come up with seriously. That is not right. That is why I am dissenting from your ruling today.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have given this motion much thought, and I understand the politicking going on today, as there normally is in this place. The former member for Nhulunbuy once said: ‘This is about politics; this is a political place’. I know politics is happening today, because we have to jam a lot of work into a set number of hours, and we are not going to make it. This is what happened in the last sittings as well. I am going to put that to one side at the present time.
I am going to support this motion, Madam Speaker, not because I have anything against you personally, but because this relates to the way the government runs its business. I will give you a couple of examples, and it puts you in a difficult position. They raise a point of order, and you have to make a decision. Take last night, as an example, when we were discussing the HomeNorth bill, there were four or five points of order asking me to change the material I was discussing in relation to the third reading. That put you in a position where you had to make a decision. I might not have agreed with you, but I did my best to come around to that point of view. If those points of view were not being raised, I could have raised the issue I was trying to raise, and that would probably have been the end of it. However, in the end I was stopped, simply because you had to make a ruling after a number of points of order were raised by the government members.
There is also the issue as to whether the member for Fong Lim was addressing the bill, which is partly why the dissent motion has been put. You must look at things such as Question Time. During Question Time in this parliament, many answers are not relevant to the questions. They are as relevant as the minister talking about the man on the moon when asked a question about the cheese industry in the Northern Territory. Relevance can be a huge and wide interpretation and people are allowed to get away with that because that is the way standing orders are written.
I will give you another classic example. The member for Johnston the other night, talking on a very mundane bill, changed to the keeping of records – the archives bill. He started to talk about the member for Katherine’s statement on fishing, and he spoke about the opposition’s policy on commercial fishing versus amateur fishing because there had been some comment made in the paper. It would be very hard for me to believe that had any relevance to the bill, except there were bits of paper here that could possibly be put into the archives at some time.
We have this inconsistency, to some extent, when there is an interpretation about relevance. In theory, you can be relevant in Question Time and talk, more or less, about anything, but there is a different concept when it comes to debating a bill. There is a different concept again when we debate a third reading. I have the impression there is a tactic by the government to close down some debates simply by raising many points of order. That puts you, Madam Speaker, in a position of always having to make a decision.
I also find, at times, we are losing the beauty of our Australian language. I have some books by Steele Rudd, who wrote many years ago. He worked in parliament as either a stenographer or a recorder; he used to type out Hansard. When he wrote his books about Dad and Dave, he wrote about the member for ‘fill ‘em up again’. Obviously, that particular member of parliament may have had a drink too many at times. What I am saying is that we should allow a certain amount of character in the way we speak; that does not mean you should be offensive. I remember we were knocked back on the word ‘buggerlugs’; I use ‘buggerlugs’ all the time and have never even dreamt of it being offensive. I know the word ‘ratbag’ was used last night. I am not sure whether it was withdrawn, but it is a fairly common term in our society. It is a bit like saying: ‘bugger off’. It is not meant to be an insulting term; it is just an Aussie term to say knick off.
There are times when we get too precious about the language we use and sometimes, Madam Speaker, of course, you have to make a decision about those things.
The reason I am supporting it is not because I support everything the member for Fong Lim says. He says some things that probably could be put in a more delicate and diplomatic way. However, I know what he is getting at. I believe it is not so much about you; to some extent this is part of a game we now play in this House where the best way to deal with unwanted debate is to raise points of order and close it down.
If I was looking for something positive from this, we could have the Standing Orders Committee look at the issues raised today - at the issue of relevance - and at what are the rules when we debate, for instance, a criminal amendment bill – how far can we go from what we are debating? You might say it is already written in the big green book from the House of Representatives. It may be but we should look at how it is interpreted in this House.
Madam Speaker, this is not against you personally. I believe, in this case, there are some inconsistencies in the way points of order are raised. The member for Johnston has been raising totally irrelevant matters in regard to the archives, and then the member for Fong Lim gets hit on the head for talking about crime in relation to the Criminal Code amendment bill. They are the reasons I am supporting this motion. As I said, this is not against you personally; I think you are a great Speaker. However, I believe this issue lies firmly with the government.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, this is a very serious motion that is before the House. It is one which brings into question your ruling.
I listened very carefully to what the member for Fong Lim had to say and to the member for Nelson. It is frustrating for both sides of the House when you get called on relevance. The member for Nelson mentioned the other day in debate that I was called on relevance within the Information Act. Yes, this is a House of politics, as the former member for Nhulunbuy used to say, with members from both sides trying to introduce politics into the debate, and that is what I was trying to do with the Information Act.
I share your frustration. Last night, you wanted to speak about HomeNorth and there were questions of relevance called. There were questions of relevance called about the Information Act, and I accepted the ruling of the Speaker, and I got on with the debate.
What we are here to do is talk about the case in point, which the member has dissented from in relevance to the Criminal Code Amendment (Expert Evidence) Bill 2009. As was said repeatedly, the purpose of the bill is to require the defence to provide notice to the court and the prosecution if they intend to adduce expert evidence during criminal trials within the Supreme Court. That is really the focus of this particular bill.
This bill came about because there are instances of defence lawyers introducing, without any prior notice, expert evidence into court cases, some of which was quite questionable. If the prosecution had the capacity to question that expert evidence and really pull it apart and go over it, it may well have resulted in some people being found not guilty who may well have been found guilty if a fine-tooth comb had gone over that expert evidence. That is the focus of this bill before the House, and of the debate.
I can understand the member for Fong Lim - as I did the other night regarding the Information Act - trying to broaden it and get his political message across in this bill about crime, law and order, which is something we debate every day and the opposition has avenues through a whole range of ways of …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … introducing it into this House. However, instead of just pausing after he delivered, he said his piece - and said it quite well - but he persisted and persisted. Why did he persist? I believe he wanted to bring the House to this particular point today. From observing the member for Fong Lim, I know that he has been frustrated since he came into this House, and there are probably many reasons for that frustration.
This House has its standing orders; it has its rules by which we abide. There was talk about whether there are the numbers on this side in terms of more stewardship. I can say to this House that every member on this side respects the Speaker and holds her in the highest esteem ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: There have been times when the Speaker may be wrong in this, that or the other, but I accept what the Speaker says. The Speaker is the umpire in this place; the Speaker is the adjudicator. Whenever there is a lack of respect for the referee or umpire that is when sporting games get into turmoil. That is when there are fights; when things boil up between spectators and players alike. We cannot afford to let that happen in this place, Madam Speaker.
As I said last night, one thing I have noticed since the election last year is a lack of respect and courtesy from members opposite towards the Speaker. Because I am a personal friend of yours, Madam Speaker - and we should not be talking about personal things - I know you feel deeply about that because you are someone, I believe, who has always tried to be fair and impartial in every way. The member for Fong Lim, towards the end of his speech, backed away from any personal accusation against you regarding bias, as every speaker does. That is very important.
Madam Speaker, there was talk about the cameras not being here, and government performing in certain ways. I remind this House it was this government that brought cameras into Question Time.
I believe in August there will be continual visual streaming of all the business of this House from the time parliament opens until it closes. It will be incumbent on us, on all members, to watch our behaviour and to watch what we say. If people saw the way the member for Fong Lim behaved today, particularly the way he became quite aggressive, I believe they would be disgusted by that.
I do not accept this motion that, somehow, you ruled unfairly on the member for Fong Lim for digression. I counted six to eight times where you let him have his say and he did not really get into what this bill is about. He tried to extend it in a fairly blunt and flat-earth fashion and his equation completely lacked subtlety.
There is an important issue here today. I have been in this place now for eight years and what I observe from what has just happened is the member for Fong Lim is running his own game. He running this, and I do not believe he consulted with either his leader or with the member for Port Darwin …
Mr Tollner: Of course I did not consult! Do you think we planned this?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … on this particular issue. He is running stunts in this place because I believe he is frustrated for a whole range of reasons, not least of all his position in the opposition ranks, and maybe his lack of support. This is a direct challenge, as I said last night, to the Leader of the Opposition, who I believe …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For a man who is defending an argument based on relevance, I urge him to be relevant.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, if you keep your comments to the motion, thank you.
Dr BURNS: As I said before, this House and the conduct of this House is built on courtesy and respect, particularly for the Speaker. I know the Leader of the Opposition is a man with a lot of integrity who was bought up in a family which believes in courtesy and respect, and that is what I see in the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to bring some of his troops into order, and show you the courtesy and respect you deserve, Madam Speaker. I move that the motion be put.
The Assembly divided.
Ayes 12 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Mr Chandler
Dr Burns Mr Elferink
Mr Gunner Mr Giles
Mr Hampton Mr Mills
Mr Henderson Ms Purick
Mr Knight Mr Styles
Ms Lawrie Mr Tollner
Mr McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms McCarthy Mr Wood
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion as moved by the Member for Fong Lim be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 9 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Ms Anderson
Mr Elferink Dr Burns
Mr Giles Mr Gunner
Ms Purick Mr Hampton
Mr Styles Mr Henderson
Mr Tollner Mr Knight
Mr Westra van Holthe Ms Lawrie
Mr Wood Mr McCarthy
Mr McCarthy
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
______________________
Debate – on the motion that the bill be now read a second time - suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of some of the government electorate officers. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Minister for Health
Proposed Censure of Minister for Health
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Minister for Health for misleading this parliament.
This is a matter that I initially assessed and I am offended by the capacity of someone to say one thing one time and, then, something different another time. I could have let it go but, when I find members opposite think this is a joke and truth is a dispensable item that can only be used at times of their choosing to prosecute a political point, I am offended. I believe a principle needs to be defended in this parliament.
If those members opposite want to have any credibility at restoring some confidence in the institutions that are in place and led by this government to deliver a result for Territorians, particularly young people, then how on earth can we have a situation in this parliament where it is treated so lightly …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I will continue, and I do not care whether every member of the other side chooses to leave. I will stand and defend this principle.
Even though it is a small lie, as someone who as worked with children, I treat that very seriously. Someone must show some respect for this institution. We have had a number of issues discussed over the last few days within this parliament, and have, in fact, been on it ever since the last election. What must be disturbing for members opposite, and perhaps, too, for this parliament, is that everything was nice when there were only four in the opposition. However, now there are 11 and government is being held to account. Now they squirm and they wriggle, laugh, scoff, and mock, but inside they are terrified. They will resort to pulling stunts like this and then laughing. We get to a low ebb when such things as the truth are treated with such contempt.
Despite the rape of a baby at Royal Darwin Hospital - the rape of a child, a baby; the loss of two children from Royal Darwin Hospital, one on two occasions; a damning report into security at Royal Darwin Hospital in 2002; a damning report into security at Royal Darwin Hospital in 2007; a damning report into security at Royal Darwin Hospital in 2009; and a damning report into the detention of patients at Royal Darwin Hospital by the Ombudsman, this minister has told this House and Territorians of the revelation that the Health minister before the last Health minister recognised there was need for legal protection of those who work in the health system, put it before this parliament and committed to fixing that problem four to five years ago. Then, the Ombudsman spoke, and the Ombudsman is attacked - just as we have the principles this parliament is founded upon under attack.
We have a core principle, which is the capacity to tell the truth, under attack. I will not stand for it, Madam Speaker. In spite of all that has been described in that list, how can we then believe this Health Minister who says everything is in order? How can you believe that? It seems such a small thing - perhaps truth is not that valuable. You say one thing here to achieve some political point, and you get caught out - well, it does not matter, you just change your story. There are some people who just are not constructed that way; they cannot do that comfortably. It may seem like a small thing, but it is not a small thing. This Chief Minister, this government, needs to reassure Territorians that all is in order.
How can you be trusted? If you have a friend who lies, you then put that friend in a different category. You do not tell them certain things and you do not trust them with certain things. It may be a small thing. There are people around, some people I know quite well, who can be quite casual with the truth. I make my judgment and I do not trust them to the degree of those who can tell the truth and value the truth. It may seem like a small thing, particularly for those who scoff and mock and think such things are not as important as protecting the image of government.
I find that sickening. How can you be trusted? You insist on attacking the Ombudsman as a defence. If you go through the Parliamentary Record, some of the wriggling and squirming that is now recorded for all to see reveals no real interest in addressing the core issue, which is the delivery of health and the building of integrity within our system. Those who are feeling ashamed working in the system, feel they have been made fools of once again, because your whole line of answering is to avoid personal responsibility and shift it on to someone else. That is not leadership. That does not build any core strength into any of our institutions, and it depletes and corrodes the core of this government. It depletes your strength and integrity.
You start building your civil institutions on lies and think a lie is okay - whatever it takes, it does not matter as long as we achieve the objective; that being power. When you get there you will find there is no power – none; no real power to effect good or change in anyone’s life, because it has all been about yourselves.
The question is this: if you cannot be trusted - and the saddest thing is that you do not recognise this - I ask you to reflect on the way you deal with your own children or young people. What do you expect of them? If this is not expected of you or those in the government, if this parliament can be used in such a way that it does not really matter and we can completely avoid any response to truth, and we can construct a response that shoots the responsibility onto the shoulders of others, where are we left with the notion of leadership in this community?
We now have the Ombudsman under attack - shoot the messenger; do not accept responsibility. You then criticise the Ombudsman. That was the subject of some of your responses. They are not answers; they are reactions and the core of that reaction is to defend yourself. Why would you do that?
Coroners are brought into question. The AMA is brought into question. Nurses are sometimes brought into question. How is it they are always wrong, but you, minister, are always right?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not particularly like moving censures, because members opposite live in a zone where they think all the business that goes on in this parliament does not have to be taken too seriously; it is really a game. I have heard that before. I have heard it from the member for Wanguri. When I have taken offence at particular times when matters are discussed in certain ways in this parliament, and certain processes are put in place - and everyone knows, we can all see it - designed to achieve the purpose of maximising the power of the government and reducing the capacity of the opposition, you do not care. You can use these processes. After all, it is a game, is it not? To you it is just a game.
It is not a game. If you think this is a game where you can go through a line of questions and these things will not be challenged and we will all live with a new, lower standard – well, there are some people who will stand and defend that patch, and I am one of them.
You are happy to walk away from this. You are happy to move the goal post wherever it suits, as long as it looks okay for you. That is a loser’s position. That is, ultimately, a loser’s position, because who is the winner? If you think it is a game where winning the trophy on election night is the goal …
Ms Lawrie: No, actually. It is improving the lives of Territorians.
Mr MILLS: I cannot believe you, because you think things like this are irrelevant.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.
Mr MILLS: You consider matters such as truth can be dispensed with, just to suit and advance your own image and reputation, with your snarling, whining, little comments and responses - it is all about you. Who can people trust if those they elected walk away and abandon them? This is a matter of some importance. As we have been discussing issues related to how the sovereign will of the people is expressed in a place of instrument such as this - a parliament - how is it we can allow these things to exist?
I will tell you one thing, and it is a personal matter, just to show this is not a game as far as I am concerned. I remember my daughter, when she was very young, told me an inconsequential lie. What she told me did not really matter. I could have let it go. She said she was doing this when she was, in fact, doing that. That was the first time I had ever heard my daughter tell me something that was not true. It was small, perhaps mischievous, but the subject matter was of no importance. I dealt with my daughter the first time I heard her tell a lie. I remember that moment, and it sticks with me. The issue at hand was not the issue. I knew, as a father, I would betray my daughter if I did not defend the truth at that point, and that stand continues today.
I could not leave this parliament at the end of a two-week session a comfortable man if I allowed that to go. I have respect for the man, but I have greater respect for the principle. I will defend that. On that basis, I believe this minister – but I will widen it; it falls upon the members opposite who thought this was a game and they can treat things such as the truth with such contempt. They are fully deserving of the censure of this parliament. It is that simple.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all I find it very curious that the Leader of the Opposition has been accusing me of lying. My personal belief is that I watched the particular film clip, which is so important, during Question Time. I said I watched the film clip - I do not deny I watched it - during budget reply time, but I do not keep time. I receive so many e-mails I do not keep the time. I may have watched it during Question Time; I do not deny I watched the film clip. The timing I do not recall and I apologise.
However, I take particular offence to the Leader of the Opposition having the audacity to stand up in this parliament and talk about principles and lies ...
A member: But you said you read the report as well.
Mr VATSKALIS: I would like to show you a media report that proves the Liberals lied, lied, lied about the INPEX project.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The Minister for Health is on trial for his integrity here, not the Leader of the Opposition. For the minister to call the Leader of the Opposition a liar without a substantive motion is against the rules.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is not a trial.
Mr Elferink: It is a trial. That is precisely what it is.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please pause while I confer with the Clerk on this point of order.
Mr Mills: By the way, that headline is not my words. That is your mate at the NT News.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, honourable members. Minister, I ask that you withdraw that statement, please.
Mr VATSKALIS: I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition talks about principles when he himself has told untruths. This is not my mate from NT News; Nick Calacouras is a well-respected reporter. He is not my mate; he is simply doing his job. Nick Calacouras reported:
- Opposition Leader Terry Mills was told by INPEX six weeks ago that the Japanese resources company would not support his plan to build a $12bn gas plant at Glyde Point.
But the Opposition Leader last week issued a statement saying he had met with INPEX and the company was ‘flexible’ about the site. Last night, Mr Mills admitted the company told him the CLP policy was not viable.
To come here and talk about principles when you said something untrue - deliberately untrue - I do not accept. I accept criticism; I have no problem. Criticise me about my performance as a minister in the wrong, I will accept it. However, to come here and try to tell me about principles when you have been caught out deliberately saying untruths, I find unacceptable.
Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I said …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: And I say again …
Mr Mills: That is not true.
Members interjecting.
Mr Mills: You will have to do a heck of a lot better than that, mate.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51. Please cease interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say that I do not recall the time. It is my belief it was during budget reply; they say it was during Question Time. If I did not give the right time, I apologise. I am a human being. I open e-mails, I check e-mails. I apologise.
However, the issue here is not only about the principles of what we say. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon said the Ombudsman’s report I tabled yesterday referred to the missing children, to a rape. No, there was no rape. There was an alleged rape and the police never found any evidence of a rape. The police …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr VATSKALIS: The police admitted they had no evidence to satisfy the issue of rape.
Regarding the missing children - it was brought up in this report by the Ombudsman to showcase the dilemma faced by personnel in Royal Darwin Hospital; how they have to tread a very fine line so they can detain somebody; and whether there should be legislation in place to prevent people leaving the hospital, and to make decisions on clinical grounds.
He comes here and says: ‘Where did we spend the $1m for the children? It is not in the budget books’. Of course, it is not; it is minor new works, and the money was spent. This issue with the children happened in September 2008, long before my time as the minister. I recall the opposition censured my predecessor for the alleged rape – months and months ago - and here it surfaces again.
This is not about me watching a DVD or a video; this is about the Leader of the Opposition trying to re-establish himself as the Leader of the Opposition. He was rocked by the member for Fong Lim’s performance today. He did not even know it was going to happen; he found out afterwards. He was so unaware of it, he even missed the division. This is not about little children; it is not about me watching a video. This is about a political in-fight for the leadership within the Country Liberals.
As I said before, this is surprising; the third day after the budget the issue that concerns the Territory: was Kon Vatskalis watching a video on his computer? However, the issue is when they were four they were a more effective and cohesive opposition. I recall, for days they were grilling the government about the budget – four of them. I suppose the member for Araluen is missing, so a really big chunk of the CLP is gone. It is for her own reasons she is not questioning the budget. Now they are 11, and where are the questions? Where are the questions about portfolios? None. Where are the questions about specific issues? None. What is the issue: were you watching a DVD?’
They talk about principles and demand the Chief Minister reprimand me. I do not recall the Leader of the Opposition reprimanding the member for Fong Lim when it was published in the newspaper that he was working on his Facebook site. He is still the spokesman for Tourism, Business and other things. If you come here and talk about principles, my advice is: if you live in glass houses, do not throw stones.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not say I did not watch a video; I said, yes, I did. I do not recall the time. If this is a lie, well, I do not know what I have to say. Should I give the time - an hour, a minute, a second - that I watched? I cannot recall it. In nine or 10 hours here, I open my e-mails, I check them, and I cannot tell you what e-mail I have seen five minutes ago.
This is not a censure motion about me or the Health portfolio - it is about me watching a video …
Mr Mills: No, it is not. It is about you telling the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: It is not only about me watching a video. It is such a weak censure motion I am not going to waste a lot of time on it, because it is wasting my time talking about the rubbish the Leader of the Opposition just brought on.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my officers deliver the best health services for Territorians. My job is to allocate wisely the $1bn budget for the hospitals and the services to provide health services for all Territorians. What is the offer, $900 000? Actually it was $1m, but he cannot add. My focus is to ensure there are enough doctors, nurses, equipment, and the oncology unit is running on time. Their focus? They do not want the oncology unit, they never wanted it, and they do not want it, and they try to undermine it.
This is not my focus. My focus is the best health service in Australia for Territorians. If the issue for them is watching a video clip, yes, I did watch a video clip. I do not remember the time, and if you have gone to a censure motion because I do not remember the time - so be it. I am not going to waste time on that.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have never - I mean this genuinely - seen such an enfeebled defence of a censure motion. This is the most extraordinary thing we have witnessed here today, because there was quite an unequivocal answer given in relation to the issue of him watching the video. Frankly, I could not care if he was watching a video or not. However, the issue in this House, in this crucible of democracy, is there is but one rule that is primary over all other rules; that is, we do not lie. This is why the accusation of uttering a lie in this place is seen to be so serious that the only way you can utter the word without being told to withdraw that word is by bringing on a motion to censure a person for lying.
The minister in charge of leading government business says the minister is not on trial for his reputation; I could not disagree more strongly. This man is entirely on trial for his reputation. The reason he is on trial for his reputation is because he did not tell the truth. That is the issue; it has nothing to do with what he was watching. That is a matter for the public to decide; whether they take him seriously as a Health Minister or not. However, to come into this place - this beautiful, sacred place where the truth is paramount amongst all things - and utter a lie, such an obvious and deliberate lie, is a great sin indeed. That is why their sword of Damocles is falling towards him after the thin thread has been cut.
There are a series of untruths in the answers that he gave today, not just one. The most obvious was the lie he told in relation to what time he was watching that material. It was a cute little quip to flick off to the media to say: ‘Oh, well, I was watching the rallies on my TV screen during the boring old budget reply’. A nice little barb back at the opposition that their budget reply was really boring ...
Dr Burns: How do you know he was not?
Mr ELFERINK: Because we saw him change his mind - he changed his story. Can you imagine this guy in the witness box? Could you picture this man as a credible witness in the witness box? I can see it now. There is the lawyer, the prosecutor saying: ‘Well, Mr … - I cannot say his name – ‘… Mr Casuarina, we have evidence to believe that you were doing a certain thing’. ‘Absolutely not, no, no, something else happened entirely’. ‘Are you absolutely sure of this?’ ‘Absolutely, I am sure of it’, said Mr Casuarina. ‘Oh, okay, very well’. Oops, here comes a suggestion that statement may have been untrue. ‘Well, I am not entirely sure when I said that. I could have said that over there or I could have said it then’. Could you imagine that in a witness box? Would you trust it, would you believe it? No, you would not. You would be the most incredible witness who had ever been cast to the four winds by the judge, who would tell the jury: ‘You cannot listen to that bloke; he might as well be in charge of James Hardie. You cannot listen to that bloke’.
That is what is happening here, Madam Speaker. He has come into this place and he has uttered a lie with the intent of deceiving members of this House. That is the crime that has been committed here, nothing else. That is what we are concerned about.
We heard him flippantly say: ‘Oh, yes, I read the report, but there is no mention of the kids in the report’. I am sure that is what I heard him say, and I am sure the Parliamentary Record will bear that out. He then had it pointed out to him that on pages 44, 45 and 46 of the report, there was a mention of the kids. I will go to page 45, where it said:
- On 13th September 2008 at 5.30 pm the 5-year-old child is recorded on the absconding form as being last seen on Ward 5B at 5.30 pm.
Nothing about kids going missing in that report, that is obvious. Maybe we stuck this in a little later on. ‘Oh yes’, he says in the next answer, ‘Oh yes, that is right, it is between pages 39 and 46’. Bully for you, minister, you found some more pages you had forgotten to read.
You are a minister of the Crown. You either remember reading that and decided to deceive this House; or you do not remember reading that and, if that is true - if he cannot remember what time he was doing something on his computer - and he cannot remember: ‘Oh yes, that business in the report, I cannot remember that, forgot about that’. It goes to his competence as a minister. He is either incompetent because he cannot remember anything, or he is lying.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, I believe it is the latter, not the former. I am sure I heard him say - and I stand to be corrected on this - in an earlier answer that all the money he spent last year on the 30 recommendations…
Mr Vatskalis: No.
A member: Where is it in this year’s budget?
Mr ELFERINK: The Parliamentary Record will bear it out, I can tell you. I pick up on the interjection from the Health Minister. If he has said that, then he has some questions to answer. There was a report on the security of the hospital which came down in January 2009, and it said, from memory, there were some 30 items that had to be attended to. We are assured that all of these items are going to be on minor new works, but we cannot find them. This is a $1m spend, from memory. However, there is no reference to it because it is all buried away in minor new works somewhere. If you go to Budget Paper No 4, there are lists of works on that which are much less than $1m …
Dr Burns: You do not understand. You have no idea.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: There are lots of little jobs there so it did not come up in the budget papers. Mate, something as important as this should be a single project, and come up as a single works item …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr ELFERINK: … and here is something I do honestly believe, the money had been requested for the 2009-10 Budget and has been denied …
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: I will be interested to see if it comes out in the wash, if that is not true, because it is my understanding that money has been denied.
Regarding the issue of the annual reports; we had reassurances from the ministers that annual reports were all in the pipeline and they were all being done in a timely fashion, other than the fact they were not there. In February, the minister said there never was a functioning medical board even in the CLP days. Really? Were there not some functioning medical boards in the CLP days? My word there were, and I have read a few of their reports. For the minister to come in and say there were never any functioning medical boards in the CLP days goes to a pattern of behaviour. We now have a minister who, in Question Time alone, in my opinion, has uttered two lies, and is now entrenched in a pattern of behaviour consistent with dishonesty.
The minister deceived the House over hospital boards, yet one of their own members held a seat on the Katherine Hospital Board. Mind you, there is no evidence it ever had a meeting, but the fact is there is a yawning chasm between what comes out of this minister’s mouth and the actual truth. It goes to the very heart of the integrity of government that they be honest with Territorians. That is what this is about.
We discussed bringing a censure motion in relation to this report prior to this sitting, and we actually decided against it. We were going to ask the questions and get on with the day, but the answers from the minister were so inconsistent with the truth, it was so incredible he came here and uttered the things he did, so shameful he conducted himself the way he did, we had no choice but to go to this censure motion. There is a time when the credible becomes incredible. Whilst this minister likes to portray himself as a likeable bloke, ‘Hail fellow, well met’ - I believe he was described as being a likeable rogue - the problem is a likeable rogue is a rogue nonetheless.
