2010-04-29
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 15 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act, one of the purposes of which is to authorise the Territory to pay to the Commonwealth, from public monies received by the Territory, an amount for particular mineral royalty payments refunded by the Commonwealth.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arnhem, Ms McCarthy, have leave of absence for this day.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table documents for the following pairs:
the members for Arnhem and Port Darwin for the whole sitting day,
the members for Barkly and Greatorex, from noon to the close of today; and
the members for Daly and Araluen for the period 3 pm to 4.30 pm.
The documents are signed by the government and opposition Whips.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The proposed legislation recognises effective mineral resource development is fundamentally underpinned by the valid grant and ongoing monitoring and regulation of mineral titles. The objective of the Mineral Titles Act is a regime that encourages active exploration, turnover of land, and active development of known mineral deposits which will provide a mechanism to further strengthen the significant contribution of the resource industry to the Northern Territory economy.
The changes will usher in a streamlined process for the grant and management of mineral titles, with an emphasis on performance and transparency of process and accountability. The Mineral Titles Act will focus on the valid grant and regulation of mineral titles in the Northern Territory. This focus is the same as the current legislation, whereby many of the provisions have been recast to allow for contemporary practices. The new legislation will encourage and promote active exploration leading to mineral production, by taking into account the genuine needs of the exploration industry and offering greater flexibility for those who actively pursue exploration objectives.
The Mineral Titles Act will replace the existing Mining Act, and will provide legislation which is written in contemporary language and streamline the mining tenure process to meet the challenges of an expanding mining sector. The change in the name of the legislation is designed to better reflect the purpose of the legislation and to provide a clear distinction between the legislation that regulates the operation of mines; principally the Mining Management Act and the legislation for the grant of titles.
The Mining Act has been in operation for nearly 30 years and, since its commencement, has generally served government, industry, and the community well. It provides a regime that is competitive with other jurisdictions, and it takes into account issues unique to the Territory such as the application of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
While the Mining Act remains functional and continues to serve its intended purpose of providing a regime for the administration of titles for the exploration and the mining of minerals, it is recognised that aspects of the Mining Act are outdated and fail to take into account significant changes and innovations which have occurred in a number of areas since the commencement of this legislation.
In drafting the Mineral Titles Bill, substantial parts of the Mining Act which have served the mining sector well have been retained, although expressed in a contemporary manner. It is recognised there have been significant developments and changes on the domestic and world stage since the commencement of the Mining Act including:
new information technologies through the introduction of the Internet, mobile phones, and other electronic mediums, which have fundamentally changed the way business is conducted;
the emergence of native title law through the introduction of the Native Title Act and changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This legislation has had a profound affect on land access procedures for mineral explorers and miners;
market globalisation has seen the move away from small miners and prospectors to a corporate focus on exploration and predominance in the sector of large-scale operators, especially international operators; and
technological changes in relation to modern broad area exploration techniques including airborne surveys.
The repeal of the current Mining Act and its replacement with the Mineral Titles Act is intended to produce a more workable framework that is responsive to an evolving and growing Territory mining sector. It will also reflect a commitment to transparent administrative processes for this issuing and management of mineral titles.
The new legislation has been developed after an extensive review and a thorough period of public consultation. During this review process, mining and resource legislation of other jurisdictions was studied. In many instances, the content of interstate legislation has influenced the direction of the new or revised provisions. The new legislation will be competitive with equivalent interstate mineral title regulatory regimes.
In reviewing the Mining Act, a discussion paper was produced which attracted some 44 written submissions. These submissions were instrumental in setting the scene for the development of this legislation, and formed the basis of the booklet Recommendations for Change. This formed a final report which was made available to the public in March 2008. Some of the recommendations represent a significant change to the current legislation. Others are more secondary in nature and allow for fine-tuning of existing processes; the result being the Mineral Titles Bill, which is contemporary in style, logical in approach, and easier to read.
Today, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Territory continues to attract, and support, commercial-scale exploration and development of its mineral resources. A major focus of this legislation is to promote and encourage a ‘use it or lose it’ attitude amongst explorers and miners through a clearly defined expectation to actively explore, stronger intervention provisions, the introduction of financial and other penalties, and enhanced requirements for reporting on activities.
This act is a clear example of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the sustainable and profitable resource development of the Territory. It enables: greater accountability for titleholders with a emphasis on ensuring active exploration on granted exploration licences and continuous operation of mining titles is undertaken; flexibility in managing performance through the introduction of penalties for non-compliance; continuation of transparency to enable affected parties to object or make submissions in respect to applications; and streamlined processes for exploration and mining in the Territory through the introduction of new tenure and the rationalisation or abolishing of historic mining titles.
Through the provision of contemporary and flexible legislation, the Territory will be well placed to deliver the best outcomes for investors, explorers, and miners, while maximising benefits to the community, by allowing the mining of minerals.
The act includes:
It is proposed to rationalise a range of historic mining tenements. There are approximately 700 current mining titles of various types that are not actively being explored, mined or are otherwise inactive. Many of these areas are held under the wrong title type. It is proposed to rationalise these titles by converting them to a new title that more appropriately reflects their current use. This transition will be gradual, open and transparent, involving close consultation and active engagement with industry and stakeholders.
Mineral claims will be abolished. Activities carried out on a mineral claim are not significantly different as those carried out on a mineral lease. It is proposed to convert them to either an exploration licence or a mineral lease, depending on their current use. Smaller miners will not be disadvantaged by this process as new mineral lease provisions will accommodate their specific needs.
Provision will be made for the protection of extractive material required for road construction, maintenance and other infrastructure. This is seen as a major benefit to the Territory as it will enable the Crown to explore for extract materials required for Territory infrastructure.
I table this bill as a further step towards the continued growth of the mining industry, and to its ongoing contribution to the sustainable growth of the Territory’s economic development.
Passage of this bill will achieve the goal of having Territory legislation that encourages active exploration on granted exploration licences and the continuous operation of granted mining tenements.
Subordinate legislation will be developed to further support the objectives of the Mineral Titles Act, once passed.
The age of the Mining Act, coupled with developments in technology, new Commonwealth legislation, changing community expectation and environmental awareness, provide that a simpler, more contemporary act will better meet the needs of the local mining industry, and the Northern Territory as a whole.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Mineral Titles Bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I can advise it is the intention of the opposition to support the passage of this bill; that is, the amendments to the Petroleum Act, the amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Application of Commonwealth Laws Regulations, and the repeal of the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations. I have some concerns about aspects of this bill and some of the implications also; but I will come to those later.
I received a briefing from the department, and I extend my thanks to the minister for facilitating that briefing. Based on the information provided at the briefing and, after some further research, I can also advise the House there will be a requirement to take this bill into the committee stage to clarify one or two matters; one of those matters – and I provide this now so the minister can seek the specific explanation I require – is with respect to how many times an exemption, under section 24A, can be granted by the minister.
During this debate, I will also raise some other issues which the minister might be able to clarify.
Part 3 of the bill deals with the repeal of the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations, while Part 4 of the bill deals with the amendment to Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Application of Commonwealth Laws Regulations. I will deal with matters arising from those parts in the first instance.
Currently, occupational health and safety within the petroleum sector is managed under the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations, lengthy legislation of some 85 A4 pages.
Section 4 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands)(Application of Commonwealth Laws) Regulations, and its parent act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act deals with the disapplication of Territory occupational health and safety laws; specifically, section 4(c) of the regulations refers to the disapplication of health and safety laws with respect to Part IIIA of the Petroleum Act. While that sounds slightly complicated, it simply means the Territory health and safety laws do not currently apply to the Petroleum Act.
Contained within this bill is an amendment to omit section 4(c) of those regulations, paving the way for the application of, as opposed to the disapplication of, current NT occupational health and safety laws to the Petroleum Act. This then leads on to the repeal of the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations as it is no longer required and simplifying, I imagine, the occupational health and safety regime within the petroleum sector.
My concern here, however, is what changes to the administrative arrangements of OHS, and at what cost, is this change? The occupational health and safety arrangements within the onshore petroleum industry will now be the responsibility of WorkSafe, and it would be useful to know whether staff operating under the current OHS regime will either be the same as those in the new regime; whether they will be subsumed into WorkSafe; whether they are already there; or whether there will be sufficient trained and qualified staff to carry out the requirements of the act within the sector.
Those are pretty fair questions to ask because of what we have seen come to light during the inquiry into the Montara disaster. Without going into too much detail on that matter at this present time, it seems the government has been guilty of something I have warned them about in times past; that is, the frontline staff within departments - and particularly I have mentioned this in relation to frontline and extension staff working in the Primary Industry department - and how those positions have been withdrawn in favour of bureaucratic decisions.
What we have seen with Montara is the abject failure of the government to provide a properly resourced section within the Resources department; that section which has the regulatory oversight of procedures - on behalf of the federal government, mind you - with respect to our offshore petroleum sector. The minister, it seems, has placed two public servants who have now given evidence to the Montara inquiry in one of the most horrible, compromising and uncomfortable positions you can place a person in; of having to make decisions on regulatory matters for which they, I am led to believe, had inadequate knowledge, training, qualifications, skills and experience, in a department that trades, despite this government’s propensity to cut back on frontline services.
Minister, most of the time you can get away with this, but not this time. You see, if you cut back frontline staff within the Primary Industry department, for example, the worst result you get might be growers, cattlemen, or people within the sector complaining bitterly the government has forgotten them, forgotten those kinds of services which help our fledging primary industries sector, and lost sight of the priorities of the sector with respect to R&D and other extension-type services.
However, in the petroleum sector, the worst case scenario has come back to bite the minister and this government - and I suspect the worst bites are yet to come. If the government stuffs up in such a sector, what do you get? You get a blowout in a cap that was supposed to prevent thousands of barrels of oil spurting into the ocean and into the natural environment. That is what you get.
It has been funny - it would be funny if it was not such a serious topic – but, if you have listened to the minister for Environment the past two days bleating about this government’s environmental credentials, it is amazing to hear what he has had to say. The government he firstly referred to as the Henderson government and, then later, as the Labor government. I am glad the minister so stridently identifies himself with Henderson and with Labor because that puts a nice delineation between the Country Liberals and the failed regime under Henderson and Labor …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I remind you in this House we refer to the member by their title, and you are referring to the Chief Minister. I ask you to reword those last comments, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I hear constantly people on the other side referring to the Henderson Labor government. I mean ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Member for Katherine, you are referring to the Chief Minister. I would like you to add that into your speech. Thank you very much.
Mr Tollner: You have to be joking!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, Madam Speaker. Well, I …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will start again. I am glad the minister so stridently identifies himself with the Labor government because that does put a nice delineation between the Country Liberals and the failed regime under this Labor government, which is the government that has been responsible for such poor handling of these latest environmental issues ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, can I just interrupt you? There is no issue with using the term ‘Henderson Labor government’. It is when you referring to the Chief Minister that there is the issue. You clearly referred to the Chief Minister so that is what I would like you to change.
Mr Conlan: As opposed to what? The member for Wanguri?
Mr Tollner: No, you cannot call him member for Wanguri. She made that ruling in Alice Springs.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I thought I dropped the reference to the word ‘Henderson’, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. I am giving you more leeway here in saying to you that you can refer to the Henderson Labor government, but if you are referring to the Chief Minister then you must only refer to him as the Chief Minister.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand what you are saying. I will just call it the failed regime under the Henderson Labor government, which has been the government responsible for such poor handling of these latest environmental issues.
We heard the revelations in the last week or so of the numerous spills of toxic substances into the Darwin Harbour. The copper oxide is a classic example of how this government has dropped the ball on the environment. The first the Environment minister knew of the dust problem on the wharf with copper oxide was, apparently, when it was revealed in the Northern Territory News. The Environment minister then told us - and here is an extract from the Daily Hansard from Tuesday’s Question Time where the minister for Environment said:
It certainly is, minister. Then he went on to say:
I suppose that is the same Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee that did not tell the minister about the problems two years ago with spills into the harbour. Anyway, I go on to what the minister for Environment said further:
With respect to that, I would like to correct the record. What the minister for Environment said with respect to this is patently false. Let me refer to the 2001 legislation that was introduced by the CLP. If I go back to February 2001, in Parliamentary Record No 27, the topic is Bills, the subject is the Mining Management Bill (Serial 301), and the Mining Amendment Bill (Serial 302) dated 1 March 2001. The minister was Mr Manzie, and he said:
I hear the Labor government constantly trying to rewrite history. Here is another example of it. I go on the record correcting that - and so endeth the history lesson for the minister for Environment for today.
What needs to happen is for this government to actually grow up if it wants to play with the big boys. I am sure the federal minister, Martin Ferguson, must have had kittens when the Montara disaster happened. I am sure the NT minister for Resources would have assured minister Ferguson the NT had the capability and the capacity to handle regulatory matters in the offshore petroleum sector on behalf of the Commonwealth, yet, look what happened: thousand of litres of oil spread all over the ocean. This is what happens when you give this Labor government credit for the capacity to do a job, which they clearly do not have. The chickens came home to roost for the Resources minister over Montara; they are continuing to come home to roost for the Environment minister as well. I reckon Territorians are getting sick of you over there letting pollution, poison, oil, copper concentrate, Avgas as well - better not forget the Avgas - getting into our harbour and the ocean. Shame on you!
Having dealt with those matters for now, I move to other amendments within the Petroleum Act. Effectively, these amendments tighten up some parts of the act and provide more certainty around the exploration permit application process, and the size of the permit areas, upon reapplication or extension of time allowed for a company to carry out its activities beyond the original permit.
Clause 4 of the amendments adds some new definitions. First, ‘aggrieved person’, for the purposes of section 57AB(1), being an applicant permitee or licensee who was dissatisfied with a determination under that section; and secondly, a definition of ‘panel’ for the purposes of conducting a review of the decision made under section 57AB(1).
Section 15A of the act is repealed. It details definitions around applications where exploration permits can be repealed, as that regime for making up applications for exploration permits changes under these amendments, rendering section 15A irrelevant.
Beyond the minor amendments I just mentioned comes the two major changes to the Petroleum Act. First, there are amendments to section 16 which deals with the competitive nature of application for exploration permits. It is noteworthy that current legislation does not preclude the competitive process for making applications for exploration permits. I am advised many of the provisions relating to competing exploration permits amended by this bill were only introduced by the current Resources minister under the Petroleum Amendment Bill 2004 – so, six years later, we are making some changes. They were introduced in response to recommendations apparently made by the National Competition Principle Agreement, and expanded and clarified procedures for handling multiple exploration applications for the same area of land, among other things.
During the debate of the 2004 Petroleum Amendment Bill, the then shadow minister, Mr Dunham, referred to the competitive nature of the exploration permit application process as harking back to gold rush days. The opposition supported those amendments, describing them as non-contentious and supported by the industry.
The interesting thing at this juncture is the change of paradigm by this government and the minister who was, as I pointed out, the minister at the time in 2004 when those amendments were made. The question that hangs in the air is: what happened or changed, or by whom was the minister lobbied, to bring about the current raft of changes to the act? Perhaps, in the interest of openness and accountability, the minister might like to advise the House just why and for whom these changes are being made.
Now, an applicant will not be able to apply for an exploration permit over a permit area if that area is subject already to a permit or licence. They will also not be able to apply for a permit over an area for which an application has been received by the minister on an earlier business day. However, if two applications for the same area are received on the same business day - that is, prior to 4 pm on that business day, the minister must accept both applications as outlined in the new section 16(4). That, effectively, means only applications received on the same business day can compete with each other.
In all cases, whether competing or not, the new section 16(5), allows for the minister to request further information or to request an applicant amend or vary the application.
After applications are received, the remainder of the act, with respect to the processing and determination of the application, escaped relatively unchanged, although I do note the new section 18(1AA) comes into play requiring the minister to lodge a notice of application in a circulating newspaper, after having dealt with the provisions of the amended section 16 which relates to the application process, further information and amendment to the application in a timely fashion; that is, according to the amendment, as soon as practical. Although this is somewhat a subjective term, it does require the minister to have a bit of a rocket under him which, if I receive any complaints with respect to the mining sector or the petroleum sector, will not be a bad thing because I get complaints about the ways of processing of applications.
The second major change to the act relates to the provisions around the reduction in the number of blocks within an application area where a renewal of a permit is applied. If there is any part of this amendment that might be a little contentious, this would be it.
At the present time, section 24 of the act provides for a reduction, by half, of the number of blocks for which a renewal may be sought. So, if an exploration permit holder - who holds the maximum number of blocks permitted under the act, numbering 200 - makes application for a renewal after the five-year permit period, the number of blocks permitted upon that renewal are automatically cut down to 100. Each subsequent renewal would trigger the same halving regime down to 50, then to 25, and so forth. The amendments before the House today provide a process whereby an exemption may be sought by a permit holder from the requirement to have the number of blocks under the permit reduced by half. That exemption may be granted by the minister under certain circumstances. The provisions for, application for, and granting of an exemption are provided in new section 24A(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6).
I understand the reasoning before the particular amendment is, as technology improves - once again, this is information I received at the briefing, and again, thank you to the departmental staff and minister for providing that - exploration companies may need additional time in which to fully explore their permit areas. This almost sounds a little contradictory in a sense. If exploration technology is improving would that not mean exploration can occur more quickly and efficiently? Possibly yes. However, improvements to technology can also mean an improvement in the methods used to determine the location of possible sources of hydrocarbons, including coal seam gas.
An improved technology may also mean methods by which exploratory holes can be drilled away from the traditional straight up and down hole can be possible. It is possible these days to drill holes which go off on all sorts of wild angles away from the perpendicular; holes can be almost curved to the horizontal as well. It is this technology which allows for greater exploration of a given area without the need to move the infrastructure associated with the drill hole.
Hence, the time which may be required to fully explore an area may need to be longer should a company suffer the fate of losing half its blocks in the renewal process. If it can justify the need to maintain its original entitlement is a question I am sure was canvassed and the thought behind the reduction of it. Under the amendments, the minister will have the call in determining whether, on merit, a renewal can be granted without the requisite halving of the number of blocks.
I can see how current explorers would benefit from this amendment, however, I am mindful new players and would-be players in this industry might suffer the frustration of having to wait for longer periods before they could make a claim on blocks that may be effectively tied up for those longer periods. Some people would call this warehousing, where companies which have existing exploration permits can continue to hive off large tracts of land, effectively tying them up for longer periods of time, to the exclusion of new players who would like to come in and explore.
I have been lobbied by some in the petroleum industry to ensure this does not happen. The argument is one company may have a large number of exploration permits and will need to spend money in each of those permit areas in order to satisfy the caveat requirements. Bearing in mind any individual company will only have a finite financial resource, and other resources, it would have to allocate those finite funds across numerous permit areas and, subject to an exemption from the halving requirement, those funds would have to be spread across the whole gamut of lands under their permits.
The opposing regime might see half of those permit areas freed up for other explorers, other companies, with funds allocated exclusively for exploration on those newly freed up areas. This may well inject more funds into the exploration process, more funds into the community and, ultimately, more funds into the broader economy of the Northern Territory, so I can certainly see their point.
Whilst I support the competitive process around the exploitation of our mineral wealth, and the last thing I want to see is large tracts of land being tied up by companies that have neither the intention nor the financial capacity of development of the mineral wealth contained within those lands in a timely fashion, there is also the bigger picture; that being, the benefit to the entire Northern Territory economy through the exploitation of that mineral wealth.
That is where the capacity of the minister and the Resources department will come into play. The provisions of these amendments allow the minister to make a decision on whether a renewal of the application will invoke the halving regime or will get an exemption. I know if I were minister and making decisions of this nature, I would get it done absolutely right. I would be taking into account all of those things I should be taking into account to make a decision of this nature. I would ensure the Territory economy is not disadvantaged by allowing an exemption under the new provisions.
I know there will be other companies champing at the bit to get into blocks that are, or would ordinarily, be released under the halving regime. But, the imperative here is on the benefit to the economy of the Territory and not in favour of a particular company. Each company requesting an exemption under these amendments must have their applications scrutinised to the nth degree to ensure they are complying with exploration plans and caveats, and they have the capacity, financial or otherwise, to carry out the work on the unreduced permit areas to the advantage of the Territory. Minister, there will be people who will be watching you in this regard, and I daresay some of them - particularly those who are waiting for blocks to be released - will fall on you from a great height if you get this wrong.
The other question which was posed to me in my discussions with companies around this is: why is the legislation retrospective? The companies which currently explore for petroleum in the Territory bought into the petroleum exploration sector knowing the regime as it existed prior to these amendments; that is, knowing after their permit period expired, any renewal would invoke the halving regime. I ask this question: did the minister consider non-retrospective legislation; that is, will explorers with permits under the current provisions continue under a permit regime where renewals invoke the halving regime, and only new applicants would be able to access the exemption provisions once their original permits were up for renewal? Territorians, and companies who would explore under this act, can only hope the minister does properly apply this ‘in the best interests of the Territory’ test as detailed in section 24A(4)(b)(ii).
In my reading of the new section 24A(1), an applicant for a renewal may apply for an exemption from a reduction in the number of blocks for a period not exceeding 12 months. Section 24A(2) refers to a permittee giving reasons for applying for the exemptions. Section 24A(3) provides for a deferral of the reduction of the area, or for the reduction to be a lesser number of blocks than would be required under the halving regime. Section 24A(4) provides for the circumstances under which the minister may grant the exemption. Section 24A(5) provides for the exemption to be in writing, specifying the period of the exemption not exceeding 12 months. Section 24A(6) provides for the extension of the exemption. So, we have an exemption, perhaps it is 12 months. Section 24A(6) provides for the extension of the exemption and goes on to state:
I take that to mean the exemption may be for up to 12 months, and the extension to the exemption may be up to a further 12 months, taking the total time for which an exemption may be granted for the halving of the number of blocks regime to two years maximum. In the briefing I received from the department, I was advised the number of times the exemption may be applied for and granted totalled five times, or a maximum of five years. That is not how I read the amendments to this legislation, and it is for this reason I will seek clarification on that point in committee.
My only real concerns lie not directly with the raft of legislative changes contained within these amendments, although I do have some concerns about the implications, but more so with the capacity of the minister and the government in the overall management of the petroleum sector within the Northern Territory and its waters. Montara, of course, is a prime example of what I mean. However, I do not intend to steer this debate any further in that direction at this time, as there will certainly be plenty of time for that matter to be brought before this place.
Madam Speaker, in general terms, I will give the current minister for Resources a fair bit of cred when it comes to the Resources department. I guess that may be a reflection, maybe not so much on the minister, but more on the capabilities and dedication of the staff within the department. You are only as good as the people underneath you, Kon. I hope the minister does not let us down with the decisions he may now take under new provisions of this act, lest you cripple or hobble the onshore petroleum, coal seam, or shale gas industries in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to make some comments about this particular legislation. I will get onto the bucket of bollocks the member for Katherine presented in his speech. First, I congratulate the minister on bringing forward these amendments. This minister is probably the most proactive minister ever in the Northern Territory, with respect to the mining industry. Lately, I have done some travel around the Asian area. They know this government, and this minister in particular, is very proactive, and very much open for business. Come and do business in the Northern Territory, from Japan to Jakarta. It is open for business.
I was recently at the OZMINE conference in Jakarta. The Northern Territory stole the show! We were there making the contacts. Today, we have the opening of the 3rd Indonesian Mining Procurement Forum - it is here. This is not only a Territory initiative; it has become a national initiative in the procurement of mining services to Indonesia. Congratulations, minister, and congratulations to your department, to Alister Prier, your Director for Mining. He has made that seamless transition from chasing cattle around to getting into the mining industry. But, it is all linked; it is all about economic development, export trade, supporting our local businesses, and growing our economy. To all your staff, I congratulate you on all of the work you do.
This is very good legislation, modernising the act, allowing for those new technologies and the flexibility which is in the marketplace. You have to move with the marketplace and with technology. I imagine we will see, in coming years, perhaps some more changes. If we see changes in floating LNG technology or other technological changes, we need to adapt our legislation to be a place where you can do business easily, and create jobs and support local business.
I was heartened to hear the minister and his department are working with the sector in the development of this legislation - out there consulting, coming up with draft proposals within this legislation, and fitting in with industry. Obviously, in industry there will be different people who have different vested interests - and so they should; they are in business and they want to make their business more attractive. This is great legislation to create a new environment which fits into the new technologies, and makes it fair and reasonable for those businesses to continue their exploration work.
I will touch on a few points made by the member for Katherine. Sadly, he is not here to hear this ...
Ms Carney: Oh, steady, Eddie.
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand, under standing orders, one should not refer to a member who is not in the Chamber.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Katherine was, I guess, chastising the minister for not having more staff out there, or retaining those staff. However, it is CLP policy to cut back 800 public servants. Where are those public servants going to come from? Are they nurses, teachers, or are they staff within the mining sector or within the energy department. You cannot have it both ways. The member for Katherine’s party position, if in government, will be to cut back these staff. He seems to think we can put a Northern Territory government officer 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, sitting on every single exploration well in the waters of the Northern Territory, or Commonwealth government waters within the Northern Territory government jurisdiction.
It is a bit ambiguous. He said you need to put on more staff; but their policy is to cut back staff. It is a bit ludicrous in that area. The member for Goyder jumped up just before. It is interesting, when we are talking about Mt Todd and that little clarification the member for Katherine put forward - and I am sure the minister will talk more about that - was a bit after the fact.
Mt Todd went down. Hundreds of businesses within Katherine, the electorate the member for Katherine represents, were hurt by the folding of Mt Todd. The environment there is still suffering. Millions and millions of dollars worth of rectification work has to be borne by the government with respect to Mt Todd. That was a policy failure of the CLP government - a policy failure - and we are still paying for it.
Ms Purick: Checked the gold price at the time?
Mr KNIGHT: Oh, we passed legislation … Well, it was a bit too late, do you not think? The member for Goyder, who was the CEO of the Resources Council at the time - not a word from her. She was the one out there saying we did not need an EPA, we did not need an environmental watchdog out there to protect against these types of incidents happening: ‘We do not need an EPA’.
Recently, she has had an epiphany. Now, she is a big supporter of the EPA. It is great to see. It was interesting - I think it was on Tuesday, minister, we were talking about Mt Todd - she said there is no problem down there. Well, member for Goyder, go and have a look. Look at the legacy of failed policies from the CLP with respect to environmental protection in the mining industry. I will not talk about Alice Springs, member for …
Ms Purick: Show us your ignorance at its best.
Mr KNIGHT: It is great to see the member for Goyder has moved over to the left; she has now become green after those years of going along with the mining industry, holus-bolus. It was interesting.
It was recounted to me recently that the economy here is booming under good policies from the Henderson Labor government. We have the policy settings. We have the attitude with investment into the Asia Pacific area about investment and building our economy.
In 2001, the economy was dead. The member for Sanderson was talking about people having to leave the Territory at the moment. Well, member for Sanderson, the population growth here is about 4000 to 5000 people a year, coming to the Northern Territory because we had well paid jobs here. But, in 2000, 2001, they were deserting. Subbies were out of work, they were deserting the Territory. The economy was dead ...
Mr WOOD: Can we get back to the petroleum amendment? A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know there is a fair bit of latitude in regard to relevance, but we are talking about the amendment to the Petroleum Act, not the amendment to the world.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, I will allow you to continue for a while. Bear in mind, member for Nelson, there was been incredible digression with every bill which has come before this House recently. I have allowed that, partly because of calls from members on the opposition side for that. I will allow the minister to continue; however, bearing in mind it is legislation and the things that are said during legislation are used by the courts to determine how they are going to judge matters.
Minister, I will allow it, given I have allowed significant digression, both by the member for Katherine, and in previous debates with significant numbers of members. Bear that in mind.
Mr KNIGHT: I advise any future lawyer to use my contribution with care.
The point I was getting at is the economy is dead; tradies were leaving town. When we came to government, staff members from the new Labor government walked into the former Mines minister’s office and there was this pending tray stacked with 700 exploration licences waiting to be granted by the Mines minister. Guess what? Our economy is built on the resources sector at the moment. Guess why the economy was flat? Because the CLP government was not approving exploration licences. It was bloody-mindedness – that is all right, is it, Madam Speaker? - that the former CLP government would not allow exploration to happen. If you do not have exploration you do not have mines, you do not have jobs, and you do not build your economy.
The point I was making is this government is about building our economy, being very much open for business, chasing more investment. By modifying and improving the act it is fitting into that economic development policy setting we have. It is making it more conducive, more accessible for oil and gas explorers to do business in the Northern Territory and around the coast of the Northern Territory. That is what this government is all about, and what we will continue to do in years to come.
I thank you, minister, for bringing forward this legislation. I congratulate you and your department on the work you do. At the forums I have been attending, those investors in Indonesia, Japan, or wherever it may be, certainly know we are open for business and this is a can-do government ...
Mr Tollner: Really?
Mr KNIGHT: Nice to have you back, member for Fong Lim.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Congratulations to your department, and I look forward to more improvements in the oil and gas industry in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I might digress a little after your ruling ...
Madam SPEAKER: I think my ruling is indicating you are, in fact, supposed to speak to the bill; however, I have allowed a level of digression.
Mr WOOD: No, that is all right.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Is that a point of order?
Mr Tollner: … before the member for Nelson starts, can I ask how is it the minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, member for Fong Lim?
Mr Tollner: … can talk about bloody-mindedness. The Transport minister can talk about bloody idiots, but I am pulled up as being unparliamentary when I talk about bloody idiots?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. If you wish to have a conversation with me you can ask me about it in my suite afterwards.
Mr Tollner: It seems to me …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are on a warning!
Mr WOOD: I speak in support of the amendments to the Petroleum Act. I will not go into as much detail as the member for Katherine has; he has covered the crux of the bill substantially. I also had a briefing this morning in relation to this particular amendment. There are a number of issues I should raise publicly. They were raised in the briefing, but it is worth putting on the record that I did raise these questions.