We have no comfort this man is capable, for political reasons, of telling the truth. What I do believe him to be capable of, for political reasons, is not telling the truth. Today we have seen it, an absolute statement of fact turned into: ‘I do not know how long it was going; an hour or a minute’. My goodness gracious me, he has the audacity to complain about the accounting ability of the Leader of the Opposition after they spin and twist the Leader of the Opposition’s words, but he cannot tell the difference between an hour and a minute. I would hate him to be the bloke taking my pulse.
I am surprised he has tried in such a facile and transparent way to pull the wool over our collective eyes. I do not believe that even in Grade 2 or 3 he would have been able to pull this one off. To launch into a tirade against the Leader of the Opposition as a form of defence is a remarkable response. Think about it. Someone comes in to the room and accuses you of lying and you say: ‘I can tell you, you lied, too’. That is the defence we just saw run in this place. He relied on an article headlined by something the journalist did not write - so the headline was wrong for starters. That is his defence: ‘Well, you lied, too. You lie’.
That is an astonishing defence. If you accuse me of being a liar, then you are a liar, too. That is not a defence; that is a confirmation of the allegation we are levelling at him today. I, too, will not waste the House’s time by using all of my time to speak on this particular issue. I ask members before they vote and pass judgment on this minister, to ask how this witness has performed in the witness box. Listen to the evidence he has given in defence of himself and pass judgment accordingly, because I can tell you, in any other court of law and, particularly the court of public opinion, this man stands condemned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, there was a common theme through what the opposition had to say here today, and it was about trial, punishment, judgment and evidence. This is a parliament; this is not a court. That is the first thing to remember. It is a trait the opposition have shown in the past and they continue to show it.
Their modus operandi is to be like the scribes and Pharisees with the Good Lord - try to trick you up with words; try to pose the question to you as they did with Question Time and, then, try to coat the answer and show that you have, somehow, transgressed divine law. That is the way they operate.
At the very basis of their prosecution of this case they seem to have discounted the obvious. Why could the member not be watching the video clip on YouTube at both times? Why is that? That is not something they canvassed. Was it? No, Madam Speaker. He said that he was watching it, so they excluded one possibility to suit their own ends, just as they did with this report.
As the member for Port Darwin said, this report does make mention, on page 45, of an absconding child in particular circumstances. What they failed to mention, as you read on to the next page, is the child was actually in the company of its auntie and it was further complicated by the fact …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: You can shake your head. You confabulated, you confected, you have thrown confetti in the air, and you have tried to pin my colleague. What it says on the following page, on page 46 is:
- NRC notified. 0930 call from police - will attend to our notification but if mother refuses to come back – they will not be able to force her as child not sectioned.
That is what they did not read out. It is a very common occurrence - I know because I spent some time at RDH in various wards - particularly, with Indigenous people, to get a visit from the auntie, the mother; the auntie and the mother want to go shopping, the child wants to go shopping, too; and the child goes. This is something that happens every day at RDH. I am not saying it is not a problem; it is a problem - if that child needs medication at certain times; if that child should not be exposed to certain things outside the hospital - I am talking about infective agents here - they should not be going anywhere.
This is the very dilemma that the Ombudsman is reporting here. They are trying to link it to sexual abuse, to the incident that happened in Royal Darwin Hospital on the paediatric ward, trying to attribute some type of nefarious goings-on with this particular child when, really, the circumstances are about the treatment of that child, and the family circumstances around that child. They should have been honest enough to actually do that, but they did not. They selectively quoted from a report; they alluded to a former report, tried to draw it together and entrap my colleague, the member for Casuarina.
It did not work in my mind because I knew exactly what the Ombudsman and the Health Services Complaints Commissioner were talking about. I have exposed here exactly what this crowd is up to. Moreover, if one were to turn to the recommendations of this report, they go into the unjustified use of restraint and detention - a very important issue at Royal Darwin Hospital. I can tell a story here. At one level, it is a humorous story, but it is a very serious story.
I knew an Indigenous man - I have been friends with him for many years – who had TB. One day, I was going to work and saw this particular man, who is in his 20s, in his hospital pyjamas, at the Rapid Creek shops waiting for a bus. He was talking to a couple of Mormons who live up the road. I immediately knew what was going on. That gentleman should have been in hospital. It is an issue for a whole range of reasons: people who are demented, who have alcoholic dementia, who have infectious diseases, who have brain injuries - as my colleague alluded to in the media, there was an incident where someone who had a fractured skull and part of their brain protruding wanted to go out of the hospital, and would have been dead - there is the issue of people who have psychiatric illnesses who do not want to be restrained. Then there is that grey area where doctors say to patients: ‘You really should not be going out of here because you are not only putting yourself at risk’ - as in the story I told - ‘but you are putting others at risk. You should be staying here’. I believe what the Ombudsman is alluding to here is that very dilemma; in fact, she mentions it as a head chapter from which the opposition read earlier today.
If you go through the recommendations of this report there is not one which talks about children being in danger – not one. Yes, it is an important issue, and I will come to that in a minute. However, if it was an issue the Ombudsman or the Health Services Complaints Commissioner would have it up there in lights. She has pointed to a whole range of issues, which the department has acknowledged are important. So, instead of turning to the substantial aspects of her report, the opposition has, I believe in a fairly low way, tried to sensationalise this report, to turn it against the Health Minister and the department, which has undertaken to try to resolve these issues.
There is disagreement between the legal views the department has, and the view of the Ombudsman. I accept the position of the Ombudsman as someone who is charged with protecting people’s rights, and will have a certain view. The hospital administration and the doctors may have another view. I believe there is room for a debate here, and that is what is being called for by people such as Colin McDonald QC and Dr Len Notaras. As most people would be aware, Dr Notaras is not only a medical doctor but he has a law degree as well; let us not forget that. He is a very talented man and we are very fortunate to have his services. He has a particular view which, I have ascertained from media discussion, is at loggerheads with the Health Services Complaints Commissioner; so there is a debate.
Turning to some of the issues at hand - this is the hospital’s side of the equation. The Acting Executive Director stated:
- Unfortunately it is often the case that staff in our hospitals are required to provide services to patients who are difficult to manage. It is not unusual for medical and nursing staff to be spat at, abused or even physically assaulted in the course of their work. In one recent incident a nurse at Royal Darwin Hospital had her nose broken by a patient she was attempting to assist. It is a fact of life even with the best of training and management procedures, such incidents will occur from time to time. The department aims to minimise adverse incidents by:
c) Training and education of staff on an ongoing basis.
And further:
- I conclude by thanking you for raising this issue with the Department. I acknowledge that the extent and application of s .16 MSA has been misunderstood by some staff at RDH in the past. I would ask you to take the following matters into account in deciding what steps you now take.
Dr BURNS: It has a lot to do with it. There is a whole range of things the Acting Chief Executive raised with the Ombudsman, and not one of them related to children - not one of them.
In relation to the questions which were put to my colleague about security at Royal Darwin Hospital, it is true that there were gaps; I acknowledged that as Health minister. That is why we had Jim O’Sullivan, former Police Commissioner of Queensland, and Mr Peter Foster do an audit and make recommendations on what was required, particularly in paediatric wards at Royal Darwin Hospital and, as my colleague just said, beyond that as well.
Security is an issue at our hospital. It is a vital issue and something we should probably debate as a parliament in a real and reasoned way, not in a back door way of alleging, as has happened here, that somehow my colleague is not up-front with showing $1m spent on security matters.
Madam Speaker, the Health department is a very big department. Royal Darwin Hospital has expenditure of $225m – it is a lot more now. I said to the department: ‘You need to find that from within existing resources somewhere; not necessarily the hospital, not bleeding the hospital dry, but you need to find that money to implement what O’Sullivan said’.
Incidentally, one of the issues O’Sullivan raised was about the paediatric ward within Royal Darwin Hospital and the steps to address the very human issue I mentioned about parents taking their children out. We know Indigenous people move as a group and the children want to be part of that group. If the group goes to Casuarina to shop or have lunch, the children naturally want to go with them. That is what this was all about.
I will come again to the assertion that my colleague has lied. You excluded the possibility he may have been watching a video in both instances. That was the first thing you excluded, in the sanctimonious, scribes-and-Pharisees performance that was put on. As I said as a point of order, he was the member for Macdonnell at that stage, and I remember sitting here and hearing the beautiful call for races. He was watching races while parliament was on, and he will not deny that.
We had the member for Fong Lim on his Facebook site. All of us do it, to some extent, because it is part of our job to gain information from the Internet on a whole range of things. I do not think the finger should be pointed at any of us because members on both sides utilise the Internet in one way or another.
I reject this censure motion. I believe it is a complete fabrication, it is a bitter and, as I said, almost a legal fit-up particularly by the member for Port Darwin and the Leader of the Opposition.
The government will be rejecting this censure motion. I move that the motion be now put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the censure motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (EXPERT EVIDENCE) BILL
(Serial 32)
(Serial 32)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the proposed legislation amounts to a shift in balance between the prosecution and the defence. Some might argue the nature of our criminal justice system means the prosecution must prove its case, meet all defences, and the defence should not be obliged to show its hand at all.
There could be arguments against disclosure and I will just run through them - not saying I necessarily agree with them, but for the sake of knowing what they could be. It is argued that requiring defence pre-trial disclosure would infringe several fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. Requiring the defendant to provide information about the defence case before trial would be inconsistent with the principle that the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, which is required to establish guilt without any assistance from the defendant. Compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure might also operate, in practice, as a form of compulsion on the defendant, inconsistent with the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination.
It is also argued that compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure would be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration has acknowledged that pre-trial defence disclosure would infringe these principles, but considered that a disclosure regime was still justified on the basis of efficiency. However, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice concluded that compulsory pre-trial disclosure did not involve a breach of fundamental principles because the only difference between pre-trial disclosure and advancing a defence at trial was timing.
Another argument is that, like prosecution disclosure, compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure would impose an unacceptable burden on defence resources. The Working Group on the Right to Silence considered that any additional cost could be offset by savings resulting from the focusing of the defence on the real issues in the case.
One submission emphasised Legal Aid organisations require adequate resources in order to meet disclosure obligation, again relying on government commitment. Other submissions argued the compulsory defence disclosure would amplify the effects of the unbalanced resources available to the prosecution and defence. It is clear that it would be impossible for most unrepresented defendants to fairly and fully comply with compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure. Like compulsory prosecution disclosure, defence disclosure is criticised on the basis it could lead to injustice by giving the prosecution an opportunity to tailor its case in response to the disclosed defence or intimidate defence witnesses or fabricate evidence.
A related argument is being contacted and questioned by police, in itself an intimidating experience for many potential defence witnesses. Potential witnesses who have had a criminal history, particularly those on bail or parole, may feel extremely vulnerable. In response to this argument, it is argued that these criticisms may be adequately addressed by the protective measures discussed in the paragraph above.
One submission argued that compulsory defence disclosure would promote less investigation by police in the initial stages of the criminal justice system. It is argued also that compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure may cause injustice because there may be reasons for departure from the disclosed defence at trial which are not the responsibility of the defendant, including errors by the defendant’s legal representatives, late briefing of counsel, different advice received by new solicitors or counsel and changes in response to adjustments to the prosecution case. It is argued that it would be unfair to impose sanctions on the defence for non-disclosure in these circumstances.
Finally, compulsory defence pre-trial disclosure is criticised on the basis that it is likely to be ineffective. Research into limiting existing defence disclosure requirements indicates judges are generally reluctant to impose sanctions for non-compliance with these requirements. It is argued there is no reason to expect a general disclosure regime will be more rigorously enforced by the judiciary. You could say these amendments may infringe the fundamental integrity of the system which does not require the accused to assist the prosecution to prove its case.
Having said that, and on the balance of the information put forward from my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, and in the interests of fair balance and natural justice, we do not oppose the bill; we support the bill. It is important to point out there are quarters within the legal system which have a different view.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate.
The bill amends the Criminal Code to provide the defence must give notice to the court, and the prosecution, if it intends to call expert evidence in criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court. That is an important distinction and it goes to the question raised by the member for Nelson, which I will deal with. It has long been accepted that evidence dealing with specialised areas of knowledge, such as relevant material determining a disputed factual issue, should be explained to the jury by suitably qualified witnesses. The member for Port Darwin went into some detail on that. These are areas of knowledge beyond general knowledge of the community such as scientific evidence about DNA or evidence about gunshot residue.
Expert evidence assists in ensuring the jury does not draw erroneous inferences from the evidence before the court. Apparently, the defence is under no obligation to notify the prosecution or the court of an intention to call expert evidence, although I have been advised by the legal fraternity that, as a matter of practice, they often do. Prosecution, for its overriding obligation to disclose all relevant evidence, must disclose its intent to call expert evidence and provide a report or statement from the witness. Currently, the only disclosure the defence need make in criminal proceedings is notice of alibi. The amendment requires that the notice must contain certain information – the name, address and qualification of the proposed expert and the substance of the proposed evidence. If a report or statement containing the findings or opinion of the expert witness is in existence, then this must be provided with the notice. If it does not exist, then it must be provided as soon as it does come into existence.
Notice overcomes a potential unfairness to the prosecution by ensuring the ability to challenge the expertise or effectively cross-examine is not compromised. It also enables expediency in case management through saving court time, expense and stress, or inconvenience to witnesses. This bill brings the Northern Territory in line with a majority of jurisdictions in Australia and the United Kingdom. Relevant Northern Territory stakeholders were consulted.
I want to go through the consultation process. The Director of Public Prosecutions raised the issue that the majority of jurisdictions in Australia have legislative provision for defence disclosure of the intention to call expert evidence. He highlighted two cases in 2008 where the prosecution had been ambushed by defence calling expert evidence without notice. The sex-somnia case was, I guess, the most notable of those cases.
Prior to drafting, comments were sought from relevant stakeholders. Comments were received from the Chief Justice, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) and the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. The Chief Justice and NAAJA were supportive of the proposal; the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission did not support it. The majority of jurisdictions in Australia, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and South Australia and, to some extent, New South Wales have this provision; as does the United Kingdom.
I turn to the questions raised by members opposite. The member for Port Darwin asked whether government had considered including the notification of remuneration paid to experts for evidence. I am advised it is standard for expert witnesses to be provided with remuneration for their expertise. I am advised the remuneration paid to an expert does not reflect on the content of their evidence. I am advised an expert may be challenged on their evidence, and any contradiction in their evidence compared with other expert evidence. It may be the member for Port Darwin was referring to the remuneration of expert witnesses in civil proceedings in New South Wales, not criminal proceedings …
Mr Elferink: That is quite possible, yes.
Ms LAWRIE: These are found in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of 2005. Some of the rules relate to the court determining the rate of remuneration. The rule that Department of Justice suspects could be the one referred to by the member for Port Darwin is Rule 31.22. It goes to only to civil proceedings. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Act, where the provisions regarding giving notice of intention to call expert evidence are found; about the expert disclosing his or her fees. I repeat: these were matters the Department of Justice have provided to me. They are saying it is standard for those expert witnesses to be provided remuneration for their expertise; it is considered the remuneration paid to an expert does not reflect on the content of their evidence; and an expert may be challenged about their evidence, and any contradiction in their evidence compared with other expert witnesses.
In no other jurisdiction is the matter of remuneration regarding expert evidence as raised by the member for Port Darwin ...
Mr Elferink: It will be a trailblazer.
Ms LAWRIE: Picking up on the interjection, it is often the case where you are changing matters of this nature to be the trailblazer. At this stage, the Northern Territory is genuinely looking to address the matters the Chief Justice raised. We went through a consultation process to change anything of any significant material respect to what we would be proposing. As far as government is concerned, we are very satisfied with the legislation as it appears before the House.
I thank member for Nelson for getting the briefing. I know he had a series of questions he was able to have answered during that briefing. The first question was why this only applies to trials in the Supreme Court. The procedural unfairness caused by the defence calling expert evidence without notice really only applies in a jury trial. In such trials, the judge cannot give more than a short adjournment for the prosecution to investigate the matter and be in a position to effectively challenge or cross-examine the witness - otherwise you have the situation of a jury kept waiting.
I am advised the problem does not occur in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or the Youth Justice Court because the magistrate can adjourn a hearing to a later date, if required in the interest of justice, to enable the prosecution to duly consider the expert evidence. The empanelling of the jury and the fact that the jury is there does not provide the opportunity to create an adjournment to test the expert evidence in the Supreme Court.
The second question was in regard to the accused being required to give written notice at least 14 days before the start of the trial: why does section 331A(2)(b) state they may also give notice within another time allowed by the court? That section provides for a time line of 14 days and provides for discretion by the judge. It will enable the court discretion to allow another type of notice to be given. It basically means it may allow a shorter period of time for notice. You must give at least 14 days, as prescribed in the legislation; this clause enables the judge to exercise discretion for a shorter period of time if a short period of time is the most effective way. It will ensure procedural fairness, and it avoids the possibility, I am advised, of an appeal or a miscarriage of justice.
The third question was why are there no penalties for contravention of the section, which is, failing to provide notice. Subsection (7) of the amendment contains the sanctions available to the court for contravening section 331A, that is, the court may, on application by the prosecution: discharge the jury; adjourn the trial; or make a comment about the contravention. I am advised any other penalty, such as a fine, is not appropriate for criminal proceedings.
The member for Fong Lim raised one point particularly relevant to the debate, which was regarding notification could cause delay in trials. I am advised the amendment will not lead to delays in trials. It avoids delays as notification enables the prosecution to be prepared. Also, if the prosecution agrees with what the defence expert says: (1) the trial maybe avoided altogether, or (2) the issues may be narrowed. I am advised the amendment, on experience elsewhere, saves the court time.
These were the questions raised in the second reading debate. I can advise the act will commence on assent. I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
APPROPRIATION (2009-2010) BILL
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from 6 May 2009.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, as the Northern Territory and Australia face the toughest economic times in a generation, Budget 2009-10 is certainly a ray of hope. It invests strategically to protect Territory jobs and to build the Territory for the future.
Against the backdrop of a record $1.3bn investment in infrastructure, Budget 2009-10 underpins our economy’s key industries. We are investing in more frontline services, with record health, police and education budgets to continue to deliver essential services to Territory families. We also continue our commitment to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, and we are delivering for Territory families with a targeted focus of improving housing affordability and infrastructure.
I take this opportunity to speak to the strategic funding allocations across my specific portfolio responsibilities. Budget 2009-10 delivers a record investment in housing across the Northern Territory, with more land to grow, new places to buy and rent at an affordable price, and new public housing. The $390.3m allocation, a $187m or 92% boost on the previous year, reflects this government’s commitment to housing the Territory. These housing projects will create 355 jobs across the construction industry and give real opportunities to small businesses.
We are investing strategically to meet our largest demand areas in public housing, particularly for seniors and singles. Budget 2009-10 delivers $23.4m for more public housing. Seniors are one of our largest growing clientele groups for public housing and providing accommodation designed for their needs is an important focus of our investment in public housing.
$10m is provided in Budget 2009-10 for the construction of a 44-unit seniors village in the new suburb of Bellamack. We are revitalising older public housing complexes as we continue to tackle antisocial behaviour. $4m has been committed to upgrade complexes in Alice Springs and Darwin. A further $9.4m will be invested in building new and upgrading existing public housing dwellings.
We know housing affordability is placing stress on some Territory families. In Budget 2009-10 we are delivering a range of projects to help Territorians meet this challenge. Later this year, work will start on the new Parap Gateway Development. Starting with Wirrina flats and townhouses, public housing on Parap Road will be demolished and redeveloped. The Parap Gateway will be a mixture of public and private housing, including accommodation specifically for seniors and first homebuyers.
This government recognises dense public housing complexes do not suit their clientele and, over time, we will redevelop these complexes across the Territory. Our project to revitalise and sell the former public housing complex at 26 Emery Avenue to first homebuyers at an affordable housing price is well under way. This project is putting 16 new homes on the market and I look forward next month to announcing details of the ballot for the sale of this complex.
Budget 2009-10 delivers on our commitment to establish an affordable housing company. We know there is a growing demand for affordable rental properties. The housing affordability rental company will help meet that gap between the price of public housing and private rental properties currently available in the market. The Parap Gateway development will be the first of these projects.
The new Homestart NT initiative will commence on 1 June, focusing on helping low to middle income earners to buy their own home. Disappointingly, this initiative to help Territorians to buy their first home has not been supported by the opposition. Budget 2009-10 includes $26m to support this new scheme which offers higher purchase price limits and higher income caps than the old HomeNorth Extra. This means more Territorians will be able to access financial support to buy their own home, opening up access to 40% of our market without investing more than 30% of their household income.
With our focus on housing the Territory we are working with the Commonwealth to get job-creating projects out quickly and effectively. Like the Commonwealth government, we made a deliberate decision to go into a temporary deficit to protect jobs in tough economic times. In Budget 2009-10 we will continue to roll-out projects to upgrade and build new public housing with funding from the Australian government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan.
To date, the Territory has received $4.1m to upgrade 175 existing public housing properties. Twenty-three properties have received internal upgrades already, including kitchen repairs. A further 27 vacant properties, which have been out of service, will be put up for use by Territory families and include properties in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. Tenders are being awarded and assessed for the installation of solar hot water units and roof repairs and replacements. $2m of the $4.1m has been committed and allocated in Budget 2009-10. A further $7.1m, with $6.2m being allocated in Budget 2009-10, will be used to build 22 new homes in Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Tenders for the first four homes to be built are now open.
I am currently working with the Commonwealth on specific projects for a further investment of $14.3m to be provided in 2009 to construct new housing. These projects will be carried out by local contractors, thus protecting Territory jobs and building the Territory.
The Henderson government is committed in tackling homelessness across the Northern Territory. This includes working with the Commonwealth to deliver the $15.8m A Place to Call Home program which will build 32 new houses by 2013.
In Budget 2009-10 we will deliver $1.29m to build another six new homes; $3.25m to provide services to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping, improve access to sustainable housing and improve social inclusion of homeless people and people at risk, with a further $2m for a new tenancy sustainability program to give Territorians life skills training and support to maintain their tenancies.
The Territory government will also provide $1.1m to continue financial and administrative support for community organisations that provide housing options to special needs groups. Working in partnership with our NGO sector is a key aspect of housing the Territory. Improving housing conditions is essential to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Better housing means healthier families, healthier lifestyles, stronger communities and a strong and growing economy.
The Australian and Territory governments are working together to deliver a record $1.76bn program over 10 years to improve Indigenous housing in the Territory. The funding investment will address over crowding, homelessness and the poor housing conditions we currently face in remote Indigenous communities. It includes $672m over five years for the landmark Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, SIHIP.
SIHIP will build and replace up to 900 houses and refurbish more than 1300 houses in 73 remote Indigenous communities and some town camps. SIHIP continues in Budget 2009-10 with $98m to build up to 100 new homes and associated infrastructure, $78m to refurbish more than 700 existing homes, and $44m for better tenancy and property management to support new and existing housing across remote Indigenous communities.
A sustainable workforce will be needed to get this work done. The Territory and Australian governments are committed to ensuring local businesses are utilised for these projects, protecting jobs in our key industry, namely construction. SIHIP is about more than improving housing conditions for Indigenous Territorians. A key focus of the program is providing real jobs and training opportunities for Indigenous people.
In Tennant Creek, 13 local Indigenous Territorians have already completed prevocational training through SIHIP, undertaking training with the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation. Another 12 will start this training soon. Work is under way on the Tiwi Islands to identify participants in two initial training courses. On Groote Eylandt, 10 community members have already undertaken OHS training, and a work ready training course will be held in the coming months.
Budget 2009-10 allocates $19.1m for major capital grants to improve Indigenous essential services. These include $1.4m for water-sourced development at Alpurrurulam, Barunga and Beswick; $3.1m to replace or upgrade water storage capacity at Palumpa, Warrawi, Ramingining and Willowra; $2.4m to connect Yuelamu to the Yuendumu electricity grid and a further $1.6m for a new power station at Alpurrurulam. We have also increased funding for contracting essential service operators - who do a great job - by $2.85m in this Budget 2009-10 to meet the increasing costs and also further improve essential service training programs for local people - local people undertaking local jobs in their own communities.
Budget 2009-10 also provides additional Commonwealth funding of $20m for the delivery of municipal and essential services. Included in this funding is $4.5m for capital grants to improve remote infrastructure. This work is about growing the Territory services, investing in our regions, and delivering real results for Territorians.
This government remains committed to providing ongoing support to local government. We are committed to working with local government to support the expansion of their services into unincorporated areas. Just over $51m has been allocated for financial assistance grants for local government services. A further $1.7m is allocated under Closing the Gap to allow community representation in local government and provide infrastructure to support local community governance. The Australian government funding of $10m will be delivered to help build and retain a skilled workforce in regional and remote communities. The funding will support the transitioning of Indigenous Territorians working in local government under the previous CDEP scheme into fully-funded jobs.
The Northern Territory government made an election commitment in 2008 of $4m to upgrade facilities in Darwin's Bagot Community. As part of Budget 2009-10, $2m will be invested in the community to focus on improving infrastructure such as lighting, fencing and community services. Upgrades will be done in consultation with the community.
More than a third of Territorians speak languages other than English and can face significant challenges when accessing information and services. Ensuring these Territorians fully understand information about health, justice, education and other vital topics, has a positive impact on their lives. This is why Budget 2009-10 includes ongoing funding of $350 000 for the interpreter and translator services to alleviate communication barriers for non-English speaking Territorians. $140 000 will be invested in the recruitment, training, and accreditation needs of interpreters, many of whom are recruited from remote communities, and this will create opportunities for those people. $210 000 will also be invested in the Aboriginal Interpreter Service to meet the recent increase in demand for interpreting services as a result of the Australian government’s intervention.
The budget provides $2.15m for water safety and animal welfare. Much of the Territory’s great lifestyle revolves around the outdoors and, in the Top End particularly, around water. Our Safe Pool Grant was very successful with over $10.5m used to upgrade pool fencing across the Territory. Our commitment to water safety continues, and a key component of the Water Safety Unit’s work is the Water Safety Awareness Program. The program entitles parents of children aged between six months and five years to five free water safety sessions. Since commencement in late 2003, almost 6000 children and their families have participated in this valuable program. To continue improvement in the areas of water safety and animal welfare, this budget continues to support the Water Safety Advisory Council and the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
This government has delivered, and continues to deliver, record infrastructure spends. I am proud to be the Essential Services minister and look forward to working with the staff and management of Power and Water Corporation on the roll-out of Budget 2009-10's five-year infrastructure investment program now reaching $1.4bn. We are committed to growing our economy and protecting jobs.
In order to meet projected growth in demand and improved system security, major investment in new assets will be undertaken. This infrastructure investment program will see a steady increase in the delivery of reliable and robust electricity, water, and sewerage services throughout the Northern Territory. This program will reduce the risk of major equipment failure through a large increase in spending on asset replacement and upgrade. This investment will contribute to the success of a number of important growth initiatives for the Territory, including the substantial program of land release and associated infrastructure upgrades in Darwin, Alice Springs and remote communities. Demand growth throughout the Northern Territory will be met through the expansion and strengthening of the power network, commissioning of new power stations, developing new and augmenting existing water supply sources, and greater investment in wastewater treatment facilities.