They are in relation to section 24A, the exemption from requirement to reduce the permit area. Although I gather there is a limitation on the number of times one can ask for an exemption, it certainly does not appear to be clear in the act - maybe it is in the original act. However, there is no clause saying there is a maximum of two exemptions that can be granted. It, basically, says you can ask for an exemption and, before the end of the period of the exemption, you can actually ask for an extension of that exemption. Where is there anything in the act which says you then cannot ask for another exemption? I would like to get that clarified.
One of the issues put forward is in relation to companies saying this might lock up areas that would stop another company moving in. I wonder whether there is any appeal mechanism against allowing an exemption under sections 24A(3) and (5). I am interested to know if there is some form of mechanism where a company feels another company is simply using the process of getting an exemption as a means of locking up an area so they can keep another company out of applying for this area for an exploration permit.
The other area which is interesting is that the minister can give an exemption. It is when the minister is satisfied with the extent to which the permitee has complied with this act, the conditions to which the exploration permit is subject, and any directions lawfully given by the minister. I presume what that is saying is, if the company has put forward a management plan for five years - which I presume is the period in which you are given a permit - the minister has to be satisfied a fair bit of that management plan has actually been put into action. In other words, they have not put down a couple of pegs on the ground and said: ‘We have spent some money’; there has to be something fairly concrete to say that they have been doing the work.
The other part of that is it will be ‘in the best interests of the Territory’. You can take that in two ways. You can say it might be in the best interests of the Territory another company takes over because you have been a bit slack, or it might be in the best interests of the Territory you keep going because you have spent some money in that area. It is interesting to know what the ‘best interests of the Territory’ means. Obviously, it will be subjective, but it would be nice to hear from the minister as to what that actually means.
Retrospectivity is a fair point. I have also been lobbied by a member of the industry saying they feel people who have a permit under the old act knew what they were going to get, and they should run that permit out under the old requirements, and that all the new permits should, therefore, be given under the new system. It is an area that needs some debate and discussion. I am interested in hearing the minister’s viewpoint about it.
The other item I would not mind clarification on - and I did not ask during the briefing - is when you get an application the amendments say ‘two or more applications for an exploration permit are lodged on the same business day in relation to or a part of the same application area the minister must accept each application for consideration’. The question would be: how does the minister define which one is better? What guidelines will be put in place to say the one that came at 8.10 am was not as good as the one that came in at 3.55 pm? Of course, I could add to that: why do applications only have to come in on the one day? If you take planning applications; they can come in 14 days before the cut-off period. They do not have to be in on a particular day, but they have to be within a particular period.
There might be some historical reasons I do not know about, but I am interested to know why exploration permits cannot be lodged - I beg your pardon, it does say ‘application for an exploration permit lodged with the minister on an earlier business day’. Sorry, I will rephrase that. It says you cannot put it on an earlier day. The question is: why can you not have it on an earlier day as you do with planning applications; you can have them 14 days before the cut-off date?
From the briefing I had, these changes have tried to update legislation in relation to technological change. I have known, just from discussions with people in the gas industry - especially when ConocoPhillips was developing some of its gas fields – and from the briefings I had and that is 10 years ago and things have probably changed quite remarkably now - that when you are dealing with oil and gas some of the new technology is mind-boggling. Not only do they go down great depths, but they are nearly able to turn right angles to take out gas or oil that, for many years, would have been regarded as not possible. Technology is certainly changing.
One of the issues I raised during the briefing, is that with that kind of technology when you are working well under the sea bed, what controls are there that a company cannot suck out the oil from another person’s exploration area, because you are able to have nearly horizontal drilling? I am interested to know what mechanisms ensure that does not occur.
There has been some comment about the government’s record when it comes to mining, especially in the environmental aspect. The member for Daly mentioned how much the Territory depends on mining. There is no doubt that is the case. Darwin depends on mining; it depends on taking sand out of the rural area. Most of the sand comes from my electorate, and most of that sand has probably built most the buildings you see in Darwin. That area needs to be looked at because I do not believe the reclamation or revegetation of many of the sand mining areas is up to standard.
I am concerned there are not enough people on the ground in the department. I have had a complaint from inside a department saying they simply do not have enough people to do the work that is required. That needs to be assessed to see whether there are enough people on the ground. The minister for the Environment spoke yesterday of how he cannot have somebody 365 days of the year, seven days a week, 24 hours a day on the ground checking on environmental impacts. The question needs to be asked: is that because there is too much work and we do not have enough people, or has the government cut back on the inspections? Are there enough people going around doing some of the basic-type inspections? The question might come up in estimates. In 2001, how many inspectors were there to look at environmental breaches? How many are there now? That would be interesting because recent discussions in parliament relate to mining to some extent.
We are talking about copper concentrates, manganese, and iron ore. We are also talking about, in this case, drilling for petroleum and that has some environmental issues. The member for Katherine mentioned the issue of the offshore well and drilling rig that recently blew up. Environmental issues sometimes get pushed under the carpet because many people do not take a lot of notice unless they go into the rural area and walk through the bush and come across sand mining or gravel mining areas that have long been finished but never put back into a reasonable state. No one expects the land to ever recover to the state it was before it was mined - especially with gravel and sand, because it tends to take it from the surface. I know the topsoil is supposed to be retained, but what you end up with is a hole below the level of the normal surface; therefore, you get waterlogged and acidic soils which it makes it hard to revegetate. We can do a better job in revegetating those areas where we take much of our sand and gravel from required for the economic growth of Darwin.
When I see the economic growth of Darwin, and the millions of dollars that have gone into Darwin, and look at the amount of money that has actually gone into revegetating and restoring some of these sites, I say chicken feed has gone into the restoration, and huge amounts of money have gone into development. That balance should be brought back to a more level playing field.
I digress, Madam Speaker. I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning: I support the legislation which has been put forward, but I would like the minister to respond to those questions I raised.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have to ask the question: how can this government be trusted to regulate anything? What good is this legislation going to do if you have a deadbeat, dropkick government in power as we have now?
These guys have shown time and time again they do not have the ability to regulate anything, let alone things as serious as our mining and offshore petroleum industries. This lack of oversight was probably highlighted best by the Montara oil spill. The federal Labor government’s own department, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, estimated the Montara oil leak could have been as high as around 4000 barrels of oil per day pouring into the ocean. That is a staggeringly large number, considering this leak occurred over several weeks – for 10 weeks it was spewing thousands and thousands of barrels of oil per day into our ocean.
The first attempts to plug the oil leak by the company failed, but the fifth attempt succeeded on 3 November 2009 when PTTEP pumped approximately 3400 barrels of mud into a relief well to stop the leak. By the way, Madam Speaker, I should say that I am quoting here from Wikipedia. I did a quick search on the Internet, and this is what is says on Wikipedia. On that web page they say the slick was reported to have spread over 6000 km2, or 2300 square miles of ocean, with evidence that the oil is killing marine life. They say that by 30 October 2009, PTTEP acknowledged the spill had spread as far as Indonesian waters, but had not yet reached their coast – this is an oil spill that has almost reached Indonesian waters.
It was quite laughable to listen to the member for Daly, the minister for goodness knows what he is these days. He has pretty well been stripped of most responsibility. He proved over a number of years he could not build a house in remote communities, he has been a complete failure on energy. However, he had the audacity to talk about the good standing the Northern Territory has with international governments and the like.
What does Wikipedia say about the good standing of the Northern Territory government and the response they put in place to that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I did not quite hear that interjection.
The international reaction is that NGOs in Indonesia expressed concern about the oil spill’s effect on Indonesia’s environment and traditional fishing grounds as the oil drifted towards the islands of Timor and Sumba. They say that, in East Nusa Tenggara, Governor Frans Leburaya said Australia and the operator of the oilfield should be responsible for environmental damage caused by the oil spill.
Fishermen in West Timor are recorded as going bankrupt because of the effect of the oil spill on fishing stocks in their waters. East Timorese President, Dr Jos Ramos-Horta, said the Australian government and the Thai company that owns the platform are responsible for the spill, and he will seek compensation for damage caused by the spill to his country’s environment. Ramos-Horta called for Australian environmental organisations to help assess if the spill has caused damage to East Timor’s maritime area.
It does not add fact to the minister’s claim the Northern Territory is held in high esteem by Indonesia. I believe he mentioned Indonesia specifically, and other international bodies. A quick search on Wikipedia shows the Indonesians are not really happy. The West Timor and East Timor governments are not really happy that fishermen are going bankrupt in West Timor because of this oil slick. This is the worst oil disaster in Australian history! Thousands of barrels of oil are going into the ocean every day. Absolutely disgraceful! Whose job was it to regulate that industry, that particular resource? Whose job? Everyone knows it was the Northern Territory government’s job. The Northern Territory government has been receiving millions of dollars a year - and it would be great if the minister could tell us exactly how many millions of dollars a year the Northern Territory government has been taking off the Commonwealth government to regulate this industry. It would be useful for the minister to tell us exactly where those millions of dollars have been spent. I will bet London to a brick none of it has been spent on regulating that industry.
Suddenly, his comrades in Canberra, minister Ferguson and Kevin Rudd, are now taking the pain for something the Northern Territory government should have been doing. Ramos-Horta is jumping up and down about the Australian government. The Indonesian government is jumping up and down about the Australian government. The West Timorese are jumping up and down about the Australian government. Comrade Ferguson is in Canberra taking it on the chin. Why? Because the comrades in the Northern Territory could not do the job. Not only could they not do the job, they did not even try to do the job.
I bet you took the money and spent it elsewhere! We have looked, over the years, and seen the way this government has dumbed down the Resources department! Removed the petroleum registrar, removed the Director of Energy - has not been replaced yet! Where is the pipeline engineer the government employs? Is there a pipeline engineer working in the department of Resources? Who in the department has the technical expertise to deal in these emerging industries, such as coalescence and shale drilling, such as your wonderful hot rock technology, and the plethora of things emerging and coming into usage now? No one, minister!
You can sit there and smile and think it is all great, but 6000 km of our ocean was covered in oil due to your lack of oversight, minister! You waddle in here and tell us you have this wonderful new legislation, with which, in some regard, the Country Liberals agree. However, it is not the words, minister, it is the action! That is where you constantly fall down - in the action! You are interested in the money. You want the money the Commonwealth will give you to do the job; however, you will not do the job! It is the same as SIHIP; yes, you are welcome to $672m, but where are the houses?
We heard the minister talking about the environment yesterday and what a wonderful job we are doing in the environment. This is right on the heels of the worst oil disaster in Australian history! He has the audacity to say they look after the environment! We are seeing tonnes and tonnes of copper concentrate being dumped in the harbour, stuff happening on Groote Eylandt, in Gove, and these guys live in some sort of fantasy land where they turn up here and say: ‘Oh, we do such a great job, we care about the environment. The Country Liberals do not. The Country Liberals do not care about it’. Meanwhile, you have the worst oil slick in Australian history happened much less than 12 months ago. You have not even got out of the woods on that.
Another thing I will tip right here and now - we will see how good we are at forecasting - I reckon the feds are not going to stand for your incompetence much longer. I reckon they have had a gutful of this government not spending the money where it is supposed to. I would not mind betting somewhere down the track minister Ferguson may well strip you of the responsibility to regulate these industries. He will say: ‘No, the Commonwealth will keep its money and we will do the job ourselves because, quite frankly, our Labor comrades in the Northern Territory are incompetent’. And guess what? I have to agree with him - totally, utterly incompetent. You come in here, talk about mining and how proactive you have been - what an absolute joke!
Everything is turning to custard in this place, and still you march out on the steps of this place to talk to the media about how you are some great saviours of the environment. What a load of absolute nonsense!
This legislation would be quite fitting if you had a government that was prepared to walk the walk. They do plenty of talking, they do plenty of telling people how good they are, what wonderful things they are going to do, how they are going to fix all this stuff - but they never do. Where does the money go? You have to ask yourself: where does the money go? It is an absolute joke - a complete and utter joke.
I am not going to speak for long. It is one thing to support this legislation, but it is another thing to show the intestinal fortitude and the spine it takes to actually do something, to act. I could not help noticing, every time one of our guys jumped up - particularly the member for Katherine and his very well-thought-out and well-researched speech which made a few hard hitting points - that the minister laughed. The minister laughed like all this is some joke. You can imagine upstairs in their office: ‘Oh, there is another couple of tonnes of copper concentrate gone into our harbour, giggle, giggle, giggle, how funny. We have the environmental badge, our opponents do not. We can do what we like’. The member for Nhulunbuy is sitting over there being very quiet. She does not seem to care about all the stuff that is being dumped into the harbour at Gove. What about the people at Groote Eylandt? I am sure they are all in fits of laughter that they are finding manganese being poured into their harbour.
I am sure the whole fifth floor went completely berserk and thought it was a great big joke when 6000 km of ocean was covered in oil from the Montara oil leak: ‘Does it really matter? We have the money and we have the credentials’. Everyone says: ‘Oh, Labor is good on the environment’. I will tell you what, minister, that may have been the case a few years ago, but things are changing ...
Mr Elferink: How many parks do you think they have added to the parks estate they inherited?
Mr TOLLNER: That is a good one. It would be wonderful if we were having a discussion about parks but, at the moment, we are talking about mining. Member for Port Darwin, there are a plethora of things you could point to that this government has stuffed up in an almighty large way – and not just them but their colleagues in Canberra, in the Rudd Labor government. They are not short of a few monumental stuff-ups of their own.
In this particular case, the Rudd Labor government has been funding the Northern Territory government to do a job, like they funded the Northern Territory government to do other jobs and, like other jobs, the Northern Territory government has squibbed it. It would be interesting to see how many times the minister has actually fronted the media to put his case about the Montara oil slick. I do not remember seeing him. Maybe he can correct me and tell me that I am wrong. I would love to know how many times the minister has stood in front of the media and said: ‘Okay, we might have it wrong. Maybe there are a few things that have gone wrong. Maybe we have killed a couple of billion fish in the Timor Sea. Maybe the Indonesians are not happy with us, and maybe the Timorese are not happy with us, and a whole plethora of other countries to our near north are not particularly happy with us. We know we got it wrong and we will fix it’. No, we have not heard of any of that. We have not heard the minister say anything; he has gone completely to ground - completely and utterly to ground.
Madam Speaker, this government is a failed government. This government has no ability whatsoever to manage, let alone regulate and keep a close eye on what is going on here in the Northern Territory, let alone offshore. I urge members, when they are considering this legislation, to remember that legislation is one thing, action is another thing completely. This government fails on every count on the latter.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to the Petroleum Act amendment today because there is another component. If you take the totality of the debate as it has proceeded so far today, there is another component to the management of the areas which have been identified in this legislation. As has been quite correctly pointed out in this House today, management is not only applying to the bits of paper you fill out, it is also the quality of the regulation conducted by the frontline staff.
I pick up the comment from the member for Katherine in relation to those two unfortunate staff who were, essentially, cast to the four winds by their minister whilst having to front the inquiry into the oil spill. As it turned out, those unfortunate staff had to confess, sadly, to an environment where the process of authorisation and approval was nothing more than a flick and tick, I think was …
Ms Purick: Tick and flick.
Mr ELFERINK: Tick and flick. … tick and flick system, which is a rubber stamp, an approval. A piece of paper arrives at your in tray, you look at it and you think: I have to authorise this. What does it say? It says I can do certain things, etcetera. As a consequence of that, I will then do one of two things. I will get out of my chair and go and inspect and look at the thing that I am about to authorise, kick its tyres, pull its widgets, make sure it is all working correctly and, then, I go back and put the rubber stamp on saying this has all been ticked off; I have checked up on it. That is not what has occurred at all.
If the evidence we have seen is to be believed, what those poor staff were forced to do, by virtue of the arrangements put into place by this government, was it arrived in the in tray, stamped, out tray. That is a tick and flick. That is how it works. What happens is the pulling of the widgets and the kicking of the tyres does not happen. So the inspectorial role which is presumed by the legislation – and I invite honourable members to look at section 87 of the act – is not complied with.
That, then, draws my attention to another issue about how this government operates. If you need any clearer evidence of how this government operates, and its attitude towards its inspectorial or policing functions, then there cannot be a clearer example of it in the Special Gazette posted today, but authorised on 23 April 2010. It was Special Government Gazette No S – for special - 15. It is not a long gazettal notice. These Special Gazettes never are because the normal Gazette, which is this one, is about 10 to 15 pages long. Special Gazettes are for a specific reason.
Let us have a look at this gazettal notice. The Waste Management and Pollution Control Act – hang on, that sounds familiar. Where did I hear that recently?
Ms Purick: Waste Management and Pollution Control.
Mr ELFERINK: Was that something to do with the …
Ms Purick: Harbour.
Mr ELFERINK: Harbours, that is right. Thank you, member for Goyder. Harbours - that is the one. It is an appointment of authorised officers. It says:
The schedule appears directly below, and there were three inspectors appointed on 22 April.
I am used to seeing these lists; these lists come out all the time. In fact, I draw honourable members’ attention to the Gazette of five days later. Five days later, the Gazette has several of these lists in them. There is a list on page 4 of that Gazette under the Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act, with a list of people authorised to become authorised officers under the legislation. Under the Traffic Act, the Commander of Human Resource Development Command with the Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Maxwell Pope, has authorised a list of people to become operators of breath analysis instruments - those are police officers. These are policing functions we are talking about.
The question then suddenly appears in my mind’s eye: what is so important about the individuals who, suddenly, have their own special Gazette issue, under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act? Goodness. There is no indication in that special Gazette of any urgency. These things are done normally and routinely in normal Gazettes. Yet, for some reason, there is a sense of urgency which sees the issuing of a special Gazette five days - only five days - prior to the delivery of a normal and regular Gazette No G17.
One would start to ask some fairly curious questions about what is implied by all of this because, to be an authorised officer implies a certain amount of training. I have taken the liberty of doing some public searches on the three people named in Schedule 1 of the government Gazette, and they are, indeed, public servants. From what I could make out, only two of them actually work for the department; one is in a slightly different area. They seem to be well qualified and professional people - I have no doubt about that - in their fields. I am always impressed when a person tells me they are something like a microbiologist, which one of these individuals is. However, I am also aware that, in most universities - reputable universities - policing is not taught in courses of microbiology. Regulatory enforcement is not taught as a regular part of a course of microbiology.
It is not unreasonable to ask a question: how do these people get trained? You can almost picture how these ducks are now lining up. ‘Oh my gosh’, says the minister, as he opens the paper, realising his department has told him nothing and kept him in the dark – Mr Mushroom himself – ‘there is a headline and it does not look particularly good’. Ring up the department, with a couple of phone calls back and forwards: ‘Oh my goodness, gracious me, we have to be looking like we are doing something. We are going to have to have people on the ground - people on the ground!’ ‘Oh, how are we off for people to put on the ground?’ says the minister. ‘Well’, says the department, ‘we have a few but we might have to add a couple more to the list’. So, in a state of urgency, on 22 April 2010, so it could be publicly gazetted on 23 April 2010, they introduced three new inspectors. Could you imagine how these poor people turned up to work? ‘Hi, I am here to do my microbiology’ - ‘Here is your badge, here is your gun, off you go, go and do the policing’. ‘What? What am I supposed to do?’ ‘Just read the act. It is in section 70’.
If you read section 70, it provides these people with some extraordinary powers. The area that deals with authorised officers gives them some pretty extraordinary powers. If we went to any of these individuals, I wonder if they would know how to obtain a search warrant, as required by the legislation? I wonder if reasonable force for breaking open cupboards and entering property rights these inspectors carry are something they are familiar with, and the implications of reasonable force? I can imagine their training - somewhere between 10 am and 10.15 am on that particular morning during tea time: ‘Here is your badge; go and do this’.
That is indicative of how this government operates. I hope that did not happen that way. I apply Occam’s razor to these circumstances and cannot be left with anything but the impression that is exactly how it did happen. The reason it stands out in that fashion is the urgent nature of the gazettal notice to introduce these people.
This is an ad hoc way to run government. The policies and priorities of this government; those priorities we always hear of - this is an absolute priority in this area, and an absolute priority in that area – are not set in the Cabinet room. They are set in the editorial suite of the Northern Territory News.
They may laugh; I hear the minister chortling away: ‘Ho, ho, ho, as if that would be the case! You have to be joking’. I can tell you! I invite the minister to leap to his feet and explain why it was urgent, shortly after this story broke, to suddenly start hiring authorised officers for the ‘purposes of the act’.
This is the nature of how we are governed in the Northern Territory; it is a 24-hour media cycle. We do what we can to respond to the news outlets in an effort to show we are doing things. It is all about message, and massaging the message.
I pointed out last night to the government they actually own the Darwin Port Corporation where these poor, new inspectors will have to inspect the pollution which has occurred in our harbour. Every piece of language I have heard from the minister is that, somehow, this organ is at great length from government. No, read the last annual report; they wrote to the minister. If you read the last annual report, also the CEO of that particular organisation, the Darwin Port Corporation, said they could not operate without the support of the Northern Territory minister and his Cabinet colleagues.
This is not a government-owned corporation in the sense the Power and Water Corporation is a government-owned corporation, which places a slight distance between government, because this one appears in our budget books as carrying line items – Power and Water does not. This one is listed as a government business division, not a government-owned corporation. I refer members to the back of Budget Paper No 2. In the definition of government business division, it is clearly outlined it is a Territory-run organisation.
The government owns and runs the Darwin Port Corporation. In some way to suggest they are at length from government is patently, completely, and utterly absurd. It is all about how we make it look. ‘We have inspectors’ is the answer I heard from the minister yesterday. You have had them for five days. How many inspectors did you have before these three were added, minister? I invite you to entertain and answer that simple question in this debate, and do it by way of documentary evidence.
I would also like to know, minister, whilst you are on your feet and answering these questions, what training they received to do their job effectively and fulsomely, so they do not end up sitting in front of an inquiry being embarrassed because the government, which is supposed to care for them and their training, offered them none.
Perhaps one of the training lessons they might want to take is from those poor public servants in relation to the Montara inquiry, and how they felt when they had to say it was, basically, a tick-and-flick exercise. That is what you are setting these people up for if they are not properly trained. If it is what it appears to be, this government then continues to show its lack of understanding, of its duties and responsibilities to the people who serve it. They continue to place above those duties and responsibilities their own image as ministers of the Crown, as a government, and as a political organisation.
Madam Speaker, it is the core function of government to ensure governance is done effectively. It is not always going to be perfect, but you are setting people up to fail if you are doing what it looks like you are doing.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members we are debating the Petroleum Amendment and Related Matters Bill 2010 ...
Mr Elferink: I digressed, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: While a level of digression is to be expected, it is probably not appropriate that an entire speech should be a digression.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I will address my comments to the bill. Before I do that - and they will be brief - I will pick up on the comments made by the member for Daly in reference to me being somewhat of a lefty, which I find rather amusing. It will be rather surprising to my family, and particularly to the statue in my garden which is a portrait of Genghis Khan, that I have been referred to as a ‘lefty’. It also might be a concern to my colleague, the member for Araluen, who is our side’s token lefty.
I am also surprised at the member for Daly’s comments regarding Mt Todd and the mining industry generally, given that in his CV he has had a time in the mines at Tennant Creek. I am not sure what he did there, but I thought he would have had a greater appreciation of the problems in the industry, generally, when companies go broke or they go out of business for whatever reason.
In regard to the Mt Todd comment - which seems to be the only mine that has gone bad, although it is better again now - is they can only think of Mt Todd when, really, there are many examples around the Territory, previously and currently, of excellent rehabilitation and remedial work. It is disappointing the Chief Minister and the minister do not refer to this. For example, the Pine Creek gold fields, when rehabilitated, was one of the first leases actually relinquished and the bond paid back to the company.
For the record, it should be noted that Mt Todd had two lives. I am not sure which one the Chief Minister ever refers to. The Mt Todd in the first phase was a joint venture, or a project managed by Pegasus and Zapopan with the passing of the time. The reason, quite simply, why that project went down the first time was Mt Todd’s ore grade is very low. It is only about one gram per tonne and, depending on the company’s expertise, they do not always extract that. The minister and others would know the rock is exceptionally hard and it has to be crushed down very finely. This is a result of using a high level of energy. Where a mining company usually spends about 30% of its costs on energy, Mt Todd, in the first and second phases, was somewhere near 45% of their costs going on just processing the ore. That company collapsed when the gold price collapsed, and the Australian project took down the company in America.
Some years passed before Mt Todd rejuvenated. General Gold got into a very bad joint venture with Multiplex Resources and reopened the mine. Sadly, it did not last long when Multiplex Resources refused to come forward with the payment - I think it was about mid-year. It is generally viewed and accepted that Multiplex Resources used the Northern Territory and that project for its own commercial and financial gain. The same issues presented at that project, which were presented the first time; which was, low grade, hard rock, and high energy consumption. However, it is good news that Vista Gold has management of that project.
Yes, while I was with the Minerals Council, the government did set up the Mt Todd Reference Group, which was a very good move. I sat on that group with other stakeholders, and the government did, I think, commit about $1m in the first phase and then it might have gone up to about $3m.
It is interesting to note there are still excellent assets at that project area. I think the company has currently revisited the amount of gold that is there. It was three million ounces, but they may have adjusted upwards of about five or seven. The tailings dam is a very good piece of engineering, and there has never been a problem with the tailings dam. Where the problems were was in regard to the heat leach pads and the bund walls breaking down in some of the retention ponds. As I understand it, between the stakeholders, the government, and the company now, those problems have been rectified. With good management and good regulation, I hope that project sees another life.
I turn briefly to the bill. I concur with a comment the member for Katherine made in regard to this new legislation. Sadly, in the Territory, we have not had much activity with onshore exploration for oil and gas. The last major wave, or burst, was from Amadeus Basin. There has been a lot of exploration in Central Australia. Central Petroleum is probably the main player that has many permits and is spending quite a bit of money. There are some smaller companies around which are very interested in the Territory, but they need incentives to come here. They need assistance, both from a regulatory point of view and otherwise, to get them up and running and to get them into the Territory.
The coal seam my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, mentioned is big business and it is starting to boom in Queensland. I do not know if we really have much scope in that. I believe we have a teeny bit of coal potential in the bottom part of the Territory. Previously, it was seen as a problem with methane but now, of course, it is seen as an asset, which is good news for Queensland. Of course ConocoPhillips, which is here, has big projects planned for Queensland in regard to this industry.
As mentioned also by colleagues, the next wave that we will probably see in the Territory, as well as elsewhere, is in regard to shale gas, which is where they drill the horizontal wells. It is big in America; not quite here with the technology but, hopefully, with the incentives and the encouragement of the minister and the government, we can try to get some of these smaller players in to spend a bit of money, because it is the explorers who actually find these things and then joint ventures will sell them on to the bigger operating companies.
The only concern I mention - and my colleague, the member for Katherine, did raise it - is the retrospectivity of this legislation. When the petroleum companies put in for their permanence, did they know that, after five years, they have to drop 50%? There is a school of thought that says it is a little unfair to any new players coming into the Northern Territory, or to encourage new players to come into the Northern Territory. Potentially, it could sterilise some of the ground for new players and …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you mind if I just acknowledge these students. Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Clyde Fenton Primary Year 5/6 students, accompanied by Ms Sophia Perry, Ms Sandy Cartwright and Mr Glenn Hayles. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms PURICK: Welcome to the students.
Minister, that is my only area of concern. Some of the smaller players put those concerns to me in regard to the retrospectivity and, also, some lack of encouragement for new investment into the Northern Territory for new players, given there is this potential in the Northern Territory for a range of petroleum, oil and gas, and hydrocarbon-type activity.
Madam Speaker, I have just been given a note by my colleague, who said it was announced last night - and I think it is confirmed - that Woodside is going to go to floating LNG at Sunrise, which is a bit disappointing, I guess, from the Northern Territory government’s point of view. It means a lot of activity will not come to the Northern Territory. You have to ask: why?
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, we are disappointed about the floating LNG. Sunrise, unfortunately, is controlled by international treaties within Australia and East Timor, and Australia …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Well, you might not want to accept international treaties because you are totally ignorant, but the reality is …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr VATSKALIS: The reality is the federal minister for Resources advised me it is subject to international treaties and, if East Timor does not accept that it comes to Australia, it will not come to Australia - and East Timor has a big say in that.
I will come back to some of the issues raised by the member for Goyder. It is obvious the CLP, in the last few months, hired the bus, got on the bus, and went to Damascus. On the road to Damascus, they have had this transformation. All of a sudden, the Country Liberals became green liberals. The people who actually pillaged the Territory now tell us what wonderful greenies they are. I suspect some of them will probably stand for the Green Party at the next election. Let me remind some of the members opposite what they left behind, apart from the fact they left a dying mining industry because they refused to sign exploration applications because they would not accept the rights of Indigenous people in the Territory. They left us 2000 legacy mines - abandoned mines all over the Territory. We have a classic example of one person dying in Alice Springs when he fell down the shaft of a mine.
Regarding Mt Todd, no one blames the companies; companies go bankrupt, I agree. However, what we say is the CLP government was the one which actively - the local member and the then Treasurer - imposed a $900 000 bond because, otherwise, Mt Todd would not have gone ahead. They told us they would use legislation about environmental bonds in mines but, if you listen to what the member for Katherine said, it was so flexible you could not even pinpoint what kind of bond it was.
What we say today is 100% bond for rehabilitation, and that bond will be assessed by the Valuer-General - not by the minister, not by the bureaucrats, by the Valuer-General. What they left behind us at Mt Todd, was a disaster, a legacy for years to come. We have stepped in; we have spent $5m to replace pumps and pipes to recirculate the water. Mt Todd would be a disaster, destroying not only the Edith River. They come to us and talk about a disaster of copper oxide in the port. Did you know that, every year, Mt Todd released 17 tonnes of copper into the Edith River? Do you know that at Mt Todd, the company left abandoned 700 000 of high concentration cyanide …
Mr Mills: Do you reckon people would think this is a great response, for the current, right here and now problem that you are responsible for?
Mr VATSKALIS: ... that we have neutralised. Did you know that they left acidic water in the pond at Mt Todd? You can actually use it in your battery, it is so acidic. That is a disaster.
Mr Tollner: And 6000 km2 ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: How can I take note of people like the member for Fong Lim, whose source of information is Wikipedia? What is Wikipedia? It is an open source encyclopaedia. According to their own website: ‘this is compiled by contribution by anyone’ - no scientists, no research, no facts; anyone can write whatever they like. That is the encyclopaedia, the source for the member for Fong Lim.
Member for Fong Lim, you mentioned we actually got rid of a lot of people from the department. He asked: ‘Where is the Director of Energy?’ I tell you where he is - at his desk. Gerry Whitfield is at his desk and he has been there for many years, because he is the Director of Energy. He asked: ‘Where is the Registrar for Petroleum?’ At her desk, because we have to have one by legislation and she been working there for years. Where is the pipeline engineer? In the department, working for the past few years. We did not get rid of these people; they have always been there.
The CLP has a trend now; they come here, they make statements and they think people will believe them. I am not going to leave these statements unchallenged. I am not going to leave this. Here you have a statement that is untrue. He implied we do not have these people. These people are currently working in the department.
Let us go to Montara. The member for Fong Lim said: ‘You have all this money. Where are the inspections?’ It was the Howard government in 2004 that amended the legislation to self-regulate. The industry should regulate itself. We will not send our inspectors out there. How much money did we get back from this? We do not get paid from the Commonwealth. We receive a portion of the income from the petroleum licences. We are not the authority. We are a delegate of a designated authority.
Let me put it another way. At the time the approval was given for Montara, there were four people working in the unit - it was four staff; four people. That was March 2009. The disaster of Montara happened in August 2009 - six months later. They ask why we are not out there saying something. Because there is an inquiry to find out what was the real cause of the Montara disaster. Our people are out there giving evidence, and I have been advised - I have received legal advice - that at no time our people went out of the guidelines as prescribed by the Commonwealth legislation.
There must be something else, Madam Speaker. Let us wait until the inquiry finishes and, before we make statements that we read in the newspapers - despite the fact they accuse us if we respond to editorials - let us find out what the situation is about the 30 minutes approval and the tick and flick. What these people do not say is that, when something is produced for drilling to the department and the petroleum minister, it is not given in bits and pieces. It is given as a whole plan of what is going to happen and, as things happen, they seek our approval. Our department looks at the package as a whole when the application is first received and, as different things happen, the company requests approval and the department gives it. The 30 minute tick and flick is absolutely untrue.
I thank the member for Nelson. He is only member who spoke on the legislation. He raised some very good points, and I would like to clarify some of them. He said there is no limit on exemptions. We know a person can apply for an exploration licence for five years. Under the proposed amendment, a person can come to us and say: ‘I want an extension of the package I have for 12 months because, under the existing legislation I get a five-year approval, after five years I have to relinquish 50% of the tenement I have. Because of new technologies, new interest, I would like to maintain that whole tenement for another 12 months’. That can happen time after time. However, after 15 years, the person, or the company, has to relinquish the whole tenement. You receive a tenement for exploration for five years, but in the 15th year, you have to relinquish it. There are only so many times you can ask for the extension.
When someone applies for an extension, it is not definite they will get it. What the government and the minister have to consider is the performance of the company, how much money this company has spent, and what is going to be their future program to spend in exploration. It is not a fait accompli, a tick, and a signature that he gets; he has to satisfy very strict regulations.
Regarding retrospectivity, I cannot see it. We apply official legislation now, and this bill will apply to everything in place now. We do not go back to someone who lost the right for an extension and say they can have it now. If you have an exploration application now, the current legislation applies now. I find retrospectivity very difficult, and I insist there is no retrospectivity.
I strongly agree it is good the member for Katherine received a briefing from my department. However, before you read what an advisor on the fourth floor wrote for you, it would be a good idea to ask questions. The question you should have asked is: are these amendments unique to this legislation? These amendments are not unique to this legislation. These amendments bring the Petroleum Act into parity with the Mining Act. Under these amendments, we now give the right to people to apply for an extension. The same thing happens in the Mining Act under section 18(aa) where people can apply for an extension for a period of up to 12 months in the same circumstance. If they want an application for exploration for minerals and their five years finishes, they can request an extension of 12 months. This is exactly the same as we are proposing.
The other matter I would like to discuss is an application for an area already under exploration. I believe it is extremely unfair when someone has lodged an application for exploration, someone else, when they realise the potential, submits another application for exploration which has already been granted. That is exactly the same in the Mining Act. You cannot do it in the Mining Act, why should we have to do it in the Petroleum Act? We are saying if you have two applications on the same day, we will assess the applications and will approve the one which is in the interests of the Territory: you are going to spend money, you are going to actually use it, and you have a program to develop it in a certain period of time.
It is very important to avoid the situation which occurred in Western Australia: two competing companies put in for a very rich resource area in Western Australia and the minister was caught in the middle and had to make a decision which was very controversial.
This has arisen because technology has changed. In the old days, we had a drill rig, put the drill straight down, you find oil, or you find gas. Now, because of the high price of gas and oil, people can develop new technologies that can drill vertically, then drill horizontally in order to break the rock and release the gas or oil from the rock. This is the new technology. This technology is extremely expensive, and needs a lot of work. People never search for oil and gas in the Territory onshore, on the ground. They have come to us and said: ‘We want certainty, but we want certainty for a period of time because we cannot do that in one year, two years, or even five years’. It is an expensive way to prepare; it would be excessive. In some cases the figure of $20m a year has been indicated to me. No one is going to invest $100m over five years then, all of a sudden, 50% of the tenement disappears and goes to the open market. That is why we have done this. We have to move with the times, and with the technology.
Another issue raised was the issue of WorkSafe taking control of the occupational health and safety issues with the Petroleum Act. On 1 July 2008, NT WorkSafe became the agency responsible for occupational health and safety in the Northern Territory for the mining and exploration industry. Why do we have an industry controlled by WorkSafe, and a similar one for petroleum, which is controlled by the minister responsible for occupational health and safety? Would it not be better to have one agency so it can overlook the petroleum and mining and exploration industries?
In July 2008, people who worked in the Mines department looking at mining exploration moved to NT WorkSafe. These were the same people who were looking after the petroleum occupational health and safety industry. These people are already trained, and they already have experience in the industry. By moving to WorkSafe, nothing is going to change. It will be even better and more efficient because there will be one agency to control occupational health and safety in the Northern Territory.
When I first became the minister for Mines the record of the mining industry with regard to occupational health and safety was abysmal. It was surprising the CLP government had never taken any legal action against any mine, or any mining company, or the mining industry in the Northern Territory. When I took over, I believe my first instruction to the department was to take appropriate action when ERA released contaminated water into Magela Creek, and the second one was when there was the tragic death of a worker at the Alcan factory. That was the first time for many years, under our government, where legal action was taken against the mining industry, and the fines imposed were significant.
The mining industry is very important for the Territory. At the same time, it is very risky industry - risky for the workers and for the environment. I was very disappointed yesterday to hear about the incident at GEMCO on Groote Eylandt. The fact the company took immediate action to clean under the conveyor, and to dredge the area where the manganese was spilt in the sea is commendable. However, I am very disappointed because they breached their obligation under the Mine Management Act to report the incident immediately. The same thing happened at Alcan.
I have put the mining industry on notice. I have already instructed the department to amend the legislation of the Mine Management Act so, from now on, all the environmental management plans on a mining site will become public, will be in the public arena on the web page, and the public will know what they have to do.
These amendments might be small, but they are significant. They are significant for the future of the petroleum industry in the Territory. These amendments open the road, an avenue, for exploration in the Territory - exploration that, as the member for Goyder said previously, was never before in the Territory – or very sporadic and very small. These open areas in Central Australia, in Dunmarra and in Alice Springs, were never explored before. This new technology will open these areas and will ensure we have exploration in the Territory, employment and, hopefully, if the outcomes are positive, we will have a gas and oil industry - not offshore, not 1000 km north-west of Darwin in the Ashmore Cartier area where Montara was, but in the centre of the Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Debate suspended.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the Minister for Transport for the rest of this sitting date.
Leave granted.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For the purposes of Hansard, the member for Katherine will be occupying my chair during the meeting.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to seek leave from the Chairman of Committees.
In committee:
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move from my position to the member for Port Darwin’s seat.
Madam CHAIR: Leave is granted, member for Katherine.
The committee has before it the Petroleum Amendment and Related Matters Bill (Serial 91), presented by the minister, Mr Vatskalis.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: This should not take too long, by the way. I do not think there are a huge number of issues that need to be canvassed unless, of course, the members for Nelson or Goyder have a great deal to ask.
The first question is an odd one. I notice on the Northern Territory government’s Legislative Assembly website, it says that this bill - the Petroleum Amendment and Related Bills 2010 - has already been passed. I am just curious about how that might have lobbed on to the website.
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not control the website of the Legislative Assembly. It must be a mistake.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: For the first question, I will go to the first issue I raised during my speech, which was in respect of staffing under the change of regime, under OHS. I can repeat directly out of here - useful to know whether staff operating under the current OHS regime will be the same as those in the new regime, or whether they will be subsumed into NT WorkSafe? Will there be sufficient trained and qualified staff to carry out the requirements of the act?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, on 1 July 2008, NT WorkSafe became the agency responsible for occupational health and safety for the Northern Territory mining and exploration work sites. NT WorkSafe is also the designated agency responsible for all occupational health and safety matters with respect to activities undertaken on a petroleum permit with the exemption of production facilities. So, if it is exploration or anything but production, NT WorkSafe is responsible. When it goes into production, then the minister, under the Petroleum Act becomes responsible for OHS. We now put everything - exploration and production - under NT WorkSafe.
The people who were transferred in July 2008 to WorkSafe were people looking after the Petroleum Act, and they continued to do that for exploration and other purposes. They are the people who were already trained to do that. So, there would be further training as part of the job, but they were already trained to do that job.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, do you think there will be a significant increase in their workload, or will there be additional staff made available to monitor the provisions of the exploration part?
Mr VATSKALIS: These people will be transferred to NT WorkSafe. Depending on the volume of work that will come to the Territory, NT WorkSafe has to address the issue of occupational health and safety. It is not going to come under the department of Resources but, as happened before, when there is more work to be done NT WorkSafe has responded to the demand for more workers.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister. I might just move to the ...
Madam CHAIR: Member for Katherine, I ask you to pause, please. I remind visitors in the public gallery that photography is not permitted. Thank you.
Member for Katherine, you have the call.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I might just go straight to the most, or one of the most, pertinent questions I have. In the briefing I received, I was advised that, under the new provisions, where an exemption from the halving regime could be applied for, there would be five occasions of the maximum period of 12 months each where an extension to the exemption may be given, totalling five years. Yet, my reading of the act says to me you can apply for an exemption for 12 months, followed by an extension of an exemption for 12 months. Can you clarify please which it is?
Mr VATSKALIS: As I already indicated, a person can apply for an exemption for 12 months then, at the end of the 12 months, can reapply for an extension of 12 months, and can reapply for an extension of 12 months. However, in order to get the extension, he has to provide sufficient evidence why the company should get the extension, plus the program of exploration, plus what the benefit will be to the Territory. However, the whole thing lasts for 15 years. You get the tenement for exploration for five years. After five years, you can apply for an extension and so on but, by the 15th year, the tenement is refused. You do not have any more rights to that tenement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I understand the 15-year cut-off, but just to clarify, how many years, potentially, can an exemption run for?
Mr VATSKALIS: The extension runs for 12 months only, but you can reapply for the same extension year after year for 10 years, until the exploration or the total tenement of exploration. The act, on purpose, prescribes it can apply for one, two or three extensions, because the safety valve there is not the number of extensions you can have; it is what the program and the expenditure will be for every extension in order to be granted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I understand that, minister. Is there a legislative instrument that says you can apply five times or 10 times for an extension to the exemption?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, the reason the act is silent on this in on purpose because, as I said before, it is an emerging industry which develops from year to year. We know now what we can do. In the next year, it will be a further development. Because of the further development, there might be more discoveries from the same tenement and we want to allow a company that has already invested millions of dollars for exploration to be able to seek an extension for a year, and a year, and a year after. But, they will be controlled by strict rules of what your expenditure is, what your exploration is, and the benefit to the Territory. We do not want people applying for an extension and land-banking.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I take it, minister, in reading the amendments where it says under section 24A(5) and (6) basically, you can get an exemption for 12 months, then you can extend it for 12 months and, because there are no limiting parts to that, those extensions can continue on?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is correct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Right, thank you. That leads me to the next question. I understand, minister, you received quite a number of submissions in respect to these amendments, and a number of those submissions suggested the period of exemption should be five years to provide a greater degree of certainty for prospectors, or for drillers who want to explore. Why did you not accept that recommendation?
Mr VATSKALIS: This is an emerging industry, especially for the non-conventional oil fields and gas fields. The industry is still developing. With a limit of five years, a person would not be able to, or not be willing to, spend a significant amount of money because after it is developed he can expect to find more gas and oil. Putting a limitation of one or two years on it will actually make them quite concerned about spending the amount of money they intend to spend for exploration if they are not sure they can continue to explore as the industry develops.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Under section 24A(1), what would be the process for a person applying for an exemption to the permit or to the halving regime?
Mr VATSKALIS: If a person applies for an extension he has to provide evidence, once again, about the expenditure program, the exploration program, and what would be the continuous activities on the site. We will not accept a person saying: ‘I want an extension, I am going to spend $200 000 this month and nothing later’. We have to see continuous activity.
One more thing to clarify, under the current Mining Act we have a very similar regime. Under the current Mining Act, an exploration permit is issued for six years; then they can apply for two years, plus two years. In the new model introduced today the original permit is for six years, and two, plus two, plus two, as long as they provide us with an expenditure program which satisfies our demands, and satisfies the interests of the Territory.
What we will now do, both in the Petroleum Act and the new Mining Act, is apply the same regime; continuous extension until you satisfy the Territory’s demand, and until the end of the exploration permit of 15 years.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That probably completes my questions.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, just a couple of questions to the minister. How many granted permits are there in the Territory for onshore petroleum?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is in excess of 12.
Ms PURICK: Twelve?
Mr VATSKALIS: In excess of 12.
Ms PURICK: How many companies is that spread across? How many active companies take up those 12 permits?
Mr VATSKALIS: Nine companies.
Ms PURICK: Given a company has a permit area and is coming up to their renewal, and you know they are thinking of asking for an extension, but you also know there is another company interested in the parcel of land because the way industry talks, would you take that into consideration in your decision whether to grant the extension, so that they do not have to drop the ground, or not? Knowing that you want to get new players into the country, into the town, would that be one of the factors you would take into consideration?
Mr VATSKALIS: They have to put in an application in order to be considered. If they have not put in an application and the land is already occupied, they cannot apply for a permit on an exploration tenement.
Ms PURICK: In seeking a deferral, is there a fee associated and, if so, how much?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, there is no fee applicable.
Ms PURICK: In regards to section 24(3), it says: ‘An exemption may provide for a deferral of the reduction of permit area or reduction of the permit area by a lesser number of blocks’. Would you allow for a deferral time line? Have you set a sliding scale, or is it at your discretion how they are going to go about the deferral?
Mr VATSKALIS: They can apply for an extension of the exploration tenement as a whole, or they can apply for an extension on only half of it, or a quarter of it, or an eighth of it. It is a decision by the company. The company will decide the most prospective area they want to maintain for another 12 months, to apply to us. It is not my discretion. It is an application by the company.
Ms PURICK: I guess it is a procedural thing; what is the time frame - if the company comes to the department and says they are going to be seeking a deferral to when they get granted, what is the time frame? Is it two weeks, is it a month, or …
Mr VATSKALIS: It has to be a reasonable period of time before the permit expires, for the simple reason we will be asking questions. We will be asking questions about exploration, about expenditure, about exploration program, about proven resources. We will be asking for quite a lot of information. It should not come to the last week or the last month, because it would be a rigorous examination assessment why we have to approve the extension. If that person cannot provide us information we want, cannot give us a real program exploration expenditure, why should we let that person keep that land? It is land-banking. Let it close down, let someone else do it.
However, if a person comes with a comprehensive program of expenditure, exploration, and proven resources, and in a timely fashion, then it would be, for us, good enough to provide an extension.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. That is fine, I accept that. Once you have all that information and the department has done their rigorous assessment, what is going to be the time frame to expect a decision from the minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: We need about two months to assess it. So, we will request that about two months before the exploration, and we will provide the extension before the expiration of the tenement.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, a couple of questions around some of those the member for Goyder posed. Is there an appeal process? If a person or a company were to apply for an exemption and not be granted that exemption, is there an appeal process?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, there is not an appeal mechanism, and neither does any other act actually allow them to come back and argue why they should get it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. Will determinations under section 24 be made in such a timely fashion that a company which, perhaps, is not granted an exemption would have time to come back and make a second application for the exemption, while the original permit still exists? Do you know what I mean? Basically, will there be an opportunity for two bites of the cherry if a company was to fail in its first bid for an exemption?
Mr VATSKALIS: If a company asks for an extension and it is not granted, and they want to reapply for this particular tenement to be reissued to them, they have to go through every single process as per the original application for an exploration permit. There is not only going to be the process that gives us information about the expenditure of the program, they have to go through every single process including probably the Aboriginal Land Act and all other legislation. It would be like a brand new application.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 16 February 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Public Information Bill 2010 (Serial 77) is to establish an independent mechanism to review advertising and public information campaigns produced by members of the Legislative Assembly and government agencies through a post-review process conducted by the Auditor-General on request from a member of the Legislative Assembly, or on his own initiative.
The Chief Minister has called this legislation ‘groundbreaking’ and attributed this legislation to his ‘government’s commitment to being transparent and accountable’. I can only comment that this is a newfound commitment; what is called in some terms ‘a foxhole conversion’. On the battlefield there are no atheists; they come to faith when they are in the foxhole. To say this is your commitment to being transparent and accountable has come as a result of a near-death experience; that being, standing in front of the cameras in August 2008 and being flabbergasted; perhaps uncertain about your tenure. The vote of the people of the community, effectively, against the government has caused a change of heart. I need to use those words, to recognise these statements – such as the commitment to being transparent and accountable – have been used before, but the context in which these are now uttered is as a result of external forces; that being, a near-death experience.
I applaud the government’s introduction of this bill. I will explain why it is supported: because we need these much-needed controls over the indiscriminate promotion of Labor Party politics using public funds. Of course, I will draw a big bow – everyone else has done it. However, for anyone who is trying to deal with what is right and wrong, that is no defence. Everyone else did it, so it is okay is the implication. Well, it is not ...
Mr Henderson: John Howard was quite good. He was master of it.
Mr MILLS: See, there you go. If it is wrong, it is wrong and, because other people have done it, does not make it right, nor is it ever any justification. If that is the depth of the conviction, the analysis, or the assessment of this, then that is why we end up with statements made that assert certain things that are plainly false and is pure confectionary; that being, ‘we are now committed’. It is like Mr Kevin Rudd, who has the greatest moral dilemma of our time - postponed for some time because it does not suit today. These are just mere words …
Mr Henderson: No, it was because the Liberals blocked it in the Senate. That is why.
Mr MILLS: No.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, whether you have an anchor of actual belief in the things that you say, or the things are uttered for mere political convenience is really the point which, obviously, escapes the Chief Minister.
I applaud …
Mr Henderson: The Libs blocked it in the Senate
Mr MILLS: The greatest morale crisis of our time is what we are actually talking about - those words. It is confectionary and fake, when I then attest to some of these grand statements.
That being said, we welcome the Public Information Bill, because I cannot help but wonder if the government would have bothered to create this bill at all had I not introduced a similar bill in February 2008 in the Tenth Assembly, and again in April 2009 of the Eleventh Assembly. Where has this newfound moral courage come from? Clearly, the effect of 2008 and what people said, and the requirement of government to hold on to its position has found a new place, and new words and new decisions, which I am pleased with.
Also, in being fair here, when I introduced a similar bill in February 2008, I drew upon the statements which were made by the then Opposition Leader, Mr Kevin Rudd, at the time, who committed to doing such things upon entering government. There was a very similar response, made by the federal Opposition Leader, Mr Kevin Rudd at the time, because the community needed the right thing to be done. We had clear evidence a government had no deeper connection than ensuring they were able to attend to the political objectives of the time, and were able to use public funds to achieve a political objective. There is plenty of evidence of that, which I will go into in a moment.
That is the context in which this arose. I thought the now Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when he was in opposition, did the right thing. Anyone with a conscience would recognise that is the right thing to do. Then, surprise, surprise, and to my delight, it was continued upon entry into government, which further strengthened my resolve this should be brought back.
It was resisted in February 2008. Note the date, February 2008, before the election. So, there were plenty of grounds to object to such arguments, which were plainly right. You know they are right. But, then, April 2009 - note the date, that is after the election. Now, we have a change of heart, and we had the example already set by the now Prime Minister. That is how we find this moral courage.
The aim of the bill at that time was that public money, as it is now, should not ever be used to promote party-political agendas, the un-factual or biased. That sounds fair enough. My original bill introduced in 2008 was in response to the letterbox drop and other advertising released in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election attacking the Howard government’s $100 alcohol restriction paid for by Territory taxpayers.
You may recall those. I brought them into the Chamber on a number of occasions to look at those; to recognise hard-earned dollars of Territory families and Australian families had been used for a plainly political purpose I found offensive. That is a moral challenge: are you actually going to do the right thing when it comes to the use of public funds if you know how hard it is to make a living; the cost of living, etcetera. Real money which has been entrusted to the care of a government that is then utilised and appropriated for the prosecution of a political agenda is wrong, wrong, wrong. I thought that would have been known.
If you are going to run an argument that others in the past have done as justification for doing the wrong thing today that will not stand up. I am fully aware of what I am saying. If I am in the position, I have to live for the words that I am speaking today. That is a challenge that I must face, and I face that publicly. That is why it was brought in.
These expensive ads - and I know how costly it is. We are always asked as MLAs - governments are asked, oppositions are asked, and we are asked individually - to advertise. We know how much it costs to advertise.
However, to have full-page ads saying these $100 restrictions are bad, and linking it directly to Mr Howard, was clearly and plainly a misappropriation of funds for a political purpose at taxpayers’ expense. Wrong! The fact these restrictions have not changed is the telling point. They have not changed, and there has been no follow-up advertising criticising the Rudd government’s $100 alcohol restrictions. If it was offensive then, it is offensive now; how is it the money is not spent now? It was spent then for a political purpose. It is all right if you had a whip around Caucus and paid it out of your own pocket, but to put your hands into the pockets of hard-working Territorians, families in my own community, that is plainly wrong. It is criminal, in my view.
This is despite the NT government’s internally published guidelines preventing any party-political advertising using public funds. It is a blatant contradiction of that which is stated, and that which is done. That had to be fixed. Thank goodness there was a change of heart brought about by the events flowing from 2008 - a government which had to hang on for dear life, and found faith.
This blatant disregard of government’s own guidelines was the catalyst for the opposition developing the Public Information Bill introduced in February 2008. Again, the extraordinary amount of advertising this Labor government undertook in the lead-up to the 2008 election - and I remember it all; Elton John and all. There was so much being pumped out ...
Mr Henderson: That was not advertising, it was a concert.
Mr MILLS: It was a great concert, but it was used as a vehicle to promote government.
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr MILLS: Well, fortunately now …
Mr Henderson: If a promoter had come to you and said: ‘We want to bring Elton John to Darwin’, you would have said no.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, you will have your chance to debate later.
Mr Wood: The Auditor-General will solve that, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS: That is exactly right. Fortunately, now there will be a mechanism for that question to be tested; whether that is the best use of public funds, and should it be smiling faces of Chief Ministers to promote such things or not. They are questions which can now be adjudicated far more cleanly, and to know whether Territorians’ valuable contribution to a government is going to be used in a way that benefits them most directly and effectively.
Despite the best intentions or internal guidelines, it is very easy to blur the lines between promoting new government policies and promoting party-political interests. Be honest, and have a look at everything that came out before the last election. What was the real purpose of it? There will be several things I can say which will show the real purpose was. We say, each morning: deliver us from temptation. There has been a massive temptation there many times to swing things in a way that promote the interests of government - have not been able to resist that! Fortunately, now we might be able to move to a place where we have the capacity to have better decisions made.
There is a stark divide between the amount of genuine public information campaigns compared to self-serving, and somewhat needless, self-promotion. The lack of public awareness campaigns about mosquitoes, for example, and Murray Valley Encephalitis following two deaths last year. Where were the strongly funded, well positioned media campaigns funded by government around those deaths? There was one suspected case reported earlier this month by the ABC.
Comparing this to the amount of advertising associated with the Tiger Brennan Drive extensions is an example that springs to mind. There seems to be a greater interest in using this vehicle to promote self, rather than using these instruments to promote public awareness about things which would be of value and importance to families. These are the sort of questions that, hopefully, we will have a better chance of being dealt with in a more honest and fair way.
In fact, there is no mention of Murray Valley Encephalitis on the DHF website at all, despite Murray Valley Encephalitis showing up in sentinel chickens. It is not promoted. There is no effort put in to say how we can inform. We are here to govern in the best interests of Territorians; what should we do to ensure they have the information that is of benefit to them? That is a novel approach! What should they be informed of? How best can we strengthen the understanding of citizens so they can get about their business? That is the sort of question which should be at the centre of all this.
The other bone of contention with advertising by this government is the unbalanced nature of spending between different departments. This is also telling. Hopefully, we can deal with this. The Education department spent $1.528m on advertising, marketing and promotion; DHF spent a total of $2.819m on advertising, promotion and marketing; and NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services spent a paltry $335 000 on advertising, promotion and marketing. The Department of the Chief Minister, on the other hand, spent $4.504m on advertising, promotion and marketing - over $4.5m.
Keeping in mind these figures, they do not include consultants, document production or employment advertising. How is it a department that, ultimately, provides administrative and policy development services to the government spent almost as much as the three agencies combined that deliver some of the most important services to Territorians?
To give some context to the exorbitant amount the Chief Minister’s Department spent on advertising: $4.5m is around the amount stripped from the budgets of key DHF output groups - Health and Wellbeing Services, $3.844m and Public Health Services, $4.632m - and it is 37% more than the entire budget for Emergency Services which is $3.272m. When belts were tightened in last year’s budget by many important frontline sections within government, the advertising, promotion and marketing budget of the Chief Minister’s Department increased by a whopping 10% - when all those government departments and agencies had messages running down the wire: ‘Tighten up. If anyone drops off do not replace them. We have to tighten up’. Yet, the Chief Minister’s Department’s capacity for marketing and promotions increased by 10%. This is wrong.
I am going to back it this way and say politically, I reckon if a government took an entirely different approach and got on with the important business and the hard work of governing, and made sure every amount that you had at your disposal was used to the max to the benefit of Territorians, and tried to make government smaller and make the people bigger in their capacity to get involved in issues, they would reward you. Making the government really big and pumping the government up so they can look really good, and invading letterboxes and newspapers with glossy brochures and smiling stuff, you do things that make people think you are popular and you are chasing popularity. In the end, I do not believe you will be rewarded. I actually believe the other way. People are looking to get on with their lives and to ensure you reduce the presence of government and enlarge the capacity of people to get on with their business. It is just my belief, Madam Speaker. Hopefully, I get it tested one day.
I introduced the Public Authorities Advertising Bill almost 12 months ago. The Chief Minister approached me in August and requested I defer my bill so we could sit down and work together on proving the bill – a fair call. I am pleased to say our contribution was accepted and included in this bill. That is good and I appreciate that. It is disappointing that, in this groundbreaking legislation the Chief Minister attributes to ‘transparent and accountable government’, he has completely failed to mention this bill took shape through bipartisan discussions between our offices - omitted that element – then, once again, promoted himself and the role of government, which is a betrayal of the very essence of this bill - a bit disappointing.
Nor has the Chief Minister tabled the guidelines departments must follow, and the Auditor-General must take into consideration when conducting a review of public information. We still wait for these.
Nevertheless, the process will be significantly improved when it comes to the use of public monies on advertising, and that can only be a good thing. Of course, I am supportive of the bill; however, not all we wanted was included. I am a realist and accept such an outcome is the nature of negotiations.
Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill and take note of what the Leader of the Opposition said. Political advertising has been around a long time. It is an area that has concerned me even before I was in politics. I remember in the 1990s looking at TIO ads which, under the guise, I suppose, of TIO being a wonderful company, really were, to a large extent, the government’s way of putting forward this idea of what a wonderful Territory we live in, and all the advantages of living here which, I have no doubt, are all true. I am not denying the adverts were based on deception, but it seemed these ads from TIO came out very close to an election. It seemed to me a convenient way of promoting a government without looking like it was promoting a government.
One of the problems we have, even with this legislation, is if you have these lifestyle ads. They are not necessarily giving hard, concrete information; they are a feel-good approach. They are the areas the Auditor-General, when looking at advertising, is going to find it difficult to apply some of these guidelines.
The object of this bill is for an act to provide for the review of public information. Of course, the Auditor-General, who is going to be given power to look at the contents of advertising, must work on the principles that the content of public information must not promote party-political interests or include statements which are misleading or factually inaccurate, or clearly distinguish a statement of fact from a statement of comments. I suppose it is where you get the lifestyle-type ads on television, the radio, or in the paper, that you can get into that fairly grey area of what is party political and what is legitimate government promotion of the Territory or various Territory departments. It will be interesting, when the first complaints come in, to see a ruling from the Auditor-General.
I welcome the legislation. As the Chief Minister said in the second reading speech:
That is an important area which also needs to be discussed. Government advertising is using public funds. The public, I would say, would all support or understand governments have to advertise. The bone of contention the public would have is if they feel some of the advertising is self-promotion. It would be interesting to do a survey of the elections from 1990 to 2010 to see whether you could draw a graph of the number of government advertisements that appeared, say, in the two months before an election that did not have the stamp on them ‘written and authorised by’ someone, but were, basically, presented as government advertising. I believe you could find a correlation between the density of advertisements verses the proximity to the calling of an election.
I certainly remember many a claim …
Ms Carney: What a cynic!
Ms Purick: That is a bit cynical!
Mr WOOD: Well, I was not born that way, but having sometimes watched television and groaned, I always felt there was a certain approach which was a bit suss when ads appeared on television under the guise of both parties when, in actual fact, I thought they were really getting close to the bone of being actually politically incorrect - in this case, advertising.