The Henderson government understands increasing reliability for customers will benefit Territory industries. We will protect local jobs and Power and Water will give priority to local development in its tendering evaluations and provide extensive briefings to local suppliers. In order to help Power and Water deliver the infrastructure investment program and achieve financial sustainability, the government authorised significant and necessary increases in electricity, water, and sewerage tariffs over the next three years. This was a tough decision, but necessary to build the utility following decades of under-investment.
This government will not make the same mistakes as the CLP which cut jobs and stripped the corporation of its profits. We will continue to provide a dividend moratorium for the corporation. The dividend moratorium and the necessary tariff increases shows the Henderson government is serious about ensuring Power and Water has the financial capacity to meet the substantial capital investment required to deliver efficient and reliable essential services for Territorians.
I now turn to the independent review of our power networks system done by Mervyn Davies earlier this year. His recommendations have been implemented as a matter of priority. The Remedial Asset Management Program, or RAMP as it is called, was established immediately to oversee the restoration of the Casuarina Zone Substation, to ensure the condition of Power and Water’s power system assets, and to manage critical remedial and maintenance works. Budget 2009-10 provides the necessary financial backing to ensure Power and Water implements all the recommendations completely, as soon as possible. The infrastructure investment program will ensure major projects are well under way. Some of these projects include continuing work on the new Weddell power station to service customers in Darwin, Palmerston and the link between Katherine and the rural area. This is $88m over the next five years, and a total project figure of $164m.
Further, building the new Owen Springs Power Station in Alice Springs is $82m over the next five years; a total of $132m for that project; implementing the Darwin Sewer Strategy, including closure of the Larrakeyah Outfall and augmenting the Ludmilla Wastewater Treatment Plant, a total of $56m; continuing works to underground power in Darwin’s northern suburbs; building the new Archer Zone Substation for Palmerston, and upgrading and replacing generators in power stations at Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Yulara.
Further still, raising the Darwin River Dam wall to increase water storage capacity - that is $14m over the next five years; the continuing works to bring Manton Dam back online as a secondary water source - some $153m over the next five years; building the new Palmerston transmission main; upgrading the Roe Creek bore field in Alice Springs, and the further restoration works on the Casuarina Zone Substation.
Power and Water is well placed to deliver safe, efficient and reliable essential services for our remote communities. In Budget 2009-10, the Territory government will invest $67m to upgrade electricity, water supply, and sewerage services in remote Indigenous communities. Power and Water, through the Indigenous essential services program, is implementing strategies to ensure it can meet current demand and deliver increasing services for the future in remote Indigenous communities.
The Henderson government makes no apologies for increasing frontline public service numbers. More police, teachers and nurses are front and centre in the Henderson government’s priorities. Through the Commonwealth intervention and Closing the Gap we have also seen increases in the Northern Territory public sector staffing levels, which are providing very important services such as improved child protection. Disturbingly, the Leader of the Opposition continues to question the expertise of Territory public servants. In his budget reply yesterday, he repeatedly talked about the lack of efficiency in the service as if some departments are actually on holiday camps. Complete nonsense! Hard-working Territorians delivering important services for our communities; that is what they are doing.
We expect public sector employees to do their job, and we should respect the work they do. We have increased the total budget of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment to $10.169m, an increase of $2.6m. The Commissioner’s office is to lead the implementation of this government’s commitment to introduce a scholarship program to support Northern Territory government employees undertaking specialist training, or academic studies, to further their careers in the NTPS; an NTPS graduate recruitment and career development program, and the Chief Minister’s Public Sector Medal scheme, to recognise high performing employees for their innovation and services to the community.
This year, we will increase our focus on reforming and revitalising the NTPS. The OCPE will, through that program, complete the review of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, PSEMA, and introduce the NTPS Workforce Planning framework; develop a knowledge management strategy to retain the benefits of employees’ knowledge and experience when they leave the NTPS, and implement the Innovation, Recognition and Rewards strategy for the Northern Territory Public Service. Further, it will establish a new Indigenous employment and career development strategy to increase the numbers of Indigenous Territorians employed in the NTPS; develop a new willing and able strategy to improve opportunities available in the Northern Territory Public Service to Territorians with a disability, and also introduce biennial staff surveys to improve our understanding of Northern Territory Public Service employees.
In conclusion, this budget delivers real results for Territorians. It makes major investments in housing and infrastructure, delivering for Territory families and protecting Territory jobs. Budget 2009-10 protects Territory jobs in the face of the global economic recession, and provides strategic investment in essential services.
I congratulate the Treasurer and the Chief Minister on a strong, balanced budget, reflective of the surrounding economic climate while delivering on the Henderson government’s policies and commitment.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, in every budget there is good and bad - and this budget is no different. Every budget is quite hard for the ordinary person on the street to understand, and they take their understanding from what they read in the newspapers or see on television.
One of the problems we have with delivering the budget to the ordinary person on the street is there tends to be an amount of spin because, although the government says we are in tough times, it also wants to tell people there is some good news as well. From a general point of view, people need to know the nitty-gritty. Sometimes when you read what the Treasurer has said, you have to dig down to discover what it means. For instance, in the Budget speech the Treasurer said:
- … the Territory Labor government has structured the 2009-10 Budget with a fundamental goal - to protect Territory jobs across all sectors of our economy.
Budget 2009-10 delivers this key priority by building the Territory. At its core is an unprecedented $1.3bn infrastructure investment in the Territory’s housing, roads, schools, and community, creating over 2500 construction and related jobs.
I do not have an argument about the jobs, but I do about the figure. The figure is not actual; it is what, in theory, they will spend, but, in fact, do not. If you go to page 15 of the Budget Paper No 4, you will see there is $1.076bn worth of capital works the government says it is going to spend. From that, you have to take $116m which is part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, a one-off stimulus package the Commonwealth government is putting into the Territory and is included in the minister’s $1.3bn figure - which leaves $960m of capital works. The government will not spend $960m worth of works because it revotes money in and out. In the column headed ‘cash,’ is the amount of money it expects to spend on these programs. So, capital works appears at $960m but, on the ground for this financial year, it will spend $537m.
That might be what the government in an accrual accounting format might like to say, but I believe people on the ground want to know how much the government is going to spend this financial year. When it comes to capital works, the facts are the total amount of actual hard cash it will spend will be $537m. We have to put these figures into perspective.
You will notice the difference between the amount of cash which will be spent compared to the figure publicly put forward. The government says total capital works will be $960m - the cash will be $537m. That is what will be spent. The nation building program is $116m - that is the works program; in the cash column you see $116m as well, because the federal government wants that money spent right now. That is where you can see how much money is actually being spent.
The other side of the coin is to say: ‘This is the budget for this year, but what is that relying on?’ It relies on these things. On page 25 of Budget Paper No 2 it states:
- The main non-policy related variations to revenue since the May 2008 budget are:
upward revision of Territory taxation revenue of $12.8m …
We have made more money from taxation in the Northern Territory than last year;
a reduction in GST revenue of $161.8m in 2008-09 and $210.6m in 2009-10 …
There has also been increased tied funding from the Commonwealth of $401m this year as against $241.8m last financial year. We also have increased mining royalties from $136.6m in 2008-09 to $224.6m this year; and increases in agency revenue. We have had reductions in tax equivalents and dividends related to the Power and Water Corporation.
There is also a page here we should note. This was raised at the Chamber of Commerce lunch and relates to user charges. This is one of those silent taxes you have to keep an eye out for if you want to see from where government increases its revenue. It is called User charges under the heading Other Revenue on page 79 of the same paper. It says:
- User charges are fees imposed on an individual for the provision of a general government service or good. They are distinct from a tax because those who receive a direct benefit from the service pay the charge. The Territory levies user charges across a range of services including culture and recreation, environment, licensing and transport.
I move down further:
- As a basic principle, user charges should be set at full cost recovery. This ensures that those who do not use the service are not penalised indirectly through reduced levels of services in other government areas. In addition, user charges should be contemporary through regular reviews of the fee to reflect changes in input costs such as wages and salaries, materials and technology.
A review of the Territory’s user charges and a conversion of suitable charges to revenue units will be undertaken in 2009-10.
This is another area that could be a likely source of revenue, but could also be a likely source of pain for those people who may have to pay those charges.
I am asking: what is running our budget for this next financial year? The big question I ask of government is: what happens if, for instance, the reduction in GST continues? And the increased tied funding – a part of which is in the stimulus package which has to be spent now - so it is unlikely we will have it in the next financial year, which means it is unlikely we will have the same large amount of money, the $401m we have as increased tied funding this year? We talk about increased mining royalties, yet all the discussion I have heard from the mining industry is not to expect the same amount of royalties you get this year, next year. It looks like we might have a reduction in our royalty funding from mining.
What is going to happen if we do not get that income next year? If things are tight now, if GST does not increase, if mining royalties do not increase, and if tied funding is reduced, where does that leave us when it comes to next year’s budget? Although we are discussing this year’s budget, the government need to tell us what its plans are for next year. Who knows, if the recession keeps going we need to plan for that as well. We cannot plan just one year ahead.
I would like to talk about some of the local issues we have to deal with in the rural area. There are a number of good things in the budget, but, overall, the rural area has been left out, well and truly; there are few things in the budget to get excited about, because if you compare that amount of money to the total budget, it is a pittance. There is $1m for Coolalinga traffic management - which has been on the plans for at least six or seven years. There is the Defence Hub intersection on Thorngate Road. This will not affect rural people because the Defence Hub is just an industrial site the government built partly in a swamp, by the way, and they are upgrading the intersection.
The Humpty Doo bus exchange and the Park and Ride - there are two figures in the budget, and I am confused as to whether they are the same thing. There is $0.5m for the Humpty Doo Bus Exchange, and also $1m for the Park and Ride. Both those, if they fit into the same category, are a great initiative for government. I have no problem saying it is good that government is promoting the idea of people leaving their cars and catching a bus. However, the issue is: how secure will the cars be. We know what it is like at boat ramps, and we do not want the same when people leave their vehicle all day, catch the bus, and come back and find the rear wheels missing, or the car has been broken into. Security is the key if Park and Ride is to be a success.
There is an upgrade of the Stuart Highway into Deviney Road. I am probably pinching this from the member for Drysdale; I believe his area covers that, but the boundary between Nelson and Drysdale is the centre of the Stuart Highway. I have been pushing this for a while. I asked the minister if there could be some changes to the Stuart Highway to alleviate the traffic back-up in that area. This program of $1.9m is to put in an extra lane. I would like to see a lane go through the 11 Mile, Pinelands, and Holtze area. Hopefully, this will help alleviate some of the traffic problems in that area. Once Tiger Brennan Drive goes through it will be different, but that is still a quite a way off.
The other money is for the primary schools. The Chief Minister announced the 37 schools and I was happy that the Lutheran School received some money, but I am sad that Howard Springs Primary School, which is much older, has to wait for the second round. There is very little for schools in the rural area. Many schools in the northern suburbs have been upgraded; in fact, Parap Primary School has been upgraded twice. In the meantime, poor old Howard Springs is starting to fall apart. It is old and it needs urgent refurbishment. Again, that is really money from the stimulus package.
Then there is the Henning Road/Girraween Road intersection which has been on the plans for nearly six years. I am still waiting for a briefing on what that intersection will look like. There is $1m there. If I took out the Nation Building and counted up the total for the rural area, I come to $4.5m to $5m for the rural area.
There are other things in the budget which, make you think: well, they got even with the rural area. If you pick up the Regional Highlights you will notice there is an area they call Palmerston and Litchfield, but that includes development in the port, and sometimes development at Litchfield National Park. So, if you read that you would think we were doing well; but if you dig down a little deeper, the rural area has not done well at all.
It is good the government has put some money into dental services. Many people, especially those on lower incomes, have to wait enormous lengths of time to get their teeth fixed. I do not know how people who have major dental requirements wait 12 months or two years for treatment. By that time they probably do not have any teeth left. It is good that the government is trying to improve dental services.
The GP clinic at Palmerston: I presume that is the one with 24-hour service, which is going to be updated. I have heard the government is not going to build it where it is; they are going to build it somewhere else. We have a health service there; we have a block of land there. I would be interested to know from the Minister for Health, is it a whole new building they are going to build? Why do we not attach it to the existing, relatively new, health centre already on the corner of Temple Terrace and Roystonia Street? I would be interested to know if this money will be put into something separate from what is already there; there is certainly plenty of land there, so I hope it is not going somewhere else.
I mentioned before the idea of boxing, which is part of the police youth clubs - it is a great idea to put $50 000 that way; that is great. The water tank rebate scheme is a start, but when you divide the cost of a water tank into $150 000, it will be interesting to see how much money people get for that. Pensioner concessions are great too. There has been some lobbying from COTA and NTCOSS and similar organisations, asking for the government to look at the NT Pensioner Concession Scheme. One area which has missed out badly is rates. Rates are capped at a certain amount, about $200, so once rates keep going up there has been no system to ensure the rebates keep up with the increase in rates. It is a big cost to pensioners and I ask the government to see if it is possible to change the scheme so it can be fairer for pensioners.
I note the $1.5m for swimming pool at Humpty Doo is not shown in the revoted columns anywhere. I do not know if it is off the agenda at the moment. It will not be enough money and my guess is the YMCA will start to look somewhere around the $8m mark, at least. We will see.
There is a curious budget note saying there are two road projects in Litchfield National Park and for some reason one of those roads is put in Top End Rural, and the other is put in as Palmerston Litchfield. I do not know how whoever identifies which area they belong to, arrives at that.
What is missing in the rural area? You have heard it before: we have been struggling for a bicycle path. I know the Minister for Transport made a statement about buses, and it is good to hear about the bus improvements. But I was slightly wrong; the government has built about 300 m of bicycle path for the new Lutheran School on Whitewood Road, so I take that back. That is 300 m in close to 20 years. The bicycle path along the Arnhem Highway is very old and needs a new seal on it. No one seems to worry about it but it is used by many people and has not had any maintenance for a long time. That is the last time the government built any form of bicycle path in the rural area.
We need to expand the town water. I have said time and again that we have too many private lines in the rural area. Even if they made a decision to invest $200 000 for expanding the town water supply into the rural area and got rid of all those private lines that travel up and down the road. This is how hard it is to change things. The government has knocked that idea time and time again. I have asked for it and I have just about given up writing letters. Instead, Power and Water put out a letter to people in Mahaffey Road, Howard Springs, saying if you would like town water it will cost you $19 500. It put out a survey and expected everyone to say they would spend $19 500. A bore will cost $15 000. They had three people out of 50 people in the street who said yes. There is no way you are going to encourage people to connect to the town water supply or get rid of their private lines if you are going to charge them $19 500. The government needs to put out a program to expand the town water without that cost put on people who have already, at their own cost, put in private water lines. The problem with the private water lines is that they deteriorate and leak and cause all types of problems.
Freds Pass Reserve is the major recreation centre in the rural area. We have polocrosse, pony clubs, equestrian, Rugby League, Rugby Union, cricket, soccer, archery, paint-ball; we do not have hockey, we had softball but they have moved somewhere else as there is not enough room at the moment.
We have so many cricket teams there are not enough ovals. The Under 13s are chockers with kids and cannot take any more. If we have so many kids who want to play sport and we simply do not have the facilities, then I say: ‘Come on, government, put your money into Freds Pass’. They do not put much money there - occasionally they supply a little burst - compared to Marrara and other places. How much money are they offering Palmerston? I believe it is $24m in upgrades to sport. Sorry, Palmerston members, but, dear old Freds Pass, which has relied on a lot of volunteer work, should be recognised as a major contributor to the health and wellbeing of many of our youth in the rural area. It needs more investment.
The Rugby League people will tell you they do not have enough room. If you go there tonight, you will see kids everywhere. The Rugby Union people are trying to build their own field by scraping together a bit of equipment here and there because they do not have enough room. The Rugby League people are pushing in on them and they are trying to find more space. It is really an eye opener; if the minister for Sport would come down to Freds Pass at this time of year on a Thursday, he would be amazed at the number of kids playing at Freds Pass Reserve.
There are issues such as the road infrastructure at the Howard Springs tip and also at the 15 Mile community, which is called Palmerston Indigenous Village. There were plans drawn up about eight years ago to put a gazetted road to the Palmerston Indigenous Village. They do not have a formal entrance; they drive along the Power and Water easement - that is not good enough. The government of the time built this village and yet those people still have no formal road connection to their community. There are internal roads, but no proper, external, gazetted road connected. That also applies to the Howard Springs tip, or Transfer Station, which was also supposed to get a new entrance further away from the lights at Howard Springs.
Also missing in this budget is the regional waste facility. A number of people in this House remember the debate regarding the closing of the Humpty Doo Landfill. I am not going into the pros and cons of that, but the government said it would do a scoping study for a regional waste facility at least four years ago. I believe they have buried that and made rural people pay the cost of sending their rubbish to the Shoal Bay Landfill. There is nothing in this budget to say the government is considering establishing a regional waste facility. I say to the government: if you are not considering it, if you are not serious, allow the rural area to build its own landfill at Sunday Creek. What other shire has to take its rubbish from Berry Springs Landfill all the way to Shoal Bay? As far as I know, Dundee rubbish is collected by Parks and Wildlife and delivered to Shoal Bay. Surely we can produce a reasonable landfill site closer to where the rubbish is produced. It is 55 km from Berry Springs to Darwin, which is a lot of carbon if you are talking about carbon-related industries - and we are carting rubbish that far every day from Berry Springs to Shoal Bay. If the government is not interested in the regional waste facility, allow Litchfield to put one closer to where people live.
Howard Springs Nature Reserve: I see the media release from the minister saying there is $8m for parks. There is not too much information in that media release, but I hope some of that money, minister, will be allocated for upgrades and changes to the Howard Springs Nature Reserve. I was there a couple of Saturdays ago, a day you would expect to be as busy as a bee, and there were four cars in one car park and one or two cars in the other. Years ago they would be full; there would be people at the barbecues, in the water - people everywhere; you would be pushing to get a car parking space.
Unfortunately, it has dropped off substantially mainly due to the lack of swimming facilities. A bus came down early the other day and, yes, all the tourists loved the barramundi and the turtles, but they were not interested in going for a swim. If we can get it back to some of its former glory, whether by upgrading the pool or with a small water park - we would not want to go as big as Palmerston with another $5m water park; It is only the rural area. Hopefully, we get something that pushes things along.
I notice a Berrimah Fire Station in the budget. It is quoted in the budget speech, but I cannot find it in the documents. Perhaps the Minister for Police, Fire, and Emergency Services can tell us where it is. There is also a Berrimah water storage tank and I do not know where it is either; it is $30m, so it is not to be sneezed at.
On prisons: I am getting mixed messages about the prisons. I know the government wants to move it, and I am not a fan of moving it, and I see $21m for the headworks. If you left it where it is or moved it onto Berrimah Farm that would be $21m more or less saved. This is some of the costs I spoke about. Then I see money like this: 'Increased prisoner capacity at Darwin, Alice Springs Correctional Services'. So, we are going to spend $6.86m - that is what we did last year - $9.15m this year, $10.57m next year, and $10.57m the year after. That is about when the other prison should be built. We are spending a large amount of money on increasing prison capacity at the moment. I am not sure where we are heading with all that. There is also another $1.39m, it says, 'for correctional centres Stage 2, construct short-term and medium-term accommodation to meet rising prisoner numbers in Alice and Darwin'. I see all these figures and I am not 100% sure what they mean, except it looks like we are spending a large amount of money on facilities that will be pulled down later.
The other area of prisons is a work camp - a terrific idea; no problem with that, minister. We need more of them and, I believe, we need mobile ones. If we had more of those, we could have a smaller prison, one that would fit at Berrimah; and that would be a better way to go.
There is an interesting statement in this paper. This may be something for the Minister for Lands and Planning to answer. It says: 'Payment for transferring the management responsibility of single user access roads to the lessee/owner of pastoral leases - $2.5m'. I do not know what that means, but I am interested in finding out.
I notice there is also a 3% efficiency cut – which worries me. There must be places that cannot have any more efficiency cuts. You can go on …
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move the member for Nelson be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Goyder. The 3% efficiency cut: since I have been in this parliament they keep saying every department has to have an efficiency cut. I remember getting a complaint from people in a scientific area of government who said: 'We have been cut so much, we cannot even get into a car to go out and do the work we are meant to do'. You have to be very careful. As I said on the news the other night, it is no good employing people if they sit at a desk and cannot do any work because they have no equipment to do the work. If a scientist is doing some work, he needs to go out and check the water, look for crocodile eggs or whatever. They have now been cutback on the number of vehicles they have to share, and it is on a roster and they might be able to go out in two weeks. You are going to lose those people because they will lose their enthusiasm. They are going to say: 'This is too hard. I will go south and get a job, or I will join private industry'.
It is great to have efficiencies, but they must be worked out realistically. Some departments will not have efficiency cuts; it mentions that, and some small departments with less than 30 people – I am trying to work out which they would be – have smaller efficiency cuts. I am very worried about some of our government departments operating as they should be. Efficiency cuts might sound good, but let us not kill the enthusiasm of people who work in our departments, because people do not just work, they enjoy their jobs and we want that enthusiasm.
I will give you an example of where we have to change the way we think. If you look at tourism, in 2008-09 tourism received approximately $39m, and will get approximately $42m this year. If you take the Territory Wildlife Park, which is a major tourist attraction, it received $10.099m in 2008-09, and will get the huge increase of $10 000 in 2009-10. The Territory Wildlife Park is regarded as a GBD: ‘Government Business Divisions are Territory-controlled trading entities which follow commercial practices and are required to comply with competitive utility principles’.
If the government is not going to give them enough money and they find infrastructure is not looked after simply because they do not have the money - I looked at repairs and maintenance and for the two parks it has not increased – and we are putting them under the control of a department, then it will not work. Places like the Territory Wildlife Park have to get their vehicles from NT Fleet; ask how much it costs to lease cars from NT Fleet. Give them a chance to do their own thing. You have a set of guidelines that Territory Wildlife Park has to operate on, but you must give people incentive. People working at those parks love working there. They would like to be able to improvise, and to look at new ways of attracting people there.
I mentioned today the public bus service. It could not only go to the Territory Wildlife Park but it could pick up people from Berry Springs and maybe even Darwin River. You would be encouraging people, maybe backpackers who cannot afford to get on a tourist bus, to visit that park.
We should take some of the shackles off these parks and give them an opportunity, give them a right. You will still have to give them money, because if you had to recover all the costs of running a park you would be charging people $100 to get in, and we do not want that; we want families and tourists to visit them. Naturally, the parks need money, but let the people who work in them have some lead, let them use their initiative, and see if they can make these places get up and go.
I mentioned that NT Fleet is a fairly costly item. Perhaps there are other ways. Do they have to get their vehicles from the fleet? Can they find other ways of operating their business? That is what it is - a business - although it has government help. We could make these parks better. They are great parks; I have been to both of them and they are fantastic. But if I hear they are running down due to lack of maintenance, and I can see the amount of money they are receiving is less, the only way they are going to get money, or the same amount, is to increase the cost of getting in. If you increase the cost of getting in, perhaps fewer people will go there.
Local Government and Housing: I notice the income in Budget 2008-09 was $365m; now it is $424m. That is quite a big increase, about $80m. I will be interested to see where that money is going, especially when places like Litchfield do not get any operating funds; they raise 64% of their money from rates. The government has now put in these super shires and I hope there is an even-handed approach towards those councils which are part of the super shires. I believe they have a right to some Northern Territory government money as well.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about a number of things yesterday and one was the prison farms. I said to the member for Barkly that I agree with it, and I am happy to also agree with the Leader of the Opposition. The only issue that concerns me is the heavy industry precinct the Leader of the Opposition spoke about. I heard a little whisper it might be at Gunn Point prison, and I would disagree totally with that; and the reason simply is that you are nowhere near the water you would require to have a jetty. You need to be close to deep water, and that is why Glyde Point was picked.
I say to the opposition: rethink; have a look at the draft plan for that area. I am not totally happy with the draft of the Glyde Point Industrial Area. I believe it needs some adjustment but the advantage of Glyde Point is deep water, which is what you need for shipping.
Shoal Bay, which is where Gunn Point Prison Farm is, is a big shallow bay which goes right out forever. You would also destroy the concept of the township which was planned to go there, Murrumujuk, because you would have the industrial area and this beautiful town on Shoal Bay, and the two do not complement each other. If you put the industrial area at Gunn Point prison you would stop the development of the town and you are not in the right place for a deep water port. When you consider it, the government bought the corridors. If it was done, re-thought, and there was no major destruction of the mangroves - the area around Glyde Point also has some rainforest, but that could be protected - you could do this and do it well. I am glad the government and the opposition are thinking of keeping heavy industry, as much as possible, out of that area.
Previously, there was talk about education and some debate about using Indigenous education as a political football. I would like to look at it overall. I have these figures from the NAPLAN results from 2006 to 2009-10 and it is interesting to see even in non-Indigenous education we have failings. Reading for Year 3, we have 85% non-Indigenous kids. In the 2009-10 Budget we are estimated at 80%; we have gone down. In Indigenous we have 40%, and have gone down to 26%. That is one example. Another example is writing: non-Indigenous kids, 86% in 2006; 82% in 2009. With Indigenous kids it was 30% in 2006, and down to 24%. Another example is numeracy - Year 5 non-Indigenous from 89% down to 87%; and Year 5 Indigenous from 32% down to 31%.
Of course, the Indigenous figures are terrible. To be honest with you, we have gone back further and further, and I am not playing political football. We are in the ninth year of the government now, and I remember standing up year after year quoting these figures. I thought we would start to see an improvement, maybe only a minor improvement, but we are going down and getting worse. I am concerned if you take these figures, non-Indigenous education seems to be dropping off. People argue that NAPLAN is not the right way to go; that you must take into account the conditions in which kids learn and all those types of things. I understand that, but it is a little surprising that even non-Indigenous results are dropping off, and it is alarming that the Indigenous figures are worse than I expected, and worse than the government estimated.
There are a million and one things I could speak about because the budget is a big book and it has many things in it. I would like to talk about it more as there are good and bad things in it. The government is trying, under fairly hard conditions, to keep its head above water. I believe we are in for tough times, but the real question for me will be: if things change, if mining royalties drop off, if tied funds drop off, if GST does not move up, what will happen next year? I hope the government has some plans, because things are going to get harder if that is not the case.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened to the Treasurer’s comments the other day of how pleased she was that all industry groups had given a resounding tick to the budget. That is to be expected; of course they are going to say that. It is more than their jobs or their lives are worth to be critical of a budget. Yes, they were tempered in what they said, but this government is well-known for its vindictiveness and how it deals with industry groups. I will leave it at that for now.