I should say, on that note, in regard to elections - and especially as we have fixed elections these days - I am interested to know if we set a cut-off date for when government advertising can cease, because there needs to be something like that. I remember raising this in the debate when we were talking about fixed elections, that there needs to be some process where government advertising ceases, unless it is for contracts, or important public announcements - whether it is a cyclone, or there are pests and diseases. There needs to be some cut-off date when it comes to advertising so we do not get into this discussion as to whether the advertising which is on television is political or not political. I believe that is another area we should be looking at in relation to government advertising.
The bill is quite simple in the sense that the Auditor-General will look at advertisements or public information that comes from the government. He will have to make a decision as to whether it breaches any of the guidelines. He can do that on his own volition or, if a member of this Assembly puts in a complaint, he can do it on behalf of that member. Of course, then he reports to parliament to say whether the complaint was upheld or dismissed. It is pretty straightforward. I suppose there is no real penalty. The penalty really will be, if the government decides not to pull or change the advertisement because of what the Auditor-General said, there would be a fair bit of public criticism, and the government would have to live with that criticism at its political peril.
There are a couple of other comments I would like to make. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister did get together, and I had some input at the early stages. I was also disappointed that there was no mention of the Leader of the Opposition in the second reading speech - not only because he involved himself in this discussion, but this original bill was a private members’ bill, or an opposition bill, that had been put forward on General Business Day. The bill had first been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and I felt there should be some recognition of that in the second reading speech.
Be that as it may. Sometimes we can lose the crux of this and I felt it was important that the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were able to get together to negotiate what I believe is important legislation. It might be a small bill; other people might even think it is nothing to talk about. However, I believe it is important.
The media people get their knowledge about how our government works. The principles of openness and transparency are all intertwined. The media can be used as a very powerful tool. You only have to go back through the 20th century to see all those governments you are probably glad you never lived under; how they were able to manipulate people by the use and control of the media. Where is one of the first places people go when there is a coup d’etat? They take over the television and radio station; probably these days they take over the website. Everyone knows about Google in China recently. Why do the Chinese want Google out of there? Because they do not want freedom of information.
It is important we have legislation which ensures there is not a misuse of public information through the media, and through other methods of passing information to Territorians. Territorians want the truth. They do not want political spin. If there is information out there about the roads, they want information about the roads, the state of the roads and when they can travel on them. If it is information about a plant disease, they want to know what that plant disease is and why the government is putting roadblocks on the highway. If it is information about a new government loans scheme, or people buying their house, they really want to know about that. They do not really want to know what a wonderful job the government has done here, there and everywhere. They just want the facts. I believe that is where government needs to spend its money. I do not believe we need too many feel-good advertisements – people see through them.
What people want to see is the government putting out real information to the public. Sometimes, they should put out information that hurts them. If there is a problem with the availability of land they should say: ‘Yes, there is a shortage of land. Yes, we are trying to do this, this and this’, and admit those things. Use the media to not only promote what the government is putting forward or telling people what is being put forward - the good stories - but if there are issues the public needs to know about, then I believe the public is more understanding of government if it tells them the facts as they are and does not gloss them over; otherwise people will say that type of advertising is purely political.
Madam Speaker, it is an important bill; it is something I support. I know there are issues about ensuring the Auditor-General is not seen to be political. I believe, in this case, he has nothing to do with the setting up of these advertisements. That is part of the reason he actually comments on them after they have appeared on television, in the newspaper, or on the radio. He will make a comment after - it is not his job to screen the advertisements before they are shown - and he will simply report on that.
At the same time, I appreciate the Opposition Leader did bring this to parliament in the first place. I also thank the Chief Minister for sitting down with the Opposition Leader – some people might say: big deal. People know my viewpoint; we are a small parliament and the more we can work together the better. If this is an example of it, then I say it is a good example. I congratulate both parties for getting together and putting this legislation forward today.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the bill as well; it is groundbreaking legislation. As the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech, there is no precedent in the Territory or any other Australian jurisdiction for a legislative mechanism to review public information as proposed in this bill.
Since that time, we have seen the ACT introduce a similar bill; however, the ACT has an important caveat compared to us - they have a limit. They have a preview period and a $40 000 limit; ours is obviously post-review and no financial limit on what can be reviewed. I believe the important difference there regarding the limit actually makes ours a better bill.
As most members would be aware, government is involved in many information campaigns. You only have to turn on the TV, open a newspaper, or go to your letterbox to realise there is information government is circulating and advertising. I did a quick list off the top of my head of advertising campaigns I can remember - and I have no doubt I have missed many: swine flu, wash your hands, do not buy a rubbish car, finito mosquito, championship moves, building moratorium, go for two and five, HIV awareness, infant feeding, sexual assault, green rebates for water tanks, domestic violence. It is a long list of advertisements I can think of. I know I have missed some: do not play in pipes and drains, Croc Wise – I saw the minister for the Environment before with a boxful of Croc Wise DVDs of the Croc Wise ad campaign that is going at the moment. There are several more campaigns.
There are many campaigns government runs and, from time to time, there may be an information campaign people might argue could be tied to a party-political policy. This is a complicated issue. Governments have policies and they implement them. When implementing a policy, there is often a need for an information campaign. Changes in policy and law do affect people, and they do need to know what those changes are. With all policy debates, there will often be times when the government and opposition disagree. That is an important part of the contestable process. That is what we need to have a better government, make better decisions, better policy and better laws - you have to have a contestable debate.
There will be policy issues and we will disagree from time to time but, because we disagree that does not mean a subsequent information campaign is party political. It is critical for people to be informed about issues that will affect them. One example I can think of is road safety. There has been a disagreement between government and opposition around road safety policy. Despite that disagreement, I believe both sides would agree that if you make changes to road rules it is important people are informed of them. There are always going to be policy debates in this Chamber. We are going to disagree, but we still need to have an appropriate information campaign to back that up. So, just because there is a party-political debate around an issue does not necessarily mean the subsequent information campaign is party political.
We are here today because we agree public information is important, and we also agree we need to ensure taxpayers’ money is not used to promote the interests of a political party. We agree it is important people know if public information campaigns are in the public interest, and not a party-political advertisement. This bill will ensure public information campaigns are reviewed; that there is a transparent and accountable process for ads made by public authorities.
The difficult part of the process with separating fact from fiction is the decision that needs to be made from campaign to campaign to ensure public funds are used appropriately when informing the public about policy, and that campaigns are not promoting party-political interests. We are all agreed on the principle that it will make government more transparent and accountable. This is one more step in a long series of steps which have been taken over the last 10 years to make government more transparent and more accountable.
Most recently has been the Council of Territory Cooperation as part of the agreement with the member for Nelson. I know other members on that council would agree it has gone a long way in asking people on the ground questions, talking to people, bringing out the issues, identifying things, opening things up, and it is a very important process. To quote the Chief Minister, it was a logical extension of policy by the government to open up and make government processes more transparent in bringing in advice, input and ideas from outside government.
Territory 2030 is another example of opening up government or bringing other people in - actually bringing people into the Cabinet process which is a really important part of the Territory 2030 model. That is part of the process of reform we have had over a long period of time; a consistent series of reforms. You can go back to our first term which touched on the first Estimates Committee. I am looking forward to chairing that in a month’s time. The Estimates Committee will be occurring in about a month and that will be an interesting time.
Quoting from a media release from the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin:
When we were first elected, we had taken a series of reforming steps for how our government works. The Estimates Committee is one of them. It is still going strong and we still, through cooperation with the opposition and Independents, are looking each year at how that Estimate Committee runs, how we can make it better each year, or improve on the previous years about how we open up government and how we look through those budget processes. We have a very strong track record of reform.
In speaking to this bill, we are taking advantage of a reform of a government, which is to increase the scrutiny of government. The provision of explanatory statements is something this government took upon itself about five years ago, in about 2005 from memory. We started releasing explanatory statements when we tabled bills in the House, which improves the quality of debate in the Chamber, I believe. It is an important part of the process of opening up government again.
Earlier today, we saw another initiative with cameras in the Chamber during Question Time. We introduced freedom of information that gave Territorians statutory rights to access government information. Freedom of information also saw the first-ever Information Commissioner to provide good information privacy, and access to information practices to monitor how the public service deals with FOI requests and protects personal information. The Information Commissioner is an independent statutory position. That person is also the Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner, looking after the whistleblower legislation which protects people making disclosures from reprisals. It provides a mechanism for people to make disclosures, and provides for those disclosures to be investigated in relation to improper conduct of public servants and/or public bodies.
I could keep going but, in essence, the Council of Territory Cooperation, Estimates Committee, Territory 2030, freedom of information, an independent EPA, the first-ever Information Commissioner, the first-ever Children’s Commissioner, an independent Electoral Commissioner and, today, a bill to make public information more accountable.
The person who has been charged and given the authority to review public information is the Auditor-General. We all know the Auditor-General does a very good job. Anyone in that position does. The Auditor-General will judge public information against three principles: it must not promote party-political interests; include statements that are misleading or factually inaccurate; or clearly distinguish a statement of facts from a statement of comments. Public information can be referred to the Auditor-General or, importantly, the Auditor-General can self-refer, establishing a very good mechanism for how we review public information.
As I said at the beginning, government does many information campaigns, so the ability for people to refer, or the Auditor-General to self-refer, means any campaign people have questions about can be targeted, rather than locking up the Auditor-General’s Office pre-review. That is an important distinction. To ensure public authorities help the Auditor-General in his role, there will be a set of guidelines to assist public authorities in their compliance.
This bill will provide an independent and transparent mechanism to review public information. It will give taxpayers confidence their money is being spent appropriately; that is, objective and factual, and free from political bias.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate for their support of this bill, and acknowledge the support and the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition.
First of all, to eat a bit of humble pie, I apologise that the second reading speech did not include any reference, Leader of the Opposition, to the discussions we had. It was an oversight. The second reading speech is drafted at a departmental level. Second reading speeches are, essentially, technical speeches to provide clarity and detail for interpretation processes. I did read, obviously, the second reading speech before I delivered it, and did not think to put that acknowledgement in. So, I apologise and state on the public record this was a collaborative piece of work between my office, me, and the Leader of the Opposition to get us where we are today. That is the humble pie and that is the apology first up – just a total oversight.
Second, to get to, I suppose, more normal debate in this Chamber, having dispensed with a genuinely made apology, I have to comment on and respond to some of the hypothecation of intent and the political comments the Leader of the Opposition made. My colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, very clearly demonstrated there has been a long period of reform since we came to government in 2001. Reform is ongoing in regard to making this parliament and government more open and transparent. The timing of in which year certain reform elements took place can be open for political debate, but there is absolutely no doubt history will look back over this period in the Northern Territory and see there has been significant improvements in transparency and accountability over the last 10 years or so, compared to the 27 years that preceded it.
If we go back to the 27 years that preceded the 10 years that has just gone, we did not have an independent Electoral Commission; the Electoral Commission was a part of the Chief Minister’s Office. We did not have an Estimates Committee process. Every other parliament in Australia, for many years, had had an Estimates Committee process. We had a farcical process where the opposition was required to submit detailed questions to the government of the day in order to get answers provided in writing for ministers to read out - a farcical process that did not exist in any other Westminster Chamber that we could find. For years and years and years, the public of the Northern Territory have been calling for FOI legislation which was steadfastly refused and never implemented under a CLP government.
For years and years and years, people asked for whistleblowers’ legislation. It took some time to get there. It was under me, as Chief Minister, that we introduced whistleblowers’ legislation. I suppose some of that does come back, in a political way, to make difficulties for a government which we can see in regard to the recent events at the port. However, that is what the legislation is designed to do: to bring forward issues. We can understand why the CLP did not do it for 27 years; neither to have an independent EPA. Again, there has been much debate around that. For years and years and years, that was called for but it was never introduced.
We had an Ombudsman Act, and I acknowledge that is very difficult legislation for a government to reform. It took us longer than we had hoped but, with great support from some really good public servants who are not sitting too far away from me, we finally got that reform through, and it provided additional powers for the Ombudsman. We have introduced a Ministerial Code of Conduct; we have totally overhauled the Members’ and Ministers’ Register of Interests, which previously you could have driven a truck through. We certainly did not have any transparency in regard to budgets that were handed down in this parliament, particularly the last budget in the dying days of the CLP administration, when subsequent inquiries identified the numbers were there for ‘presentation purposes only’. We now have a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act to give transparency to government budgets.
The media, for years and years, had asked to have cameras in this Chamber to be able to record Question Time. That was steadfastly refused by the previous government. We now have Internet broadcasting of everything that happens in this Chamber. Also, of course, we have the Council of Territory Cooperation. There is no doubt this government, under my predecessor, brought significant transformation of accountability to the business of government and parliament. This is another step forward.
I congratulate and acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s input in bringing this bill before the House. To say that it was done, kicking and screaming on the back of ‘we had no choice or obligation’, belies the fact we have had significant expansion of transparency and accountability over the last 10 years.
The Leader of the Opposition then went on to question government expenditure on advertising. That is always ripe for political debate. As I pointed out by way of interjection, John Howard was pretty good at this. I do not recall - he may have made some comments at the time - the Leader of the Opposition criticising a lot of the advertising of the former Liberal Coalition government in the lead-up to the last election. I do not recall him criticising John Howard, but maybe he did.
He mentioned the Chief Minister’s Department last year had spent some $4m on advertising. My advice is, for the entire 2008-09 financial year, the Department of the Chief Minister was $2.15m, not $4m and, to date this financial year, is $1.08m. All of that is tabled every year in the Estimates Committee process. It is one of the standard questions asked, and the details of all that advertising is tabled. I do not recall any questions, certainly since I have been Chief Minister, on much of that advertising.
There are all sorts of bits and pieces and rats and mice - employment strategy, Getting Started in Business seminars, the Upskills program, Charles Darwin University Careers Expo, skilled workers campaign, NT Job Show, Office of Multicultural Affairs, religious fact sheets, launch of Charles Darwin 200th birthday celebrations, outstations policy discussion papers, Sabah International Expo display - you can go on, and on, and on.
This bill will provide for the Auditor-General, as the independent umpire, to decide whether that expenditure is appropriate. However, $4m; I am happy for the Leader of the Opposition to chat to me later about where that number came from. It is certainly not the number given to me as a result of his comments.
He then went on the moral high ground and, basically, put his hand on his chest: ‘I would never do anything underhand. I would never, ever countenance the misuse of public monies for blatant party-political purposes’. He quoted several examples, but was right up there on the high moral ground about how he, as Chief Minister, would never, ever countenance such expenditure. Maybe one day we will be able to hold him to account for that.
I have to ask, as the Leader of the Opposition, on a number of occasions now, had a very politically effective - or not effective, time will tell - glossy brochures which go out as an insert into the NT News. There is nothing in this newsletter at all which identifies it has been authorised by the Country Liberal Party. In fact, it has the parliamentary crest, and says to contact Terry Mills you e-mail the Opposition Leader. It has Parliament House, not CLP headquarters - wherever CLP headquarters is these days. There is a promotion of the Country Liberals’ team on the back, without any reference to the Country Liberal Party’s logo. I can never call them Country Liberals - they are still the CLP ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: They are still the same CLP to me; the leopard never changes its spots. No matter how they dress up, they do not change their spots ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: There is nothing here to identify this as being a CLP political piece of material. One has to ask: did the taxpayer pay for this …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: … and numerous other flyers which have gone out. There is certainly no reference to the CLP in this; it is all about the Leader of the Opposition, and ‘contact me in Parliament House’. It has the Parliament House crest. It is not authorised by the CLP, so one has to ask the question - and we will find out. We will go through the expenditure and the budget around the time these were prepared. The Leader of the Opposition has said: ‘I would never do this! I would never do this! I would never countenance this type of behaviour. That is appalling! It is beneath politicians, and it is what causes us to have the reputation we have’.
If the CLP did pay for this, prove they paid for it. Let us see the invoice from the printers. It is not only this, there is any number - it should not promote party-political interests; it should not include statements which are misleading or factually inaccurate. You can drive a truck through this.
There is a story here about easing the housing crisis: ‘We would develop the old ConocoPhillips workers camp near Palmerston’. They did not even ring the owners to see if it was for sale! They did not even ring the owners! Are these statements misleading or factually inaccurate? ‘I am going romp in and build a workers camp on land I do not even own without asking the owner’. That is extraordinary! I know who owns that block of land. We picked up the phone and asked them, and they said it was the first they had heard of it!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, electricity prices have gone up. That is factually accurate, but the rest of the story is not. No mention at all of the total lack of expenditure for many years in Power and Water the previous government were part of, and the Reeves report. There is a quote here that I said - and it is in quotes that: ‘Henderson claims we are just imagining crime is increasing’. I have never said that. I have never ever said that, yet it is in quotes from me. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to provide any quote from me where I have said: ‘We are just imagining crime is increasing’.
The Leader of the Opposition stands there bleating like bloody Moses – sorry, I should not swear - like Moses up on the bloody mountain - sorry, I should not say it again - like Moses up on the mountain: ‘I am so pure, I am so transparent, politics is a dirty game and I would never get involved. Trust me, I would never say anything that was factually misleading. I would not be involved in misspending public money …
Ms Lawrie: Pure as the driven snow.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, pure as the driven snow.
We have this trash being put out, peddled throughout the Northern Territory. If it had been authorised by the CLP and is part of the political argy-bargy, fair and square. But when it is paid for by the taxpayer and, then, he swans in here, pure as the driven snow, hand on heart, self-righteous, up there in the pulpit, high on the mountain, saying: ‘I would never behave like this’. I have to ask the question. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition: if he is going to quote me - and how many photos of the Leader of the Opposition are in here? One, two, three, four, five photos of the Leader of the Opposition on four pages. Leader of the Opposition, you play the game by the rules, so you say. Tell me when I have ever said we are just imagining crime is increasing? I have never said that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It is in quotes. Show me the quotes and, if you can, fair enough. But, I have certainly never, ever said that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I suppose in terms of goose and gander, whichever we go here, we have both signed up to this now, and we have an independent umpire who will be the adjudicator of these points of political debate.
At the end of the day, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson, that governments should not misuse taxpayer funds for party-political processes. This bill is another big step in the reform program of this government and the previous government in regard to transparency and accountability of governments and the parliaments. I thank all honourable members for their support of this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(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 26 November 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank you for the call to speak in relation to this matter.
The process of determining these things is always one that is in the public mind. Clearly, the newspapers, in particular here in the Northern Territory, but in many jurisdictions, are more than happy to often comment on political income for members of this House. It is one of the reasons it is important we have an independent organ look at what income is worth and what the position of being a member of parliament is worth.
I note that commentators in the media go so far as to say this vocation we choose to take on should go unrewarded. I have noted that in various areas. The other end of the argument, of course, would be we should have reward showered upon us. I am mindful of Barnaby Joyce’s comments in relation to our Prime Minister, saying the guy should be paid $1m a year.
Quite frankly, whilst I do not often agree with Barnaby on many things, I confess on this occasion that is absolutely right, because people like the Prime Minister are in charge of a government which employs many thousands upon thousands of people - much larger than many of our corporations. Yet, as I understand it, our Prime Minister is somewhere around the $350 000 to $450 000 bracket – not a huge amount considering the size of the corporation he is required to run, under a level of scrutiny which is unmatched anywhere in the commercial world.
Also, the importance of an independent referee means we do not stand accused in the public domain of influencing our own income. One of the products of the way the Westminster system works is we, ultimately, have to set our own income. We are the final arbiters, which is why we then turn to an independent person to run their ruler over it and set what they think is a fair amount.
Madam Speaker, I am sure the public of the Northern Territory can feel comfortable an independent person has looked into it. I certainly note the report.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was on the business of substantiating the responses which were required to meet the Chief Minister’s allegations that were made in his reply. However …
Mr Henderson: Questions. I did not allege, I questioned you.
Mr MILLS: Questions – and those questions will be soundly answered. Given, first, we obviously support the bill - and I acknowledge the acknowledgement that has now been provided and appreciate that.
However, the point of this is now a standard which had already been in existence, and now has a mechanism whereby that standard can be adjudicated and maintained. The point is there is still no existing guideline that has been published, and that is required ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are on the Remuneration Tribunal order of the day, not the previous legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr MILLS: I thought it was the third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have done that. We have passed the bill. Please pause.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member for Port Darwin held the fort while we were waiting for you to come, Leader of the Opposition. It is on the Remuneration Tribunal …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I was debating this issue.
Mr MILLS: Well, we support it. Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Support it?
Mr MILLS: I was just building up.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): It has been a long few days, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the remuneration determination, again, I thank the Remuneration Tribunal for their work and John Flynn, who does a magnificent job. He is accessible to all of us, as members of parliament.
The tribunal completed its 2009 inquiry into the entitlement of members of the Assembly and provided its report and determination to government on 9 December 2009. Under the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, the tribunal is required to review the entitlements of magistrates – I have magistrates here – is this the one we are doing?
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, that is true, the tribunal looks at magistrates as well, and members of parliament, yes.
Mr HENDERSON: Magistrates as well, thank you. The determination must be tabled in the Assembly, this House, if it chooses to disallow all or part of the determination within 10 sitting days. The tribunal has previously noted the desirability of a precise relativity between judges and magistrates based on remuneration.
On 1 October 2009, Northern Territory judges’ salaries were increased by 3%; accordingly, the tribunal has increased magistrates’ base remuneration by 3% effective from 1 October 2009. Other salaries and allowance for additional duties is similarly increased by 3%.
Rates of travelling allowance have been slightly increased to reflect the increases determined reasonable by the Australian Taxation Office. Overseas travel allowance rates have been determined to be paid in accordance with Taxation Determination 2009-15, or any subsequent taxation determination made in substitution.
Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal’s Report and thank the Remuneration Tribunal for their work.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from 27 April 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have 16 minutes remaining.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I continue my comments from yesterday. I wish to turn my attention particularly to the Power and Water Corporation. I am grateful to see that, finally - when I say finally, it has been years - the Power and Water Corporation is now getting unqualified reports in its annual reports now the dispute of the reporting of assets between the Auditor-General and the corporation itself has been settled. Nevertheless, this gives me an opportunity to raise one particular area I am concerned about.
I note the Auditor-General has, essentially, provided an unqualified report in relation to the corporation, where he said, on page 94:
That is gratifying, and I am sure it is gratifying to the two ministers who have carriage of this particular institution; that those qualifications have disappeared from the Auditor-General.
However, this sort of audit is, essentially, a form of a desk audit, which means the Auditor-General, or whoever he sends his work out to, basically, does a check of the books and determines if the books add up. There may be some further minor auditing in inspection but, generally speaking, it is basically making sure the controls are in place and the money is flowing through the organisation appropriately. What these audits do not do is extend into the domain of passing opinion about how these organisations position themselves.
The Auditor-General noted, on page 96 of the report, that the Northern Territory government’s capital contribution of $50m was included in part of the corporation’s revenue. The reason I turn my mind to that particular attention and make these comments as I start out is I am somewhat concerned about the way the Power and Water Corporation is being positioned, particularly in relation to the amount of debt it is carrying. Bearing in mind we are talking about a report that refers to the end of the last financial year, and some of the larger capital items which have been purchased by the Power and Water Corporation over recent times, I am concerned about the potential ramifications of this positioning.
I draw members’ attention to the corporation’s annual report for the financial year 2004-05, and page 50 of that report. What was marked as the Statement of Financial Position says the corporation – and I am referring to the consolidated columns here – was carrying an interest-bearing liability - a loan if you like - of $274.1m. The overall equity position of the company at that time was $630m. That is the platform on which I then base my next few comments.
As you track forward in time, I take members to page 56 of the annual report for the year 2006-07. I start to note a shift in what is now called ‘borrowings’ under Non-current Liabilities, to the end of 2006 of $307.9m; at the end of 2007 it became $338.4m. As we then track to the current environment we discover, at the end of 2008, the borrowings of this institution were $421.2m, increasing up to $559m.
Bearing in mind the cash flow statement from that year, I note the figure which appears on the bottom of the cash flow statement - $103.6m - appears on the top of the current assets. This organisation is seeing an increase in its borrowings without seeing a substantial increase in its equity position. Whilst I appreciate we are not quite comparing apples with apples in going back to the 2004 position because of the way the assets were dealt with at that time, it is sufficiently safe to make some observations.
I note the asset equity position of the Power and Water Corporation has increased by approximately $100m since 2004 to the end of 2009; the original equity position of the Power and Water Corporation in 2004 was $630m, the equity position by the end of June 2009 was $736m, or $100m more. The debt position of the organisation, the borrowings, had shifted from $274m to $559m, not including the generators which have just been purchased for Darwin and Alice Springs.
This means you have an increase in equity, whilst your total assets have increased substantially. The increase in equity has been approximately $100m, when the increase in debt has more than doubled. That is an area of concern. I am aware the Reeves report – and Reeves is now our Utilities Commissioner - into the position of the Power and Water Corporation offered the government two particular options: commercial viability and sustainability. The options which were presented to the government at the time - and this is now, to a degree, an historical document - were based on the structure of the Power and Water Corporation as it existed at the time the Reeves report was handed down. The advice given to government was if you wanted to reach a point of near sustainability then you had to increase power by 18% one year, and 5% the next year. That has now been done.
What has now occurred is the debt position of the organisation seems to have changed since that time. I am unsure how they are financing the purchase of these large items which have been trumpeted quite recently. Moreover, I also have some concerns about some of the costs the organisation has incurred in other areas, not least of which is the purchase of diesel fuel and what, I suspect, may well become a dispute as to who pays for some damage to the turbines at the Weddell Power Station. More on that later.
The position of this organisation is such that, I believe - or one could well form the impression would be a more accurate way to express it - they are starting to move towards the upper thresholds of their capacity to repay, hence, a Northern Territory capital contribution of $50m. Hence, the increase in power prices we have seen. Hence, and more importantly, the dividend holiday the government is now giving the organisation for a couple of years. These are not insubstantial amounts of money. When you consider the cash position of the organisation in the last financial year changed by about $14m, and if you do not factor in the injection of $50m, this organisation would not have been running well at all.
I believe the Northern Territory government should now start telling Territorians what the financial position of this organisation is, and is going to be over the next two years. The impression I gain from what is occurring in the organisation is it will be in a position where it will have to come back to government with one of two options. Option 1 will be the organisation will need another capital contribution. That can come in, in several forms. It can be a straight cash injection. It could be, basically, government offering to pay its debt, because government actually organises the borrowings for this institution through Treasury Corporation, or they can increase power prices.
If there is a determination or plan to increase power prices to serve the increasing debt this organisation is carrying, particularly in an environment of shifting interest rates, then the government should be telling that to the people of the Northern Territory sooner rather than later.
The way this organisation is currently positioned is it will either have to increase its tariffs or it will have to seek further assistance from government beyond mere holidays in the dividend payment, but actually seeking capital grant or grants or debt relief.
In any instance, I am concerned this government will have to do something of this nature, and it is up to this government to identify where this money is going to come from. Moreover, we heard today in Question Time the answers from one of the ministers for Essential Services; that there is going to be a substantial spend in the network of the Power and Water Corporation. What he did not say was who was carrying the borrowings and the debt for that. I hope the minister will be quick to get to his feet on this occasion, as he has the ability to do so in this debate, and inform the House how this infrastructure expenditure is going to be expended; where is it going to be expended; and how, ultimately, that infrastructure will be paid for. Will it be in the nature of capital grants to the Power and Water Corporation, debt relief through to the Treasury Corporation by the Northern Territory government either via the Power and Water Corporation itself or directly through further dividend holidays, or will it be through increased tariffs?
If one of the ministers do not climb to their feet and explain this situation, then my concerns will not be allayed but, rather, amplified.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am not going respond fulsomely to the rubbish just uttered by the member for Port Darwin opposite. He well knows that Power and Water will have a Statement of Corporate Intent. He well knows the budget books next week will answer many of his queries. He also well knows this government does not apologise for the $1.4bn investment into capital and repairs and maintenance for Power and Water Corporation, because we are repairing a system that was run down, stripped down, and almost destroyed by the greed of the CLP when they were last in government. We are rebuilding it. Yes, that takes capital; yes, that takes borrowings. We make no apology for that and, as shareholding minister, I absolutely know how that is being paid for, down to the minutiae of the detail.
I will do this for him, though, because he is foolish and he likes to whip up a bit of fear and loathing out there in the community. I will say this categorically: no tariff increases. I have said it before and I will continue to say it: no tariff increases. Do not go running around trying to whip up fear and loathing. You are a nonsense. This is the only person who does not want reliability in the power supply system. The member for Port Darwin would rather the lights go out than genuine investment in new generators to provide for reliability in the system and, important to business, growth in capacity as well - really important to business and to all those customers who will come online in the Palmerston east suburbs. There will be 15 000 people, ultimately, who will benefit from the growth in capacity.
He flicks through the Auditor-General’s report, says: ‘Yes, it is good to see there is an unqualified audit’, and then just goes off on his little rabbit chasing tangent of folly, fancy, and nonsense when it comes to Power and Water. He does not do the title ‘shadow’ any good whatsoever with this folly and fancy he pursues. Repeat, repeat, repeat: no tariff increases in Power and Water. Quite appropriately, government is making the sound acceptance of decisions of the Power and Water Board to invest in generation capacity at Channel Island to ensure we meet reliability in the system but, also obviously, growth capacity - sound decisions made by the board which this government is absolutely fully supportive of.
As shareholding minister, I am responsible for all the work done with Power and Water to ensure we can well and truly cover the capital program and, indeed, the R&M program going forward.
In the Auditor-General’s February 2010 report, he undertook the control and compliance audits and the financial statements during the period 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009. He provided some qualified audit opinions of the financial statements of NT Build. The qualification, we know, surrounds the uncertainty of whether all revenues due to the board have been recognised in NT Build’s financial statements, and whether all prescribed construction work can be identified and, therefore, corresponding levy collected.
This is certainly no reflection on the Board of NT Build; however, it is linked to the Territory building approval processes. I acknowledge the good work of Theo Tsikouris at NT Build. I know he has gone to great lengths to get payments into NT Build through the levy undertaken. Whilst I recognise the audit is qualified, I also recognise the extent to which NT Build, and the team there under Theo, go to get the employers paying into that levy. It is good to know a strategic audit and levy compliance has been introduced to ensure levy payers are declaring and remitting the correct amount of levy. For the 2009-10 reporting period, NT Build will continue to work closely with the Department of Lands and Planning to pursue suitable amendments to both the Building Act and the Planning Act in order to strengthen NT Build’s ability to maximise levy compliance.
Regarding CDU Amenities Ltd, there was a qualification opinion given, as the company did not comply with section 319, Lodgement of Annual Reports with ASIC, and section 250N, Public Company Must Hold AGM, under the Corporation Act 2001, but no other major audit findings were issued of control and compliance audits.
Within the Department of Business and Employment, an audit identified a few issues, with the audits of TRIM, MyHR and IT outsourcing that required management’s attention in relation to the need to standardise policies and procedures, the distribution of information to system users, and disaster recovery procedures. I am advised the agency is putting in place processes to address these findings.
In reference to the Honda Masters and Arafura Games of the Department of the Chief Minister and the NT Major Events Company Pty Ltd, issues were identified with the transfer process and lack of performance management system to identify, assess, and report on the achievement of performance goals. I am advised continued implementation of a post-gains review by external consultants will address the issues raised in regard to the Auditor-General’s report.
Further, on page 73 in the Legal Aid Commission, as reported in the Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly, the commission contracted Merit Partners to resolve the issue of estimating the value of certain provisions in relation to work which has been performed but unbilled at the end of the reporting period. Merit Partners has assisted the commission in reviewing the above policy. Their methodology involved meeting the principal auditor of the NT Auditor-General’s Office, and reviewing accounting policies used by Legal Aid Commissions in the different states and territories throughout Australia. Merit Partners has made a recommendation the commission adopts the South Australian approach. This is acceptable to the Auditor-General and will be adopted by the commission for the current reporting period.
I take the opportunity regarding the Auditor-General’s February Report to report on behalf of the Minister for Lands and Planning, and Infrastructure who is attending the Transport Ministerial Council and has been given a leave of absence for the Chamber. I provide a report on his behalf in thanking the Auditor-General for the work he and his team has undertaken auditing the government agencies that are the responsibility of the Minister for Construction and Lands and Planning. There were comments in relation to the Construction Division, Darwin Bus Service and Darwin Port Corporation.
In relation to the Construction Division, it is a GBD - that is, a Government Business Division - under the host agency of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for the 2008-09 financial year. It now falls under the Department of Construction and Infrastructure. Importantly, the audit did not identify any matters of significance, and no material weaknesses in controls were identified. For the 2008-09 financial year, the total number of projects and value of program increased from 2475 projects worth some $530m in 2007-08, to 2875 projects worth some $790m in 2008-09. That is a significant increase in workload for the division, and one which certainly deserves our thanks. It was a deliberate decision by the government to invest heavily in infrastructure projects across the Territory, building business confidence and promoting jobs when we saw that private sector slow down. In 2008-09, the Construction Division also undertook many initiatives, such as a whole-of-division technical training program, and numerous corporate initiatives such as the industry forum.
In relation to the Darwin Bus Service, I am pleased to note the audit did not identify any matters of significance and no material weaknesses in financial controls. The Auditor-General noted there was a rise in personnel expenditure due to a restructure and the negotiated Public Sector EBA of 4%. Repairs and maintenance increased by 7.6%, and fuel costs by 5% in comparison to 2008. The increases in expenditure were more than offset by a 12.9% increase in total income, resulting in a nett surplus for the operation. Darwin Bus results provided the ability for DBS to provide for the payment of taxation equivalents and dividend to Treasury of $267 000 and $311 000 respectively. Importantly, our Government Business Division for public transport remains in a strong financial position for the future. DBS has $9.4m in nett assets, up from $9.2m in 2008. With $3.8m in cash, $3.9m in 2008, this reflects an improved operating margin.
In relation to the Darwin Port Corporation, the Chief Financial Officer has confirmed the Auditor-General’s report found no audit issues relating to the audit of 2009 annual financial statement. This is good news for the port which, as we know, is a multiuser port which is continuing to grow at an amazing rate.
In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank our Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, who is always very thorough in his investigations and he provides a comprehensive report following in-depth review of government finances. This government makes it clear we expect all our agencies to comply with the Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations. As Treasurer, I hold our Auditor-General in very high esteem, and I thank him and his audit staff, and the teams, for the very fine work they undertake in auditing the government’s accounts.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly includes two matters relating to minister McCarthy’s portfolio responsibilities.
The first of these is the Auditor-General’s comments in respect to the Jabiru Town Development Authority. The Jabiru Town Development Authority, chaired by a senior officer of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, was established under the Jabiru Town Development Act to, first, hold land leased from the Commonwealth Director of National Parks for the township and, second, to enable contributing parties to provide funding for the original establishment of the township.
Today, the authority continues to hold the lease for the land used for Jabiru town purposes, and to administer the 1985 cost-sharing agreement relating to the establishment of the town. The Auditor-General has issued an unqualified independent audit opinion in relation to the JTDA issued on 29 October 2009. While the audit of the JTDA was unqualified, the Auditor-General has noted the authority’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the continuation of a moratorium on the authority’s future interest and repayment of loans due to the Northern Territory government totalling $8.8m.
The background to this is, in the course of establishing Jabiru, the then Northern Territory government, through the Northern Territory Treasury, provided loan funds to JTDA to fund over-design services; mainly water supply and sewerage services constructed to meet the expected population needs of the town. The expectation, at the time, was the Northern Territory would recoup this investment as further development occurred in the Kakadu region.
In 1986, the government granted JTDA a moratorium on the repayment of the loan and interest payments, in acknowledgement the anticipated growth of the town had not occurred. Each year, the authority’s auditors request the Northern Territory Treasury for confirmation of the status of the moratorium. In respect of this audit, the Northern Territory Treasury has confirmed the moratorium on the interest payment and loan repayments is ongoing.
The authority remains capable, as it has in the past, of operating and performing its functions in relation to the administration and development of Jabiru, while the government maintains its moratorium on the repayment of the loan. This situation will continue until it is addressed at some future time in the context of review of the 1985 cost-sharing agreement, and in the government decision-making about the future of the Jabiru lease arrangements.
The other area of comment in relation to minister McCarthy’s portfolio responsibilities is in relation to Territory Discoveries, a Government Business Division operating as the commercial wholesaling arm of Tourism NT. Territory Discoveries is responsible for generating business for the Territory’s tourism industry, particularly small- to medium-sized Territory tourism businesses. It does this through packaging and marketing the largest range of NT Tourism products and services to travel agents and consumers in Australia and New Zealand, as well as other major international markets.
The audit of Territory Discoveries for the year ended 30 June 2009 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion issued on 9 October 2009. The Auditor-General noted while Territory Discoveries’ end-of-year accounting and control measures were generally satisfactory, some key financial reconciliations had not been performed on a timely basis for several successive months. The Auditor-General noted weaknesses such as this represented an increased level of risk; that errors may remain undetected and not be dealt with properly.
Minister McCarthy was advised two account reconciliations were not performed on a timely basis due to the trust account having to be reconciled back to 2002-03 to resolve an outstanding GST issue. Arrangements were made for monitoring of remedial action on a monthly basis, and regular meetings were held with officers of the Department of Business and Employment to resolve this issue, resulting in both accounts being fully reconciled in June 2009.
I note the JTDA issue is long-standing, not materially affecting the operations of the JTDA, and unlikely to change pending resolution of legacy issues dating to the establishment of Jabiru and negotiations in relation to land tenure underpinning that township.
In respect of Territory Discoveries, that matter has now been attended to and, like the Treasurer, I commend the Auditor-General. The policy of this government is for all the departments which are named in Auditor-General’s reports to respond in a timely and comprehensive fashion to attempt to address, work through, and resolve the issues which have been identified by our Auditor-General.
That was not always the case. When I came to government in 2001, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee one of the first briefings we had was from the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers. Basically, he informed the Public Accounts Committee the departments did not even respond; that he felt his recommendations were just going out into the ether not being responded to in any significant way. It was very frustrating for the then Auditor-General. As a government, we moved to direct all departments they need to respond to the Auditor-General’s issues in a timely fashion and attempt to resolve outstanding issues raised by the Auditor-General.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are a government which is open, accountable, and transparent. This is a demonstration of the importance we place on the Auditor-General and his work, and his reports to this parliament.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly reporting on the Department of Business and Employment. There were six matters identified in this report; the first being a records management system audit, TRIM; MyHR; IT outsourcing; a financial statements audit, Data Centre Services; financial statement audit, NT Fleet; and financial statement audit, Government Printing Office.
I will move through those six points. With respect to the records management system audit, the audit found that IT controls over TRIM Records Management System were considered to be generally satisfactory. A number of issues were identified for management attention. The following actions were taken to resolve the identified issues: DBE was required to draft amendments to the NTG Records Management Standards and a service description; also they need to detail DBE and the agencies’ roles and responsibilities in that area. These were in response to amendments to the Information Act. Also, DBE continues to develop policies and procedures to improve efficiencies and compliance, and actively encourages agencies to share common information, guidelines and also procedures. Additionally, redundancy options will be revisited from TRIM in the future once a decision is made on the data centre services risk management strategy. The last point was with respect to the first area of TRIM - the implementation of a new back-up restore product with the facility to ensure audible periodic restore, and testing commenced in March 2010.
The second point raised by the Auditor-General was in respect to MyHR. The audit found the systems controls could be generally relied upon, and audit tests conducted were unable to breach the system security. That is always good. A number of opportunities to improve the security controls were identified resulting in following actions: the issues regarding personal information data and data classifications have been rectified; additional security controls identified in the report, where applicable, will be incorporated into maintenance programs for the system; with respect to the IT outsourcing, the audit found a formal and consultative approach had been defined and was being followed for management in IT outsourcing initiative; and the Auditor-General was of the opinion it would be prudent for DBE to confirm alignment between NTG strategic technology drivers, ICT strategic intent 2010 to 2015, and the sourcing strategies. One other point in respect to the IT outsourcing was to review - subsequent to the audit confirmed - the alignment of NTG strategic technology drivers, the ICT strategy strategic intent, and the ICT outsourcing strategy.
The Government Business Division financial statements I spoke of: the report confirmed unqualified audits, but no significant problems were identified for the three DBE Government Business Divisions; those being, the Data Centre Services, the Government Printing Office, and NT Fleet. The summarised financial statements and the analysis and commentary of the Auditor-General’s report were a fair representation of the 2008-09 financial performance and situation of the GBDs. Detailed financial information for GBDs is available in DBE’s 2008-09 financial report, which is also published on the DBE website.
Apart from a few suggestions for improvement, I guess a clean bill of health of the activities of the Department of Business and Employment. I thank the Auditor-General for his work, and I look forward to further reports to help us do better business for the Northern Territory government.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be fairly short.
This government always welcomes independent scrutiny, particularly of the Auditor-General, and I welcome this recent report. In my portfolios, the report examined the Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park Board, the Nitmiluk National Park Board, and the Territory Wildlife Park. The Auditor-General’s report identified no significant areas of concern, and I note his comments that the audits did not identify any matters of significance and no material witnesses and controls were identified.
In additional matters to the Auditor-General’s report, in respect of the wildlife parks, the Auditor-General has noted they continue to record deficits since inception, and rely on community service obligations from the government to enable cash flow requirements to be managed. Also, the Auditor-General’s report noted my department - and I have been working on it as well - has been reviewing these and other issues associated, in particular with the Territory Wildlife Park, and options currently under consideration.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 57, the Leader of the Opposition has approached me, and leave has been granted in order for him to deliver a personal explanation in regard to comments made in debate earlier today.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am making a personal explanation to meet the challenge the Chief Minister issued to me with regard to two points in particular. I wish to go beyond the bounds of the constraints of the personal explanation, but I will not fulfil that wish; I will stay within the bounds - just two points.
The first one was the accusation that I, or we, the Country Liberals, did not gain permission of the owners of the block. I state here - and it can be verified - the owner was contacted and did agree. The owner then gained the approval of his partner. The time frame for the project was discussed and agreed to by the owner. A meeting was held on-site with the owner’s consent. Permission was sought and gained to launch the initiative on the block.
The second one is - and I noticed the language changed slightly as I rose to leave the Chamber seeking the verification to refute the accusation - was the contention Henderson claims: ‘We are just imagining crime is increasing’. By way of refuting this claim, that is something the Chief Minister never said. The Eleventh Assembly, First Session, 28 April 2009, on 6 May, I asked a question of the Chief Minister. We go down through the exchange to the asking of the question, and to the Chief Minister having dealt with economic aspects, then he said:
The Chief Minister was, therefore, saying there had been no increase in crime. They are his words. He challenged me to find the words which he denied ever issuing ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, for and on behalf of the Chief Minister, I table the Northern Territory Government Response to the First Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of the report and, on behalf of the Chief Minister, reserve comments for a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I report on this government’s recent achievements in information and communication technology, and our ongoing partnerships with the private sector and the Rudd Labor federal government to deliver the benefits of world-class ICT to the Northern Territory.
I am absolutely delighted to report $75m-worth of infrastructure is being invested in the Northern Territory by telecommunications company Nextgen Networks, with substantial funding support from the federal government. Nextgen has commenced the construction of some 3800 km of a new competitive fibre-optic backbone link from Toowoomba in Queensland to the Northern Territory, Darwin, with 1500 km of this fibre link being laid in the Northern Territory. I congratulate Nextgen on winning the federal government contract to deliver this link, and also for committing over and above that to a further 760 km of fibre which will connect to Alice Springs.
As the minister for ICT policy I, and this government, have lobbied long and hard in Canberra, pushing for the Territory with Senator Conroy, the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I am delighted to report today our hard work has paid off. I emphasise $75m of this new ICT infrastructure is coming to the Territory and, as we speak, is being laid south of Alice Springs. The construction of a new network of nearly 2300 km of modern fibre cables and electronics will add more than 200 jobs to the Northern Territory economy over the next 18 months. This is an historic investment in the Northern Territory.
As stated, the investment means 200 extra jobs for the Northern Territory over the next 18 months, as well as many more economic opportunities directly generated from this project. Also, new economic, social, and environmental opportunities will be made possible for users of ICT across the Territory. More importantly, we are delivering the benefits of world-class ICT for all Territorians. We worked hard to secure this investment from the federal government, and we, on this side of the House, are proud of this. It is yet another great outcome for the Northern Territory. It is also another great outcome for the National Broadband Network.
Across the world in the last decade, we have seen an extraordinary growth for our use in information communication technology. Information technology has created new economic opportunities, opened up new social vistas, and has made it possible to maintain our environmental security in ways we have never been able to do before. Information communication technology has been the biggest contributor to productivity and service improvements in business and governments for the last 20 years, and it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Indeed, many members of this Chamber use these technologies on a regular basis. Some have used them more productively than others.
Given our demographics and geography in the Northern Territory, few places in the world have so much to gain from world-class ICT. Yet, only a decade ago, with a few noteworthy exceptions, the Territory was seen as the ICT backwater of the developed world. That is why I am proud to report today this government understands the importance of information communication to Territorians, and is delivering an unprecedented ICT capacity and infrastructure to the Northern Territory. The scale of the ICT investment in the Territory to provide Territorians with infrastructure required to enjoy the benefits of world-class ICT in the Territory has been enormous. This government has worked hard to ensure jobs, economic opportunity, community development, and environmental health are delivered to Territorians through these fantastic investments.
Fibre links are the arteries of modern communication such as phone calls, videoconferencing, television and, of course, the Internet. Optical fibre provides the capacity to carry the enormous amounts of data used in 21st century homes and businesses.
In 2008, this government partnered with Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan, and the Northern Land Council to deliver $35m worth of 800 km fibre link connecting nine communities, including seven of the Territory’s growth towns, and more than 10 000 people across Arnhem Land. This project has been acknowledged, both nationally and internationally, for the great outcome it has delivered. The schools in these communities now have broadband links comparable with schools both in Darwin and Alice Springs. Some 3600 students in these communities can now enjoy high-speed broadband as opposed to the old, slow, and unreliable Internet connections. Over 60% of all Territorians now have access to broadband. Compare that to 2002, where there were a handful of locations in the Territory that had access. Another example is the hospital at Nhulunbuy. For the first time, it has reliable access to the online patient information system.
In 2009, the government successfully lobbied the Australian government, and supported industry bids to the Australian government for a new fibre link to Darwin to provide Territorians with new capacity and new competition for telecommunications. The project, through Nextgen, will provide fibre links for interconnection at the following places in the Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Noonamah, Howard Springs, Berrimah, Palmerston, Casuarina, Nightcliff and Darwin.
The completion of these links will bring increased competition to service provision and competitively priced broadband services for NT businesses, something I am sure people have been crying out for, for many years. This government has worked hard to ensure improvements to the telecommunication services are delivered to Territorians with a significant focus on our remote communities and growth towns. Last year, the Northern Territory government again successfully secured the Australian government’s joint funding of $15m through the Digital Regions Initiative in ICT investment in 17 of our 20 growth towns. This will bring the number of Territory growth towns connected to high-speed broadband from 11 up to 17, and allow the deployment of applications to improve health services, education, and staff professional support and development.
To help not-for-profit organisations in the Northern Territory, this government has again recycled and refurbished well over 1800 ex-government computers including 40 to support East Timorese organisations.
Mobile phone coverage is now available to around 40 towns and communities throughout the Northern Territory. In 2001, only 11 towns and communities had mobile phone coverage. With a car kit installed, there is almost continuous mobile phone coverage now available from Darwin to Mataranka and it is something I enjoy as I am driving through the northern part of my electorate.
With this infrastructure in place, this government delivers the foundations of world-class ICT infrastructure and services to Territorians. There are many benefits to that; obviously, the jobs, the economic opportunities, social development, and environmental security. ICT applications are the muscles of modern information and communication networks. Whether it is Internet banking, e-mail, distance education, e-health, Facebook, YouTube or e-tax, applications allow us to access the benefits of world-class ICT. ICT applications developed by the Northern Territory government departments improve and extend the delivery of our services to more Territorians, and makes government more efficient.
As a result of sustained commitment from this government in funding from both the Territory and Commonwealth governments, the Territory now has the most advanced electronic health records systems in Australia. These records allow clinicians and the public health system throughout the Northern Territory to view the health records of Territorians who require treatment away from home or in an emergency. The broadband infrastructure going into our 17 growth towns will allow this application to be enhanced in this area of e-health.
It will also allow clinicians in these communities to utilise medical high definition videoconferencing cards - something we did a presentation to the Ministerial Council in Alice Spring last year - and also allow connection via broadband to specialists in Darwin, Alice Springs, interstate or, indeed, anywhere in the world, to diagnose and provide advice for patients and conditions. More patients will be able to be treated locally without the logistical and excess costs of travelling hundreds of kilometres to see specialists. With the introduction of standard definition videoconferencing, families in these communities will also be able to communicate with other family members who have had to attend Darwin or Alice Springs hospitals for treatment.
In addition, broadband connectivity will allow clinicians and teachers remote access to powerful online learning programs. While in their place of work or home, they will be able to receive online learning that was previously restricted by the lack of broadband availability. This also creates the opportunity for schools to use interactive video to deliver expertise of specialist subjects teachers to remote students through virtual schooling. Schools will no longer be limited to their ability to attract and retain specialist teachers to live in the community.
Spatial information such as Google Earth is becoming increasingly important as a tool for businesses and governments to make better decisions on investments and the allocation of assets and resources. Spatial information can be used to link other information across different organisations, thereby supporting the delivery of improved and integrated services to the community commonly termed as ‘joined up government’. The Northern Territory government has, for many years, been a leading jurisdiction in the application of spatial information systems and technology in the fields of land and natural resource management and development.
To make it easier for Territory businesses to interact with government online for licences and permits, this government is developing Smart Forms, which allows applications to be made simply and conveniently from your computer at home or in the office. ICT is also progressively transforming support services in government. An example of this is, currently across Northern Territory government agencies, there are 15 000 purchasing-related paper forms per month processed, and 4000 recruitment-related paper forms processed each month. Replacing the processing of paper forms with electronic workflow has a potential to significantly improve efficiency and accuracy, and reduce the carbon footprint associated with government’s administration and meeting our Climate Change Policy.
An electronic invoice management system is currently being implemented which will virtually eliminate manual processing and reduce paper flow, improve accuracy, enable tracking and reporting, and reduce costs. Systems such as this reduce the government’s carbon footprint by reducing the use of paper forms, and free up resources for the redeployment to the provision of services to our community.
Other corporate services, systems, and developments which have been implemented, or are in the process of being implemented, include: electronic travel management; recruitment; automation to replace manual processing of timesheets, overtime payments and casual pays; and automation of purchasing processes for procurement below the tender threshold. Most of our 400 000 accounts created when the NT government pays for goods and services each year are now electronically recorded and processed.
Later this year, to help businesses manage their cash flows, this government will begin sending text messages notifying suppliers immediately when payments are in their banks. This government is consistently seeking ways to improve online services, support, and interaction with the Territory business community.
I want businesses in the Territory to be able to access business information, interact and communicate with government service providers, and engage in regulatory processes online in simple, easy and satisfactory ways. For this, then, the Henderson Labor government is developing a comprehensive business centric and seamless end-to-end online service to business customers which will include the implementation of the COAG initiatives, which are business online services and national licensing systems.
ICT accounts for most of the productivity improvements in businesses so it is important the Territory has a local ICT industry with the capabilities, skills, and modern practices to service the NT business community, organisations, and government. Forecasts show there will be an increase in demand for ICT workers in the short-, medium-, and long-term future. For the last three years, the Henderson Labor government, in conjunction with Fujitsu Australia, has run a road show to Territory students in Years 8 and 9, encouraging them to consider a career in ICT. These students certainly know how to use the technology - I know my sons do – but are less aware of the range of career choices available in ICT.
In addition, it is important Territorians have the basic skills to effectively use these applications and benefit from them. In 2009, this government secured $2m from the Australian government to establish free public Internet access in libraries and learning centres in 40 remote communities. Local library staff will be trained to teach community members applications such as Internet banking and how to record their local history on computers for future generations.
Earlier this year, federal Small Business minister, Craig Emerson, and federal Tourism minister, Martin Ferguson, announced the Business Enterprise Centres in the Northern Territory will receive $320 000 in funding to deliver a Territory-wide program called Get Online NT. Funding is provided from the Rudd government’s $10m Small Business Online Program, which has been boosted by another $4m to extend it to more tourism small business operators.
In the Northern Territory, additional financial support of $40 000 will be provided by this government, and the Bendigo Bank will provide $15 000. BECNT has joined with the NTIT1PL, a long-established Darwin service provider, and Patrick Baker Pty Ltd, an Adelaide-based industry leader, to provide a comprehensive training package which will assist NT businesses to get online and improve their website capability to attract additional sales and revenue.
Targeting 675 NT business owners and operators across a range of industry sectors, the Northern Territory program will deliver a series of 60 informative, interactive and collaborative workshops, followed by one-on-one business coaching sessions. Tourism, real estate, accommodation and hospitality services, construction, trade and pastoral industry sectors are among the priority industry sectors to be part of this training program.
The Get On Line theme complements existing training programs delivered through the Department of Business and Employment, such as Upskills and the October Business Month. ICT has enormous potential to help Territorians overcome barriers of distance and isolation to access services, and also develop enterprises and manage their environments and interact with the rest of the world. That is why this government has been working hard to ensure all Territorians have access to the benefits of world-class ICT. In many ways, we are rolling out the future. The recent investments in ICT I have outlined in this statement tonight, such as the Backbone Blackspots Program, the Arnhem Land Fibre Project, and the Digital Regions Initiative, will enable Territorians to grab hold of their futures today in real ways.
This government’s ICT policy enables projects like the One Laptop per Child to connect to the Internet, and allow remote community schoolchildren to get the full benefit of this terrific project which this government has supported wholeheartedly. This government’s ICT policy assists traditional owners and Indigenous people, together with Indigenous rangers in Arnhem Land, to identify hot spots and manage wildfires and generate millions of dollars-worth of carbon offsets. This government’s ICT policy has connected the hospital at Nhulunbuy, for the first time, to reliable access to the Northern Territory’s world-class online patient information system.
We will continue to build on terrific empowering real life examples like these into the future. I am looking forward to contributions from other members.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House today. The devolvement of information and communications infrastructure for any country or state is vital. The advancement in medical treatment is breathtaking. Interactive learning, interactive whiteboards have begun to revolutionise the way we teach and reach out to our students, no matter where they are. The advancement in technology in the world today is simply blistering.
Just 10 years ago, Smart Phones were a dream for the average person worldwide. Just five years ago, Smart Phones began to appear. Facebook was a thought bubble. The Internet cloud was building, not week by week, but minute by minute. In August 2008, I got my first Smart Phone. Today, most members in this parliament have a Smart Phone, allowing e-mails to reach you 24 hours a day …
Mr Vatskalis: Unfortunately.
Mr BOHLIN: Unfortunately. … never out of reach. Mine is always just there. Your calendar is directly linked, updated live from your office in the palm of your hand. The power of the Smart Phone far outperforms that of a Commodore 64 in the 1980s. My Smart Phone has more than 16 times the RAM - random access memory - of my first computer.
The minister has wandered around the National Broadband Network and some of the benefits of technology. It is now time for the minister to cough up the detail. The minister claims to have worked hard with the federal Communications minister, Conroy, on the delivery of the NBN for the Territory. If this is true, then I call upon minister Henderson to now disclose and table the implementation study - that has cost the taxpayers of Australia $25m - into how the Rudd government, your comrades, intends to deliver and implement fibre to the door across Australia. The details of the delivery of the NBN are, to date, missing in action. The Rudd spend-a-thon has continued without a detailed implementation plan or a cost benefit analysis.
However grateful we might be of NextGen’s input to complete the fibre optic to Alice Springs - a 760 km fibre link at their own cost - we need an explanation from this government as to why any business would hand over $19m investment without some form of connection back. What is the link other than fibre optic? What is that link, and why would any company, in today’s climate, say: ‘No worries, mate, I will invest $19m into you’? That is the cost; at an average of $25 000 per kilometre fibre optic - that is still the going rate as at last week - it adds up to $19m.
I ask the minister to explain how the plan will be delivered to the door in Nightcliff, Marlow Lagoon, Howard Springs, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Wanguri, or Malak for that matter - and the list goes on? How will it be delivered to the door? The minister must explain how long it will take to deliver fibre to the door in those suburbs, and how they intend to get around the underground infrastructure access issues.
Will this government lie in bed with its comrades Rudd and Conroy in Canberra, and continue to press the gun to the head of Telstra and its 1.5 million shareholders to blackmail them into handing over the cabling infrastructure to Rudd to allow the completion of NBN?
The minister must explain how much it will cost the end user, the mums and dads, the brothers and sisters, to have this 100 Mb broadband speed in our home? The minister must explain who will pay for the retrofit of all hardware required in the home for fibre to the door, and who will maintain this and ensure compliance with the USO - the universal service obligation. Who will pay for this?
Fibre optic is dramatically different to copper. A brief run is simple, currently, even if we have fibre in many areas, which we do, it comes to the suburb corner, comes into an interchange or a node, all the little signals of fibre optic are converted and sent down the line to your house via copper currently, as an electrical charge, which self feeds.
With fibre, because it does not actually carry electricity but a light source, you must have power sources at both ends of the optic-fibre cable. If you do not, then it will not work in your home! Under the universal service obligation, it must last for eight hours without power; that is, for fax machines, Internet, and telephones. That means in the home we must have something to convert the fibre-optic signal, we must have a connection which goes to your telephone - whether that be the same phone, or perhaps a new phone. We must have a UPS, an uninterrupted power supply, to ensure that converter will run for eight hours. Then, we must have a fairly large box similar to the size of the power box outside - but it must be inside, it must be ventilated, it must be big enough to protect so children cannot get into it. This will allow the system to comply with the USO. Who will pay for that cost?
The current lines development has fibre to the door, and the current back of envelope figure I obtained last week was around $4000 a house. Who will pay for that cost? There is no plan; there is no outline to say who will pay for the cost! An estimate on cost for monthly rates will be $200-plus a month for your new Internet service if you sign up for the new NBN. Plus, who - if most people take up the offer - will then pay for all the hardware? The cost will either be passed on to you or the Telco provider will have to hold the cover.
The minister must start explaining himself. He must start explaining the plan to the people so they have an understanding of where it is going. This is a massive infrastructure program of $43bn, yet, there is no detailed plan. Will you have to dig up all of the verges or everyone’s front garden to get the fibre to the door? Many places do not have cable through conduit to the door. Often, they are direct buried. Who will pay for that? At what cost? What impost? They are all reasonable questions which must be answered.
I want to clarify the government’s position on communications in the Northern Territory. In last year’s estimates process, I had the opportunity to ask questions of minister Hampton, and I would now like to make a comparison for those answers …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I remind you, when you are referring to ministers, it is by their portfolio responsibilities, not their names.
Mr BOHLIN: Roger, Madam Deputy Speaker. The minister for ICT, which is information, communications and technology. I will read extracts from Parliamentary Record which, for everyone, is available on the Internet. I will read some points. During last year’s estimates process, I asked questions of the minister for ICT. One of those questions, in part, was:
The response from the minister:
He went on to ramble about what the federal government was doing. The question was: ‘What do you believe, what is your understanding, minister?’ I followed on with a further question, part of which was, in the last line when I had to ask it again:
The minister then told us, ‘… you know I have been on the front foot …,’ and continued to talk about what the feds were doing. I again came back to the minister:
The Minister for ICT’s answer: ‘I will ask Mr Graham Symons to detail that’. I asked the minister for his response, his understanding, and he straightaway, when questioned three times on it, had to hand-ball it because he could not answer the question.