In a very short period of time the world financial crisis has engulfed both developed and developing countries. We have been confronted with the prospect of an economic cataclysm and world leaders have announced huge support for interventions to try to prop up their failing economies. A transformation of the world economy is in progress which, we trust, will contain the excesses of the unregulated financial markets. In the last six to eight months, we have seen sizeable and severe disruption of countless hundreds of millions of people around the globe. In Australia, we have seen similar disruptions, particularly with jobs. Thousands of people have lost their job prospects; projects have been put on hold and numerous families disrupted. We have seen stimulus packages by our federal government which have not stimulated anything, let alone anyone, and not created one new job.
In the Territory, we have experienced various levels of the impact of the global financial meltdown. Whilst some areas of business and industry are operating reasonably well, many are not. We have seen large job losses in the mining industry, many workers put off in the supporting contract industry, and a considerable downturn in business levels across the industrial sector. Coupled with this are extraordinarily high levels of rent, land and house prices which are causing people to leave town because they cannot get suitable accommodation.
In the public housing sector there are massive waiting lists. Many people leave town as they get fed up with waiting. During this time of financial upheaval the Northern Territory government received an unexpected bonus from mineral royalties of some $136m which they did not anticipate - they were expecting around $88m. Government received $224m this financial year in royalties; then they have the hide to say they are good economic managers. I put it to you that they are hiding behind a very thin veneer trying to make out they are good economic managers, which is a load of codswallop. It was the unexpected rise in royalty money that saved them from an even bigger deficit. If it was not for those royalties coming in we would be in more trouble than we are.
A successful budget outcome and the effectiveness of government as a participant in the economy depends on a broadly similar approach, I would argue, to a major sporting contest and should include qualities such as self discipline, sacrifice, fitness, skills, training, playing to the rules of the game, and good strategic planning. Unlike sport where the rules of the games, the referee and the playing field are predetermined, government not only participates or competes in the economy by supplying and purchasing goods and services, it also lays down many of the rules through legislation and regulation, and acts as a referee.
Often government also acts as a groundsman, levelling the playing field for all participants, making sure the spectators can see the game and also policing the behaviour of the crowd. Being a good government requires good solid practice. The majority of government actions have financial effects and are reflected in the government’s budget which, in turn, reflects the government’s involvement in the economy and in society. Accordingly, the budget must show how well the activities of government fit together in a sustainable and affordable way.
Sadly, this government has failed on all fronts: it has failed as a participant in our community; it has failed as a manager; a good strategic planner; a leader; and failed to deliver a robust or solid budget. Indeed, this Labor government has delivered a deficit budget which will add extra burdens on all Territory families. Territory families will suffer. This budget lacks vision, direction and substance. It is a sad state of affairs when the best infrastructure project the government can come up with is a new gaol we do not need.
We do not need a new gaol as the current facility could continue to be used. There is nothing wrong with the existing gaol facilities or its location. The current facilities could be extended and improved; but, no, let us waste money and build a new gaol which, by the government’s own admission, will be filled to capacity by 2018 following completion of phase three in 2016. If ensuring the gaol is full after completion of phase three is a key performance indicator by government, we have a sad state of affairs in the Territory with regard to law and order and ensuring the Territory is a safe and secure place to work and live. The government says it has allocated $21m for preliminary work on the new gaol and $4.5m for Jenkins Road upgrade, presumably to service the new gaol.
Jenkins Road is in the Litchfield Shire and it is a Litchfield Shire road. From my discussions with the Litchfield Shire Council I understand this government has had no discussions with that council regarding the placement of the gaol in the shire boundaries. I suspect they would have had no discussions about maintenance or repair of the road after the government does the upgrade.
Has government done any work on the costs associated with operating a new gaol, such as travel to and from the courts, given the extended distance from courthouses? Has government done any work on what the extra costs will be to service the gaol and its operations from a supplier and contractor perspective given the extra time to travel to and from the site? More time on the road to get to a destination means more costs which the supplier will pass on, rightly so, as a business. What about the extra cost of public transport to and from the gaol? Has this been factored into the equation at all? Public transport to and from the rural area is substandard at best, and I cannot see this changing dramatically in the future. Or is it the government’s intention to provide a free shuttle bus for people wanting to visit their relations and family members in gaol? If so, prisoners will be getting better services than people in the community. What about the essential services required to support the gaol - power, water, and sewerage services? What are the costs in supplying these services?
In the Engineers Australia's NT infrastructure report card released a couple of years ago, they stated in the communiqu to the report:
- Infrastructure in the Northern Territory supports the delivery of essential services, allows the opportunity for economic growth and supports the social needs and quality of life of all Territorians.
I am hard pressed to see where that statement and a new gaol fit together.
Let us look at what this government has delivered in seven years, or thereabouts, in infrastructure. We have a wave pool, a convention centre, an upgraded Lake Leanyer, a soccer stadium, two new fire stations - playgrounds and playthings for the people of Darwin and the northern suburbs and nothing for the rest of the Territory. They say they will commit funds to the expansion of a new port. However, $60.7m is revote money; a commitment this financial year for work not done and carried over to the next year. The real figure of new project money is a mere $8m.
Where did the money go which should and could have been spent on infrastructure? I believe the money has gone on parties. We had the opening of the convention centre party - $500 000. We had parties for the Greek community winning the World Cup, but no other community had parties when they had world wins. We had countless dollars spent on glossy brochures about the wave pool, INPEX, and the $100 sign-at-the-bottle shop information. All these brochures turned up in many post boxes, costing an enormous amount of money ...
Mr Tollner: What about the anti-nuclear waste stuff?
Ms PURICK: Anti-nuclear waste was also there. That is where the money went; not on infrastructure projects which would have generated wealth for the Territory.
Let us look at what the Country Liberals produced previously, which fits in with the true and proper definition of the word 'infrastructure': Parliament House where we sit today; the Supreme Court; the railway; East Arm port; the export cattle yards; Litchfield Park; Elizabeth River and Joe Fisher Bridges - just to name a few. Some of these infrastructure projects were visionary, some were problematic. However, previous Country Liberal governments knew they were all needed to help develop the Territory in the right way. Into the future, the Country Liberals will work with industry, in partnership, so new projects are identified for future delivery of essential services for the benefit of all Territorians.
What this government has delivered is an appalling situation of projects falling behind time for development, and no vision or planning at all. A point in case is the Weddell Power Station - five years behind schedule. It is questionable that the output of 40 MW will be sufficient in the near future, let alone the longer term.
Look at Bellamack. One of the main reasons for the delay in this development is the Power and Water Corporation's inability and lack of capacity to deliver the required essential services. The simple explanation is they do not have the resources because the government raided their coffers to the extent of $80m, limiting them in the delivery of core services. What about planning for the future water supply of the expanding Darwin and rural areas; and planning for Alice Springs’ future water supplies? Where is the planning for remote communities and their water supply and quality of water? Many bores in remote communities are of limited capacity and supply water with substandard quality parameters including hardness, salinity, acidity and levels of heavy metals, fluoride, arsenic or other undesirable chemicals naturally occurring in the ground. As a consequence, the supplied infrastructure, including domestic fixtures, suffers deterioration from corrosion, as well as providing poor quality water.
I hear and see nothing on this final aspect of healthy living for many Territorians. Any new dam to service Darwin and growth into Weddell will take 10 years to fill to capacity yield, and then there will be the settling period. Supporting infrastructure will be required in the form of pump stations, pipelines, and treatment plants. Where is the planning for these projects? The government will say the Darwin River Dam wall is being raised and this will fix all our water problems in the future, along with taking back Manton Dam water supply. I say that is extremely short-sighted. It is bandaid treatment for a growing problem area.
Then there is the horny old issue of bores in the rural of the Top End. Many people have town water in the rural area, although some of the delivery is substandard. With growth and development applications, what will government do into the future? What restrictions will government put on existing bores and new bores? I have information which says the government is looking to limit the number of bores by not supporting future development applications for either residential subdivisions or future horticultural programs. This comes from the Department of NRETA. If this is true, where does government plan to have the next food bowl in the Top End?
Where are future major projects? Put INPEX aside for now as we do not have final financial commitment and, to use the Treasurer’s words at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon: ‘We do not know if INPEX is definite’. What else is on the drawing board? Where is our next major mine? What about the Ord River Scheme expansion? Where is the next major hospital to service Palmerston, the rural area and Weddell? Where is the planning for a new airport? With landing charges and passenger movement charges at $13.60 per person, in and out, plus $16 per person for security outward bound travel, perhaps it is time to have some competition in the airline/airport marketplace. Instead of berating the owners of the private airstrip at Noonamah and threatening to take their land from them, why does the government not look at maximising the facility and working with the owners and associated business people? Why not upgrade the strips so they could cater for other planes and other businesses?
With the advent of the Willowra rock deposit mine being developed in 2010, what is the government doing to facilitate this development? I would say not much, despite giving it major project status. Is it promoting and supporting a spur rail line to Tennant Creek? Is it supporting and promoting a spur line or a line from Tennant Creek to Mt Isa? That company is undertaking feasibility studies on the rail line, but what if the sums do not add up and the company has to use the road system to transport the commodity to Tennant Creek? What planning has the government done if, and I say if, the product has to be transported by road? Hundreds of triple road trains per year will be required to move the material planned to be mined. What is planned for the Barkly Highway upgrade if this turns out to be the case?
What about alternate power supply? Why not consider the high voltage direct current line from Queensland? I know government has pooh-poohed this concept previously, however, it is these big vision projects we need to look at into the future. Where will the next gas supply come from to enable us to turn on our lights in the future? The Blacktip gas field has 1.1 trillion cubic feet of recoverable resource which will ensure supply for around 20 years. Then what? What if the field does not yield the full reserve amount and depletes before 20 years?
The nature and scope of these projects means the planning is done years, if not decades, in advance. What is the government planning for future gas supply for the Northern Territory? I would say nothing, a big fat zero, in regards to planning. No, to all of the above, because that would be visionary, something this government does not understand or know the meaning of.
Yes, we have to ensure our schools, hospitals, police and emergency services are well supported and funded. However, if you have no wealth-generating industries and projects, you will not have the money to do anything properly.
I turn my attention now to housing. For seven years under a Labor government waiting lists for public housing have spiralled upwards to four-plus years; maintenance of public housing is a disgrace. The high level of unpaid rent is reprehensible and would not be tolerated in the private sector. Why is it tolerated in the public sector? There are huge issues with law and order in public housing areas which the government seems unable to manage, or refuses to manage, resulting in social upheaval for the surrounding residences and businesses.
The majority of public housing tenants are good tenants who are grateful for the assistance. Sadly, a minority treat their dwellings and their neighbours with complete contempt. It is these tenants who do not pay rent; it is these tenants who trash the dwellings and it is these tenants who should be turfed out.
Public housing stock is being sold at an unprecedented rate; public housing stocks are being depleted with no replacement. No wonder the waiting lists are expanding in length. The Country Liberals would maintain the quantity of public housing stock and maintain the option for good public housing tenants to purchase the home they live in, provided there is one-for-one replacement for every house sold.
There would be a review of Territory Housing to move away from the Labor government’s position of one-size-fits-all, with a suite of local housing models to provide local solutions to local problems. The Minister for Housing stated previously in this House that the Parap Gateway, when developed, would be ideal for first homebuyers. I do not believe so. Maximum house blocks are going for around $420 000; valuations in the Parap area have been upwards of $500 000 plus. I do not believe first homebuyers would be able to get into that market.
Mr Knight: There are units.
Ms PURICK: Units would be the same. This Labor government has strangled land release; there has not been efficient release of land across the Territory. Bellamack was announced in late 2007 and yet there has not been a sod of dirt turned on any block of land. This government continues to talk about Bellamack; sadly this is now Bellamight, or perhaps it will be Bellanev. Let us look at the facts. Tenders were advertised in late 2007. We are now coming up to mid-2009 and we know the tender documents have not been signed off. It is unlikely these blocks will be available till mid-2010.
Alice Springs is no better. It only had 12 extra rateable properties last year, and will have only 80 blocks released in the Mt John area, 40 of which may be released in the next 12 months. Alice Springs needs a minimum of 100 blocks per year to survive. They are no different to Darwin, with high rents and high land prices and it is becoming very hard for businesses and government agencies to attract staff and young people to settle there.
I have a few comments in regard to my electorate of Goyder. I welcome the Minister for Transport and the government’s commitment to public transport improvements for pensioners and to people with various cards, and to young people and students and also the park-and-ride situation for the Noonamah, Humpty Doo, and Coolalinga areas. In regards to the Noonamah area, there has been some work done there which is not entirely satisfactory. I ask the minister to seriously consider the requests which have been put forward to provide lighting for the Noonamah park-and-ride; also a bus shelter for the Noonamah area because students who are dropped off at this location in the Wet Season, have nowhere to shelter. They cannot shelter on the verandah of the hotel because that contravenes the licence, and they cannot shelter in the service station. I urge the government to look at this issue seriously, and I have written to the minister in this regard.
I welcome the money which has been given to schools, including Middle Point Primary School, which is sometimes overlooked in government’s funding. It is an excellent school, it has a long history and they are doing a really good job with the students, and the teachers are coming ahead in leaps and bounds in how they go about their business there.
There are some public housing units allocated to Humpty Doo, behind the tavern and shop area, and that is good news because we have a large number of seniors or elderly people in the rural area and it is that kind of housing they tend to gravitate to as they get on in life.
It is disappointing there is no real commitment to future funding for the pool. Prior to the election the government committed approximately $1m to the pool, in partnership with the YMCA. I know, and the minister knows, $1m is not going to be nearly enough to meet the commitment of putting in a pool and facilities. I urge the government to consider further funding for the pool. We know we will need upwards of $5m so people in the rural area can experience the joys of having a safe swimming place, as do the people in Darwin and the northern suburbs.
There was no comment or allocation of any funding or support for future health services in the rural area, and by that I mean any consideration for a possible hospital or hospital site - again, no vision by this government. It is a long drive from the rural area into Royal Darwin Hospital for treatment. This issue will be exacerbated when the Weddell development starts and the gaol goes ahead. It is a very long hike from Jenkins Road to Royal Darwin Hospital and the government knows there are many people who require transport to destinations such as the gaol and the hospital.
The final area I would comment on is the government’s commitment to build a retirement complex in Palmerston. I urge the government to look seriously at a similar type of complex in the rural area because there is a large elderly population there who do not want to go anywhere else. They do not want to go into retirement complexes in the city or Palmerston, so I urge the government to seriously consider this kind of support and proposal in another budget.
Mr Wood: Hear, hear! So there is a place for your mum.
Ms PURICK: That is right, so there will be somewhere I can send her where she will be out of mischief.
Mr Knight: And the goats.
Mr Wood: Member for Goyder, into the Daly electorate.
Mr Knight: They will not take goats there.
Ms PURICK: Into the Daly electorate? I will cull all the goats.
As I said in my opening comments, the budget lacks vision; it lacks direction. It really is not a wealth-generating budget; it is a deficit budget and there is nothing of substance in it. I have no issue with funding going towards hospitals, police, schools and education, but the government has really missed the mark in regard to growing the Northern Territory and providing solid, decent infrastructure on which we can build wealth to benefit all Territorians.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak in support of Budget 2009-10 with particular reference to the role the budget will have in improving services provided to Northern Territory families. My colleague, the Minister for Health, has talked about the overall budget for the Department of Health and Families and, as the Treasurer observed, Budget 2009-10 has been the toughest to frame in the Northern Territory’s history; it has been framed against a backdrop of global recession and collapsing GST revenues.
This government has made a very deliberate decision to go into temporary deficit because, unlike members opposite, we are a government committed to protecting Northern Territory jobs. Through protecting the jobs of Territorians, we will ensure we are best placed to take advantage of the economic rebound when it comes.
Despite the extraordinarily difficult economic times, $1bn - a record in a Territory context - will go to Health and Families in 2009-10. As a government we are proud of the extent of our commitment to the health and wellbeing of Territorians. As significant as the ground-breaking figure of $1bn might be, the programs managed by the Health and Families in Budget 2009-10 are not dependant on the quantum alone. Budget 2009-10 has been framed to ensure funding is properly targeted.
I now turn to the outputs for Children and Families: Budget 2009-10 provides $224m for Northern Territory families and children, mental health, and aged and disability services. This represents an increase of 150% since the 2001-02 financial year and reflects the emphasis this government places in these areas.
It is clear our commitment to the mandatory reporting of domestic violence has also seen a massive increase of $15m over the next three years. I am pleased to say 10 safe houses are now open across eight remote communities. Women’s safe places are open in Kalkarindji, Lajamanu, Ntaria, Peppimenarti, Maningrida, Nguiu and Ngukurr. Men’s cooling-off places have opened in Aputula, Nguiu and Ngukurr. Safe places are an important community resource for women, children, and men who are escaping violence or need a safe place to stay in their community.
I recently also opened the safe place and the men’s cooling-off centre at Ramingining. Each safe place employs two full-time staff and a pool of casuals. All employees are local people from the community and they are paid real wages. The safe places work closely with police, Night Patrols and clinics. I have been pleased to attend some of the official openings of safe houses across the Northern Territory. It is heartening to see local people are involved, and the Northern Territory government is committed to this project.
Perhaps the greatest news for families and children in this budget is the announcement of secure care facilities for young people and adults with complex needs in Darwin and Alice Springs. $13.9m has been committed in 2009-10 and 2010-11 to construct the stand-alone secure care facilities, with additional beds in Darwin and Alice Springs hospitals. Operational funding of $11.4m will be provided. A secure facility provides a physical, 24-hour care environment which ensures the safety of the client and the community. For clients requiring behavioural intervention and support, services will be intensive and designed to ameliorate, where possible, behaviours that result in risk to the client and others. Where this is not possible, the focus will be on maintenance and management of behaviours.
There are two levels of service: Tier 1, assessment and stabilisation, will provide clients …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is terrible. No one is listening to the member for Arnhem. I call your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim, you are correct. Ring the bells, please. A quorum is now present. Member for Arnhem, you have the call.
Ms McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the member for Fong Lim who is concerned about my budget reply.
Tier 1, assessment and stabilisation, will provide clients with a high level of physical security that eliminates their exposure to the risks which place them in a high to extreme risk category of harm to themselves and/or to others. The client will receive necessary treatment to address the immediate difficulties they are experiencing and reduce their level of risk of harm to self and/or the community. Comprehensive clinical assessment and development of future case management of the client will also be undertaken at this time. Tier 1 will provide an additional six beds in Alice Springs and five in Darwin.
Tier 2, medium-term secure and transition care services, will provide transitional care for young people and longer-term care for some adults. Clients will receive intensive daily support and therapeutic intervention as part of a multidisciplinary case management approach. Tier 2 will provide an additional 16 beds in Alice Springs and 16 in Darwin. The services will be available for young people and adults exhibiting high-risk behaviours. Typically, these clients engage in high risk taking, aggressive or disturbed behaviours that are likely to result in imminent risk of extreme harm to themselves and/or others.
Across the sites, there will be 96 additional staff. Staffing will comprise a range of therapeutic staff and disability and youth workers for daily care. Therapeutic staff will include nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists and behavioural educators.
Tier 1 services will be co-located with Mental Health Services at both Royal Darwin Hospital and Alice Springs Hospital.
Budget 2009-10 will also provide an additional $1.12m to expand emergency accommodation for young people at risk in Alice Springs. This will see additional safe accommodation for children and young people as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan.
Budget 2009-10 continues initiatives to close the gap in health outcomes for Indigenous people. Under this campaign, the Department of Health and Families will receive $15.6m to continue and expand on these vital initiatives which include: $2.1m to expand therapeutic and residential care services; $2m to expand services for children in care; $1.8m for continued development of Aboriginal child protection and family support services in regional centres; $1.5m to provide for additional child protection workers across the Northern Territory by 2011-12 - these will come in addition to the more than 90 frontline child protection workers we have already recruited since 2001; $1.5m for integrated family violence and support services in remote communities; $1.2m to continue the expansion of sexual assault referral centre services in Darwin, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and Katherine, and enhanced services to remote communities. In conjunction with Police and Justice, $6.2m will go towards expanding the Child Abuse Task Force, with additional staff to increase investigative activities in remote communities.
The budget continues to improve services to people with disabilities. Budget 2009-10 will mean a third year of expanded funding to implement recommendations under the Disability Services Review. Some $5.2m will be provided to continue the expansion of disability services.
The Pensioner Concession Scheme has been improved to provide greater concessions to eligible clients. The Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme remains the most competitive scheme in Australia. The scheme continues to provide assistance to pensioners, carers, and certain categories of low income earners. Our government has kept its election commitment by introducing free bus travel for all seniors, pensioners and carers from January this year. From 1 July 2009, driver’s licences will be free, and motor vehicle registration concessions will increase from $104 to $154 per year for eligible members of this scheme. This will see another election commitment fulfilled. Concessions provided under the scheme include subsidies on spectacles; council property rates and garbage rates. Seniors can access interstate and overseas travel subsidies or, alternatively, these groups can elect to use their travel concession to bring a relative or a friend to the Northern Territory.
In 2008-09, the department secured additional one-off funding from the Australian government. Negotiations on an extension of Commonwealth funding have now been completed, with a commitment from the Commonwealth to continue a number of worthwhile programs in 2009-10. This additional funding will result in further improving services to Territorians. It has not yet been reflected in Budget 2009-10, but the budget will be adjusted accordingly with the official sign-off of these agreements. This adjustment will be evident in family violence and sexual assault services, and community support services for frail aged people and people with a disability.
Madam Speaker, I now turn to Statehood, for which I am the responsible minister. I take this opportunity to welcome an avid and very passionate supporter for statehood, Ted Dunstan, who is in the gallery today. We welcome his support of statehood for the Northern Territory. I am pleased to say Territorians will be able to have their say on the future of statehood, with a 12-month, Territory-wide education and consultation campaign due to commence later this year. Some $1.1m will be allocated to the Statehood Steering Committee over the next two years to run education campaigns and workshops. I also thank the member for Goyder, the shadow minister for Statehood, who works passionately on the Statehood Steering Committee in terms of the very bipartisan and respectful approach this parliament has in walking together towards statehood with our recent visit to Canberra.
The statehood workshops will give Territorians the opportunity to participate and have their say on statehood issues. The Statehood Steering Committee will host a series of workshops in all major towns and communities across the Northern Territory which will allow Territorians to have their say on the future of the Territory. The work of the steering committee is vital in driving discussions and education on statehood across the Northern Territory. The Statehood Steering Committee, which comprises 20 community representatives, is currently working to refine the statehood workshops program before they commence later in the year.
Madam Speaker, I commend the budget.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, hoodwinked, I believe is the correct term we should be using for the Infrastructure budget, that broad announcement about the multibillion dollar infrastructure announcement with many accolades and write ups in the paper - $1.3bn. It is interesting when you go through the 2009-10 Budget and have a close look at what the figures really tell you. I am looking at page 15 of the budget. When you drill down into the budget, you will see this current year – we look at the 2008-09 - the budget for new capital works, both major and minor, totalled $840.6m with $32.2m going to program management. Interestingly, only $355.6m will actually be spent. That is $485m from this current year’s budget will be carried over into next year. $130m more will be revoted than is carried over to the following budget than will actually be spent.
You are saving more than you are actually spending. It is amazing how the government can applaud itself with these accolades about how much money it is spending. To explain that further, around 60% of this current year’s capital works, an estimated capital expenditure budget, will not be spent. It will be carried over.
Let me give examples of some of the current works for this year’s budget which will not be undertaken this year. Here we go: Alice Springs - fire protection, airconditioning and remediation work, expanding renal facilities, emergency power and electrical facilities and upgrading the Emergency Department of Alice Springs Hospital. The government does not like to talk about what it is doing at these hospitals, when you talk about how it is upgrading in Alice Springs. $5.573m was supposed to be going to the Emergency Department at Alice Springs but was not done this year – it will not be done - carried over until next year. We will put that $5.5m into the capital works budget for next year and that will help escalate to $1bn plus the $300 000 on repairs. Meanwhile, the people in Alice Springs are still waiting for the upgrading of the Emergency Department. This government has form; it likes to revote all the time. The Emergency Department at Alice Springs has been revoted for some time; that is, carried over. While we hope and pray, in Alice Springs, that our Emergency Department will be upgraded, there is no certainty. We do not know if the Emergency Department will be upgraded next year.
Tennant Creek Hospital, stage three: fire safety upgrading including the installation of fire security system – revoted.
Ms Lawrie: Under way, under way.
Mr GILES: Katherine sobering-up shelter. We all know about the Katherine sobering-up shelter, it was supposed to be done this year – not being done.
Ms Lawrie: It will be built.
Mr GILES: We will leave that to next year. We cannot talk about Tennant Creek sobering-up shelter because, strangely enough, it is not even in the budget. It is not happening at all. I was not in the Chamber this time last year so I was not here for the budget, but I am sure at that time I remember the much applauded biggest infrastructure budget spending ever, but 60% of it is being carried over until next year. It is not being done.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. 71% expenditure this year to date already.
Mr GILES: 60% is being carried over to next year. These are only the minor new works from the current year’s budget.
The Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre, construct staff accommodation - not done. Upgrade to the health centre in Jilkminggan and Ngukurr, $1.4m - not done; not getting done this year. The list goes on. I do not know where to stop as it is so exhaustive. Here is one members might be interested in: construct radiation oncology unit. Is that going to be done this financial year? I do not think so. There is a list I could go through; I am only looking in the Health and Families component. There is a long list.
We could look at housing. We could talk about the SIHIP program - that is a good one to start with; the SIHIP program and the number of houses that have been built. When you look at Budget Paper No 3, in the area of housing, you see this year 20 staff houses have been built. And you think, you have $700m and it was an emergency in 2007, so surely they will build some houses next year. But you have a look through here and you ask: how many replaced dwellings will they build? Twenty-eight. $700m and they are going to replace 28 houses. Surely you are going to build some new houses. $700m is a bit of coin, so you would think we would get a few houses. So, how many do we have here? Next year, 65 houses are going to be built which, I read in here, are estimated to cost around $550 000 each; $550 000 is the average cost of new remote dwellings. Recognising this is federal money, but 65 new dwellings out of $700m in two years when it is a national emergency, renders me quite surprised. I will not go through the long list; that is only on the infrastructure side.
We quite often hear how bad our roads are in the Northern Territory. Members have heard me talking at length about how bad the roads are. The Stuart Highway is a federally funded road, yet we cannot get the grass beside it mowed; you cannot see where you are going.
Keeping in mind nearly 60% of this year’s infrastructure budget will not be spent; it will be carried over to next year, and not forgetting what was not done last year, and was carried over into this year. We look closely at the budget and we see $373.5m of this year’s 2008-09 infrastructure budget will not be spent. Have a look through some of those revoted works. Tiger Brennan Drive has been hanging around for a while. The member for Solomon got us that money. He also got us the oncology unit, but we still do not see these things being delivered.
This is the government which likes to give itself accolades, applaud itself, and not deliver. As we say: watch what they do, not what they say. We can write $3bn worth of infrastructure budget but it does not really mean much. It will get you a headline, but if you do not do anything, you really have to ask: what is the point?
If you look at this year’s budget for capital works, we see the much lauded $1.076bn. That sounds good, but when you have a closer look you will see there is $485m in this budget carried over from this current year, and we are spending $38.2m to manage the works of $653.8m. I know that these numbers are confusing for some, but basically it means the government is not doing its job. The budget is only $683m, not the much lauded $1bn. Let us not forget the $653m they are carrying over, $485m. In other words, we do not have a $1bn budget; we have a budget somewhere around $650m for capital works. That is not including the variations which will come through that further delay the projects growing the current $422.8m potentially to $596m in revoted works, going by last year’s inflated numbers from an estimate of $202m to $485m which is an increase, from estimate to actual, of 41%. That would mean we would potentially have, based on last year’s numbers, $480m being spent and $596m being rolled over. We will end up, again, spending less money than we carried over in revoted works.
Looking at the new works being undertaken in this budget, you really have to ask: what will get done? The list of works carried over from last year is amazing. My colleagues have asked me as the shadow for Infrastructure: 'What is getting done this year?' And I say: 'Members, listen closely. I do not know if anything will get done. They could not do it the year before, they are not doing it this year, so are they going to do it next year?'
National network new works - Stuart Highway, heavy vehicle diversion around Katherine CBD - $10m: the member for Lingiari was a party to this. The $10m is all federal money; the government has carriage of it and they like to announce it - $10m. Yes, that is part of $1.3bn. I believe the $10m came from the feds ...
Ms Lawrie: We secured it.
Mr Henderson: We get our share.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I believe the $10m came from the feds. And let us not forget what else came from the feds – the Nation Building and Jobs Plan ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! How often do you remind us of Standing Order 51 at their urging? I urge you now to remind them of Standing Order 51.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. I have been calling order frequently.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nation Building and Jobs Plan: upgrade and improve rail crossing boom gates. This is $1.68m, but there is $2.7m in some areas and $2.5m in others. This is an important issue because three crossings in Alice Springs will be done; one at Espie Street and two in my electorate. I have written a letter to Mr Albanese - I might not have posted it yet, but I have written the letter to the federal Infrastructure minister, and also the federal member for Lingiari, thanking them for putting my electorate on the list. I recognise it is borrowed funds and our kids will be in debt for 20 years but, if they are going to blow it, there are crossings in my electorate which need it. So, I have written a letter to say thank you. It is interesting that it is in this budget because it is federal dollars. Where does this government get off?
A Remote Area Zone Strategy …
Mr Henderson: Eighty percent of our funding comes from the Commonwealth, you clown.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: A Remote Area Zone Strategy, $1.8m; Stuart Highway, Darwin to Katherine overtaking lane, $5m; community beef and mining roads – Maryvale Road, Plenty Road, Tanami Road. I wonder if these will get carried over to next year. Who knows what is going to miss out this year? The pastoral industry is asking: 'When are they going to fix our roads? They did not do it last year; they are not doing it this year. What about next year?' Who knows? What did the Territory put in? Sweet, very little ...
Ms Lawrie: $322m.
Mr GILES: Very little. Community, beef, and mining roads; the Treasurer would be well aware they put barely anything into it. It is federal dollars; it is the feds who are looking after pastoralists, not this government - they have forgotten about the pastoralists. They have forgotten about the bush. However, I digress.
I have just run through a few items which may and may not be included. We have spoken about Tiger Brennan Drive, and we know Rosebery school is in this year’s budget to uplift this year’s budget, but it is carried over to next year’s budget. We heard about $20m for headworks in Palmerston which are supposed to start in the second quarter of this coming financial year. I am from Alice Springs but I am quite sure the Wet Season starts around then. I am not sure how you install light poles, and do roadworks and headworks in the Wet Season; we will see a bit of slippage there. I could be wrong, but I am predicting that.
There is $64m for expansion at Darwin Port. That is great. I asked a question that related to the port in Question Time today. If we look at the Darwin Port Corporation, how much money was carried over from this current year for its expansion? $60.8m, not spent this year. They are not going to expand it this year. Maybe they are going to do it next year. The total budget: you have minor new works of $1.6m and major new works of $2.4m. The total budget for this year for the Darwin Port is $64.8m. How much will they be spending this year? $64m, nearly $65m, is a lot of money. It would really help our logistics if we could cut down the costs, improve our port efficiencies, and reduce the cost burden for people living in Darwin and right across the Northern Territory. But, hang on. What is this number? $47.9m will be carried over until next year again. Not next financial year, the year after. Surely, they cannot be counting the $47.9m into the $1.3bn? Surely they cannot. ‘Well, we will just pump that number up.’ How do we know those numbers are true? 'We could write any number on this page we like, because we are not going to spend it'. It could be anything.
There are other works we do not know will get done. We have the $4m boat ramp which keeps being carried over. We have the seniors village in Palmerston at $10m; will that get done? I do not know. $7m for Darwin Waterfront, I presume that will get done. It is interesting with all this money that goes up that you would think the Department of Planning and Infrastructure would need more money to manage $1.3bn. When you look at the DPI budget it has gone from $101m down to $86m. How can you do more work with less money? I am not quite sure, but we will cover that one at a later date. I am sure the $2.67m forecast to be spent on the refurbishment of Development House will go through.
We know we have been hoodwinked with this budget. It is not $1.3bn, it is not even half that. We have a bit over $500m which will get spent on infrastructure, if it gets spent, and approximately $200m of that is coming from the federal government. This Territory government does not give a hoot about Territorians. They want the front page headlines, but the headline tomorrow should be ‘hoodwinked by the reds’, because that is what has happened: we have been hoodwinked. This is not $1.3bn.
What has not made the front pages and has not been spoken about is the fuel price. We know the Territory has the highest fuel price in the country and the government is not doing anything about it. The Treasurer says supply and demand impacts on the price of fuel in the Northern Territory. I understand how it works. I understand the price of oil in Singapore and how it comes back through the Vopak terminal. I get it, I get the whole lot. I also get the demand side for diesel. I understand that 75% of all diesel sold goes to the commercial sector, and only about 25% goes to the private sector. You say there is massive demand from the commercial industry for diesel which is inflating the price for people who want to buy diesel for their private cars. And you think, why is the demand so high, especially now? The Treasurer likes to blame her incompetence on the global financial crisis, but why is the demand so high?
You would think, with mining going down, industry going down, we hear about doom and gloom and lock the doors, we are all in trouble with the GST, but there is one thing, and I had a chat to fellow members here about why diesel demand is so high, then I remembered, we run all our electricity on diesel. The green government runs electricity on diesel
We know grocery prices in the Territory are dear. We know that rentals are dear. We know that house prices are dear. We know the cost of living is dear. These are all tough things and, as Territorians, we recognise that about where we live. Sometimes we like to have some assistance. But what does this government do? With the global financial crisis, people are losing jobs all around the Territory. There is a forecast of 8% unemployment in the Northern Territory, and what does the government do? It puts the petrol price up - adding to inflation in the Northern Territory, and allows shipping companies to go to Townsville without getting in the way, further pushing up the cost of living in the Territory. This is an inflationary government.
There were not many goodies in the budget for Alice Springs. I recognise the hard work of the members for Macdonnell and Stuart in Central Australia and what they do for Alice Springs. There were not many goodies in the budget for Alice Springs and, unfortunately, there was nothing about land release and nothing that could start to resolve our housing crisis.
I have stood in this Chamber, and outside this Chamber, and applauded the government’s Buildstart package. It is a good initiative. I have said that before, and I will say it again. I had a number of queries from my constituents about Buildstart, about the way it works, so I did some research on the computer to check some things. This is where it is a negative for Buildstart - and my printing has not worked well here - it says there are about 90 blocks of land available in Alice Springs which can be utilised for Buildstart. That would be okay. It also talks about the contract for the land, the building has to start six months after the signing of the contract, and all construction has to be undertaken 18 months later. The 90 blocks of land that are available in Alice Springs include 80 blocks at Mt John Valley. I can tell you, the headworks and the titles have not been issued and they will not be issued before 1 July. So 80 out of the 90 are already gone, and there are 10 sitting around somewhere. I will come back to that.
There is concern about 39 blocks of land available at Albrecht Drive. I am reliably told that there will be no titles issued for those blocks either, so those people cannot actually get the Buildstart project to work at Albrecht Drive.
I know one person who has had Buildstart in Alice Springs, there have been three applications, and that person lives on the north side of town. There are other people who are trying to get Buildstart in the same area, in the same street, who cannot get it because the builders cannot start the work within that six month period, they will be a week late before they can turn the first sod, so these people are not eligible for Buildstart. Unless the numbers have fallen from one to two that I am not aware of, the numbers for Buildstart are false. You cannot say there are 90 blocks available if you do not have the titles for any of them, so those 10 extra places which are in the northern part of town are completely false.
I believe it is a great program and I asked the Treasurer if she could extend the program, provide some leniency for people. There are people coming through my office, conveyancers, lawyers, real estates agents, and property purchasers who are trying to get involved in the industry, and they cannot. I ask the Treasurer to make a variance and allow people in Alice Springs to do that.
Ms Lawrie: You are doing a bit of a catch up are you? I have already spoken to industry. You are trying to do a bit of a catch up.
Mr GILES: If you could do that, I would be very happy. I notice in the budget the Mereenie Loop works are nowhere to be seen. We have spoken about revoted works and they have been in there before, but they are not in this budget. I am not sure if it is a typographical error or the government is not committed to Mereenie Loop anymore. We are in May, we have May and June, plus another 12 months, 14 months for it not to be in there. Maybe next year, next May, the Treasurer and the government might put it in the budget so they can increase the size of the budget again and get another headline. We have been hoodwinked. We will wait and see.
The election promise of a $6m CBD upgrade knocked down to $400 000. I am not sure how much of an upgrade that will be for $400 000. However, we will get a $6m upgrade of the police station and that is a good thing. The police need to be resourced, serviced, and they need to be given the tools and the environment to support the occupation they are in, because law and order is out of control in Alice Springs. This government has lost it on law and order across the Territory. It has gone from 7000 protective custodies last year to 13 800 this year. How do you go from 7000 protective custodies to 13 800 in one year? Yet you say law and order is not out of control. Clearly there is a problem which relates to alcohol. I cannot see anything in the budget, but I will come to that. I cannot see anything in the budget about how they are going solve that problem.
$11.9m worth of works is scheduled for Alice Springs Hospital. We have already spoken about that, it could be last year, it could be this year, maybe next year, who knows. I will flip a coin.
Additional plant works of $4.73m will be spent converting ANZAC High in Alice Springs to a middle school, which I believe is now called Gillen and Anzac campus. The $4.7m for that is a good thing. Whatever we can do to address educational standards in Alice Springs and the wider region is positive. I compliment the previous Minister for Central Australia and the new Minister for Central Australia for fighting for this.
I do not have the figures in front of me, but a 30 bed facility for accommodation; I am not sure if it will be built this year or next year but that is good. It will make a big difference to our town. I thank the members for Macdonnell and Stuart for fighting hard, and I thank the Treasurer for allowing that fight to be had and to be won. I hope it happens sooner rather than later; I am not sure of the timing, I have not checked that out. I know it is happening and it is a positive thing.
We need to keep in mind that, of the $1.076m for infrastructure and estimated capital expenditure budget, $485m is carried over from the current year not used and the government even advises that $422m will not be used next year; despite the fact that $4.5m is set aside for airconditioning the Araluen Arts Centre, and the Desert Peoples Centre is supposed to get an extra four buildings. These were supposed to be done this year, but it might be next year. Who really knows? We will flip that coin again.
You cannot trust this government or believe it. This government is only as good as what it does. You walk out this door and see people who are homeless; you walk down the street and there is homelessness everywhere; alcohol issues all over the place; Royal Darwin Hospital is probably another flogging - but they have the headlines for $1.3bn - happy days!
I move onto another portfolio of mine, Aboriginal Affairs. The government claims in 2006-07, 52.4% of the budget was spent on Indigenous outcomes. It is very hard to work out exactly how much of this current year’s 2009-10 budget will be directed towards Indigenous Territorians. That figure of 52.4% was a couple of years ago, and the results are clear in regard to Indigenous Affairs, in particular imprisonment rates, recidivism rates, closing the life expectancy gap, chronic alcohol abuse, levels of violence and antisocial behaviour on our streets and, more worrying, Indigenous student outcome levels . It seems to be another government result - all talk and no action. I know there are people working hard, but no outcomes.
In terms of outcomes, there are reports which place Indigenous imprisonment rates at 80%, gaols are over capacity and recidivism rates at around 70%. This is atrocious. I understand the social issues. I have been criticised for politicising Indigenous affairs but I am in politics; this is the Chamber and my job in the opposition is to hold the government to account. If people want to get personal about it they can, but it is my job and my duty. Eighty per cent of the prison population is Indigenous; and gaols are overfull by around 25%.
On page 236 of Budget Paper No 3 under Housing and Infrastructure, 65 new dwellings will be built under the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program in next year’s budget This is the third year after $700m was given by Mal Brough and John Howard - those solid economic managers - for a national emergency, and the government has not built a house in two years, and next year will build 65. I will give an award to the member for Daly if he can do it. He has not built a bridge over the Daly River although he made that commitment in 2005. He is selling off public housing assets all over the Territory when people are homeless. This is the minister for homelessness, not the Minister for Housing. It is a crisis everywhere and he is in charge, he is at the wheel.
The Country Liberals in government would target prisoners by seeking to re-educate and rehabilitate them through numerous secure prison farms dealing with low ranked criminals and referrals from courts, including the alcohol court.
What is in the budget about a 30% participation rate in education programs in gaol is not that - it is 30% of prisoners who are eligible for education programs. I believe every prisoner should be going through an education program, not 30%. We would have everyone participating: learning how to read, how to write, learning job skills, growing vegetables, repairing cars, undertaking carpentry skills development. We would not take the approach of ‘come and sit down, have a bed and three meals a day, plug in a PlayStation and enjoy life’. That is not what it is about. With that approach this government gets 70% of prisoners back in gaol. The only way the Minister for Housing can house Indigenous people in the Territory is in gaol. He cannot build a house.
It is interesting when you work out $300m for a prison to contain 1000 extra prisoners which will be full within three years of construction. If you calculate $300m by $500 000 per house, that is a lot of houses - that is 600 houses you can build. If you had a three-bedroom house and five people to a house, that is 3000 people you can house for $300m. That is a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation; you can house 3000 people through a back-of-the-envelope equation. I do not understand why you would put $300m into a prison instead of building houses for people …
Mr CHANDLER: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Braitling be given an additional 10 minutes to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: I think I had one minute to go; it was not finished.
Madam SPEAKER: No, you did not; your time had actually expired but I allowed you the indulgence of the Chair.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker; I appreciate your indulgence and that of members opposite.
So, you are going to spend $300m on a prison which will be built before the houses under the emergency housing program are built. I do not understand the priorities. You are building a prison to house people, but you are not building the houses to house people. I do not get it.
Despite $700m emergency housing funding for Indigenous Territorians not one house has been built, other than government employee housing, two years after we received the money from the Howard government. It is ironic that this government presents a budget with a clear focus on building a gaol, while singing and dancing about building houses we know the member for Daly cannot deliver. We on this side of the Chamber say: 'Do not listen to what they say, watch what they do’. Nothing.
Talking of law and order issues, I argue that alcohol is a problem throughout the Territory, yet there is nothing new for alcohol management in the budget, apart from increasing alcohol management plans from five to 13. This is a good thing. We have a long way to go, but it is a start.
I also find it interesting that the sobering-up shelter for Tennant Creek is not in the budget; it was previously. It is good to see the increase in alcohol management plans, but recognise there are not 73 or more, because there are more than 73 locations of residences in the Territory. It is also interesting that the estimate of expenditure for Alcohol and Other Drugs Services in the budget is $23.616m for this current year, the 2008-09 year. Next year, it will be $22.286m - a decrease of $1.3m.
Family violence and sexual assault services: $23.484m for this financial year; next year, $3.44m less. Community support for frail aged people and people with disabilities: this year $72.8m; next year, $6.6m will be scrapped out of that. Do not worry about the people who are frail, aged and people with disabilities; take $6.6m out of the budget. I can go on, but I will not.
There was much discussion regarding education in yesterday’s budget reply speech. Understand, within my party room, I am forthright, front and centre on my portfolio responsibilities - Central Australia, Alice Springs and the residents of the electorate of Braitling. It is on the issue of Indigenous affairs which I now speak. Like all members of the Country Liberals team, I recognise we have all failed: both sides of the Chamber and all levels of government. I am genuine in my attempts to make change, to hold government to account, to make improvements, to have rigorous debate today, tomorrow and in the future. It is not 1976, 1987 or 1998; it is the year 2009. We must work from where we are now, and yesterday’s criticism of not making Indigenous children’s education a political position is ridiculous. As a government you must be held to account for your feeble attempts in the budget; they are outrageous.
The forecast for Indigenous reading at Year 3 level last year, this current year, was at 48%, and to downgrade that for the coming year to 29% is saying it is acceptable to have 71% of Year 3 Indigenous students not pass the national benchmark – it is a disgrace. I have a whole chart of them. Year 5 reading: Indigenous 46% to 24% - 76% not passing the national benchmark - that is okay; Year 7 reading: Indigenous, 73% not passing the national benchmark - that is okay. Let us not forget that 20% of Indigenous students did not even sit the test. Year 3 writing: Indigenous, 65%; Year 5, 73%; Year 7, 78% not passing the national benchmarks - that is okay. Well, it is not okay, and government needs to be held to account on this. You cannot lower expectations.
The previous Treasurer for this government, the former member for Nhulunbuy, used to talk about how good it was that so many children were getting their school education certificates. Well, those kids learnt how to read, write and count during the CLP’s time. I do not want to politicise this, but it is a problem right now. This government is in right now. The previous member for Nhulunbuy used to say how good it was to get kids through to Year 12. They learnt to read and write and count under the CLP. I admit we did not do the best job, we failed in lots of areas. Where are we going now? We have a budget which downgrades expectations for Indigenous education - that is an absolute disgrace. And it is not just a disgrace for Indigenous education. Non-Indigenous education cops a flogging too, and I heard the member for Nelson also talking about this. This coming year, 90% of Year 5 non-Indigenous reading students will be at 90%; next year it will be at 85%. Are we saying it is all right for 15% - it has gone from 10% to 15% - not to make it?
That is not good enough, and it goes right through; it fails education right through, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. You cannot lower expectations - you raise the bar. If you do not reach it, you work out why you did not and you make improvements - you do not lower the bar. You are telling these kids throughout the Northern Territory that they do not have to make it. It is an absolute disgrace. The government should be condemned for this.
We have a political leader who genuinely wants to cut through the crap and commit to fixing the problems of the past, who recognises what needs to happen and is willing to do what it takes to make change, regardless of whether it is politically popular, but because it is the right thing to do. Unlike your leader, mine is committed.
Yesterday, in referring to education, the Leader of the Opposition announced our preference for a service to be modelled for 15 communities in the Territory. We anticipate the service centre to become towns, in effective, with long-term or freehold lease. They will have a boarding school to cater for primary, secondary and VET schooling, with a potential for preschool. The schools will be managed by a community board, such as community controlled health organisations, but with a mix of experienced business people, or similar, to ensure sustainability. This model would be similar to a non-government organisation service delivery model, with our challenge being to equip people with the skills to fill these positions while investing in capacity. Students will be bussed in on Sunday nights and returned to their communities and families on Fridays, therefore providing respite for families and children and ensuring students get a sound nights’ sleep, food and exercise and be fit for school during the week.
We are not taking the same approach to government proposals for outstations. While we do not agree with continuing to forever fund outstations from government coffers, we believe Aboriginal Territorians should have the right to live on their land. They must accept responsibility for sending their children to school where they work together with government and land councils to develop transport and economic models to sustain residents of outstations and smaller communities, supporting the spoke in the hub-and-spoke model. That is why we will develop integrated transport systems modelled on economic and community analysis transporting Territorians on a daily basis between the spokes and the hubs, accessing goods and services like any normal town. Other jurisdictions in the country cannot survive on five towns and we should not expect the Territory to go down a different path, nor should we force Aboriginal Territorians off their land but, we have to get kids to school.
We must get kids to schools, and we must ensure all Territorians access health services. We need to get a way from the one teacher, part-time outstations that cannot offer a suite of services to students. We must fund regular transport to and from communities to the service centres. The same model will apply for health working with AMSANT, the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, to support their regional model of servicing, dovetailing with a transport logistics model between hubs and spokes and seeking to replicate it for other services. This must be a federal/Territory partnership. The federal government has to show there is more to it than symbolic gestures. Ultimately, I will pursue the establishment of business models not welfare models in communities. Key services are required first, or simultaneously, if there is the opportunity. Other services include motor vehicle registry, Centrelink offices, bakeries and clothes shops, as examples.
This style of initiative can only be funded through a joint approach between Territory and federal governments. That is why the Country Liberals propose the establishment of a joint office of Indigenous Affairs to review current programs, remove duplication, refine programs and oversee the delivery of programs and services for Indigenous Territorians as we move from a welfare-dominated state to an economic model with regular service provisions with a hand-up not a hand-out approach. Supporting the joint office will be a traditional owners’ corporation or board including a mix of traditional owners and representatives of key organisations to guide both policy development and implementation to further pursue improved outcomes for Indigenous Affairs.
I commend this to the House. There is a plan to make improvements in Aboriginal Affairs. I condemn the government for seeking to hoodwink the Territory public on its infrastructure budget of not $1.3bn, but around $500 000 or $524 000, of which around $200 000 is federal dollars. This government is hoodwinking Territorians. They do not have the money, and they do not have the commitment. They do not have the tick or the rigour or the value to put the real effort into Territorians.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, that policy just sounds too familiar. It sounds like the policy we have under our National Partnership Agreement with the Commonwealth government.
It is with great pleasure I outline the budget for the portfolios of Parks and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, Arts and Museums and Indigenous Policy. I will start with my portfolio areas in NRETAS.
Budget 2009-10 provides $139.2m to do our job in NRETAS through eight output groups: parks and reserves, biological parks, natural resources, environment and sustainability, heritage conservation, scientific and cultural collections, arts and screen industry support, and Environment Protection Authority. I will go through these in turn.
Parks and Wildlife: I am pleased to announce that a total of $34.7m will be spent on our 87 parks and reserves in Budget 2009-10. Our parks and reserves are our most precious and iconic assets. Not only are they crucial to biodiversity, they also provide jobs for Territorians and see millions of dollars injected into our economy. It is estimated 2.8 million visitors will enjoy our parks in the next year. In Budget 2009-10 more than $8m in additional funding has been provided for infrastructure in our parks over the next four years. On top of this $8m, we will be making additional infrastructure commitments to Litchfield, the West MacDonnells and Nitmiluk.
Budget 2009-10 also commits $3.8m to park joint management programs to establish partnerships with the local traditional owners. Our parks and reserves are not only there for us to relax and enjoy their beauty, we can also learn from our parks and reserves. In Budget 2009-10, $16.5m is provided for parks and reserves visitor management programs. This money will create educational and recreational opportunities for Territorians and tourists alike.
$14.3m will also be invested in our parks and reserves conservation management programs. Our parks and reserves cover 5 million ha of land and address issues such as weeds, fire and feral animal management, and are important to protect the natural and cultural assets within these areas.
This government has committed $1.8m over the next three years towards establishing stage one of the Eco-Link initiative. This will involve the creation of wildlife corridors from one end of the Territory to the other and involve government and non-government agencies working together with landowners and community groups to conserve, restore and connect landscapes and ecosystems. This is an ambitious project but one which will reap rewards for the Territory’s environment in years to come.
Biological parks: I am pleased to announce Budget 2009-10 provides $10.9m for the Territory’s biological parks which include support for the Desert Park in Alice Springs and the Territory Wildlife Park at Berry Springs. This $10.9m also supports operation of Windows on the Wetlands as a visitor facility interpreting the nature and cultures of the wetlands around Adelaide River. The George Brown Darwin Botanic Gardens also receives support from this funding for its on-going management as a state level facility.
Natural Resources: In Budget 2009, $43.7m has been provided to fund the Natural Resource Output Group which provides services for the Territory’s natural resources and, with the involvement of community and land managers, deals with the threats of erosion, weeds, bushfires, floods and feral animals. Much of this work is done in the bush so it often goes unnoticed by many. I make special mention of the additional $1.09m this government will invest over two years in Budget 2009-10 for a strategic weed management program.
Weeds pose one of the greatest threats to the Territory’s biodiversity invading native vegetation, causing fire management problems and soil erosion. The strategic risk management program will work towards reducing the impact of high risk weeds in the Northern Territory. This government will provide Bushfires NT with $750 000 in Budget 2009-10. This funding ensures our hard-working volunteer fire fighters have the resources to do their job.
Budget 2009-10 also provides an additional $1.4m to improve our flood forecasting service. In 2009-10, flood forecasting services will undertake the installation of new sites with improved technical equipment which will ensure better information on river levels. We will also invest in our water resources to enable effective planning for allocation, use, control and protection of our precious water resources. I also draw your attention to this government’s commitment of $500 000 in Budget 2009-10 to deliver on water allocation planning and transparency in regulation as required by the National Water Initiative. This government recognises the importance of preserving the health of our rivers. Budget 2009-10 allocates $510 000 to be spent assessing and monitoring the biodiversity and other natural resources associated with land and vegetation management in the Daly River catchments.
The environment and sustainability output received $6.4m in Budget 2009-10. The budget commits $700 000 to establish and support the ongoing running of an air quality program in Darwin. Tenders have been called for the supply, delivery and installation of air quality stations in the Territory. These stations will expand our current air quality monitoring capacity beyond particles from bushfire smoke to a range of other key air pollutants.
We know climate change is real and real action needs to be taken to address it. This government is committed to tackling climate change in a sustainable way and Budget 2009-10 directs $840 000 to implement a variety of initiatives to support businesses and households to respond to climate change issues. These initiatives will be simple yet effective changes of behaviour Territorians can easily implement to reduce the effects of climate change and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
Budget 2009-10 also provides $580 000 for Environment NT grants available to individuals, community groups, wildlife and conservation organisations, schools, local government and industry groups. I am also pleased to announce the government’s 2008 election commitment to provide $160 000 in funding to the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory and the Arid Lands Environment Centre is also met in Budget 2009-10
We know the importance of the Territory to our heritage. Budget 2009-10 provides $3m to be invested in heritage, including $1m for repairing and maintaining government owned heritage assets; and a further $200 000 to the NT Heritage Grants Program to individuals, community groups and non-profit organisations working on projects relating to significant heritage sites in the Territory – and we have plenty of those in the Northern Territory.