As we continued through our talks in the estimates process, I continued to question the minister. ‘What is your plan?’ At the end of one of my questions, I said:
The minister’s response, astoundingly, was:
He is the minister for ICT! I went on to say:
The minister’s reply:
What a hypocrite! Let us, for the record, recap. I will not recap what the minister said in estimates last year, except to say he did not even believe a major part of his portfolio was his responsibility. How can he blindly follow the Rudd’s spend-a-thon? No plan; a $25m implementation study vanished into thin air - the plan itself, the delivery nuts and bolts, the guide to how it is to be delivered. Why not be of questioning minds when the play orders of the game are non-existent for the review of the people - at a cost of $25m? More importantly, the workshop manual on delivery standards and methods may well save lives. The minister dare question our questioning when the Rudd spend-a-thon has gone from one nightmare to another and, now, another. Yes, we stand here questioning it for the safety of people.
SIHIP is a $750m Rudd-applied project failure given to the Northern Territory Labor government to implement results. We see, two years on, tens of millions of dollars consumed and six houses fast-tracked. Whoops! I got a little carried away; I used one of the Labor lines: fast-tracked. I am confused by this term because, after two years and tens of millions of dollars of your resources, you only supplied six houses. I am sorry, I was a little confused and carried away by the moment, but fast-tracked it is not - like the release of land. SIHIP implementation is an absolute joke! And you wonder why I question the NBN and this minister’s lack of knowledge.
The Rudd spend-a-thon continues with the pink batts insulation rebate scheme. Four young Australians have, tragically, died installing insulation, there have been 120 house fires as of 24 March 2010, and 1500 potentially deadly electrified roofs out of 48 000 homes with foil insulation installed - that is only those with the foil insulation. There are calls for a full inspection of every house and a Royal Commission into the program. Labor could not even deliver free insulation, let alone govern the country. You cannot trust the government that bungles its giveaway of pink batts to get it right with broadband. You cannot trust the government that bungles its Indigenous housing program to get it right with broadband.
The insulation scheme of the Rudd spend-a-thon was allocated over $2.4bn to insulate an estimated 2.9 million homes. This scheme of $2.4bn cost the lives of Australians and, still today, puts lives at risk. We have a plan of $43bn, and he dare have a go at us for questioning it.
We now come to the NBN, the National Broadband Network - the NBN plan, a plan without a plan. The minister for ICT wants the Country Liberals to blindly jump on board the Rudd spend-a-thon without asking questions. It is a $43bn plan, $33bn greater than the original $10bn NBN tender, yet it delivers about 5% less ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is the minister’s statement.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, there is not a quorum. Ring the bells.
Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, the $33bn more than the original $10bn plan, a total of $43bn, delivers this great broadband to about 5% less of all Australian residents. Who would not question such a plan - or plan-less plan - the $25m implementation study which is yet to be given the light of day?
Minister for ICT, when did you first become aware of the life-threatening concerns that are now plaguing the NBN roll-out? You should listen, all right? I will say that again, minister, when did you first become aware of the life-threatening concerns that are now plaguing the NBN roll-out? When did you intend to advise this House of the potential risk of electrocution during the installation phase that has occurred in Tasmania during the first phase of roll-out in that state?
Minister, I call on you to now advise the House of this alarming, life-threatening NBN plan and what you, as the ICT minister, have done to ensure the safety of all Territorians involved in our implementation of the NBN plan. I call on you to tell this House of the conversations in detail, fax correspondence, e-mail communication, your advisors’ communications with the federal Senator Conroy or his advisors, on the electrocution that occurred in Tasmania in March which, until 27 April 2010, appears to have been kept secret.
I am disgusted by one of the members of this House who chooses to laugh at this risk. I will point out some minor articles here. On news.com.au, dated 28 April 2010 - in fact, it hit the web first on April 26:
Another article on abc.net.au/news has the following headline:
This is a quote from Mr Quigley: ‘I think it was related to an insulator on a pole’. ‘He thinks’ he has the answer, whilst lives are risked. Another article, abc.net.au, was dated 25 March:
It then goes on, but not once mentions the electrocution.
From 27 March to date, we continue to see more threads on the wire coming out about electrocutions and safety risks. News.com.au: ‘Safety Concerns Plague NBN in Tasmania’. Scrolling down towards the last paragraph, it said: ‘There have been six incidents reported’. Six incidents reported, and we are expected to jump on board and say: ‘Hallelujah to the NBN plan’, which has no plan when lives are at risk.
From The Mercury off the Internet, themercury.com.au, the headline reads ‘Broadband Rollout Backlash’.
This is another Rudd spend-a-thon that has no plan - a $25m implementation study not brought into the daylight for scrutiny. This is another enormous spend which has no plan. That is why lives are at risk. There is no difference to the Labor insulation program that claimed four lives; a program that should have a royal inquiry. This lack of planning appears wherever you see Labor blindly following comrades in Canberra, fearing to question the leader while lives are put a risk.
Minister, you said in estimates you are on the front foot of this NBN plan. Where are your feet now? What responsibilities do you take, along with your federal comrade in Canberra, Senator Conroy? We read some great quotes …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. It is the government’s statement after all; they are not even here to listen to it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. There is no quorum, ring the bells.
We have a quorum, turn off the bells.
Mr BOHLIN: I am going to skip a few of my points here. Do I have an extension?
Ms Purick: Take your time.
Mr BOHLIN: Labor rejects the need for cost-benefit analysis. I quote Finance minister, Lindsay Tanner: ‘The project could not be subject to a normal cost-benefit analysis because of the long-term unknowables’. That comes from the ABC Insider program on 20 September 2009. The long-term unknowables! This is their plan, and they admit there are unknowables. Ministers for mates; Senator Conroy admits he recommended senior long-standing Labor figure, Mike Kaiser, be appointed to NBN Co and, soon after, Mike Kaiser was appointed on a $450 000 annual salary. Senator Conroy told Senate Estimates on 8 February: ‘I suggested him as a person of possible relevant experience’ ...
A member: Jobs for the boys.
Mr BOHLIN: Jobs for the boys! Jobs for everyone. Here you are! We are going to fund this place for $43bn. Jobs and jobs and jobs.
There is $30m wasted on NBN, one failed tender process. On 3 February 2010, an Audit-General’s report …
A member: Tut, tut, tut.
Mr BOHLIN: Tut, tut, tut, I hear coming from the other side – tut, tut, tut when I am talking of an Auditor-General’s report. It is not something you should take lightly, or should you perhaps leave? It revealed the total cost of the failed NBN mark 1 tender process was in excess of $30m. The report revealed Senator Conroy oversaw a fatally flawed and costly process, and he ignored increasing warnings the process was failing. This is about Senator Conroy. This is what an Auditor-General has said about one of our federal Senators the minister from this House says we must follow blindly and accept everything he says as all great. We have an Auditor-General who says the Senator has failed; he oversaw a patently flawed process.
Under the headline, ‘Labor ignores expert industry concerns’, AAPT CEO, Paul Broad said the NBN plan was absolute rubbish. He said it is a complete waste of money: ‘If they spent one tenth of it (the proposed $43bn) they would probably be right on the money. People want wireless as they want a more flexible life’, was a comment he made in The Australian, 19 November 2009, page 24.
Michael Porter from the Committee for Economic Development of Australia said: ‘That is a pretty important sounding thing’. Let us skip to what Mr Mike Fries, Chief Executive of Liberty Global and Chairman of regional pay-TV provider, Austar, said; that the NBN costs were baffling: ‘Do consumers need 100 Mbps? No, what they need is access’.
They need access; you got that right. The safety of workers and the public should be the No 1 priority for the rollout of the NBN, not only in Tasmania but here in the Northern Territory. We did not hear one single word from that minister which identified there were problems. There are problems, and he has ignored them. He will be held to account for his ignorance.
If the minister and his federal comrades had actually taken the time to plan the NBN, we may have seen serious expansion of ICT services throughout the entire Northern Territory. We would have seen mobile phones and wireless broadband all over the Territory highway system and, in most …
Dr Burns: We might have.
Mr BOHLIN: Did you wake up?
Dr Burns: No, no. I was just thinking about the member for Fong Lim and his promises about highway coverage.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move, pursuant to Standing Order 77, the member for Drysdale be given an extra 10 minutes to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BOHLIN: I thank you very much.
If they had planned this properly, we could have seen the entire Northern Territory …
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am trying to listen to the remarks of the member for Drysdale, but government members keep interrupting. I cannot hear what he is saying. I find it pretty disgraceful.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling. If members could cease interjecting, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, we could have seen mobile phone and wireless broadband all over the Territory’s highway system and in most, if not all, our communities had they planned it right and used the money much more efficiently - had the federal government even considered to consult before they rolled out their plan and said: ‘Here is our great $43bn plan that has no plan, no nuts and bolts’.
We have a map here. It is a beautiful looking thing and is a time line of the expansion of ICT services into the Northern Territory. It depicts where fibre-optic cable is and where it is not. It depicts - for those on the other side who have problems seeing it, the little grey splotches are where we have NextG coverage. We are not really doing that well for NextG coverage. We have a lot of fibre-optic cable ...
Ms Scrymgour: Do you understand it?
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, I do actually. The thing is I actually understand it very well. Thank you, member across the floor. I have had a very extensive brief and I do not think the minister has. Would this not be much better, instead of having two lots of red lines all over the place which depict fibre optic, why would we not have, perhaps, a lot more grey which shows where we have mobile phone and wireless broadband coverage? We could have our own little blue Kombi van …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is the government’s statement after all. I expect them to be here to listen.
Dr Burns: It is everyone’s responsibility to maintain a quorum.
Mr Tollner: That is exactly right, minister.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr Tollner: More to the point, it is the government’s responsibility, but anyhow.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, it is actually all members’ responsibility to maintain a quorum.
Mr Tollner: It is but, ultimately, it is the government who wants to keep the party going.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, we have a quorum. Member for Drysdale, you have the call.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just shown a map I am sure the other side has the opportunity to view if they like. It shows the ability for a further extension of our networks, if the money had been appropriately applied to the Territory’s needs. We heard the Minister for ICT talk about one laptop for all these students. Well, I do not see a laptop for every student in every school and wireless Internet coverage to deal with that.
The minister talked of how his government has heavily invested, and we looked at comments from the web by our own Chief Minister. I read those comments from newsrooom.nt.gov.au with a backslash and a few other things:
That is a great investment, but the way the Minister for ICT touts it, it was their money - it was all theirs and they did the world’s best thing. Well, he chipped in $6.8m. Not even a third of the project was funded by the Northern Territory government; that is how much they have put their weight behind the expansion of ICT service in the Northern Territory.
Minister, you gloated of your outcomes and, if it was not for others, you would have achieved little or nothing in the last 10 years. Not that it matters because hardly anyone sees it. This map depicts where we have government involvement in the expansion of ICT services. A proper briefing, if the minister have had the time to take one, would also have identified that the ACCC controls the line rental costs - not any one particular Telco, but the ACCC! Unfortunately, because they break it down into segments, let us say four segments - 1, 2, 3, 4 - throughout Australia and charge different rates, places such as where you come from, Madam Deputy Speaker, are charged at the highest rate, above what is the common competitive price of, let us say, $32 a month capped. They charge the line out at over $48 a month - and that is the ACCC, not by any particular single Telco. So, competitive nature is driven by the federal government. They are right under the foot of the federal government. If you want to talk about competitive nature, then you bring in that balance and you sort that out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to wrap up, the details of the delivery of the NBN that, to date, are missing in action, and the Rudd’s spend-a-thon has continued without a detailed implementation plan or a cost-benefit analysis. I ask the minister to explain how the plan will be delivered to the door in Nightcliff, Marlow Lagoon, Howard Springs, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Wanguri, or Malak for that matter? The list goes on: Maningrida, Gunbalanya, Ramingining, Hermannsburg, Papunya, Elliott - it just goes on.
There is the list - look at these little things here. What is this? In the Barkly Shire, a place called Tara will not get NBN. Another one, Canteen Creek in the Barkly Shire, will not get it. That is Barkly Shire. Who is the minister for there? I do not know. In the Victoria Daly Shire, Pigeon Hole, they will not get it - Peppimenarti, Victoria Daly Shire. Some of the towns in the electorates of members on that side are the ones that will be hurt the most, because they failed to deliver for the Territory in an appropriate way.
They ask us to jump on board when there are risks, and they fail to disclose to this parliament, the people of the Territory, when there has been life-threatening risks. The minister gave his statement, but not once did he declare this program that he throws his weight behind has potential life-threatening risks. It is all over the wire, the Internet, talking about life-threatening risks. This minister has failed to advise this House. He is culpable. He should be brought to order. The Chief Minister must make him explain what he is up to and why has he not been honest to the public. You cannot even get high-speed troopies in the Barkly ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You can get high-speed troopies, but you cannot get high-speed broadband. The minister must explain how long it will take to deliver fibre to the door, and how they intend to get around underground infrastructure access issues; and how they expect, and what they expect the mums and dads of the Northern Territory to pay for this service. What is the cost? Minister for ICT, cough up, what is the cost? What is that cost burden to the public to have this great scheme, this spend-a-thon? Will the government lie in bed with your comrades, Rudd and Conroy in Canberra, to continue to press the gun to the head of Telstra and its 1.5 million shareholders, to blackmail them into handing over cabling infrastructure to Rudd to allow the completion of NBN? The minister must explain how much it will cost the end user - the mums and dads, brothers and sisters - to have this 100 Mb broadband speed in our homes. The minister must explain who will pay the retrofit of all the hardware required into the homes, fibre to the door, and who will maintain this and ensure compliance with the USO.
Minister, you must demonstrate your understanding and delivery of this NBN plan that has nearly already taken six lives. Tell Territorians you know what you and the federal Labor government are doing. Tell them that you know what you are doing. However, the problem is, I do not think you know what you are doing.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to an update on the pairs arrangement for this evening. The member for Barkly is paired with the member for Fong Lim until the Assembly rises this evening.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I thank the member for Johnston for allowing me the jump on this particular occasion. I have an appointment a little later that I want to get to, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this somewhat extraordinary statement the minister has put in front of us. I thank the member for Johnston. I know, quite often, the members on the other side do not like hearing some of the things that I have to say, so I appreciate the opportunity ...
Dr Burns: Oh, I love it.
Mr TOLLNER: I know the member for Johnston loves it. It gives him great opportunity to respond, at times.
At the outset, I should say that everyone wants to see better, faster, and cheaper ICT services everywhere. I do not think it matters where you live on the globe; people want to see information and communication technology delivered to them quicker, cheaper, and faster - faster speeds of a better quality and reliability. I believe that is something that possesses everyone - whether you are Labor, Country Liberals, Greens, Democrats, whether you are in America or Australia, or the Northern Territory or India; it does not really matter. We all want to see things improve.
This industry is improving at an incredibly quick rate. It was not so long ago mobile phones were invented, and broadband was just something that used to happen in the major centres of big capital cities. All of a sudden - and I am talking literally only a decade or so ago - such is the nature of this industry everyone wants everything now. I fully appreciate how difficult it is for governments and organisations around the world to deliver things because, obviously, you cannot do everything all at once. You have to have a stepped method of doing that, because it is just not possible to keep up with people’s demands in this particular sector.
I have to say, reading through this and listening to the minister make this statement, to me, this minister’s statement is a serious victory of fantasy over logic. Anyone in their right mind who knows a little about this industry will understand that. I have questioned today why this minister would be putting this quite bizarre statement in front of the Chamber to discuss. Maybe there are ulterior motives. Maybe there are issues of a political nature he wants to get off the table - focus in another area.
The minister is a great person; I enjoy a chat with him from time to time. However, I have to say he has never impressed me as a person who understands the technicalities of the ICT industry, and who has spent time and effort working through policies and procedures and things that might actually improve information and communications technology in the Territory. Looking at the speech he gave, I do not, for a second, believe it was the minister who prepared it. There are some things in there are completely out of his league. As I said, this is a victory of fantasy over logic. The previous speaker, the member for Drysdale, spoke about some of the problems this NBN has in Australia.
It is probably worthwhile stepping back a little and understanding where this thing came from. Prior to the 2001 federal election, the then Coalition government had a plan to roll out Opal, which was something quite different to what the Rudd opposition, at that time, was proposing. The Coalition policy was about putting in place wireless broadband with towers and making broadband far more accessible. It was not so much about speed; it was more about making broadband accessible for a range of people who otherwise could not get it.
Needless to say, Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor Party detected within the community a certain desire to see faster broadband. The technology has not been able to keep up with demand, and neither has the infrastructure. Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor Party noticed this and acted on it. I suppose, at the time, you would have to say it was very good politics. They came out, as a pre-election promise, with the National Broadband Network. I think they allocated $4.5bn to the National Broadband Network.
Well, lo and behold, as we all know now, Kevin Rudd and Labor were elected, and one of the things they wanted to do was fulfil their election mandate and get a National Broadband Network happening. Eighteen months into it, and having spent more than $30m on a tender program, the whole thing fell down in ashes. It was seen right across Australia as a complete disaster. Kevin Rudd and his government, like so many other things, totally stuffed up the whole process and the plan. Not one to lie down and die, Kevin Rudd immediately jumped up and allocated a massive $43bn to National Broadband Network 2.
He had no mandate whatsoever to spend $43bn of taxpayers’ money. He did not go to an election committing $43bn of taxpayers’ money to a government-owned network. Bear in mind we have had 20 years of privatisation in Australia with telecommunications companies. We have completed the final sale of Telstra, and Kevin Rudd, after 20 years of privatisation with both Labor and Liberal federal governments, has turned that completely on its ear and is putting $43bn into a government-owned telecommunications network - right at the stage where most Australians have decided there is a level of competition out there in the marketplace within this industry that could easily pick up that slack. But no, Kevin Rudd has decided $43bn. Just to give you a bit of an idea of what $43bn is in the telecommunications world - $43bn is more than the current total valued assets of Telstra. It is more than the value of all of the assets of our biggest telecommunications company in Australia, and the government now owns that. After privatising government telecommunication services over 20 years, we have now gone back into the future, I suppose - however you want to call it - to the point where now government is only owning a major piece of telecommunications infrastructure.
You have to ask the question: why would you trust Kevin Rudd and Labor in particular, and probably more generally any government, to handle a private business better than a private business? Why would you entrust a Labor government which has a track record - in a very short period of time by the way - of failure? We have heard, on numerous occasions, of a range of failures Kevin Rudd has experienced in the short time he has been Prime Minister of this country. You do not have to go too far -. SIHIP, the FACS fiasco, people being killed with pink batts and their installation. There is a whole range, including the relaxation of border protection policies to the point where we now have a flood of illegal immigrants coming into Australia. There seems no end to that. Everything Mr Rudd touches seems to turn to custard. But, no, here we have a federal government now that is going to spend $43bn on something the private sector would have been quite happy themselves to pick up.
As the member for Drysdale said, the day Kevin Rudd announced this, he announced it through a media release. There was no detail. Government announced a $43bn policy in a media release without any economic modelling, without a detailed business plan, without any analysis of customer demand, the financials, or the technology choices. They, basically, said: ‘We are going for high-speed fibre-optic cable to the home and that is better than the node. We will go straight to the home and we will spend $43bn of taxpayers’ money’. That is where we are at the moment.
We have a minister trotting into this place, putting this statement out, talking about the wonderful deal this government has secured from the Commonwealth government. They are not saying how much money they are spending or what they are going to do to assist Territorians in getting better services, getting faster broadband or the like. They just came in here and, basically, announced the fact that Kevin Rudd and Nextgen have decided to build 3500 km of fibre optic here in the Territory and through Queensland and, somehow or other, this is just a great boom. As the member for Drysdale said, this creates more questions than it answers.
The questions are in some ways: what about the people of Papunya, Mutitjulu, Wadeye, Numbulwar and all these remote communities? You know we all know about Kevin Rudd’s other great plan of one laptop per child. It is an interesting contradiction in itself. Kevin Rudd has prescribed that we are going to have fibre to the home but he is going to give everyone a laptop which is, of course, a mobile workstation. You unplug your laptop, you go somewhere else. Would it not be far better and far more complementary if you are going to give everyone a laptop, to give them wireless broadband?
In fact, before this debate started, I wandered around the crew on this side of the Chamber - and I apologise to members opposite; I should have surveyed you guys as well – and asked the 13 people who sit on this side of the Chamber whether they have taken up the Legislative Assembly’s option of home broadband, or whether they have taken up the option of the wireless turbo modems. I am sure everyone knows the difference. On this side, of these 13 people, eight people …
Dr Burns: Thirteen? You would be in government.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, I am counting the two Independents as well, minister.
Dr Burns: Oh, I see. You had me worried for a while there.
Mr TOLLNER: There was one person on this side of the Chamber who did not know what they had ...
Dr Burns: Do not tell us who that is.
Mr TOLLNER: I will not say; I have no great political allegiance with the person, I have to say, but I will not name him …
Mr Wood: Three guesses!
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, there was one person who did not know what they had. There were another three people who had both. They had paid for broadband into their home, or they paid for a plan to get their wireless modem but, in any case, they had both. All of the rest had wireless modems. Why is that? It is because, when people come to making choices about what they want in information communication technology, and their provider, it is not necessarily high speeds. They are not necessarily after high speeds. In most cases - and it is estimated in the majority of cases - people are actually after mobility. That is one of the great things, I suppose - if it ever eventuates - about one laptop per child, because the child will have mobility with that laptop. However, there is not too much they can do with their laptop if the only places they can plug it in are at home or at the school. It is not like they can go down to the local park and plug in their wireless modem if what they are being prescribed by government is fibre to the home.
The question I have to ask, and what Kevin Rudd is suggesting, is people are demanding high-speed broadband - 100Mbps. I have a quote here somewhere from one of the major telecommunications companies, if I can just track it down. Here we go; it is from Mike Fries. I know the member for Drysdale also mentioned him. He is the Chief Executive of Liberty Global and Chairman of the regional pay-TV Austar. We know Austar in the Territory. He said:
Obviously, there are organisations - I went to one of the online bookmakers the other day and saw the service those guys had. It was quite an incredible office; an office full of probably 50 people working there, all on computers, and they need some pretty high-speed access to some good high-speed broadband to run that sort of equipment. Similarly, if you are running a bank or some other large institution, you are going to need some pretty quick broadband. However, most people in the home or small business or the like, are not so much interested in the speed. What they are more interested in is the mobility.
Another interesting little fact I dug up from somewhere - I am not too sure where this came from, but it is a fact, I have it here somewhere. Currently, 10% of homes in Australia do not have a landline. Ten years ago, that was 4% of homes that did not have a landline. As I said, 10 years ago, almost all houses had a landline, to where we are now where there are only 90% of houses that have a landline.
The reason for this, of course, is people are opting for mobility. They get themselves a mobile phone and they do not see any use - in, obviously 10% of cases - for having a home phone; they want mobility. I was talking to one of our members here who uses his mobile phone as his turbo modem. He is, obviously, embracing technology …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you member for Drysdale; it really is a lucky afternoon for me.
Dr Burns: Do not be late.
Mr TOLLNER: I will not be late, minister, and thank you for your concern.
The other thing about this NBN is it is going to take a good eight to 10 years, according to Kevin Rudd’s own view. This is his time line he puts on it. God help us if he has the same time lines the NT government has – 10 years ago they were saying they were releasing land for Bellamack. They did not say it would take 10 years. They did not say it would 10 years for an oncology unit, or anything else for that matter. You are launching things now.
We asked the question during Question Time of the minister for Housing about a workers camp being set up. The contract was to be awarded two months ago, and we heard from the Treasurer: ‘Oh, no, no, that is not true’. But, here we are, we have it in writing as to when deadlines happen and all of this sort of stuff - very detailed time line they put out in January this year saying they would have a work camp up and running, I think by the end of this month or June. They have not even released the contract yet, so goodness me, who knows how they are going to do that.
If Kevin Rudd is as good as his word and, as I said, we have no reason to believe he is, but if he is, it is going to take 10 years around the country to get this NBN out there and happening. It is a bit like, if you are a bloke without a car, and someone says to you: ‘Do you want a Ferrari? I am going to give you a Ferrari, but I am going to give it to you in 10 years time’. The bloke sitting there without a car says: ‘Oh, gee whiz, I would love a Ferrari in 10 years time, but can you just not give me a Beetle Bug or a Mini Moke or a Commodore right now? What about now?’
This is the question to the minister: why are we going down this track of high-speed broadband when, clearly, there is only a small proportion of the population which is actually demanding it. Most people are demanding access - access and mobility! That is what we should be concentrating on. When you look around, we have an enormous amount of infrastructure here that has taken years and years to cobble and put together. We have been very well served here in the Northern Territory. I note the minister said we were some sort of backwater until the Labor government turned up, which is absolute complete and utter nonsense. The reality is the Northern Territory has been the playground for telecommunications technicians and specialists for goodness knows how long, starting with the Overland Telegraph.
In fact, the Northern Territory is one of the most technologically advanced places in the world as far as remote areas are concerned; we have some absolutely fantastic services. We have much to thank the PMG, Telecom, Telstra, Optus and SingTel, and a whole range of organisations which now occupy that sector in the Northern Territory for. To suggest, somehow, what we have now has just appeared in the last decade of Labor, I believe does a disservice to all the great pioneers of those industries over the years.
It was only recently the HFC networks were announced by Telstra in the Northern Territory, and Optus. Around Australia, the Telstra network passes some 2.5 million homes, Optus around 2 million homes, and both operators have made it clear these networks can deliver 100 Mbps with relatively minor upgrades. Mike Fries, from Austar, said, for example, of the 2.5 million homes in the capital cities, you can have 100 Mb to every one of those homes for less than $100m. Foxtel could connect every one of the 2.5 million homes to broadband at 100 Mbps for less than $100m. It pales into total insignificance compared to Rudd’s $43bn spend-a-thon.
Whilst we have a minister here jumping up and down saying what a wonderful thing we are getting this fibre-optic cable through to the Territory, I believe it is a great thing when we have any sort of expansion in telecommunication industry. I do not believe this will eventuate, but the questions which need to be answered are: why is the government in the Northern Territory not working more closely with these other providers? Why are they not doing more to assist in wireless Internet? Why are they not doing more in remote communities? Goodness me, if Kevin Rudd is as good as his word and every child is going to have a computer, why are they not trying to get wireless broadband out into these communities? Kevin Rudd said the National Broadband Network is going to cover 90% of Australia.
Guess where the 10% is he is not going to cover? Ninety-nine percent of the Northern Territory; that is where. We see blokes such as Warren Snowdon and Damien Hale trot down to Canberra and roll over. They see Rudd selling the farm, giving everything away, and what are we getting in the Northern Territory? Five-eighths of nothing!
Again, this is a clear victory of fantasy over logic. I believe the minister is a decent man; I believe he is under a bit of pump at the moment with all the scandals he faces in his other portfolios. I have never seen him as a person who is particularly switched on to information technology. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he goes home at night and jumps on the computer. I would not call myself an expert in this particular area either. There are probably very few people in this world who could call themselves an expert in this area because it is evolving so fast. That is not any sleight on the minister. Where I think the minister is wrong is he has glibly taken this advice. Obviously, as a party, you have to support comrade Rudd and make him look good; it is an election year for him. This is, obviously, going to be another one of Rudd’s great disasters.
There are too many people in too many positions where they know things, who have bagged Kevin Rudd: AAPT CEO, Paul Broad, declared the NBN was complete rubbish and a complete waste of money. He said if they spent a tenth of it, they would probably be right on the money. Michael Porter, from the Committee of Economic Development made a similar point. He said:
Most informed assessments of the NBN roll-out are that it is foolhardy and unnecessary. Mike Fries, the Liberty Global Chairman, said: ‘$43bn is an inordinate amount of money and it’s baffling’. Similarly, Kenneth Davidson pointed out only a month ago that even in high-income, high-density markets overseas, the take-up rate of high-speed broadband on the fibre has plateaued at about 30% of households. He cannot see a reason why government would be spending $43bn on it.
Minister, I think you are a decent bloke and all that, but do not let the eggheads in the Labor Party convince you of this stuff, mate, because it is a flight of fancy and these guys are going to lead you up the creek. Do not get too close to Kevin Rudd because the guy is a walking failure; everything he touches turns to custard. I hope the Northern Territory is not dependent on Kevin Rudd for information and communication technologies into the future.
Dr BURNS (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member for Fong Lim. I have a prepared speech here, but I pick up on a couple of things the member for Fong Lim said when he talked about flights of fancy and non-delivery. I recall the member for Fong Lim, when he was the member for Solomon, promised mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway ...
Mr Tollner: No. I did not do that.
Dr BURNS: Do I stand corrected on that?
Mr Tollner: You do stand corrected on that. You have mixed me up with the Senator.
Dr BURNS: Oh! I will just read from an ABC news bulletin in 2006. It said:
Mr Tollner: Who gave them that information? The Northern Territory government? Who gave the ABC that info?
Dr BURNS: It is my recollection you were in that particular promise, and it has never been delivered. We did not get the mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway, either from you or from your then federal colleague, Nigel Scullion. Really, it is something you advocated. It was something that, hopefully, you had agreed to; something you did not deliver. Similarly with the black spot at Ludmilla of Internet access, and something you promised to many Defence families on the base that you were going to fix. Well, you did not. So, once again, we see the litany of failures of the former member for Solomon. What do we have? Tiger Brennan Drive, the radiation oncology unit - we have a whole range of things. I was amazed the member for Solomon was caught speeding going down the Stuart Highway the other day because he has so much baggage ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … I doubt whether his car could go over 130 km/h. I am going to enjoy all this. He is quick to blame Kevin Rudd and attribute failure, but he needs to look at himself. Do not look at what they say, look at what they do or what they do not do.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: That is your motto. People in glass houses should not throw stones, member for Fong Lim. I always listen with a lot of interest to what you have to say about everything really, because there is usually a reference to your career. What was it? A seven-year career, it must have been. No, eight-year career ...
Mr Tollner: Six.