Budget 2009-10 provides $29.6m for the scientific and cultural collection areas including facilities such as MAGNT, the Araluen Arts Centre, the Northern Territory Archive Service and the Strehlow Research Centre. I am very pleased to include the Northern Territory Library in my portfolio this year. The Northern Territory Library has a budget of $10.5m in 2009-10 and provides Territorians with access and information, and collects and preserves the documentary heritage of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Library also provides support to library services provided by municipal and shire councils in remote schools. There are 33 public library sites in the Territory with 22 situated in isolated and remote communities. The Northern Territory Library also delivers public library services at Humpty Doo and Nhulunbuy, in partnership with the Department of Education and Training.
Madam Speaker, I also draw your attention to $160 000 in Budget 2009-10 for the 2008 election commitment Remembering Territory Families Program. This program is to record the history of major Territory families who have contributed to the making of the Territory, and will be an invaluable reference of Territory life when completed.
In the arts and screen industry, this government is committed to ensuring we place arts and culture at the heart of Territory life. That is why Budget 2009-10 allocates $10.1m for arts. This year we will be undertaking a major review of how our funding is allocated to ensure we are meeting our priorities. We will do so by empowering regional communities to determine their arts and cultural priorities and supporting those priorities through partnerships and brokerages. We will work closely with other departments to support regions across the boundaries of art, environment, education and health to provide holistic responses and opportunities for interpretation and creative expression. We will build stronger partnerships nationally with agencies which can partner us in delivering our vision. We will forge partnerships within existing structures, including local governments, to deliver strong and sustainable programs which support community arts activities.
I am pleased to announce in Budget 2009-10 an increase in community-based arts projects of $100 000, bringing the total to $400 000. We will support the educational goals of government by supporting artists and arts programs in educational environments. In this way we will position creativity as fundamental to all learning and encourage greater retention and literacy, especially amongst Indigenous students. We will fund and showcase events which offer the community access to great art, local art and art from other from other places. For example, Budget 2009-10 provides $150 000 allocated to touring programs for Aboriginal music.
Effective arts projects and events require expert leadership to meet community needs. We will support a network of regional arts organisations, art form peak bodies and art facilitators to provide both inspiration and practical assistance. The Abgrants programs will balance long-term certainty and access to funding with stringent monitoring and accountability. We will provide a one-stop-shop of resources for artists, arts and community organisations by moving our systems online and increase our community presence in remote areas.
We will continue our focus in supporting remote, regional and major arts festivals across the Northern Territory. We will increase our focus on linking festivals into an annual calendar of events both publicly, through marketing and promotion and, strategically, through improved planning and program brokering and support. I am pleased to say that in Budget 2009-10 this government’s support for regional and community arts festivals is now $1.5m.
We will support an increase in regional access to major events such as the NT Music Awards by encouraging new collaborations between regions and organisations. We will continue to partner local government to increase skills and capacity in managing public art commissions and projects. We will extend this work from municipal councils to regional shires focusing on Art in Public Space as an important part of regional culture plans.
In another area of my department, the EPA, Budget 2009-10 provides $864 000 to the Environment Protection Authority, an independent statutory board, to provide independent advice to government, industry and the community on environmental issues. The Environment Protection Authority, formed in March 2008, has already undertaken some important, strategic works including a review of environmental impact assessment procedures; an investigation of existing governance frameworks in relation to the development of Darwin Harbour; and developing sustainability principles for the Northern Territory. We are fully committed to a strong and independent EPA.
I now turn to the area of Indigenous Policy. Before I deal with the broader issues, I would like to focus on a very important agency which often gets forgotten - the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. The AAPA plays a crucial role in protecting our sacred sites, while also providing certainty to developers across the Territory that they are carrying out their work in the right place and the right way. I am very pleased to announce that AAPA has been allocated an additional $1.3m in Budget 2009-10 to improve its capacity to protect sacred sites and provide a timely and accurate service to developers.
This will be a significant year for Indigenous Policy in the Northern Territory. In the next few weeks, the Chief Minister and I will be announcing a comprehensive Indigenous Policy package, fully consistent with the new COAG National Policy Framework and developed in partnership with the Australian government.
I have said before in this Assembly that we need to target our resources to ensure they have an impact. We need to get the dollars to hit the ground. Budget 2009-10 delivers for Indigenous people and for remote Territorians.
We have already heard from the Treasurer this year’s budget delivers $808m for education and training, this includes substantial investment in remote areas of the Territory for school infrastructure upgrades. Schools must be places where children want to go, and places where children can learn. With a growing population and increased efforts to make sure children go to school regularly, we need more teachers and intensive operational support for remote and regional schools. With Indigenous students demonstrating low educational outcomes, this intensive support is critical if we are to make headway on Indigenous education outcomes. Better preschool services, including five new mobile preschools will service 25 remote communities; and four Indigenous community and family centres will link childcare, early learning, health and family support services. This is a huge leap forward for early childhood outcomes in remote areas.
Budget 2009-10 also delivers for Indigenous health. Funding for remote health services will employ teams of midwives and Aboriginal Health Workers in Darwin and Alice Springs to support Aboriginal women leaving remote communities to give birth. Additional funding will target child protection, therapeutic and residential care unit workers, and expand chronic disease programs. We will continue to improve safety outcomes for our remote communities through extra police and a child abuse task force; family and sexual violence support and prevention services; offender rehabilitation; alcohol management and treatment initiatives; and additional funding for courts, Corrections officers and witness assistance services.
We are one hundred percent committed to securing a working future for Indigenous people in the remote Territory. Budget 2009-10 continues the government’s effort to increase Indigenous employment. Our efforts will continue to target increased Indigenous participation in public sector employment. Our goal is to reach 10% by 2012; we are already at 8%, up from 5% in 2003. Increased opportunities for Indigenous rangers; we know that engaging local people in land and sea management has significant beneficial outcomes for Indigenous people and their broader communities, and this is an area in which we will continue to invest.
We will support apprentices in remote areas, and invest in vocational education so Indigenous people in remote communities are skill-ready when jobs are identified. We are investing in Indigenous business and jobs in the tourism industry, and we will continue to support the start up and expansion of small Indigenous businesses. We will continue to invest in critical infrastructure and essential services for remote areas.
Budget 2009-10 makes a substantial investment in Indigenous housing, telecommunications and IT. A total of $67m will be dedicated to improve power, water and sewerage services in remote communities across the Territory, including a new grid connection to Yuendumu Power Station; a new power station for Alpurrurulam; and upgraded water storage facilities to Palumpa and Warruwi.
Our work, and our joint work with the Australian government, is making a huge difference to the lives of Indigenous Territorians. We are seeing improvements in the areas of housing, education, health, jobs, safety, culture and governance. We need to maintain momentum and Budget 2009-10 delivers this.
Budget 2009-10 maintains the momentum required to close the gap and provide a working future for Indigenous Territorians. I congratulate the Chief Minister and the Treasurer for making sure the jobs of Territorians are protected and there is infrastructure building in the Northern Territory, because we know infrastructure building creates more jobs, and we want to keep Territorians in jobs.
When you look at the budget across the board and what is in these regional highlights, we are lucky to have a government committed, not only to some areas of Indigenous affairs, but to the whole area of Aboriginal children, Aboriginal families, and Aboriginal communities. It is building the capacity not of just an isolated group of people, but the whole family structure, the whole community structure and therefore building the capacity, knowledge and understanding throughout the whole community and the whole region.
The member for Braitling has said it is his job and he has the right to speak in this House. No one has ever said anyone does not have the right to speak, but people who speak in this House should have an understanding of Indigenous problems, know Indigenous problems and understand that education comes with understanding the family structure, the community structure and the whole aspect of culture. If you cannot understand those aspects of Aboriginal people, then what you are doing in this House is using Indigenous people as a political football. I reiterate that he has said he will remove children and have them go to school in a college situation and take them home every weekend. We have that at St John’s, Kormilda College and Yirara College, and it is not working. That is because Indigenous families have to be involved with their children. Children will go away to sports weekends and will get homesick for their parents, and they will just run away.
This government is taking the initiative to build from the ground up, through the community, through the family, in order for children to have the knowledge and power to understand that education is the key to move them to whatever choice they want to make in their life, of living at Yuendumu, Papunya or Hermannsburg, or living in Melbourne or Adelaide.
It takes people like me, like the member for Arnhem and the member for Stuart, who are born and bred Territorians, who have culture - it is very important to have that culture - because that is the foundation of who you are, and you understand the movement and the problems that Indigenous people suffer. It is through the knowledge of my colleagues and me inside this House that we make this government the strongest government to service not just Indigenous Territorians, but all Territorians.
I have said quite openly in this House that we have worked on the basis that there is an Aboriginal way to do things and there is a white way to do things. There is not - there is the right way to do things. There is a right way to deliver education, there is the right way to deliver housing and there is the right way to deliver health. If you look at the highlights you will see this government’s input, the seriousness of where it is starting to target, not just the children, but the parents and the community, in order to move all Territorians forward equally.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the budget and it a pleasure to follow from my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, and the impassioned closure to her speech. On this side of the House, we have a driving passion to close that gap on Indigenous disadvantage and much of the work we do in Cabinet, through budgets and our daily work as ministers, is focused on that issue. We are starting to see significant changes and improvements across the Territory.
In parliament this week we have seen something I cannot recall in my time in observing parliamentary politics in the Northern Territory. The government brought down a budget on Tuesday, it is probably the single most important bill we debate every year, and on Thursday in Question Time there was not one question on the budget. The opposition has an absolute responsibility to hold the government to account on behalf of all Territorians, and could not find in Question Time today one question on a $4.5bn budget across all areas of policy in the Territory - economic policy, social policy, health, education, environment, law and order - not one question.
It was an absolute low in this parliament in terms of the responsibility of this parliament to scrutinise governments and hold government to account. I am absolutely dumfounded with 11 members opposite that not one of them could find a question on the budget this year in parliament; it is absolutely unprecedented.
The debates we have had in this parliament shows the choices have never been clearer in regard to government and the opposition and the priorities of government and opposition at a time when the world is seeing the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Some members opposite were at a budget breakfast this morning where an economic analyst from the Commonwealth Bank gave a presentation, similar to presentations I have seen many times over the last months and year - about where we were, what has happened, where we are now, and our prospects for the future.
What has happened all around the world is truly quite astounding. Trillions of dollars have been found by governments to pump into their economies to hold financial institutions stable, to keep consumption going, to minimise the impact on people around the world and minimise unemployment and business failures. We are a small government in the Northern Territory with a relatively small budget in the scheme of things and we have gone down the path all expert commentators and economists around the world have identified - the need for governments to step in and go into deficit to keep consumption strong, keep the economy as strong as we can to stave off the tide of unemployment this financial crisis is causing around the world.
Right at the heart of the philosophy for framing this budget was protecting jobs in the Northern Territory. The heart of the CLP’s response has been to lower the deficit. That is the crux of the issue. We are about protecting jobs. They are about lowering the deficit which would see unemployment rise across the Northern Territory. Never have the policy positions on the economy been so stark between the opposition and the government. So uncommitted are they to addressing and debating the issues of the global financial crisis and what is actually happening to Territory businesses and to Territorians that after two days they gave up, stopped debating it and focused on a third order issue regarding what my colleague, the member for Casuarina, may have been watching on his computer at the time.
This is an absolute abrogation of the responsibility of the opposition to hold government to account. If that is where the Leader of the Opposition is going, no wonder he has people over there on his back, looking for his job. It was appalling leadership.
Before I comment on my portfolio areas, I have to respond to the member for Braitling. I listened to his speech and I accept the member for Braitling has not been here very long, however, he went on and on about the capital works budget being underspent and projects delayed. A total of 71% of the capital works budget for the 2008-09 Budget has already been spent. You are never going to spend 100% of it in one year. It is like getting your salary every week and, yes, some people do spend their salary every week. But if your salary is there to cover the cost of paying off your mortgage, you do not pay it off in one year; you do not pay off the car in one year. You commence projects, you commence budgets, and projects move from year to year for many reasons which are unforeseen at the beginning of the budget time.
From the time of self-government under CLP, budgets to budgets we have brought down, of course there are projects which slip from year to year; of course, there are projects that cross years. There is always a carryover of expenditure; that is just the way budgets are. Additional items are committed to the budget because of unforeseen circumstances during the course of the year. It patently showed his ignorance of how the capital works budget works.
We had the debate before about the SIHIP project; obviously, he was not listening when I responded in good faith last time. The time lines for this project have been set by the Commonwealth, and we are on track. There are two main issues which have contributed to where we are today. One, the Commonwealth has mandated - under his friend and colleague, the former Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, and his agencies, and carried on by the new Australian government - an alliance contracting model that has never been used in the Northern Territory before. Businesses and industry in the Northern Territory had no idea about the alliance contracting model, and it was a requirement of the Australian government that we use this particular contracting model which is quite unusual in the rest of Australia; it had been used intermittently in Queensland on a couple of big projects. So there was the whole issue of getting industry and government agencies around the concept of the alliance contracting model.
The other issue was the requirement to negotiate leases to build houses. We all know there is not a great deal of difference between his mate, Mal Brough, and our new Indigenous Affairs minister, Jenny Macklin, regarding the requirement for leases. Mal Brough wanted a 90-year lease; the current Indigenous Affairs minister is looking at 40-year leases. It is an absolute requirement for government to secure a lease before we invest more public money and put in place a management model. Negotiating those leases has been difficult. It has not been the fault of this government that we have not built any houses; it has been an issue in securing the leases.
He also talked about failures. Mal Brough was so keen to at least build one house - and my colleague, the member for Daly went out there and did everything he could, and finally secured the leases on some outstations. I believe the cost of the houses - just so Mal Brough could stand up and show that he had built one house in the Northern Territory - came in at around $900 000! We are not going to go down that path; we are not going to spend $900 000 building one house on an outstation near Port Keats just to satisfy the television cameras and Mal Brough’s thirst for publicity.
The member comes in here with all his rhetoric, and a lot of it is rhetoric, but I also acknowledge much of it is heartfelt passion to actually make a difference, to make a change. We are all here to make a difference and see changes. He comes in with this rhetoric that we are incompetent and cannot spend money; but there are fundamental reasons, mandated by the Commonwealth when his mates were in government, and now our mates are in government and, essentially the same principles apply, which have led to delays in rolling out these houses. But it is going to happen this year.
The member also talked about Tiger Brennan Drive. I believe, all up, the component parts of Tiger Brennan Drive will be around $100m, or more. You do not spend a $100m on a road in one year. You just cannot do that. This is not China, we cannot get 10 000 people to build a road. So that project will roll across a number of years, but you have to commit the funding to get the contractors to bid for the job and know the money is there to build it. Of course the money is in the budget this year. You are not going to deliver a $100m project in one year, and it is absurd to think you could.
He went on about this money being from the Commonwealth, that money being from the Commonwealth, again showing his total misunderstanding of the Northern Territory/Commonwealth financial arrangements. Eighty percent of all funding to the Territory government comes through Commonwealth revenues; 80% through the Grants Commission formulae and through the GST pool. Then there are also Specific Purpose Payments, like the stimulus package, which flow through the budget from time to time. To say we are not putting money in - well, what would he do? Raise taxes in the Northern Territory? Actually raise taxes so we have more of our own money to put into projects? Or say no to Commonwealth money: ’No, we do not want your money because we want our share to look better.’ It is a nonsensical argument.
At least the Rudd government in Canberra has noted the total failure of Commonwealth governments under Howard to actually fund infrastructure in Australia, and many of the economic difficulties we face is a lack of infrastructure. At least it is Commonwealth money coming to the Territory for infrastructure; up to $200m for schools across the Northern Territory and, at COAG, I signed up to it. The Leader of the Opposition would not have signed up to it and we would not be seeing those upgrades to schools, to Territory housing, to roads, to boom gates, across the Northern Territory. We are a government which says yes to Commonwealth money. We want to work with the Commonwealth, whether it is a Liberal/National Party government or a Labor Party government. It is incumbent on any government in the Northern Territory to work with the Commonwealth and take our share of Commonwealth funding, not get into some nonsensical debate about where the money is coming from.
He also talked about the gaol and the targets in the budget paper for education and training; well, exactly, Shylock, that is why we are spending $300m on a new gaol because the current infrastructure at Berrimah, and the overcrowding at Berrimah, the age of the facility at Berrimah means there is no capacity to run education programs. There are very poor facilities for training and we need a new, purpose built facility so we can achieve all the outcomes we want to achieve: that medium- and long-term prisoners, even short-term prisoners, come out of gaol better educated and qualified than when they went in. You cannot do that at Berrimah, and I doubt the member for Braitling has ever been in that awful place. I went there and any assertion that prisoners are leading a very comfortable life, lying back in the airconditioning, with three gourmet meals a day, playing DVDs is not what I saw when I went to that facility. It is just arrant nonsense.
We had the debate in parliament but he obviously did not listen. I am quite happy to prepare a briefing for him, as Education minister, about the targets in the budget papers for literacy and numeracy. We explained to him that last year was the first year we had national testing in Australia, and the revisions in the numbers are because last year was the first year we had national testing in the Northern Territory, and a result of national testing profiles recalibrated the benchmarks from where we moved. I agree, member for Braitling, in terms of – I will just pick any of them - Year 7 reading for Indigenous students, the estimated number of students who completed and passed benchmark in 2008-09 at 24% are estimated this year for 27%. That is not something to be proud of. It is not okay that only 27% of Indigenous kids are getting to the benchmark, but you are not going to put 100% in there and expect in the space of 12 months that kids will go from 27% to 100%.
Of course we want 100% of kids to get to benchmark - Indigenous kids and non-Indigenous kids. But to say if you put a target of 27% in there, and all these targets I am advised by educators in the Northern Territory are stretch targets which will be challenging to meet, particularly with the attendance profiles, that this government thinks that that is okay - we do not think it is okay! It is nowhere near good enough. But if you think you can go from 27% of Indigenous kids in 2008-09 getting to a Year 7 benchmark the following year, within 12 months, to 90% that is absolute nonsense.
We are being open, transparent, and accountable and shining a light for the first time, nationally, on the underperformance not only of the education system but the failure of too many Indigenous parents, and non-Indigenous parents, in getting their kids to school. The first thing you need to do to deal with a problem is to have an honest look at it, put a light on it and work to change things; not come out with some nonsense that this government is somehow happy with those numbers. We are not happy, and we are committed to changing those numbers.
He then went on and spoke about the hub-and-spoke service delivery model. We dealt with this the other day. This is not some fabulous new idea the CLP has dreamed up. This government has been working on this with the Australian government for some time now. He obviously does not read the national media or look at the COAG declarations or understand that this Territory government, together with all the other states and territories, have signed, or are about to sign, national partnership agreements for remote service delivery with the Commonwealth government. There is nothing new in what the CLP is portraying, but what they are portraying is good.
We agree with all of that, but it is actually being done and this government has been at the forefront of the policy development for this; at the forefront in the national debate, working with the Australian government and working with all the states. We are going to have a COAG meeting here on 2 July, on the current timetable, on these Indigenous service delivery and Closing the Gap issues.
For the member for Braitling to say this is all the mighty leader’s great idea - it is great they are on board, Madam Speaker, and it is great we all agree on this - but do not try to claim it is all your idea. We have been at the forefront of this policy reform for quite some time now, and that has been very much accelerated since I became leader of this side of the House.
I will move very quickly to the reforms in the budget affecting my areas. We have engaged in the most aggressive facilities upgrades in schools in years; we have delivered major reform to secondary education through the Middle Schools Program; we have completely revitalised the moribund Distance Education Program which we inherited from the previous government, and we have delivered secondary education to the bush and now have over 116 students living in remote communities who have graduated with an NTCE. We have done a lot. There is much more to do.
We intend to deliver more with a focus on attendance levels, improving the quality of teachers and education provided, and getting more young Territorians to benchmark. The centrepiece of these reforms will be Transforming Indigenous Education. I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Arafura, the previous Education minister, who started this significant policy reform that I have had the honour of taking over. Significant resources from Territory and the Commonwealth will focus on this outcome. Fundamental to this is operational funding of $10.6m in 2009-10 as part of the five year commitment of $48.2m and $37.8m for infrastructure to close the educational outcome gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.
This will include: early development and learning programs; six school counsellors, increasing to a total of 10 by 2011-12 to improve child protection outcomes; a school attendance strategy and evaluation of school and education campaigns to improve Indigenous attendance; six mobile preschools servicing 30 communities; 16 additional teachers in remote schools to respond to increased enrolments and attendance; provision of additional information technology resources for students and teachers, and scholarship placements under the Wesley Lanhupuy scholarship program.
The Territory is investing significant funds during 2009-10 to participate in the Commonwealth National Partnership Agreements; $7.1m, or $51.75m over five years, for low socioeconomic status school communities; $4.46m over two years to develop and implement whole-of-school approaches to literacy and numeracy; $1.45m for the productivity places program in 2009-10, and $3m to improve computer availability in all secondary schools.
Funding for the Northern Territory government election commitments include: an additional $1m per annum for 10 000 apprentice commencements; expansion of the Work Ready program with an additional $500 000; an additional $500 000 doubling the investment in the Build Schools program; $1.05m to enable an increase in the back-to-school vouchers from $50 to $75; funding of $2.6m as part of the five year commitment to the Families As First Teacher program; $2.3m ongoing funding to increase non-contact time for primary school teachers of 30 minutes in 2009, increasing to 60 minutes in 2010; $2.8m ongoing for improved pay incentives to attract quality teaches to remote schools; and continuing additional funding of $1.7m, ongoing, to assist students with intellectual disabilities and students with high level behavioural and emotional difficulties. That is a total of $5m, Madam Speaker.
There will be a record level of education infrastructure, combined with the Commonwealth’s commitment. This will be delivered across the Territory and includes: $54m for the continuation of the Rosebery Primary and Middle schools; $3.2m to continue upgrading Ross Park Primary School in Alice Springs; $3m to upgrade Dripstone Middle School science facilities; $3m for new multipurpose sports facilities at Tennant Creek High School; $2m to upgrade homeland learning centres at various schools across the Territory; $1.25m each for schools at Angurugu, Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, Lajamanu and Numbulwar; $400 000 for additional office space for student councils at Gunbalanya and Nhulunbuy. The first round of the Territory government’s election commitment to provide $300 000 to every primary school will be delivered through the minor new works program.
The Commonwealth’s commitment to the economic stimulus package and other infrastructure initiatives under the national partnerships will also deliver: $91m for the Primary Schools for the 21st Century initiative; $11m of the national POT school pride program, under which every school will receive $200 000 for new or refurbished work; $1.3m to build the Tennant Creek Trade Training Centre, and $4m for the family and children centres at Wulagi and Palmerston. I thank the Commonwealth government for this first rate initiative.
In 2008, my government announced initiatives to better coordinate the development, attraction and retention of workers to the Territory. One of the initiatives was the establishment of the Employment Division within the Department of Business and Employment. Jobs are the number one priority for the government; they are our ongoing focus in both private and public sectors. In this current economic climate it is vital the government and private sector maintain a solid training regime.
The current market conditions will, in time, reverse themselves. By maintaining our training effort and retention of skilled labour so when economic growth returns, the Territory will be well placed to tackle future areas of skills needs. Building on election commitments, my government has commenced working on a new employment strategy as the current Jobs Plan comes to an end. The new strategy will draw on extensive consultation with industry, unions, government agencies and the non-government sector.
The 2009-10 Budget delivers $1m for an Indigenous training and employment program with an additional $1m provided by the Australian government. The program is managed collaboratively across governments to ensure successful organisations develop initiatives which focus on industry-specific Indigenous workforce development and employment opportunities.
The 2009-10 Budget provides $500 000 for the establishment of regional job hubs in Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek. This builds on my government’s key election promise to focus on local employment and connect training and real jobs in the regions. The best place to get local information is from locals themselves, and the jobs hubs will be an important source of intelligence on local labour market profiles, employment opportunities and barriers, emerging job prospects, and the skills that local workers and job seekers already have.
This budget directs $1m over three years to Workforce Growth NT with $350 000 allocated in 2009-10 to match labour skills with the specific needs of the Territory. It will include offices in Katherine and Alice Springs to influence greater workforce retention in the Territory. $400 000 is allocated in 2009-10 for an enhanced national skilled worker marketing campaign and the interstate NT Job Shows, designed to profile the Territory’s lifestyle and connect potential employees within Australia with job opportunities.
In regard to the Department of Chief Minister, gas projects are my highest priority; ensuring economic growth in the Territory is securing the INPEX gas projects. The project is estimated at over $US20bn and the onshore components around $12bn, providing some 2000 jobs at the peak of construction, and a further 300 ongoing jobs. As I said at the budget breakfast this morning, full front-end engineering and design is now under way for offshore, the pipeline to Darwin, and the LNG plant. Although a final investment decision has not been made, we are very confident of one during 2010.
Strong trade links also ensure continued economic growth by attracting new investment in infrastructure and services. In the year to February 2009, Northern Territory exports increased by 57.5%, and imports by 55.8%, increasing the Territory’s trade surplus by $793m to $2.09bn. Our new international trade strategy for the Territory will be released in 2009. The strategy will provide the blueprint for trade growth over the next five years. Most recently, in response to global economic uncertainty, the Trade Support Scheme was extended for a period of 12 months to encourage our exporters and potential exporters. This will allow them to undertake and sustain export marketing activities, and help maintain their international market profile. The scheme now features increased financial parameters in a range of areas to make international marketing activities more affordable for Territory-based business.
The Shanghai World Expo in 2010 will become a showpiece for the Territory to strengthen its bilateral relations with China and, importantly, bring the world to our doors to open new trade and investment opportunities. The NT government will participate in the Shanghai World Expo 2010 as a silver partner in the whole-of-nation Australian pavilion and associated business programs.
The NT engagement with the Asian regions to advance Territory interest remains a high priority for government. The Asian region includes the Territory’s key trade and investment partners, and there are links in many other fields including tourism, education, culture and sport. The NT government maintains its engagement with Asia by way of ministerial and official travel focused on specific interests and opportunities; leading or supporting outward business missions and encouraging inwards visits; undertaking selective cooperative projects with regional neighbours, providing funds support for trade developments …
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Speaker, I move that the Chief Minister be given an extension of 10 minutes to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, honourable members. We continue to work really hard to develop our trade and investment links with our neighbours in the region, and my colleague, the minister for Asian Relations and Trade is on his way to Jakarta, as I speak.
I established the Territory Growth Planning Unit in September. Its role is to bring together strategic thinking areas across government around key growth issues to the Territory. It was given three strategic projects: the development of Territory 2030, the development of the strategic housing policy, and the development of growth models for our cities and towns. In the coming year, I intend to give the Territory Growth Planning Unit further briefs on growth in the Territory. A key, ongoing challenge will be to build the performance management and data collection systems for Territory 2030.
Multicultural Affairs is another portfolio area I have responsibility for, and very proudly so. My government will provide support for projects which promote cultural and linguistic diversity in the Territory through the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program of $782 000 including cultural and linguistic awards totalling $50 000. Operational assistance is also provided to migrants and ethnic community organisations. The Charles See Kee Awards, which recognise and celebrate people, organisations and initiatives, are highly valued. A further $250 000 will be allocated under the Ethnic Communities Facility Development Program.
In the southern region, the Department of the Chief Minister has been working with other government departments and the Alice Springs Town Council to expand the CCTV system in Alice Springs CBD. My government has contributed $1.1m to this project, which will see an expansion of the current infrastructure to provide greater coverage and monitoring, to improve public safety and confidence.
Last week’s opening of the much anticipated wave lagoon marks an exciting year ahead for the waterfront development. I urge all members to see what a fantastic facility this is. It will add so much to the lifestyle of the Northern Territory because it will not only be Darwin kids who will be in that wave lagoon, but every kid who comes to Darwin on a school excursion will head there and it will provide much fun and enjoyment for thousands of people, and also add to our tourism industry.
The Waterfront project has transformed 25 ha of industrial wasteland into a new playground for community, tourists and business. Water recreation, seaside promenades, parklands, landscaped gardens, hotels and restaurants are all fantastic aspects adding to the vibrancy of the precincts. Both the Medina and Vibe hotels opened in March 2009 and Territorians, visiting conference delegates and holidaymakers have been taking advantage of the hotels and facilities ever since. I was advised last week when I was there that those hotels already have occupancy rates of around 75% in April and May, which is fantastic for this time of year.
The Darwin Convention Centre has been a tremendous success since opening in June 2008. A total of 65 conventions have been booked by the operator, AEG Ogden, which are expected to attract 30 875 delegates to the Territory and result in significant tourism and business opportunities as we showcase our wonderful city to the world. That is what government is all about - leadership, vision, delivering for all Territorians; that is nearly 31 000 people coming to the Territory who would not have come without that facility.
I will now talk in regard to the budget for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. Budget 2009-10 continues the government’s focus on tackling antisocial behaviour and crime, and improving community safety. The Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget is $279.6m in 2009-10, an increase of 104% since we won government in 2001. Funding is provided to increase the number of firefighters by 20 and police by 54, and provide the department with more resources to better support the community.
Budget 2009-10 provides significant resources to boost firefighter numbers and capacity in the year ahead. With projected growth in the Territory remaining at high levels, the government recognises the need for a modern, flexible and adaptable fire and rescue service to adequately service the community in the future. Funding of $12.3m is provided for a new fire station at Berrimah. The site will be secured in 2009-10; design will be undertaken in 2010-11, and construction will commence in 2011-12. We will provide $1m in 2009, and $2.1m in 2010-11, for nine extra firefighters in Alice Springs, and 11 extra firefighters in Darwin, to increase the capacity of the Fire and Rescue Service.
Budget 2009-10 also provides increased resources for our police. Funding of $9.3m is provided in 2009-10 for a further 25 police officers in urban areas, bringing the total number of new police officers under the Safer Streets initiative to 60 since 2008. These extra police will increase the capacity of our force to address crime and disorder issues in urban centres.
Safer Streets also provides for 10 additional police auxiliaries to support frontline police in the communications centre. The government’s commitment to the Police Beats Initiative will also result in additional police numbers in 2009-10, and funding of $2.5m to establish Police Beats in shopping precincts at Alice Springs, Nightcliff and Karama has been provided. This will result in an additional 12 police officers and six police auxiliaries in 2009-10.
An additional Police Superintendent is also approved for 2009-10 to implement the whole-of-government coordinated approach for getting young people in Alice Springs back to school, away from crime and other antisocial behaviour activities.
In total, Budget 2009-10 provides for an increase of 38 police officers and 16 auxiliaries. Our police officers are further supported by a range of initiatives including a $13m upgrade of police communications, which continues to help police respond rapidly and effectively; and $1.6m is provided as part of Budget 2009-10 to establish and maintain more closed circuit television systems around the greater Darwin area. The $6m upgrade of the Alice Springs Police Station will commence this year to bring the station in line with modern policing requirements.
Funding of $2m is provided to convert the existing Numbulwar Police Post to a police station providing essential services for housing, communications towers, boat shelters and a generator. The continued commitment to community safety in the remote regions of the Territory remains a priority for government. Budget 2009-10 includes $4.2m for the Child Abuse Task Force and $2.3m to improve remote area policing.
The Territory will be affected by the global financial crisis; that goes without saying. However, we are well placed to avoid the worst consequences. More to the point, we are well placed to prepare for the future when there will be a turnaround nationally and internationally. We cannot afford to go on as though nothing is happening. It is imperative our actions are geared to protecting Territory jobs and building the Territory whilst we are still in growth. We must do this aggressively; we must do it with optimism about our future in the best place to live and work - the Northern Territory.
Budget 2009-10 will achieve these objectives. I commend the Budget to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, being my first budget reply, I had to take time to seriously consider where I might start this task. My initial glance suggested it was going to be easy; I had all the figures at hand, surely the budget papers could be trusted and it would simply be a case of reviewing each of the budget lines and asking a few important questions. I was mistaken and seriously look forward to the Estimates process.
The first thing that comes to mind is the rubbery use of figures using revoted projects from previous years to substitute total works for this year. While I appreciate this is a reality with major works, why continue to blow your own trumpet on previously announced projects? Why add these to the totals when presenting your spin to the media? While I appreciate even a cursory look will reveal this, it may not be clear to all Territorians who believe this government is delivering record budgets and spending more this year than ever before.
The message is spun well. Time and time again we hear the term ‘record spend’. I sincerely believe the average person can cope with two figures being presented - that is, new works, meaning new money, and a second figure demonstrating works previously approved - not as a grandiose statement announcing a $1.3bn spend this year. The reality is a fair amount of this work will not be completed this year. In fact, going on this Labor administration’s track record, the track record of actually delivering anything more than glossy announcements, is dismal and speaks for itself.
Let us look at page 2 of the budget. The first thing you notice is the extent of federal money and associated projects. We all appreciate federal money is being used to fund some major projects in the Northern Territory. In fact, the majority of our funding comes from the federal government, but to use it to gloss up your own budget is misleading.
Page 3 shows figures and a graph that do not even add up. That side of the House yesterday made much of a $100 000 discrepancy which, by the way, was accounted for had that side of the House bothered to pay attention. The figure I refer is in regard to cash allocations to infrastructure in 2009 where a bar graph indicates $887m, while the corresponding spreadsheet suggests $885m. Either this is sloppy accounting or an example of this government’s level of management. I appreciate with these figures there would be a level of rounding, but $2m is a fair leveller.
Page 6 refers to a number of items paid for or substituted by the federal government; items that should have been constructed years ago; like Tiger Brennan Drive so Palmerston and rural residents would not be in the day-in-day-out traffic congestion more akin to places like New York. On a number of occasions I have been unable to go through a green light on Roystonea Avenue due to the number of cars on the other side of the intersection. Gridlock in city of 27 000 people; gridlock that could have been prevented with good planning. I mentioned in an adjournment speech the other day, when first arriving in 1985 I looked at Bagot Road and the future planning where very few cars were on a very big, major road. I mentioned how well the planners at that time had taken action to secure a good road system for the Northern Territory.
Gridlock in a city of 27 000 people could have been prevented by good planning. The Tiger Brennan duplication will address much of these concerns, but it demonstrates a fundamental failure by this government, and that is their propensity for a run to failure approach, particularly, in regard to infrastructure. At what cost? How much would have been saved had this infrastructure - the Tiger Brennan Drive duplication - been done five or six years ago? It is another example of this government’s priorities where Palmerston and the rural area have missed out in recent years and, further demonstrates the lack of leadership and influence the previous Palmerston members had in this House.
Across the page it talks about land release; another gross example of mismanagement by this government. For years they have spruiked about land release; but how much has actually been released? I am looking at a graph that is indicative of the price of land in Palmerston. It shows a block of land costing around $27 000 in 1993 rising steadily to around $50 000 by 2003 and rising significantly to over $200 000 by 2009. What we have here is a rather lean curve for nearly 10 years, an increase from $27 000 to $50 000; an increase of around $23 000 overall. While some would argue the return for investors was certainly lower, that is, any capital gain was lower through that period, the cost kept up with the average wage.
In the period between 2004 and 2009, a five year period, we have witnessed huge rises from $50 000 to $60 000 for an average block, up to an over-inflated cost of $200 000. Without unpacking the reasons for this, after speaking with the developers, the access to land is the major contributor to this price hike. The only real benefactors have been this government, through additional stamp duty paid on over inflated prices on land. With no new land releases and, therefore, infrastructural headworks required in recent years, they have laughed all the way to the bank.
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. I also note $7.1m over two years to build 22 new homes, units and duplexes in Darwin, Palmerston, Humpty Doo, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. This is welcome and needed but, really, two years to build 22 dwellings? Given they are spread over five localities does that mean there will only be four new dwellings in each locality? How many have they sold off in recent years? How long is the waiting list? How many dwellings are currently vacant or have tenants who have not paid rent? Four new dwellings in each locality is a joke, and demonstrates again where this government’s priorities are.
I move to page 11 where it demonstrates approximately $3.28bn worth of highlights with well over half of them targeted in Darwin, Palmerston and the rural area. Regional areas of the NT must feel like they are second cousins.
On page 12, it talks about continuing to support students with intellectual disabilities - like they have a choice. Of course, this support should continue. In fact, it should increase dramatically and include providing further support of inclusion support assistance in our schools. It then suggests it will increase - note the play on words here - the Back to School payment from $50 to $75. I am confused here. Most people know the increase has already occurred this year. An increase, therefore, would suggest it is perhaps going from the current $75 to $100. However, if it means to continue the Back to School payment, then I suggest you use the word 'continue', not 'increase', because that has already occurred this year.
On page 18, where we start to look through environmental initiatives, it would be fair to say the government has dropped the ball. The information is confusing, and there is little to suggest the environment is even considered by this government. $2.1m to support business and households to respond to climate change? Get real! What is this going to achieve? It also mentions supporting the Eco-Links program to the tune of $600 000. However, when you look into Budget Paper No 4, page 47, it states $500 000. Just to compound things just a little further, page 257 of Budget Paper No 3 states under Budget Highlights for the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, $100 000 for the Arafura to Alice eco-link. So, what is it - $100 000, $500 000 or $600 000? Again, I look forward to the estimates.
On the same page, it suggests $1m for redevelopment for Litchfield Park - $1m to redevelop one of our jewels, one of our national parks. Imagine how much we could have spent if we were not building a new prison.
It also speaks of $5m for a new Palmerston water park - no doubt very welcome news for the many families who call Palmerston home. However, what about the price of land? You cannot blame the owner of the land wanting a fair market value for that land. 'Fair market value' just might come back to bite this government given its own policies have created the current high prices for land. If the $5m is to cover the cost of land and the water park, I am seriously worried about how much will be left. We might have enough for a plastic blow-up pool from Target.
Let us look at that process. We all know this government came out late during the last election with a grandiose promise for Palmerston residents. It would appear even before they had secured the land - and that is obvious - and well before, it would appear, it had even consulted with the local council. It is poor planning, indeed, and another demonstration of this government’s propensity to announce things before they have figured out how they will deliver it.
What about the ongoing costs? The next line indicates how much it cost to maintain the Leanyer Water Park - $2.4m. Who will maintain the Palmerston Water Park? Will the council be expected to run and maintain this facility? A $2.4m management cost would be a huge impost on Palmerston ratepayers. In fact, in a yearly budget of around $10m, an impost such as the cost to run the Leanyer Water Park would be dramatic. 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 - which is interesting because I am aware your own costs to put a new boat ramp at Palmerston was $5m, but you have only budgeted for $4m. Does that mean we get 80% of a boat ramp? Or perhaps the concrete will drop off at the end of the high water mark.
I move to page 255 of the Budget Paper No 3, where it indicates a $10m reduction on last year’s $170m budget for NRETAS. Given last year’s budget was a $40m blowout, I worry that the $10m reduction will be partly funded through the loss of jobs. To quantify that, I refer to page 271 which indicates a reduction of $3.305m in employee expenses. If that is not a cut in jobs, and I recall the Treasurer’s grandiose posturing about this budget being all about jobs - I do not know what is. $3.305m is around 35 to 40 or more jobs.
Budget Paper No 4 talks about more federal money - $10m for the Palmerston super clinic. We are talking federal money but it is in a Northern Territory budget. When the super clinic is finally built, it will certainly be welcome news in Palmerston. The reality is, you are glossing up your own documents with more public funding. Page 22 talks about Police, Fire and Emergency Services capital works. Guess what? Nothing for Palmerston. Where is that shopping centre police beat promised in the last election? While I consider there is a better way to use police resources, I would certainly trade your chief’s office of failed politicians and publicly paid election campaigners for a police beat.
Page 42 points out a major sum of revoted works. Can this government deliver anything in the year it was proposed? $50m is a large amount and I make the point that an additional $50m makes this year’s budget just that little rosier for the average person. Page 48 indicates a total of $561 000 in revoted works, and only $200 000 towards new work for this year for the Territory Wildlife Park. So, in this year that they talk about providing jobs, and a budget that is going to deliver jobs, they provide $200 000 additional works. $1.3bn on infrastructure and this government spins it as loud and as strong as it possibly can - a $1.3bn program. It actually plans to spend half that amount. What is it, $653m, with the Commonwealth providing the bulk? Unexpected budget GST payments have been wasted when they could have been used to keep us out of deficit.
Consider financial year 2007-08. That year Labor pocketed $330m in unexpected revenue and, in addition, $80m in dividends from the Power and Water Authority while allowing it to struggle with a run-to-fail mentality instead of maintaining infrastructure. Imagine if that $80m was put back into maintenance, or perhaps the $330m of unexpected revenue was put back into maintenance - we would not have the catastrophic failures and a minister for darkness that Territorians have had to put up with in recent times.
On that subject, this government’s only response was to blame a previous administration that has not been in government for more than eight years. I do not want to point out the obvious here, but that was eight years ago, and guess what? Infrastructure will age somewhat over eight years, and to blame an administration from eight years ago for what has occurred today is wrong. The infrastructure eight years ago was certainly in better shape and condition than it is today. For heaven’s sake, I have certainly aged over the last eight years, and my maintenance requirements are far higher today than I needed eight years ago. So to argue a case on the condition of equipment eight years ago being the reason for recent failures is an abrogation of responsibility.
Maintenance backed up with adequate resources was required, not raking an agency of $80m. That is the real reason Territorians have had to put up with a third world electricity supply. And now to have the audacity to ask Territorians to pay for this is woeful; and they will pay for it through a 25% price rise in electricity over the next few years. What will be the results of this?
I raise the point of jobs. This government states loudly that this budget is all about jobs. What will these latest price rises do to the job market? I worry that this government does not understand how business works and, therefore, will not understand or appreciate the risk these prices will have on jobs. A $1.3bn spend on infrastructure could have gone a long way towards replacing, fixing, and maintaining our Power and Water electricity grid. It could have ensured gas was flowing into Channel Island instead of spending, and, therefore, on-charging to Territorians each and every day, approximately $71 000 worth of diesel fuel. This is also a great demonstration of how important this government considers our environment. With power about to go up by a whopping 25% it demonstrates clearly to Territorians who is going to pay for their mismanagement of our power and water infrastructure.
In 2008-09, this government included infrastructure projects worth $220m in the pool of revoted works. At budget time last year, just like this year, ‘a record spend’. What did we get and, the big question is, where did the rest go?
This government has demonstrated time and time again that it makes promises on infrastructure but continually fails to deliver. While this government continues to sprout about their $1.3bn program and openly provides the community with this perception, the reality is they actually plan to spend half that amount. What did I say, $653m? And we all know the bulk of this money is being provided by the Commonwealth. If that is not misleading the public, I do not know what is. Before you all get antsy - I can see one over there getting antsy - I appreciate that governments all over Australia revote works; we understand how it works for any number of reasons. It can be demonstrated year after year that this government promotes revoted works as new spending. It most certainly demonstrates a lack of direction and mismanagement by this government - while it continues to hark and bark about how good they are and continues to control this House every time this side of the House wishes to raise some level of criticism, criticism I might add, that is well and truly deserved.
I refer to the current economic debate in this country, led by our own Prime Minister who continues to talk down the economy to such an extent one feels the real strategy is all about protection rather than focusing on how best to manage the situation. This debate has been bought into by our own Treasurer who also continues to talk down the economy as a way of positioning government where, whether the current fiscal policy works or not, it again will be someone else’s fault. If the current policy works, it must have been good management but, if it fails, that is someone else’s fault. They will not, and perhaps cannot, accept that their own policy, their own management of our local economy has no effect on it whatsoever. The truth is it has much more an effect than they will ever admit and it is quite clear that they know, just as the federal government knows, that much of their policy and results are not quantifiable.
It is akin to a gambler or an alcoholic, and until they can admit they have a problem, they cannot and will not work towards addressing the problem. This government takes no responsibility whatsoever; it is all someone else’s fault. Any of our recent problems whether they relate to health, education, law and order, they cannot, and they will not take responsibility for poor outcomes; it is all someone else’s fault. They do not run departments, it is not their responsibility, they say.
Yesterday, they spoke ill of good public servants, and that in itself is wrong, but it raises an interesting point. Every time they do not take responsibility when a serious issue is highlighted, and stick their CEOs in front of the camera whenever there is bad news to be delivered, but stand up as grandiose as they want when there is some good news; the moment they devolve their responsibility and blame someone else, they are blaming public servants in a very big way, in an underhanded way. It demonstrates the quality of people Territorians are forced to deal with for the next few years.
The reality of running a successful business where its success creates jobs is affected every day by the policy this government sets. Its fees and charges for government services affect business. Its fees and charges affect mums and dads and young people starting out. Its abysmal track record in releasing land affects just about everyone. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how this government will not take responsibility for our current high cost of living, our high crime levels, our lower than acceptable remote education standards, our abysmal power infrastructure and so many other current issues their own policy, fiscal management and strategic management has created.
Yesterday, I listened intently while the Treasurer openly stated the government had absolutely no responsibility for the high cost of fuel in the Northern Territory. I am not sure if the Treasurer has ever run a business, but I can assure her that everything from the price of electricity to run fridges and electric fuel pumps, the cost of staff, payroll tax, and vehicle registrations all have a direct impact on the cost of running a business.
Those businesses we want to promote in the Northern Territory, those businesses that create jobs and are the real backbone of the Australian economy, are affected by this government. It is disgraceful that our own Treasurer does not appreciate it. She does not accept the fact that business is affected by the costs passed on by government, and to suggest this publicly should be seen as a major concern to our business community; our own Treasurer does not understand the basics of good business. She clearly demonstrated this at the NT Property Council breakfast. She does not understand how her own government negatively affects business.
To suggest the price of fuel in the Northern Territory is not affected in any way by this government is an absurdity. I make reference again to an alcoholic or a gambler: until they recognise the problem they will not, they cannot move towards resolving the issue. That is a terrible tragedy. If the Treasurer really believes that her policies, her government and their fees, their charges, higher electricity costs, etcetera, do not have an impact on the cost of business in the Northern Territory, we are all in for a lot of trouble.
Let us see what the impact of the 25% increase in power costs alone will have on business in the future. I have already been told by businesses it will cost jobs. That is a shame, particularly given this government’s propaganda suggesting this current budget is all about jobs. I have to agree, it is about jobs - how many will be lost because of their mismanagement which all Territorians will have to pay for. Ponder this scenario for one moment: if only a small amount of the $1.2bn in extra revenue over the last few years was saved or used to pay off debt, even last year’s additional GST revenue was saved; perhaps we would not need to go into deficit.
In recent years this government has enjoyed the spoils of so much unexpected GST cash it must have been like winning lotto time and time again, year in and year out. What have they spent that on? It has not been on infrastructure. Perhaps it has been on the 5th floor, perhaps it was in the printing office, or perhaps it was used to publicly fund election campaign offices in Palmerston, Katherine and Alice Springs.
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 this deception. It is deception, if members of the public believe $1.3bn of new money is going to be spent this year on infrastructure.
I look forward to the estimates process next month.
Debate adjourned.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Port Darwin
Member for Port Darwin
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Port Darwin to make a very short personal explanation. I remind honourable members that this is not a debate.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, in normal circumstances I would not speak, however, I need to make a personal explanation in relation to what was reproduced on the ABC News and, before the assertion becomes fact, place on the public record that the assertion made by the Leader of Government Business that I had the races on in parliament is incorrect.
What occurred on that day, I believe about a decade ago, a member of parliament - and I do not remember who the minister was - made a statement in relation to a website which, I believe, was for tourism. I went to that website and followed a link to the Alice Springs races website and, because I did not have the sound turned down on my computer, it then bugled a race call.
I did not have the races on in parliament, and I do not make any allegations of impropriety on the part of the Leader of Government Business. It was, I believe, about a decade ago and it was an unfortunate incident. However, I certainly did not have the races on in parliament.
TABLED PAPER
Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10 and Reference to Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10. The SCI 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, the Power and Water Corporation became the Territory’s first Government Owned Corporation, GOC, on 1 July 2002. The 2009-10 SCI is, therefore, the corporation’s eighth.
Consistent with previous years, information of a commercially sensitive nature has been removed from the SCI tabled today on the basis it would be unreasonable to disadvantage the corporation by disclosing commercially sensitive information which no private sector business would be expected to release.
The SCI forecast nett profit after tax of $51.6m in 2009-10. This accounting profit forecast takes account of extraordinary revenue resulting from asset write-backs of $77.4m. If not for these extraordinary asset write-backs, the corporation would have made a loss, notwithstanding the tariff increases from July 2009. As asset write-backs are, in effect, accounting concepts rather than real money, this demonstrates that tariff increases are necessary to secure the corporation's long-term financial sustainability, and to ensure it can deliver reliable services and meet growing demand. While some jurisdictions have announced higher tariff increases, the government has tried to keep tariff increases as low as possible because of concerns abut the impact on small business and households, especially in the current economic climate.
The announced increase in tariff is in the mid-range of electricity, and below the average for water and sewerage when compared with tariffs applying around the rest of Australia. For example, electricity tariff increases are about half of what was recommended by the independent consultant commissioned by government to undertake a review of the financial position of the corporation. In allowing lower tariff increases, government will need to absorb the shortfall in expected revenues. Government has also made a commitment that pensioners, carers and seniors will not be worse off as a result of the tariff increases. Again, government will need to absorb the shortfall in revenue.
The tariff increases will result in immediate improvement in the corporation’s financial performance, enabling it to meet capital and operational outlays necessary to meet increasing demand, replace depleting and ageing assets, and meet standards for reliability expected by the community. This, of course, was the main finding of the Reeves Report released in January 2009.
The 2009-10 SCI contains plans for the largest ever capital and maintenance investment program in the corporation. $1.129bn of capital investment will be made between 2009-10 and 2013-14. This infrastructure program has been developed to ensure service reliability and the corporation is able to meet growing demand. In relation to repairs and maintenance, some $269m is projected to be spent over the SCI period. However, to be confident that the corporation's capital and maintenance programs are sufficient, but not in anyway excessive, I will be asking the Utilities Commission to undertake a detailed review of the corporation’s capital and asset management programs.
As members are aware, the government has a uniform tariff policy for most customers, including small businesses and households. This means these Territorians pay the same for electricity, water and sewerage, irrespective of how much it costs to provide these services in different locations and conditions. Notwithstanding the tariff increases, government will continue to provide Community Service Obligation, or CSO, funding to cover the gap between the price Territorians pay for these services and what it actually costs the corporation to deliver these services. Government will be providing CSO funding of some $342m over the five-year period covered by the 2009-10 SCI. Also, government has advised the corporation it will not require any dividends over the next few years, even if the corporation should make an accounting profit.
Madam Speaker, as the 2009-10 SCI will be considered by the GOC Scrutiny Committee, I will not go into any more detail now. In accordance with section 39(7)(A) of the GOC Act, as shareholding minister for the corporation, I table the Power and Water Corporation’s 2009-10 Statement of Corporate Intent. I move that the statement be referred to the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for examination and report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): I am going to seek a bit of guidance here, Madam Speaker. I am going to move that the debate be adjourned, because I have not seen the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the motion actually is a referral motion, and it has to be referred to the Estimates Committee. What occurs is, it is scrutinised at the Estimates Committee and referred to the Chamber; a similar tracking process that occurs with the budget papers, and then the debate comes back into this Chamber.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, I am starting to see where you are coming from. I was told this was merely a procedural motion and I was under the impression, Madam Speaker, this was being suddenly dropped on the table. I now understand the motion. I did not hear the motion, because I was being advised the motion was coming on, exactly while you were talking about it, so it was a little bit difficult, so please excuse my situation here.
Just confirm for me: we pass the motion, it gets referred, so we go through it in detail on the Friday afternoon of Estimates and, as a result of the Estimates Committee, we come back here and we can talk about it?
Ms LAWRIE: That is exactly right, Madam Speaker. That is what happens.
Madam SPEAKER: I will read the motion: That the Power and Water Corporation Statement of Corporate Intent 2009-10 be referred for consideration by the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee to be established to examine the 2009-10 operations of the Power and Water Corporation.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I thank the House for their indulgence. There is no problem with that.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note paper – Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note paper – Auditor-General’s February 2009 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 12 February 2009.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his Report to the Legislative Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted during the six months to 31 December 2008.
My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest and concern.
In respect to financial statement audits, it is pleasing to note that all bar two were unqualified. The qualifications to the Power and Water Corporation Financial Statements relates to a difference of opinion on the discount rates that were applied when determining the value of some assets in 2005-06. This flowed through to subsequent years, but will cease to be a qualification from 2009-10 onwards. It is important to note that the issue has been resolved and will not arise again.
In the case of NT Build, the Auditor-General was not satisfied that all revenue due to NT Build under the Long Service Levy had been captured. The board is aware of the problem and, in conjunction with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, is pursuing necessary amendments to both the Building Act and the Planning Act. NT Build has instituted a range of mechanisms to identify prescribed construction projects, and whilst the board acknowledges that the level of uncertainty may always exist, they are confident there is a high level of compliance.
As part of the audit on the financial statements of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, a methodological issue concerning the valuation of the Darwin Convention Centre was noted, which has been clarified with the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General has again undertaken a compliance audit of travel entitlements paid to ministers and the Leader of the Opposition through the Department of the Chief Minister for the 2007-08 financial year. I am pleased to report the Auditor-General identified a continued and significant improvement in the department’s administration of ministerial travel. The Auditor-General was satisfied the control procedures provide a reasonable assurance that payments in relation to ministerial travel comply with the requirements of the Remuneration Tribunal.
The Auditor-General carried out information security audits on three agencies. The Department of Health and Families: processes around information security were considered appropriate and physical security was good, however, it was recommended that some procedures be formalised, changes to improve communication and business continuity strategies finalised.
At the Department of Business and Employment, the Auditor-General found the agency had good control over physical assets in three of the four sites tested and security responses and physical security were generally adequate. The audit revealed some weaknesses in the Northern Territory government’s staff awareness of information security policy. There were instances where staff revealed access details in response to telephone calls or e-mails from unauthorised personnel posing as service centre staff. DBE has taken steps to address this and also encouraged other agencies to increase NTG staff awareness of information security policies.