Dr BURNS: Six, sorry. Six-year career within the former federal government. It really makes you wonder. Solomon was probably, and remains, an extremely marginal seat. Yet, here is a member in probably one of the most marginal seats in the country who could not get his hands on the goods. He could not get his hands on the money for Tiger Brennan; could not break through on the radiation oncology unit. Obviously, he could not break through on mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway. Yet, he comes in here and wants to criticise everyone. Just look in your own back yard, member of Solomon.
I will not keep you anymore, I know you have a very important appointment and I do not want you to be late and have the temptation of speeding. So, there you go. I will turn to my prepared speech now.
Advances in information and communications technology in the Northern Territory are transforming the way we deliver education and training services. Investments by the Northern Territory and Australian governments mean Northern Territory schools have access to world-class computing network and online learning services like never before. Over 20 000 computers are now connected for the Northern Territory school network, making it the largest IT network in the Northern Territory. This includes laptop computers for all teachers and principals in government schools, an initiative of the Labor government that recognises the increasing professional use of ICT amongst teachers in accessing curriculum documents and support materials. The laptops are an important professional development tool which allows teachers to access professional learning online, as well as stay connected with other teachers and share ideas and resources.
Electronic student learning profiles containing a complete record of enrolment, attendance, and achievement information are now available for all students in Northern Territory government schools. Parents can get online access to these profiles to monitor progress and assist in their child’s education.
The At School Program is often referred to as virtual schooling, as it delivers senior secondary and vocational education subjects to students in regional and remote areas using online and interactive learning systems. It is highly possible virtual schooling will grow to become an imbedded feature of education service delivery in the 21st century. As well as delivery of education to remote areas, virtual schooling has an important role to play in providing extended subject choice to students living in a less remote context. An example of this is Japanese language studies being available to a small number of students at Darwin and Tennant Creek.
The Katherine and Alice Springs School of the Air continues to enhance their world-class Distance Education Program using the Star satellite network that is providing broadband communication services to isolated students across the Northern Territory. The expertise developed in delivering online and interactive e-learning systems for students is now being used to deploy online professional development and training for teaching and administration staff in schools. Through the digital education revolution, all 5000 students in Years 9 to 11 will have access to a computer by the end of 2011, improving the quality and range of education and training programs, and offering more flexible ways for students to engage in learning.
A total of 2500 low-cost laptop computers provided by the One Laptop Per Child Initiative are being installed in primary schools to help engage disadvantaged students in learning and building foundational literacy, numeracy, and technology skills. A new leaning technology precinct is being developed at Nightcliff Middle School to provide a hub for the enhancement of ICT enabled learning, and a showcase of the application of these approaches across all stages of schooling.
Ongoing innovation in ICT has had a significant implication for schools. The old ‘tyranny of distance’ clich as an excuse for non-delivery of services is challenged as technology improves at what seems like an exponential rate. The demography of the Territory demands the application of new technologies as the means by which to deliver education services. Interactive Distance Learning, or IDL, delivers interactive video linkage broadcast from an IDL studio in either Darwin or Alice Springs to isolated students who may live on cattle stations or in small homeland communities. IDL is a valuable learning aid which will reduce educational disadvantage with small numbers of students living in extremely remote locations, as well as delivering expanded subject choice for senior year students in urban and remote communities.
The Northern Territory has a population about the size of Geelong, living in up to 600 communities spread over an area roughly the size of France. For every child in every one of these locations, ICT will, as technology advances, increasingly provide the opportunity for students to communicate, participate, and interact in what SBS Television often refers to as the Global Village.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on this very important topic. The member for Fong Lim did say something profound in what he had to say; that the Territory has always been at the cutting edge of technology. I suppose we were the highway through which the Overland Telegraph line was built and provided the connection with Europe and other nations throughout the world, and that continues to be the case. But, as with the Overland Telegraph line, it requires significant investments in infrastructure over long distances, and that is always an issue.
I know other speakers, such as the member for Nhulunbuy, will talk about some of the exciting developments that are occurring within their own electorates.
I close now, once again complimenting the minister on what is a great statement. It is pointing the way forward. It certainly is pointing the way forward for education in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I support the statement from the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy. It is recognised that ICT will be one of the drivers of productivity in Australian businesses and industry for the short, medium and long term. Although a significant industry sector in its own right, it is the impact of the ICT across government, community and other industry sectors which distinguishes the ICT industry as a force for innovation and change in our society.
I concur with the minister’s observation that the Northern Territory needs a strong and capable local ICT industry sector. The new NT ICT industry is made up of approximately 250 ICT companies, with over 2500 locally employed ICT professionals. Positive industry forecasts suggest there will be a sustained industry growth in a short, medium and long term. We have ICT companies in all the major centres in the Northern Territory, and Northern Territory companies have developed a number of award winning applications and technologies.
The NT ICT industry is going from strength to strength. It has formed an industry association to develop and promote its capability to the world. In February, I was delighted to launch the NT ICT web portal, at www.ntict.net. This is an exciting tool which will help market the industry as a whole and showcase the capabilities of individual companies. Recently, the ICT industry successfully presented their capabilities and skills to senior ICT managers of INPEX. Although we tend to think first of the jobs and investments associated with the construction and plant management aspects of the INPEX project, there will be over 250 individual ICT requirements directly related to the INPEX project. These INPEX ICT projects are potentially worth many millions of dollars to the NT ICT industry.
The industry has recently formed a number of working parties to maximise opportunities in e-business, e-government, Defence, and other major projects in the Northern Territory. They are also are looking at how the industry can play a role in providing ICT support in regional and remote communities. A subgroup in the NT ICT industry is looking to update the industry’s 2005 to 2010 strategic plan.
Due to past growth and predicted future growth in the industry, the industry is conscious of the continuing need for available ICT professionals. In 2011, in collaboration with the NT ICT industry, Charles Darwin University will be offering a specialised Bachelor of Information Technology program to high-achieving students. These students will have the opportunity to be placed in ICT businesses as part of the degree program. This provides benefits by attracting students to CDU, and gives employers the opportunity to keep graduates in the Northern Territory. It also provides real ICT work placement experience, and financial gain to the students.
The minister mentioned the ICT careers road show which visits schools across the Northern Territory. Industry members explain to students the enormous opportunities for ICT workers in their industry, and also how ICT is a career path into just about any sector you can imagine. Technology provides the tools for business to increase productivity and profitability. Prime Minister Rudd recently stated the National Broadband Network will help transform the Australian economy and facilitate the shift to more knowledge-based industries, as well as radically change the way businesses manage inputs, customers and resources. This digital revolution will arguably be the single greatest multiplier of productivity growth.
We, in the Henderson Labor government, agree we need to increase the effective use of networked information and communication technologies, especially the Internet, by NT businesses to drive higher productivity growth and participate in the online digital economy. Technology in business means using technology to grow your business through improved efficiencies in operations, improved management systems and performance, client relationship management, staff management and marketing, financial management, the use of computers to monitor business performance, using the Internet to access information and, lastly, using technology to reduce wastage and resources consumption in the business process; that is, basically, leading to greening the business processes you have.
Combining local intelligence with private sector and ICT industry participants, the technology and business program was established in 2009 to promote emerging technologies and to assist businesses to maximise online and mobile capabilities. The objective of the technology and business program is to encourage NT businesses to use network information and communication technologies, especially Internet, effectively, in online business functions. Over time, the program will further develop awareness skills and understanding within small to medium enterprises in targeted industry sectors, to make best use of the advances in technology. This is being achieved through identifying gaps and facilitating opportunities in Territory businesses to improve online business systems capability.
Emerging priority issues for Northern Territory small to medium enterprises include digital marketing strategies, internal constraints and attempting to keep up with rapid technology changes, managing content costs effectively and quickly, and budget, time and connectivity.
Activities undertaken to date include a series of well-attended private and public sector information seminars on Web 2 technologies, in partnership with the Business Enterprise Centre Northern Territory, consultation with targeted industry sectors such as hospitality and accommodation services, real estate and tourism.
In 2010, the program to which the minister has referring called Get Online NT is running workshops and seminars across the Northern Territory on topics which include: Web 2 introduction, advanced and master classes; digital advertising and marketing; content management and streaming; hosting and e-commerce; and payments.
In 2009, following the Chief Minister’s call for the Northern Territory government to fully harness technology such as broadband to provide better education, health, and business online services, a consultancy was commissioned to examine the current status and future potential of the Northern Territory government’s online relationship with its business customers. The investigation found the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction without a dedicated online business portal. The recommendations of that investigation include rationalising systems and processes across agencies around integrated client-focused service delivery to business; developing online forums for business customers to make e-business the ‘business as usual’ channel; leveraging from and aligning with the COAG-approved initiatives of business online services to deliver online registrations enabling businesses to register for both their ABN and business name in one transaction; and a national licensing scheme for occupational licences; and, lastly, to establish a joint governance arrangement across agencies to implement and manage the e-government support to business strategy.
My Department of Business and Employment has established a steering group of agencies which have a regulatory relationship with business to ensure a streamlined whole-of-government approach to electronic service deliver to business. By reducing the cost of doing business in the Territory, this initiative will contribute towards the Territory 2030 economic sustainability objective of the Territory being a highly competitive business environment. This initiative will also contribute to improving customer service for businesses by reducing potential turnaround time, rationalisation of licences, improving e-business adoption rates, a streamlined transaction process to increase agency and business productivity, alignment with the business online services and national licensing system national initiatives, and the establishment of key e-business performance indicators.
My vision is one portal through which business can electronically access information on all governments, including the Northern Territory and Commonwealth regulations and assistance programs; that they impact on business and can transact electronically with government. The second part of that vision is an integrated Northern Territory government back end for licensing and regulation which eliminates data duplication and optimises the use of a common system.
The advantages for business will be one portal can provide access to all information on government regulations and programs impacting on a business; for example, licensing, planning, taxation, grant assistance, training programs, workforce attraction programs, and government procurement. It should eliminate the requirement to provide the same information to multiple government bodies. It has the potential to simplify government regulations and licensing arrangements. For example, at present a Territorian wishing to establish a bed and breakfast and tourism business may have to obtain as many as 25 different licences. This government is aware, with increased use of the ICT, there is a corresponding increase of greenhouse gas emissions. Our action plan to combat climate change extends to developing initiatives to improve the environmental sustainability of ICT, and includes the use of ICT as an enabler for government agencies to reduce their overall carbon footprint; for example, simple measures such as power management on desktop and laptop computers, reducing printing and paper use, and making use of technology such as videoconferencing in place of travel to produce less carbon.
The commonly used term ‘green ICT’ refers to the reduction of energy and other resources consumed from manufacturing to procurement. The use of ICT in an organisation is through to recycling disposal. My department is developing a green ICT policy for government agencies and for ICT service providers. The policy focuses on ICT procurement, energy saving initiatives, equipment compliance with environmental standards such as the electronic product environment assessment tool (EPEAT), and the disposal of ICT equipment without resorting to landfill. These green ICT measures offer potential to improve environmental performance, increase financial efficiency, and reduce the Northern Territory government’s carbon footprint.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the statement and look forward to working with the minister to improve the online services to NT business, which is the driver for the economy in the Northern Territory. We have a very large jurisdiction and it is always good for those businesses to improve their capabilities. It really has not been a long time since we have had Internet and e-mail, and it is a changing world. You have to be up-to-date with it, to have the modern equipment, and the capacity within the Internet to actually participate. So, this is a great statement. This government is, obviously, very focused on improving those services and encouraging the industry to do the same thing.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, before I start, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr Knight: Oh, Adam! As soon as you stood up, your members all walked out. What is going on there?
Mr GILES: I heard that you cannot make assertions of people not in the Chamber. Please withdraw, member for Daly.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no quorum. Please ring the bell.
Member for Braitling, you may proceed, there is a quorum.
Mr GILES: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is great to have such a large audience to listen to my remarks in relation to this statement on ICT.
I have had a look through the statement by the minister and cannot help but think something is missing from it. I do not know what it is. The intent of the statement about rolling out broadband is very important.
I note the comments of the minister and the member for Drysdale. I listened to the members for Johnston and Daly. The points I picked up on were the comments of the member for Fong Lim when he spoke about mobility and the design of any broadband plan. He provided a lot of information about how people, these days, are moving away from fixed lines and moving more to a mobile system. I am a person who, if I could get rid of my home telephone line, I would love to; I do not need it. I end up paying money for a telephone line I do not need. I do not know if it is because of my age generation, but I am in a position where I agree on mobility; that is the way to go. I am not a big supporter of the fixed line system the Prime Minister is putting all Australians in debt to the tune of $33bn for.
I am a supporter of ensuring people have open access to the Internet for the benefit of information dissemination so to be more connected as a community across the Northern Territory. We hear a lot in this Chamber, from both sides and the Independents, of Indigenous disadvantage. I believe one of the ways to improve that, or ways in which we can seek to have some intervention in that area is by having information more accessible; that is a positive step forward.
Madam Speaker, before I go on, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is called. Ring the bells. I remind honourable members a quorum relates to all members, not merely government members.
Mr Mills: Responsibility …
Madam SPEAKER: The quorum relates to all members, Leader of the Opposition. Thank you. A quorum is present.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I recognise this is the government’s statement on about ICT, and I expect the government to be very keen to listen to all members’ contributions for ICT. As I said earlier, I believe something is missing in this statement. I cannot put my finger on what it is. This announcement by the Prime Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: It is Madam Speaker, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, thank you for the correction. As I said, something is missing in this statement; I cannot put my finger on what it is.
I doubt this will ever go ahead. It has been three years since the federal election. This was one of the biggest commitments before the federal election. There is nothing to say this will be put in place. The member for Drysdale, quite accurately, dissected this $43bn loan from Territory taxpayers and Territory children from now into the future, because we all will be paying it back.
I have some concerns about whether this model is right. I am not saying that access to broadband services is the wrong thing. I believe it is the right way to go, but I am not sure whether this model is right. I note from comments through many different mediums in the media that people are saying this is not the right way to go; this is not the right amount of money to be spending; and it is not the right amount of money to be borrowing from our future generations. This is not the right plan on how we do that.
The member for Drysdale gave an example about Tara, a little community about 15 km off the Stuart Highway north of Barrow Creek. That community is going to have this cabling go down the Stuart Highway, 15 km away from where their community is, yet this community gets absolutely no access to this new broadband that is going to be coming out through the NBN. These instances are right throughout the Northern Territory as part of this broadband plan. I do have grave concerns in the roll-out of this.
The old model the previous Prime Minister, John Howard, proposed sought to get some more of the population in Australian than this current NBN plan - this loan from future generations - will actually get to. That is why I am very condoning. If we were in Victoria or Tasmania, some of the smaller states where the population is more urbanised, they would get to a greater population under the NBN - this loan from the future generations.
However, I cannot see this meeting the needs of the most vulnerable people in the Northern Territory, the people who need this service more than anyone else. The ability for wireless or mobile broadband for these locations in the Northern Territory would be most suitable. I do not know whether everyone needs 100 mbps in all parts of the Northern Territory. Maybe it only needs to be 100 in the business districts and 50 in other places, and 20 in some other places. I know there needs to be improvements, but I am not sure that this is the right model that suits the needs of the Northern Territory, and that it meets the needs of people in the bush.
I have some reluctance to accept this program will ever go ahead because, going on the form of this Prime Minister - which there is not much form for getting things done; there is a lot for making announcements - we know this $43bn NBN plan was announced by a media release, the same way this government operates its spin: make an announcement and not actually do anything. We heard the announcements about Bellamack, and land not being released. We have heard about that across the Territory.
We know the great commitment for 260 childcare centres to be built around Australia by the Prime Minister. Across the Northern Territory, the waiting list to get into childcare centres is atrocious. There is a need for more childcare centres; whether the private sector, the federal government, or whoever builds them, there is need. The point I am making is the Prime Minister made an announcement about more childcare centres and, then, does not deliver on it.
He made an announcement about the ETS, Australia’s greatest moral challenge; that it was his greatest moral challenge and he will do all he can to bring it through. He has rolled over on that one too, just like the childcare centres. I find it hard to believe this NBN program will actually get up. What else has he rolled over on? He has rolled over on border protection ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Mr GILES: I am getting to it. Of course, there is relevance. Madam Speaker, I am talking to …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I will give you a little leeway. Get to the point fairly quickly, please.
Mr GILES: I am happy to continue my remarks and make comment on that point of order; that is, the NBN is a federal program that was talked about as part of this statement, and there is form for these federal programs to not actually occur. You are talking about a federal roll-out of the NBN program. Well, the announcement of 260 childcare centres did not happen ...
Ms Lawrie: We received two in the Territory.
Mr GILES: I believe it is highly unlikely. You received two in the Territory? They were supposed to build 260 Australia-wide.
The ETS was the greatest moral challenge. We had the minister for Environment lecture us about the greatest moral challenge. I believe they have made statements about the Country Liberals not being on board. The Chief Minister made the same comments. It is highly relevant when we look at the form on this. Look at border protection. Kevin Rudd was going to get tough on border protection. This is the same as the $43bn NBN plan; it is going to be exactly the same. Now, we have people coming into to Darwin. This is what happened with him rolling over and not delivering.
We know the failures of the insulation program; we know four people were killed under that program. Now, the Prime Minister has rolled over on that program. He rolled over on the solar rebate program. He has rolled over the remote solar program. This is Mr Roll-over. It is not Mr Rudd; he is Mr Roll-over. He is rolling over and not delivering on any of his commitments. How can we take his word he will deliver the NBN, which this statement is about? How can that be?
We have seen the Building the Economic Revolution, the school halls and the covered outdoor learning areas. These are good for students who want to use those facilities, but how do we know we are getting values for money? We have seen in New South Wales, and now in Queensland, the huge fees going out the door, and the facilities are not going on the ground as promised. The schools, the school principals, the school councils, and the students are not getting value for money on the ground. The same is happening in the Northern Territory. The facilities, when they are on the ground, are good, but you have to look at what the contractors are paid, as opposed to what is being charged by the government out the back end. Value for money; it is the same process.
Let us look at SIHIP. SIHIP is exactly the same; another federal program, this time partnered through the Northern Territory government. We have seen reviews, negative reports, and negative stories. Another federal initiative, this time rolled through the Territory government. We have seen so many negative stories. The government still will not act. It will not uncover the books.
We have heard the response to the CTC report today. This report tabled today confirms some of those concerns. The CTC report has in it some amazing recommendations on how the government needs to be transparent; how it needs to itemise the cost of individual houses; and needs to put down a structural plan about where the works will be undertaken, when they will be undertaken and whether they will be undertaken. In their response, they said they are not going to do that. They have actually gone so far as to say - and before I make that point, let me take one step backwards. They say SIHIP costs so much money because of all the Indigenous employment costs. However, that is being paid out of a different bucket. Now, we hear about these 20 other review officers who have to audit houses before they are being handed over …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. He is really drawing a long bow. It is a very long bow and it is growing …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, Standing Order 67 says you need to be relevant to the topic. You have digressed significantly. Can you please come to the point? We are referring to a statement about ICT.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether these SIHIP houses are going to have broadband access …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, could you please come to the point! If you are going to speak about something that digresses, it needs to be linked to the statement.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: No, no. I have already ruled. Just speak to the statement, thank you.
Mr GILES: No worries, Madam Speaker - no worries at all. In this statement today, this is a federal government program tailored on ICT. There are many areas of federal programs which have not been followed through.
One of the areas followed through is SIHIP. Where we have had the NBN program that has not started yet - we are worried that it is not going to follow through - SIHIP has been started, and it is in partnership with the Northern Territory government. We know there is extra money going everywhere. In the government’s response to the CTC’s report - and I would like some clarification on this at a later date - it says on the third page, second paragraph:
That is highly relevant to this statement. I will tell you why. What this is saying is they have it wrong. They are saying that alliance model no more; they are going in direct contract to shires. They are saying they need to put more money in because they have it so wrong. Do you know why they have it so wrong? Because Labor cannot manage. This is the paragraph that says they have to put more money in the program because they have it so wrong. This is the paragraph that says they have the alliance model so wrong they are going to the shires. This is the paragraph that confirms the e-mail by Ralph Dein where he says - and I will paraphrase - that it is much cheaper to go through the shire model than go through the alliance model.
This is the paragraph that puts to bed the comments the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing made on ABC radio, where he said he was not sure and he would have a look into - and I am not quoting - the e-mail. This is the paragraph, this second paragraph, which confirms the invoices by MPH Carpentry & Construction which went out there and did all the works on those houses at Willowra. This is the paragraph that confirms Labor cannot manage. This is the paragraph, in this CTC response:
Labor has admitted their failures. They have thrown the alliance out the door, and they are pouring more money into it - $672m is not enough. I ask the question: why? This is Labor - federal Labor and Territory Labor. Is the same going to happen with the NBN? That is how it is relevant. The Treasurer said this is a long bow. This is not that long. You have the same two things that are relevant in these two programs. You have the same thing with the childcare centres, the same thing with the ETS, the same thing with insulation, the same thing with the solar rebate, the same thing with the remote solar program …
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr GILES: I knew you were going to come and save me, member for Arafura.
You have the same thing with the remote solar program. You have interest rates going up, inflation going up, the Consumer Price Index going up. The same thing is across all of this; that is, Labor.
Madam Speaker, I started my speech tonight by saying there is something missing in this statement. I still cannot put my finger on it …
Ms Lawrie: Here comes the punch line!
Mr GILES: But when I talk about - not yet, hang on, do not get ahead of yourself.
Ms Lawrie: You have two minutes to get that punch line.
Mr GILES: Do not get ahead of yourself. I only have one dot point. I cannot get it out yet.
When we saw this statement, we asked ourselves some questions. We asked when the alliance contract was cancelled by this government, what was the pay-out figure? We asked ourselves that. How much money is getting paid out for the Earth Alliance contractors? What is the pay-out figure? We asked ourselves questions such as why was the New Futures Alliance contract cancelled and an urgent Cabinet meeting saved it in the last minute? We asked ourselves those sorts of questions …
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move my colleague have an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: I pass on my thanks for the indulgence of this Chamber and the member for Drysdale for providing me that extra 10 minutes to conclude my remarks, which are very important to this debate.
I have just listed a litany of failures by the federal government and the Territory government. How do we know the NBN is not going to be exactly the same? The member for Drysdale spoke about someone getting electrocuted in Tasmania as part of the NBN. We know about people getting electrocuted during insulation installation. We know the program was not rolled out properly. This is just a free gift - come and rip us off. This is insulation all over again. This is a free gift, like SIHIP: ‘Come and gross up your costs so you can roll up your profits’. This is the same thing.
Madam Speaker, when I saw this statement, I thought there was something missing in it. I thought there was something missing ...
Dr Burns: Here we go, come on!
Mr GILES: It is not that big. Do you know what I see when I see the roll-out of the NBN? When I see the roll-out the NBN, and I look at this statement, I ask how it is going to work, the key thing I see missing is the Northern Territory government. The Northern Territory government is the thing missing out of the NBN. I will tell you why they are missing out on the NBN. It is because they are failures. They have failed across the board. They have failed at education, in housing, on health …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: You only have to look at the NAPLAN results ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: … you only have to look at the hospital outcomes …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, honourable members, humorous though it may be. Please continue, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, it is a very important speech.
You only have to look at the Montara oil leak. You only have to look at what is happening at the port right now. You only have to look at the statement made today about the $930m being spent on infrastructure and, then, when you look at the budget, it says $640m will be spent this year. I am pretty sure they did not spend $300m more. Have a look around. They then put out $300m more. They are merely revoting as much work as they were actually going to commit. I can tell you, if they spent an extra $300m, it was not on SIHIP houses, education of kids in our schools, hospitals, or on fixing roads.
There is something missing in this statement; that is, the Northern Territory government. They know why. It is because they have failed. The federal government knows why; that is, because they have failed. I often sit down with my colleagues and have a bit of a chat and think how upset the federal government must be. They would have loved to see a change of government in August 2008. They could have had someone to kick. I note the member for Casuarina is laughing, so I will share another one of my stories with you.
I also often think it is much better with Liberal governments. The world is a happier place – I will come one step back. Australia is a happier place when the Liberals are in power. You can have your lefties over here complaining. You have Labor over here complaining. Your comrades are all upset, and the Liberals are getting on and doing the job. Everyone is happy. But look what happens when we flip it over. Labor is in charge - wall to wall Labor until WA came along. No one knew who to kick.
The greenies are asking: ‘Can we bash our mates up in Labor, the comrades?’ Well, that does not work too well. Bob Brown is running around town, not knowing if he can attack Labor or not. He must lie awake at night thinking, ‘Bring back John Howard. We need someone to kick’. I actually find it quite amusing.
I hate being in opposition. I would love to be in government, but I find this kind of thing quite amusing; watching the left looking for a punching bag. They cannot find one. There are some amazing things: sitting here watching the Labor faithful destroying the harbour, putting copper concentrate through the harbour. The greenies, I can just imagine if it was the Country Liberals in government – Madam Speaker, I am coming back to the statement …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I am reminding you of Standing Order 67, Digression from subject. There are three items on which you can digress: one is on the Address-in-Reply on any matter; one is on the adjournment of the Assembly; and the other is in Appropriation Bill or supply bill. None of these apply to this actual statement.
Member for Braitling, keep that in mind, because I have asked you several times to come to the point.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I am sorry for the digression.
You could just imagine if the Liberals were in power and we were building that NBN, and we had to come through and knock a tree down or something while we were putting the NBN in. You could just imagine Labor and the Greens saying: ‘Oh, here they are destroying the environment!’ They are the kickers that would deliver the NBN. But, we would deliver the NBN. We would make sure there was broadband to all these people who are not going to get broadband in the Northern Territory.
The Greenies will be happy, because they could abuse us, Labor would be happy, because they could abuse us, but Territorians would be happy because they all are getting NBN.
I will conclude my remarks on this very important statement by saying this. The $43m …
Ms Lawrie: Here we go – punch line.
Mr GILES: There is no punch line, member for Karama. It is not an entertainment thing; this is a House of debate, this is a serious matter. We have failures right across the board from federal Labor trying to deliver programs, or supposed to deliver programs in the Northern Territory, the NBN program, I doubt will be any similar. I cannot see how they can actually get value for money out of rolling this program right across Australia, how functional it will be coming out in eight years’ minimum time, whether or not technology will have advanced by that time. There has to be a smarter way to spend money borrowed on behalf of Territory’s taxpayers which our children will pay off.
I appreciate the minister bringing this statement on; broadband is a highly important issue. I do not think the NBN is the right way to go. I believe there are better and cheaper ways to do this. I look forward to your response to some of the concerns I raised, particularly in relation to how the Northern Territory government now has to bankroll extra works into SIHIP, and how they have moved away from the alliance model. That will be quite interesting.
If you are, as Minister for Central Australia, and on the task force for SIHIP redevelopments, you may also be happy to clear up which town camps will be closed down as part of that town camp redevelopment, particularly White Gates, minister.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks there. I look forward to the day when all of these wonderful promises that are made, in a future in Never-Never Land, possibly 2030; I am not sure when. I look forward to that day, and I look forward to the day when I can turn on my computer and access that broadband. I hope technology has not advanced by that point in time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I am always amazed when I listen to the members opposite; how they have memory lapses. I listened to the member for Braitling talking about the alliances. Was it Mal Brough, the minister in the Howard Cabinet, who insisted on alliances?
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Correct, he came in said …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: It was Mal Brough who came here and insisted SIHIP would take place only under the alliance model – ‘Take it or leave it because we use it in Queensland, it worked, and you have to use it’. For you to now criticise us for having the alliance model is a big joke. It is not a good joke, but it is still a joke.
The other thing is the question we have today about the National Broadband Network has nothing to do about the quality or the efficiency of the network; it has to do with pure politics. They will oppose anything the federal Labor government will do just for the sake of opposing it.
He said we would love to have a Liberal government in Canberra so we can kick them. We are not afraid to kick a Labor government in Canberra, and we would love one now because we are opposing the nuclear disposal site which, once again, was put to Territorians by force, by stealth, by the Howard Liberal government. None of these people stood up for Territorians; none of them opposed it. They sat there quietly, they did not say anything, they told us it was happening; we had to have it. They did not even argue when places were proposed for a nuclear dumping site. They were totally appropriate, like Katherine and Central Australia. For them to tell us now we would like a Liberal government in Canberra to kick it - no, we would love kicking a Labor government in Canberra. If we disagree, we love to kick it. I do not have a problem with that.
It is not only that; we have them now becoming totally un-Territorian. They love to put the Territory down; they come up with everything to put the Territory down. They are enjoying it.
I noticed this morning the member for Fong Lim saying: ‘You know what Ferguson is going to do? It is a secret, but he is going to take the authority to control the offshore petroleum from the Northern Territory’. Really? A secret? He has introduced legislation in the federal parliament to take control of all offshore petroleum from all states and he called it NOPRA - National Offshore Petroleum Regulation Authority. How did he do it? The same way he did with NOPSA - the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority’.
It is not a secret, member for Fong Lim; it has been put into parliament. The Commonwealth government said they were going to do it, they are doing it, and it has nothing to do with the Northern Territory. Do any of them know where Montara is? Do any of you understand how the legislation operates? Do any of you understand the position of the Territory, and how much money the Territory raises or receives from the Commonwealth to administer, as a delegate, this offshore petroleum?
That is the introduction, and I do not want to digress from a very important speech, because the National Broadband Network is going to benefit all Territorians. Most of all, it is going to benefit Territorians who do not live in Casuarina, Karama, Nakara, or in Johnston. It will benefit the Territorians who live in places like Yirrkala where you only have two votes, or people living in Yuendumu, or in remote areas. It will also benefit people living in the city because the National Broadband Network, with its capability to transmit data, is going to provide us opportunities we never had before.
The member for Braitling asked: why have a NBN? As a matter of fact it will be better if we have 200 or 500 NBNs, because this network will give the opportunity to Territorians to enjoy benefits other people take for granted. Let me give an example. I was in Brisbane watching advice given by a surgeon to a person operating in a theatre in another southern hospital through a broadband network - real time advice to a real person operating in a theatre in a hospital.