The third information security audit was undertaken for the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The findings were that the agency was aware of the need to align its information security framework with good practice principles, that they were in the process of implementing a number of initiatives which would improve information security and that a number of other opportunities for improvements had been identified.
A compliance audit of the Community Benefit Fund, currently administered by the Department of Justice, found that the management of the fund was generally in compliance with the requirements of the Gaming Machine Act and Regulations. However, the Auditor-General found that Justice had breached two provisions of section 68 of the Gaming Control Act, in that the fund should have been maintained as a separate entity, rather than a part of DOJ’s operating account; and that discrepancies between Justice’s gaming records and accounting records did not allow for adequate identification of payments into the fund.
The Auditor-General carried out a compliance audit of the Motor Vehicle Registry and made a number of findings relating to policy and procedure deficiencies.
As part of the audit of the Northern Territory government and Public Authorities Employees Superannuation Fund, the Auditor-General noted that volatility in national and international markets had resulted in the $51.5m decline in the nett market value of investments.
On behalf of my colleagues I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report. I fully support his continued work in upholding the standards of government and accountability on behalf of the parliament, the Northern Territory government, agency heads and the Territory community.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, my contribution will not be a lengthy one. I always eagerly read the Auditor-General’s Report and, I confess, with one eye on the opportunities I might be able to get out of it to bring news to the people of the Northern Territory. However, I note that the Auditor-General has made his observations about all of the departments and I have no recollection of anything particularly leaping out of it, save two areas.
The Auditor-General notes there is an equity improvement between the financial year 2007-08 in the Power and Water Corporation. There is quite a history here between Power and Water Corporation and the Auditor-General’s office about the application of certain accounting standards. To cut a long story short, the argument between the Power and Water Corporation and the Auditor-General basically turned on the way they accounted their assets.
Historically, I have some concerns about the way Power and Water did count its assets because there was a case, and I am not sure if it has gone through the courts yet, so I will speak about it in the most general terms only, where a former staff member of the Power and Water Corporation was found to have some $100 000 worth of equipment and assets belonging to the Power and Water Corporation in his shed at home. I make no allegations against that person just in case it has not gone to trial. This was a year or two ago, so I suppose it has, but in case it has not, I will keep my comments as general and as non-specific as possible.
What concerns me is the circumstances of that property being discovered in the shed were not due to any auditing system of Power and Water Corporation alone; it was by another means. I found it surprising even with an organisation the size of Power and Water Corporation they did not notice $100 000 of gear going missing. I hope their internal auditing processes have improved since that time. That is as an aside.
The actual matter of assets overall in relation to the Power and Water Corporation caused a write-down of some $80m in their asset base one or two years ago when the Auditor-General finally had his wicked way with Power Water and won the argument. Finally, we hope the Power and Water Corporation will stop getting qualified audit reports from the Auditor-General. It must be very irritating for both the Auditor-General and the accountant’s staff of the Power and Water Corporation that every time they open an annual report there is a qualified audit report from the Auditor-General.
One would hope that all government areas received unqualified reports. I know Treasury gets a qualified report from time to time. Hopefully, that has been fixed now with the introduction of the new Australian Accounting Standards. But the situation with the Power and Water Corporation is they did suffer that asset write-down and, of course, is in the unfortunate situation where into the future they will be carrying an increasingly large debt.
This brings me to page 102 of the Auditor-General’s report which focuses on the equity situation. From the balance sheet perspective in 2007, $555.410m, not a bad equity position, increasing to $614.370m which is fine, but the Power and Water Corporation is going to be taking a large slice of the borrowing hit. If you read the non-financial public sector balance sheet in Budget Paper No 2 around page 104 you will discover the projections for the non-financial public sector, where Power and Water Corporation actually has an impact on the budget papers, that the projections are unhealthy. You will see in the non-financial sector balance sheet, on page 107, that the nett debt situation sharply rises during that period. Most of that will be caused by debt carried by the Power and Water Corporation as a result of its borrowing program.
This $1.3bn, depending when you listen to it - originally it was released as $800m, then $1bn, now it is $1.3bn borrowing program to fix its assets - I suspect the balance or the equity position of Power and Water Corporation will fundamentally shift as a result of that over the next couple of years. Indeed, we have just seen the tabling of the Statement of Corporate Intent by the Treasurer and the Statement of Corporate Intent reflects those fees and charges increases which have seen so much publicity in relation to this government’s need to rescue Power and Water’s situation.
I note the reporting person, whose name escapes me at the moment, who reviewed the financial situation of Power and Water was actually recommending a much larger increase over the next several years to bring the Power and Water Corporation up to commercial sustainability; not just near sustainability. The government has shied away from that for reasons best known to them. They claim it is an issue of cushioning the blow. More cynical people would suggest it is a case of cushioning the blow for the next election; particularly in relation to the timing of these increases, presuming the electoral memory is not that good. That is an aside.
The fees are going up. I remember getting a briefing from the Treasurer in relation to this. When we were briefed, there was a figure that surprised me. The equity situation of Power and Water Corporation by the end of the last financial year was $615m. I suggest it is carrying a huge debt burden; that the debt to equity ratio for the corporation will easily fall within the parameter of unsustainable. A ratio of 4:1, a figure of 400% was mentioned during the briefing. I do not recall whether it was in relation to 'if things had been allowed to go on as they were' or 'this is what happens after the power increases come'.
However, in either case, the debt to income ratio and asset ratio means the equity position will be on the wrong side of the ledger as at next year, I expect - if not next year, the year after. As a consequence of that, Power and Water, as an authority, will essentially become a charitable institution as far as government is concerned. As a GOC, its function was to operate as a corporation under the corporations law of the country with one shareholder, the Treasurer. Now, of course, it will become the Treasurer’s albatross to a large degree, inasmuch as the Treasurer will have to carry part of this burden into the future.
With the borrowings which have to go on within the Power and Water Corporation, as demonstrated by the non-financial public sector balance sheet on page 107 of Budget Paper No 2, it is clear the debt problems facing this government are much greater than they are talking about at the moment. Add this to the superannuation liabilities and you have the situation in a few years’ time - I think it is 2011-12 financial year – where superannuation liabilities plus the nett debt situation will take us to $6bn worth of liabilities and debt in the Northern Territory - not an edifying place to be, particularly on the tail end of such good income over the last few years. It is disappointing Power and Water has to go into this situation. It is the product of years of neglect.
I am concerned the minister’s statement to this House in relation to the future of Power and Water’s R&M budget remains unamended, and the minister responsible made an assertion that around $50m, give or take, will be the R&M budget for the next five years for the Power and Water Corporation. I invite the minister to correct those sets of figures, if he so chooses. I suspect in the borrowings of this organisation, the R&M budget will increase because, if it does not, then those of us who have failed to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.
That is precisely what this minister’s announcements about the non-increases in the R&M budget, tracking at about $50m for the next five years, will achieve. It is what has brought us to this point of decay of the infrastructure as a result of a $40m, give or take a million, over the preceding five years before the structural collapse of the Casuarina Substation. That was a wake-up call to government and the reports that flowed from that, both in relation to the transmission network and its condition, as well as in relation to the financial capacity and situation of the Power and Water Corporation, certainly leaves you with the impression this is going to be a sick puppy for quite some time to come.
I hope it will be able to find sufficient income from those resources to be able to service its debt without becoming too much of a burden for the taxpayer. Of course, if it is not the taxpayer paying, it is the consumer of the electricity itself. One way or the other, it is not a long bow to draw to say most taxpayers are consumers of power anyhow, so they get slugged one way or the other. I suspect what we will see in next year’s annual report is the equity situation of the Power and Water Corporation will have parentheses around it - and that is the last thing you want to see if you are a corporation. If you did not have a government guarantee of support, you would actually be insolvent.
That is the problem this GOC will be facing into the future. As a corporation, I would not be sticking it on the stock market just now, because I suspect you would not be getting a huge amount of money for it.
Tonight I do not wish to focus much on the comments by the Auditor-General. Suffice to say, I am not reassured enormously by some of the numbers I am seeing for TIO Banking and Insurance. The problem with TIO is as an organisation people put their savings into, or invest in, those investments always come to a crystallisation date; that is the date when the person who has invested in the organisation walks up to the front door and goes, knock, knock: ‘Can I have my money, plus my 7% part of the contract back?’, or whatever the deal is. What I am concerned about, and I have not drilled into the books deeply enough, and it is not expressed in the Auditor-General’s statement, is the exposure of TIO to those liabilities it carries in terms of money it is paying to people who invested in TIO and the various products it sells.
If I understand these systems correctly, that money then gets invested somewhere else, and if the TIO, and I am not suggesting for one second that they are operating outside of APRA guidelines before anybody gets twitchy about that, but like so many financial institutions they will have been carrying exposure, and now those people who have signed up to particular deals will be expecting their money. Depending on how much money, or how many of these arrangements crystallise in the future, will depend on how much TIO is exposed to liabilities ongoing. If TIO is carrying those types of liabilities, it will be starting to look for different ways to meet those liabilities. I note TIO had on the market - I believe it has been sold - Territory House, which was a property of TIO. The closure of two branches of the Territory Insurance Office is also some cause for concern because, from the outside looking in, and like most Territorians I merely have my nose pressed up to the glass, one starts to get the impression they are engaged in some austerity.
Madam Speaker, that is not to suggest that anyone’s investments are in trouble because, like banks now, they carry a government guarantee. I was concerned when the Prime Minister signalled he was moving to guarantee savings in bank accounts because, almost immediately, I thought of TIO, but it turned out to be other organisations as well. I was less worried about TIO, because of the Territory government guarantee, that people would start to engage in what would, essentially, be runs on non-bank institutions. People who have money in financial institutions that are not banks do not have a guarantee; they are usually small organisations so, all of a sudden, people run down to the bank, hence the term ‘run’, and withdraw all their money and whack it into a bank because the Prime Minister has offered a government guarantee on savings.
That issue seems to have mellowed out and, of course, I acknowledge that TIO has always carried such a guarantee for Territory investments, so that the exposure of TIO is, in fact, an exposure of government.
Whilst they are organising themselves as a business at the moment, and I can well understand why the TIO Board seeks to continue to operate like a business, hence the sale of assets, closing down of branches; the fall back position is always there. But, of course, if TIO does find itself in trouble in the future, then it would be no one other than the Territory taxpayer footing the bill. That, of course, would be a greater debt burden to government and the rest is history; it would mean us coming in here and bellowing and screaming about the poor fiscal management of government. Government running its lines saying: ‘It is dreadful that Wall Street has taken a hiding as a result of the sub-prime mortgage arrangements.’ At which point we would say: ‘No, no, it is all nonsense’, and the same game would be played.
With those observations, I thank the Auditor-General with his ongoing, dedicated work. Few people really appreciate how much work he does and how little of what he does appears in these reports because there is so much more he does, and his work is ongoing and endless.
If you think about the number of annual reports he audits in a very technical and detailed way, as well as producing two of these suckers every year, looking at the government, it is a very full agenda for a bloke who has three or four staff - himself, another auditor and a couple of administration staff. I know he occasionally flicks stuff out to private auditing firms, I believe Deloitte’s picks up a bit of work, but I could be wrong about that. It is just astonishing the amount of work that this small office produces. People also forget the person who fills this position is not an organ of government but rather an organ of this parliament. That is very important distinction to make.
The government has its own auditing process. This bloke works for us and so he reports to us without fear or favour and sees us primarily as his number one client - not government and not government departments. Consequently, the capacity for the government to interfere in the functions of this person is very limited indeed.
I acknowledge his independence. There is only one other person who enjoys such independence, and that is the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is also an officer of this parliament, not an officer of government, and it is between the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General that we get some of the few insights into the operation of government. If you look at the work of the Ombudsman over the last couple of years, she has been thorough and fearless in her task, as has been the Auditor-General.
I am concerned that the government, rather than listening to the Ombudsman and taking heed of her advice, is now choosing to turn on the Ombudsman and single her out for criticism rather than accepting the things she is saying.
Whilst we may not always agree with what the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General have to say about issues, they are officers of the parliament. It is another aspect of the way this government operates, turning on officers of this parliament rather than accepting their advice in a constructive way, is a matter of concern. However, I have courage and faith that both the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman will continue to do their job fearlessly and thoroughly, as is their duty.
Mr KNIGHT (Local Government): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s Annual Report. The Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, is always thorough in his investigations. This government makes it absolutely clear that we expect all agencies to comply with the Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations.
For the Department of Local Government and Housing, the Auditor-General found that Territory Housing improved its nett surplus and tenants are paying the appropriate rent. The Auditor-General also found that Territory Housing has a strong asset position which has grown over the previous year. This reflects our increasing investment in new housing and real improvement in housing maintenance and management. There is much more work we will be doing with respect to repairs and maintenance and management; I flagged that with the review of Territory Housing. With the rent collection, we have a specific task force on that and rent arrears are dramatically reducing.
A key finding of the Auditor-General was that the accounting and control procedures were satisfactory. He also noted that past audits have indicated system issues which required enhancement; and the department has taken appropriate action in response this. They have done a great deal of work, and I congratulate all the staff and the CEO for that work.
The agency’s Asset Information System and Government Accounting System have been updated. Over the next 12 months the department will replace its software system to ensure its systems not only meet the Auditor-General’s requirements, but improve the agency’s efficiency. One of the things the new CEO has done was to acquire a new asset management system, and we will see the results of that in the near future.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Local Government, if I could just interrupt. Given it is nine o’clock, you have the opportunity to extend for another 10 minutes or you may stop now and carry on at the resumption.
Mr KNIGHT: One more minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will conclude. I thank the department for all the work they have done. We accept the findings of the Auditor-General and we have implemented a system to ensure practices comply with all his recommendations. I thank Frank McGuiness for all his work. As always he did it very studiously and we look forward to more scrutiny next year.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and thank you, Chief Minister. I was intrigued today when the Chief Minister was asked the first question of Question Time in relation to Hai Win. Hai Win is the shipping company that ships goods and services between Darwin and Shanghai. I was somewhat baffled that the Chief Minister put Hai Win’s withdrawal solely down to a commercial decision; and government expended all the energy they possibly could to see Hai Win stay in the marketplace. Hai Win is one of only three shipping companies that operate out of Darwin, the other two being Swire and Perkins Shipping. So you could say the companies using the port have been knocked back by a third, which is quite dramatic.
I find it an appalling situation. We, on this side of the House, recognise how important international trade, logistics and transport are for the Territory. We have the luxury of being in a unique and strategic location in the world and we should be utilising that location for the benefit of all Territorians. To see a company like Hai Win pull out is disturbing. The reasons they pulled out are: berthing costs are twice that of Townsville, and storage costs are increasing. There are also problems with quarantine and the times it takes to offload and on-load cargo to ships. The problems are with AQIS - a federal government agency.
Having heard the new federal government and the states are going to work cooperatively together and we no longer have the blame game, it stuns me the Territory government cannot do more to speed up some of the quarantine measures in place. Hai Win is moving to Townsville because Townsville does not have the quarantine issues we have in Darwin. This is going to impact dramatically on Darwin.
China is a major trade centre, and Hai Win is an incredibly important company for a whole of range of businesses in the Northern Territory - developers, gas producers, large industry businesses are all users of that service. They will suffer and, if they suffer, Territorians will suffer. What it means is that products coming from or going to China will now have to come from China to Townsville and then on a truck to Darwin, or from Darwin on a truck to Townsville, and to China, massively increasing the time taken to get product there, and massively increasing costs for Darwin businesses and companies.
I do not have a lot of time to speak on this, but I know the government is very keen to promote their support of international trade. I have a copy of the International Trade Strategic Summary from the Department of Chief Minister. It is all gloss, of course, because whilst they talk about China being the number one trading partner in the Territory, they are quite happy to see a business like this leave the Territory - a business so important to Territory businesses. I cannot comprehend how the government can be so nonchalant in relation to this business. I am sure they should be doing much more, and I encourage the government to do a lot more to retain Hai Win at our port ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, your time has expired.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure I report tonight on the 58th Seminar of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure at Westminster, which was held from 1 to 13 March 2009 in London, which I had the honour to attend. This is the seminar for members of parliament and Clerks.
First, I place on the record my thanks to the United Kingdom Branch of the CPA for their generosity, in particular to the Secretary of the Branch, Mr Andrew Tuggey and also to the coordinator of the seminar, Ms Elspeth Macdonald. This is a very extensive, comprehensive and intensive seminar over a two-week period, which is largely funded by the CPA UK, for around 70 delegates from around the Commonwealth.
The aim of the program was to learn more about accountability and legislative mechanisms; study the structure, administration and funding of parliament and the work of its key office holders; to examine methods to represent and engage better with communities including a constituency visit; to explore contributions parliamentarians can make on the issue of climate change and the global financial crisis; to interact and exchange views with members and officials at Westminster; and to mark and celebrate Commonwealth Day.
The program covered, in general ways: the Westminster parliamentary system; the role of the Speaker; bicameralism; Question Times and different kinds of questions; debates and different types of debates; parliament’s role in taxation and public expenditure; public accounts; the committee system; scrutiny of the Prime Minister; the legislative process; parliamentary standards; Hansard; party discipline; register of members' interests; a constituency visit; a session on industry and parliament trusts; the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme and young people in the parliament; engaging the next generation, as well as a variety of presentations on the Electoral Commission, women in parliament, challenges and opportunities for MPs using the Internet, broadcasting parliament, and engaging with the media. It had very extensive presentations, in particular on the global financial crisis and climate change.
Many of the issues spoken about at this seminar I am hoping we might be able to discuss in this parliament at some time, particularly the matters to do with industry and the parliament - Parliament Trust. This is a trust which has been set up in the United Kingdom where industry leaders come into the parliament, learn about legislation, about how legislation is made and how members of parliament spend time in businesses across the country. It has been very successful over many years. I have had an initial conversation with some business people about that, and I am looking forward to discussing it with members of the House at a later stage.
They have a more extensive version of the Armed Forces Program, which some of us have been involved with here. I have been invited by the Defence Force to go out in the next couple of weeks and be involved in learning about some programs they have. It would be good for our parliament to invite members of the Defence Force to look at legislation, legislative processes, and how you can lobby members of parliament to have different bills put on the agenda. I have spoken to the Commander of Northern Command about this, and I will be making some approaches to them about the possibilities for the future.
Honourable members, I seek leave to table the papers associated with this seminar for the benefit of all members.
Leave granted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the House in relation to a couple of activities I have taken part in over the past two weeks or so.
Last weekend was the Katherine Country Music Muster, which I spoke about in adjournment two nights ago. On the same weekend, I was very fortunate to go to Timber Creek for the annual Big Horse Creek Barra Classic, which was held there over a number of days; sponsored, organised and run by the Katherine Game Fishing Club. I acknowledge the member for Drysdale who made the effort to come to Katherine over the weekend and attend those events with me. He came out to Timber Creek; it is a fairly long drive and it was nice to have some company and also someone to share the driving.
The competition went extremely well. There were 190 competitors who registered and competed in the event, which is probably down slightly on past years but, given the economic crisis, that is not surprising. Overall, the competition was strong. Unfortunately, the numbers of fish were down on past years but, notwithstanding that, there were still some very good fish caught. The largest barramundi was a 130 cm fish caught by a chap from Kununurra. A bit of a shame someone from across the border won a Northern Territory competition, but it was well deserved, and a good effort to land such a fish.
I thank the Katherine Game Fishing Club for organising that event; they are a strong club in Katherine. They have many members and, looking at the number of people from Katherine who went to Timber Creek over the weekend, it is certainly a testament to the hard work and dedication of the organising committee. Although I do not recall the names of all those who were involved in organising it, I acknowledge Greg and Darilyn Wright, and also Merv and Lorna Fischer, who were integral in the organising committee. Also a special mention of Ben Coutts, a local Katherine fellow who has been around forever - I believe he was born in Katherine. Ben compered and MC’d the presentation night, which was a great success.
I was very pleased to show some support for the amateur fishermen who are a very important group to the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory economy; they deserve the support of government. I note from the budget, this government has shown some support in providing monies to upgrade boat ramps and other infrastructure for amateur fishermen. I welcome that inflow of money to the fishing sector.
It is important to record that this side of the House, the opposition, very strongly supports the amateur fishermen and their lobby. We realise the important part they play with input into managing the fisheries across the Northern Territory. They, with the Seafood Council, provide balanced views about how the fisheries should be managed. I look forward to further interaction with those groups in the hope we can bring about some real change and revolution to the fishing industry, and make it a far more sustainable industry in the future.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, on 12 March this year the Hoops 4 Health basketball challenge team conducted a coaching clinic at the Alice Springs Basketball Stadium with children from the Irrkerlantye Learning Centre and various town camps in Alice Springs. At the same time, the ITC athletes had the opportunity to train with and against the remaining members of the Hoops 4 Health basketball challenge team. The feedback from this training session was very positive.
On Friday, 13 March, the Hoops 4 Health team visited the children’s ward and patients from the Alice Springs Hospital, with patients and staff from the rehabilitation centre in Alice Springs. The Hoops for Health mascot, Hooper, was a big hit with the children at the hospital, and the parents and nursing staff had the opportunity to have their photos taken with Hooper and with Anthony ‘the Man’ Mundine. A big thank you to the staff at the Alice Springs Hospital and, in particular, thanks to Chelsea Rogers from the Alice Springs Hospital for organising this fantastic event.
The Friday evening game of the Hoops 4 Health challenge was played in Alice Springs. It was a huge success with a big turnout. The Hoops 4 Health Brown and Hoops 4 Health Blue teams were the two women’s teams that played the curtain raiser to the main game. These teams were made up of Indigenous ladies from Alice Springs, and three from Darwin. The Hoops 4 Health Blue team won this very high standard game.
The Hoops 4 Health men’s team was far too strong for the Alice Springs representative side, but the game was very entertaining with great skill shown by both teams. Hooper, the mascot, again entertained the audience throughout the night, along with the Yirara boys band, which was also a big hit. Half time entertainment was dancing by the Doombul dancers -young Indigenous children who do traditional dancing. A big thanks to Lee and Graeme Willis and the kids for fantastic entertainment.
On 13 March, the Hoops 4 Health team visited Ti Tree School in my electorate of Stuart. Timmy Duggan, the Director of Hoops 4 Health committee, with Anthony ‘the Man’ Mundine, who is the patron, Leroy Loggins, who is an ex-Brisbane Bullets star, Rodney Oge, the courtside announcer for the Sydney Kings, and Andre Moore, another ex-Brisbane Bullets star, conducted coaching clinics at the Ti Tree School. The theme for the Hoops 4 Health team at the school was all about school retention. With great support and help from Zania Liddle, the principal at the Ti Tree School, and Ebony Miller the Sport and Recreation officer with the Central Desert Shire, at Anmatjere country, the trip to Ti Tree was a great success. The kids were entertained by Trendy Trev, who spoke about how important it was to stay at school and get a good education. The children were able to show off their skills to the members of the Hoops 4 Health team, and there may be a few NBL stars of the future at Ti Tree.
At the conclusion of the coaching clinic the Hoops 4 Health team, with all the students from the Ti Tree School, enjoyed a big lunch together, which I was also pleased to attend. The Ti Tree community put on a BBQ at the local park which, I believe, was put on by the Tangentyere Job Shop, the local job network provider, so people could meet and discuss issues around employment, and also catch up with the Hoops 4 Health team, in particular Anthony ‘the Man’ Mundine, who was a huge hit, particularly with the men.
I say a big thank you to the Alice Springs Basketball Association, the sponsors, Kungas Can Cook, Yeperenye Centre Management for all their help and support in making the Hoops 4 Health Basketball challenge a great success.
I congratulate the Binjari community on the fabulous one day art and cultural festival they held late last year. It was truly an original event with the Djilpin dancers from Beswick, the Springwater Band from Barunga, and Pine Creek School leading the excellent entertainment. People travelled from as far away as Ngukurr and Darwin to this family event, which was the first of its kind at the Binjari community.
The Binjari community, in conjunction with Katherine Regional Arts, staged the festival, with a focus on community pride. Due to its success, it will now become a regular event. I wish to pass on my congratulations to the organisers, in particular Toni Tapp Coutts from the Regional Arts Board, and all those involved in making it a great day.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I referred in the Auditor-General’s debate to a debt-to-equity ratio of 400% as a possibly projected ratio of the debt.
I have had a chance to look over the Statement of Corporate Intent tabled earlier, and I note and state publicly the debt-to-equity ratio of Power and Water Corporation will be 140% in the year 2011-12. I correct that record in case that information comes back to haunt me. What I recall from the briefing was where they would have been if nothing had changed.
I would also like to speak to a matter arising out of the appropriation debate earlier today and put on the record my appreciation for the speech delivered by the member for Braitling. Not so much for what was in it, but for what it caused to happen.
Members were probably unaware of it, but that was quite a coup de etat this evening for the member of Braitling; because the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, who would have used his appropriation response to outline the vision for the future of government, spent two thirds of the time available to him responding entirely to the member for Braitling; a man who has been in this parliament for less than a year. Yet he has spoken with such vigour and put such pressure on the government, that the Chief Minister was forced to spend two thirds of his budget reply dealing with issues raised by the member for Braitling.
That was a coup beyond measure. It would be the equivalent of a junior shadow minister in the federal parliament capturing Kevin Rudd’s appropriation response; taking Kevin Rudd right off message. A remarkable achievement. I believe the member for Braitling should be proud that within a short time in this House he is able to bring such pressure to bear upon the government of the day that it is forced to seek an extension of time for the Chief Minister, so he can get through his business.
I finish on this note. Yesterday we had the ridiculous situation where the government shut down the debate at 7 o’clock last night. After that I received a telephone call from the Government Whip, in my role as the acting Whip, who told me there was going to be an appropriation bill, six speakers from their side of the House; the A-G report, seven speakers from their side of the House, a few other bits and bobs; I believe it added up to about 21 speakers from their side of the House on various issues.
I find it absolutely remarkable they have not been able to get through that business. I knew the moment I received the call there was no chance the government would be able to get through that business. Yet, last night they shut the House down at 7 pm. For the Leader Of Government Business to stand there and lecture us about getting ourselves organised, and then see this performance of a tired, jaded government cranking along like an old army tank, bits falling off it left, right and centre, tells you how tired and disorganised they are.
Whilst I appreciate their contempt for parliament is complete and without any form of contrition, when that contempt for parliament leaches into their own capacity to do their jobs effectively, then shame on them. They could not with a straight face come into this place - not that they are here at the moment, not one of them - and talk about our side of the House getting organised, to then put on a performance like that is really embarrassing. If any one of them were here, I am sure they would be replying to this. Of course, they are not; they are away doing other things. The Chamber is empty. This would be a breach of standing orders for me to say, but there is no one …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, reference to members not present is not allowed, and you are aware of that.
Mr ELFERINK: There is no one to take the issue up on their behalf.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the Chair, I do, and those comments are disallowed.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016