Can we have exactly the same in the Territory? As a matter of fact we do have it here today because we have put the money into that network. If you go to the oncology unit we have delivered, thanks to the Labor federal government - something the member for Fong Lim failed to deliver, but he told the Territory he would deliver it where money went onto the table - we have the installation and the equipment in the oncology unit for doctors in the Territory to communicate, in real time, with people in the Royal Adelaide Hospital with regard to operations, procedures, or treatment of people in Darwin.
The other thing this network will provide us is something we actually initiated and, now, the federal government has picked it up; it is going to go national. That is the e-health records - electronic health records. Territorians can have a card, can have e-health. It does not matter where they are, where they go, they do not have to spend time explaining to the doctor what their problem is. They do not have to tell the doctor what their medicine is. They do not have to tell him what the procedures or what allergies they have because everything is included in the electronic records we provide to the doctor. The doctor will be able to retrieve all this information in real time. We now have more than 20 000 people’s e-records. It is so efficient, so effective, the federal government, as part of the health reform, is going to adopt it and apply it throughout Australia.
Where did it start? In Katherine, of all places. Why? Because they can see the benefits. I believe it is such a good idea it should apply, not only to Indigenous Territorians, but to all Australians. It is like Medicare, but Medicare would carry not only the Medicare number; if you are sick and you have to go to the doctor for a period of time, it should carry all this information with it. It should carry what tests you have had, the results of the tests, and the medicine you take. It makes things easier and safer.
In 2008, the Shared Electronic Health Record commenced operation in Central Australia. At that time, it had 20 000 healthcare consumers registered. Now there are 37 000 people in the Territory. One in five or one in six throughout the Territory has an electronic health record. The Shared Electronic Health Record is very much an accepted clinical tool in the provision of healthcare services at the 90 health centres, GP practices, and public hospitals which are participating. In recognition of the importance of this service, our government has committed ongoing funding of $2m per annum for the continued operation of this service from 2009-10.
The achievements in e-health in the Northern Territory reflect the strong partnerships which have been built and maintained since inception. This includes partnerships with the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing, the Aboriginal Medical Alliance of the Northern Territory, and the General Practice Network NT, as well as the many individual clinicians and healthcare provider organisations delivering healthcare to the Territory population.
The Shared Electronic Health Record and other e-health initiatives are only possible where there is widespread use of electronic health record systems at the point of care. That is the reason we have accelerated the roll-out of the Primary Care Information System, PCIS, across its network of remote health centres over the past three years. PCIS is a major IT system, the most advanced clinical system in operation by my department, introducing for the first time electronic health records used in real time by clinicians, completely eliminating paper-based records. The PCIS implementation is the single biggest undertaking by my department. It has the added complexity and challenges of the tyranny of distance and of providing support to ICT infrastructure and staff in remote communities. It has taken sustained effort to make the changeover from paper to electronic health records at 46 remote health centres across the Territory since July 2007. I take the opportunity to recognise the efforts of my department’s PCIS team and remote health services staff and management on their outstanding achievement.
The final example of how the government is using today’s technology effectively to manage the health conditions of today relate to exciting opportunities to build on the Territory’s existing e-health capability. This is provided by the Northern Territory government’s successful application for funding under the Australian government’s Digital Regions Initiative. We now have a total investment of $16.6m, with $9.6m provided by the Northern Territory government and $7m from the Commonwealth. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction in Australia that secured the maximum funding available under the first round of the Digital Regions Initiatives program.
The Advanced Shared Care Plan project will further enhance the quality of information available. The Advanced Shared Care Plan project will be designed to use current and emerging national e-health infrastructure and specifications being developed and implemented by the National e-Health Transition Authority, NEHTA. For example, it is planned to use an authority-compliant web services interface, national healthcare identifiers, clinical document architecture, and the National Authentication Service for Health and standard clinical terminology as these become available. For patients registered for the e-Health NT Shared Electronic Health Record Service, the Advanced Share Care Plan will improve the functionality and utility of the e-records to clinicians involved in their care, in line with emerging national standards for patient-controlled Shared Electronic Health Records. It will also provide the opportunity for more Territorians to access the benefits of the electronic health record.
The Telehealth network project under the Health e-Towns Program will use a range of technologies to provide patients and their clinicians with access to specialist service remotely. That means a clinician in Yirrkala will be able to contact a clinician in Melbourne, Darwin, or Sydney, in order to obtain information and show some of the results - and not only results, but also digital X-rays. We have a digital mammography machine that can take digital photographs of breasts for the detection of breast cancer. That would be able to be transmitted through high-speed network down south in order to have a diagnosis from a person who would be 5000 km away.
This is the important thing about the National Broadband Network and the benefits of a broadband network. It is not as if you have a four-lane highway from Brisbane to Darwin, because it is going to be built by a Labor federal government, and we do not want this to be one of the achievements of the federal government. The reality is - and I heard the comments about the debt for the future - if that federal Labor Cabinet had not spent that money in an economic stimulus, and the money had not flowed into the general population, I am afraid Australia would be in the same position, possibly, as Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Iceland are in today.
I get the news from my mother country. I read the news, and we have a country that, a few years back, was very advanced and very wealthy. Today, their national bonds have been declared chance bonds by some of the international banking corporations. It is not only Greece. In fact, this afternoon, Germany and the other European countries approved a €120bn loan to Greece in order to avoid the collapse of a series of countries in Europe, in a domino effect. Australia has managed to weather the global financial crisis because of the massive spending by the federal government. The reason we are where we are today …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You took the time to point out digression from speech to members of this side of the House. I do not think the Greeks’ loan crisis has a great deal to do with this particular debate.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister seems to be talking about ICT, to my mind, but ...
Mr ELFERINK: No, Madam Speaker, I beg to differ from you. He is talking about the Greek loan crisis.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could come to the point, but it does seem to me the minister has been talking about ICT.
Mr VATSKALIS: On the point of order, what I was referring to was the comments made by the member for Braitling that we will pay so much money for these broadband networks that our children will have to borrow - or we have borrowed the money and put ourselves and our kids into debt. My point is, if we did not spend that money for the stimulus package, it would be a difficult economic situation today. It is a very clear connection between what the member for Braitling commented about the National Broadband Network and the effect we would have if the federal government was not engaged in projects of national significance. This is a nationally significant project ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, and he got pulled up for digression, and what are you doing?
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Port Darwin likes to draw attention to what he thinks is not relevant. The reality is, it is very relevant and goes to the core of the comments made by the members opposite …
Mr Elferink: It is an objective call, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, it is not only in health that the broadband network is going to benefit, but also in the mining industry, or in the primary industry area.
Mining is a very exciting industry. In the Territory, we are doing very well because we have invested heavily in many new web-based applications in order for people in Shandong in China to be able to plug into our computers via our network and find information which is not available on paper or, even if it was available on paper, it would take time and effort to actually access it. A person in Shandong, China can actually plug into their computer, come into my department’s web page, and find all of this information in Chinese. Not only that, he can naturally find information in our web page that is several layers below the front page, and dig back to historical data and information for a particular tenement in a particular area in the middle of nowhere - in the middle of the Tanami. That is important. Ease of access and managing to obtain this information quickly, now, with the press of a button, is very important for us because that person will make decisions to invest in the Territory based on the information he will obtain via the network through a computer. We have seen that before, and we see it now.
The Northern Territory today, because of this application, because of the way we attract foreign investment from China and Japan, is now behind only Western Australia and Queensland in exploration. We have exceeded South Australia, which, two years ago was 59% above us. Today, the exploration there has collapsed by 39 percentage points, while ours has gone up.
Madam Speaker, it is an exciting project. It is a project of national significance, not only because of the number of jobs that it will engage, the number of people who will develop technology in order to provide the equipment, the tools, the planning for this project, but because it is going to provide opportunities for Territorians in the health sector, improving the health of Territorians, especially Indigenous Territorians who live away from major urban centres, and also jobs for other Territorians, because we will be able to provide and exchange information on a national and international level, cooperating nationally and internationally with many other companies that have common interests.
Mr Hampton: Primary industries.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, member for …
Mr Hampton: Lord Chisholm.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. Another thing with this is we are the only country in this world that trace meat from the field to the plate. How do we do that? With a National Livestock Identification Scheme. I am very proud to say I was the minister who introduced it and, despite some objections by the industry in the beginning, they have now recognised the value. What that means is someone on a pastoral station - let us say Napperby - can scan the tag of an animal and record that in real time in a database in Sydney. They recognise the value of that because the only reason many importers prefer Australian beef is because, if something goes wrong, they can trace it to the paddock where it came from, and trace all the other animals. With the mad cow incident a few years back in America, they were unable to trace a significant number of animals - up to 1000 animals - because their system is not as efficient or as real time as ours.
We might be arguing about politics - and I do not have a problem with playing politics. However, you criticise something that is going to provide enormous benefits to Territorians and to Australians, because the party that is in power in Canberra is not your party, but is the other party, and you do not want to acknowledge another party can do really well. I do not have a problem with that. If the Liberals in Canberra did something good for the Territory, I would acknowledge it.
I can play politics but, in the end, I would acknowledge it, the same way I acknowledge if my party, in power in Canberra now, does something I do not like. The something I do not like is the Muckaty Station proposed nuclear disposal site, which I find unacceptable. I am prepared to argue with my counterparts in Canberra, and even with the Prime Minister.
However, this is a project of national significance and a project I wholeheartedly support. I support the statement of my colleague, the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me an MPI, but the member who wanted to propose it is not in the Chamber. Unless the member is here immediately, I will ask a minister to adjourn the House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I appreciate your ruling on this particular issue; however I …
Madam SPEAKER: It can only be the person who has proposed the debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, but we had no advice of the intended adjournment of this. This is clearly a little device by which they seek to try to embarrass members on this side of the Chamber ...
Mr Gunner: I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition and Kezia earlier in the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry? You spoke to the Leader of the Opposition? When did you do that?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am prepared to adjourn the House.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Can we just clarify: is the member for Goyder somewhere nearby?
Mr Elferink: I believe she is.
Madam SPEAKER: We have one minute maximum. We do not normally hold up the business of the House for a member.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member moved the House do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Ms Lawrie: We will abide by the ruling. If they are not in the House, they are not in the House.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is very soon, it will not be much longer. We certainly never wait for a member.
Mr Elferink: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker, and thank you for your indulgence.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, as we are closing the week off and celebrated Anzac Day on 25 April, Sunday just gone, I acknowledge this very important event, and particularly the events in Alice Springs.
I place on the public record that at 10.30 am on Sunday I attended the service at Anzac Hill. I particularly acknowledge the President of the RSL, Mr Dennis Parker, and many of the people involved in that ceremony.
I acknowledge Major Adi Viney, who conducted the Prayers of Remembrance, and the member for Greatorex, who gave an official address at the ceremony and spoke about his family’s strong connection to service in war. Also, the Lone Piper, Mr Neil Ross who, all the times I have attended the service, has been the Lone Piper and has been doing a fantastic job. Well done to Neil Ross! I thank him for his contribution on this very important day. The Last Post bugler was Mr Peter Gilham, and I thank him for his service on this very important day.
It was a pleasure to attend the RSL Club Open Day after the 10.30 am service. It was great to talk to many people, particularly some of the old Vietnam Veterans, about their experience and what the day means to them.
My best wishes to all the servicemen and women who served in all the wars, particularly on a special day such as Anzac Day. My appreciation to the President of the RSL, Mr Dennis Parker.
I also place on the record the honour roll put together by IAD Press. It is a fantastic book. I believe 1995 was the first edition honouring all the ex-servicemen, particularly the Indigenous people of Central Australia who, willingly and unselfishly, volunteered or were conscripted into the Australian Armed Services to fight. This book was published by IAD Press. They have done some fantastic books over many years. It is a fantastic tribute to many of those Aboriginal people of Central Australia who, as I said, unselfishly volunteered, or were conscripted into the Australian Armed Services. Part of the book includes a roll of honour, which I place on the public record. The roll of honour honours those who served in the two great World Wars, and in various bitter campaigns and conflicts that subsequently erupted in a troubled world during that time.
I acknowledge some people who have played a key role in putting this book together, acknowledging the Aboriginal ex-servicemen, in particular, Mr Ken Laughton who has done fantastic research, getting oral history and records from people who have since passed away. It was very important work Ken Laughton did in catching up with some of the ex-servicemen and getting their stories which shape fantastic testimonies in the book.
I acknowledge other people who have since passed away. Mr George Bray, from a well-known, large extended family in Central Australia, and Mr Pat Forster who also assisted Ken Laughton in putting this book together, doing the research, the hard work, and collecting the photos for what now is a fantastic book which is there for all Central Australians to read.
I will quote from the introduction of the book Aboriginal Ex-Serviceman of Central Australia. The introduction is by Kenny Laughton; it was done in 1995. I will read this quote into the Parliamentary Record:
That is a quote from Ken Laughton in the introduction of this book written in 1995. It brings home some of the events and the real life situations Aboriginal people faced in that time. Despite all those obstacles of government policy at the time, they stood up and were counted, and answered the call to arms in defence of their country and their land.
I would also like to read briefly some of the number of testimonies in this fantastic book that acknowledges the Aboriginal ex-servicemen in Central Australia. There are some really good testimonies. There is one from Charles Reid who served in World War II in the New Guinea campaign. There is also one from Roy Schaber who served in World War II in the Borneo campaign; Herbert James Laughton who also served in World War II, and Kenny Laughton served in the Vietnam campaign and there is a fantastic story there. Kenny actually wrote a book about it called Not Quite Men, No Longer Boys of which I have read parts. It is a great read and is all about his experiences in Vietnam. Kenny does a great testimony in this book.
Included is Charles Tilmouth who served in the Vietnam campaign, national service from 18 July 1968 to 30 October 1970; Geoff Shaw OAM, who is well known to many of us here, particularly those of us who come from Alice Springs, also served in the Vietnam campaign; Brian White who has, sadly, passed away, served in the Royal Australian Navy from 1964 to 1979, has also provided a great testimony in this book; and Anthony O’Callaghan, a lot younger than some of those I have mentioned already, served in 2/3 Field Engineers Regiment and the 3 Combat Engineers Regiment from 17 May 1988 to 4 February 1994.
As I said, there are some great testimonies in this fantastic book, Aboriginal Ex-Servicemen of Central Australia, published by IAD Press. There is something I would like to mention from one of the testimonies just to give an idea of what some of these great servicemen of Central Australia went through. I quote from Kenny Laughton’s testimony in this book:
That is the unfortunate side of war, but it really does bring home how important Anzac Day is. I know in my family, five of my uncles have served in the armed forces and one of those served in Korea, Japan, and Bougainville in New Guinea.
For our family, my uncle returned to Australia but never returned home to Alice Springs. It has been a family legacy to try to locate our uncle who served during wartime in Korea, Japan, Bougainville and New Guinea. It is an issue a lot of families around Australia come to grips with. Anzac Day certainly brings that home to many of us who have never seen loved ones once they have gone overseas and fought in a war.
Madam Speaker, I dedicate this adjournment to the Aboriginal ex-Servicemen of Central Australia.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the efforts of a number of Alice Springs community groups and individuals who brought about the recent celebrations for the 150th anniversary of John McDouall Stuart’s first expedition to Central Australia. Organisers chose the week of 10 to 18 April, as it coincided with Stuart’s crossing of the MacDonnell Ranges, whereas the focus of the centenary in 1960 was his arrival at Central Mount Stuart.
A broad range of community activities was organised by a team of local volunteers, led by Stuart Traynor, with the support of Mayor, Damien Ryan. These activities included a community barbecue, musical performances, public lectures, library activities, and an exhibition of artefacts from John McDouall Stuart’s expeditions.
Undoubtedly, the highlight of the week was the re-enactment of the explorer’s arrival on the MacDonnell Ranges hill on the afternoon of Sunday, 11 April, which I was honoured to attend with around 500 Central Australians. Torrential rain in the days beforehand forced a last-minute transfer of the event from Owen Springs, 50 km west of town, to Simpson’s Gap. The weather did not deter John McDouall Stuart, played by local icon, Bill Hayes, who arrived at 4 pm accompanied by William Kekwick (Jim Thomas) and Benjamin Head (Harry Osborn). They were met by descendants of Stuart (Anne Bachelard and Will Stuart) and Kekwick (Rick Moore).
A creek-bed concert followed until 6 pm, featuring legendary local folk group, Bloodwood, with Barry Skipsey who I have known for, probably 20 years, and also a wonderful performance by former Administrator, Ted Egan. It was the first time Bloodwood had played together for a number of years and, while they were older and greyer than their heyday in the 1980s, their voices were undiminished, as was their rapport with a large crowd who braved the grey skies. They concluded the concert with a song about Stuart they had written specifically for the occasion called What Drives a Man. Ted Egan also performed a song he had written titled John McDouall Stuart: Rider in the Mirage.
Journalist, Kieran Finnane, wrote in the Alice Springs News on 15 April:
The week’s program of activities was the combined effort of a number of community groups: McDouall Stuart Branch of the National Trust, McDouall Stuart Masonic Lodge, Parks and Wildlife, Rotary Club of Stuart, John McDouall Stuart Society, Tourism Central Australia, Adelaide House and the Uniting Church, Anglican Church of the Ascension, and the National Road Transport Hall of Fame. It was made possible with generous support from the Alice Springs Town Council and Public Library, Redback Productions, Desert Knowledge Australia, Museum of Central Australia, Commonwealth Bank, Dyson Group of Companies, Desert Graphics, Asprint, ABC radio, radio 8HA and Sun-FM, Alice Springs News, Centralian Advocate, DIY Tour Guide and Overlander Steak House.
In fact, it was Wayne Kraft, or Krafty as he is well known, who was the one who first told me about this event and convinced me that I should attend.
The people of Alice Springs have expressed the hope that Darwin will stage a similar community celebration in July 2012 to mark the 150th anniversary of the day in 1862 when Stuart and his family finally reached the shores of the Arafura Sea after being forced to turn back from their northward trek at Attack Creek in 1860, and from Newcastle Waters in 1861.
I congratulate and thank all involved with the 150th re-enactment of this history event in the Northern Territory’s history. It was wonderful to be there.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge some of the young rural kids in my electorate. I also make mention of the Under 13 boys and girls who are up-and-coming soccer stars who represented the Northern Territory at the Football Federation Australia’s National Junior Championships recently in Canberra.
I was very proud to help with the fundraising, which was being run by six of the girls’ team, who all came from the Litchfield Football Club. They were Emma, Mailey, Charlie, Caitlin, Dana, Peta and their parents, who were very proactive with the fundraising attempts and had a lot of fun with the many sausage sizzles they held at the Coolalinga Shopping Centre, which I participated in. They are great girls, and their parents give them great support.
Both the girls and the boys teams played extremely well, and though the scores were not in the NT’s favour, both NT teams were the crowd favourites. Congratulations to all players, with a special mention of three of the girls from my electorate. They were Peta Harman, Dana McAlear and Laura Vincent. I congratulate all those girls; better luck next year. It is great to see our rural kids getting out there, being active for and doing very well in sport.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 15
Message No 15
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 15 recommending to the Legislative Assembly a bill for an act, one of the purposes of which is to authorise the Territory to pay to the Commonwealth, from public monies received by the Territory, an amount for particular mineral royalty payments refunded by the Commonwealth.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arnhem
Member for Arnhem
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Arnhem, Ms McCarthy, have leave of absence for this day.
Motion agreed to.
TABLED PAPERS
Pairing Arrangements –
Members for Arnhem and Port Darwin
Members for Barkly and Greatorex
Members for Daly and Araluen
Pairing Arrangements –
Members for Arnhem and Port Darwin
Members for Barkly and Greatorex
Members for Daly and Araluen
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table documents for the following pairs:
the members for Arnhem and Port Darwin for the whole sitting day,
the members for Barkly and Greatorex, from noon to the close of today; and
the members for Daly and Araluen for the period 3 pm to 4.30 pm.
The documents are signed by the government and opposition Whips.
MINERAL TITLES BILL
(Serial 98)
(Serial 98)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The proposed legislation recognises effective mineral resource development is fundamentally underpinned by the valid grant and ongoing monitoring and regulation of mineral titles. The objective of the Mineral Titles Act is a regime that encourages active exploration, turnover of land, and active development of known mineral deposits which will provide a mechanism to further strengthen the significant contribution of the resource industry to the Northern Territory economy.
The changes will usher in a streamlined process for the grant and management of mineral titles, with an emphasis on performance and transparency of process and accountability. The Mineral Titles Act will focus on the valid grant and regulation of mineral titles in the Northern Territory. This focus is the same as the current legislation, whereby many of the provisions have been recast to allow for contemporary practices. The new legislation will encourage and promote active exploration leading to mineral production, by taking into account the genuine needs of the exploration industry and offering greater flexibility for those who actively pursue exploration objectives.
The Mineral Titles Act will replace the existing Mining Act, and will provide legislation which is written in contemporary language and streamline the mining tenure process to meet the challenges of an expanding mining sector. The change in the name of the legislation is designed to better reflect the purpose of the legislation and to provide a clear distinction between the legislation that regulates the operation of mines; principally the Mining Management Act and the legislation for the grant of titles.
The Mining Act has been in operation for nearly 30 years and, since its commencement, has generally served government, industry, and the community well. It provides a regime that is competitive with other jurisdictions, and it takes into account issues unique to the Territory such as the application of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
While the Mining Act remains functional and continues to serve its intended purpose of providing a regime for the administration of titles for the exploration and the mining of minerals, it is recognised that aspects of the Mining Act are outdated and fail to take into account significant changes and innovations which have occurred in a number of areas since the commencement of this legislation.
In drafting the Mineral Titles Bill, substantial parts of the Mining Act which have served the mining sector well have been retained, although expressed in a contemporary manner. It is recognised there have been significant developments and changes on the domestic and world stage since the commencement of the Mining Act including:
new information technologies through the introduction of the Internet, mobile phones, and other electronic mediums, which have fundamentally changed the way business is conducted;
the emergence of native title law through the introduction of the Native Title Act and changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. This legislation has had a profound affect on land access procedures for mineral explorers and miners;
market globalisation has seen the move away from small miners and prospectors to a corporate focus on exploration and predominance in the sector of large-scale operators, especially international operators; and
technological changes in relation to modern broad area exploration techniques including airborne surveys.
The repeal of the current Mining Act and its replacement with the Mineral Titles Act is intended to produce a more workable framework that is responsive to an evolving and growing Territory mining sector. It will also reflect a commitment to transparent administrative processes for this issuing and management of mineral titles.
The new legislation has been developed after an extensive review and a thorough period of public consultation. During this review process, mining and resource legislation of other jurisdictions was studied. In many instances, the content of interstate legislation has influenced the direction of the new or revised provisions. The new legislation will be competitive with equivalent interstate mineral title regulatory regimes.
In reviewing the Mining Act, a discussion paper was produced which attracted some 44 written submissions. These submissions were instrumental in setting the scene for the development of this legislation, and formed the basis of the booklet Recommendations for Change. This formed a final report which was made available to the public in March 2008. Some of the recommendations represent a significant change to the current legislation. Others are more secondary in nature and allow for fine-tuning of existing processes; the result being the Mineral Titles Bill, which is contemporary in style, logical in approach, and easier to read.
Today, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Territory continues to attract, and support, commercial-scale exploration and development of its mineral resources. A major focus of this legislation is to promote and encourage a ‘use it or lose it’ attitude amongst explorers and miners through a clearly defined expectation to actively explore, stronger intervention provisions, the introduction of financial and other penalties, and enhanced requirements for reporting on activities.
This act is a clear example of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to the sustainable and profitable resource development of the Territory. It enables: greater accountability for titleholders with a emphasis on ensuring active exploration on granted exploration licences and continuous operation of mining titles is undertaken; flexibility in managing performance through the introduction of penalties for non-compliance; continuation of transparency to enable affected parties to object or make submissions in respect to applications; and streamlined processes for exploration and mining in the Territory through the introduction of new tenure and the rationalisation or abolishing of historic mining titles.
Through the provision of contemporary and flexible legislation, the Territory will be well placed to deliver the best outcomes for investors, explorers, and miners, while maximising benefits to the community, by allowing the mining of minerals.
The act includes:
It is proposed to rationalise a range of historic mining tenements. There are approximately 700 current mining titles of various types that are not actively being explored, mined or are otherwise inactive. Many of these areas are held under the wrong title type. It is proposed to rationalise these titles by converting them to a new title that more appropriately reflects their current use. This transition will be gradual, open and transparent, involving close consultation and active engagement with industry and stakeholders.
Mineral claims will be abolished. Activities carried out on a mineral claim are not significantly different as those carried out on a mineral lease. It is proposed to convert them to either an exploration licence or a mineral lease, depending on their current use. Smaller miners will not be disadvantaged by this process as new mineral lease provisions will accommodate their specific needs.
Provision will be made for the protection of extractive material required for road construction, maintenance and other infrastructure. This is seen as a major benefit to the Territory as it will enable the Crown to explore for extract materials required for Territory infrastructure.
I table this bill as a further step towards the continued growth of the mining industry, and to its ongoing contribution to the sustainable growth of the Territory’s economic development.
Passage of this bill will achieve the goal of having Territory legislation that encourages active exploration on granted exploration licences and the continuous operation of granted mining tenements.
Subordinate legislation will be developed to further support the objectives of the Mineral Titles Act, once passed.
The age of the Mining Act, coupled with developments in technology, new Commonwealth legislation, changing community expectation and environmental awareness, provide that a simpler, more contemporary act will better meet the needs of the local mining industry, and the Northern Territory as a whole.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Mineral Titles Bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
PETROLEUM AMENDMENT AND RELATED MATTERS BILL
(Serial 91)
(Serial 91)
Continued from 17 February 2010.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I can advise it is the intention of the opposition to support the passage of this bill; that is, the amendments to the Petroleum Act, the amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Application of Commonwealth Laws Regulations, and the repeal of the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations. I have some concerns about aspects of this bill and some of the implications also; but I will come to those later.
I received a briefing from the department, and I extend my thanks to the minister for facilitating that briefing. Based on the information provided at the briefing and, after some further research, I can also advise the House there will be a requirement to take this bill into the committee stage to clarify one or two matters; one of those matters – and I provide this now so the minister can seek the specific explanation I require – is with respect to how many times an exemption, under section 24A, can be granted by the minister.
During this debate, I will also raise some other issues which the minister might be able to clarify.
Part 3 of the bill deals with the repeal of the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations, while Part 4 of the bill deals with the amendment to Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Application of Commonwealth Laws Regulations. I will deal with matters arising from those parts in the first instance.
Currently, occupational health and safety within the petroleum sector is managed under the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations, lengthy legislation of some 85 A4 pages.
Section 4 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands)(Application of Commonwealth Laws) Regulations, and its parent act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act deals with the disapplication of Territory occupational health and safety laws; specifically, section 4(c) of the regulations refers to the disapplication of health and safety laws with respect to Part IIIA of the Petroleum Act. While that sounds slightly complicated, it simply means the Territory health and safety laws do not currently apply to the Petroleum Act.
Contained within this bill is an amendment to omit section 4(c) of those regulations, paving the way for the application of, as opposed to the disapplication of, current NT occupational health and safety laws to the Petroleum Act. This then leads on to the repeal of the Petroleum (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations as it is no longer required and simplifying, I imagine, the occupational health and safety regime within the petroleum sector.
My concern here, however, is what changes to the administrative arrangements of OHS, and at what cost, is this change? The occupational health and safety arrangements within the onshore petroleum industry will now be the responsibility of WorkSafe, and it would be useful to know whether staff operating under the current OHS regime will either be the same as those in the new regime; whether they will be subsumed into WorkSafe; whether they are already there; or whether there will be sufficient trained and qualified staff to carry out the requirements of the act within the sector.
Those are pretty fair questions to ask because of what we have seen come to light during the inquiry into the Montara disaster. Without going into too much detail on that matter at this present time, it seems the government has been guilty of something I have warned them about in times past; that is, the frontline staff within departments - and particularly I have mentioned this in relation to frontline and extension staff working in the Primary Industry department - and how those positions have been withdrawn in favour of bureaucratic decisions.
What we have seen with Montara is the abject failure of the government to provide a properly resourced section within the Resources department; that section which has the regulatory oversight of procedures - on behalf of the federal government, mind you - with respect to our offshore petroleum sector. The minister, it seems, has placed two public servants who have now given evidence to the Montara inquiry in one of the most horrible, compromising and uncomfortable positions you can place a person in; of having to make decisions on regulatory matters for which they, I am led to believe, had inadequate knowledge, training, qualifications, skills and experience, in a department that trades, despite this government’s propensity to cut back on frontline services.
Minister, most of the time you can get away with this, but not this time. You see, if you cut back frontline staff within the Primary Industry department, for example, the worst result you get might be growers, cattlemen, or people within the sector complaining bitterly the government has forgotten them, forgotten those kinds of services which help our fledging primary industries sector, and lost sight of the priorities of the sector with respect to R&D and other extension-type services.
However, in the petroleum sector, the worst case scenario has come back to bite the minister and this government - and I suspect the worst bites are yet to come. If the government stuffs up in such a sector, what do you get? You get a blowout in a cap that was supposed to prevent thousands of barrels of oil spurting into the ocean and into the natural environment. That is what you get.
It has been funny - it would be funny if it was not such a serious topic – but, if you have listened to the minister for Environment the past two days bleating about this government’s environmental credentials, it is amazing to hear what he has had to say. The government he firstly referred to as the Henderson government and, then later, as the Labor government. I am glad the minister so stridently identifies himself with Henderson and with Labor because that puts a nice delineation between the Country Liberals and the failed regime under Henderson and Labor …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, I remind you in this House we refer to the member by their title, and you are referring to the Chief Minister. I ask you to reword those last comments, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I hear constantly people on the other side referring to the Henderson Labor government. I mean ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Member for Katherine, you are referring to the Chief Minister. I would like you to add that into your speech. Thank you very much.
Mr Tollner: You have to be joking!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, Madam Speaker. Well, I …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will start again. I am glad the minister so stridently identifies himself with the Labor government because that does put a nice delineation between the Country Liberals and the failed regime under this Labor government, which is the government that has been responsible for such poor handling of these latest environmental issues ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, can I just interrupt you? There is no issue with using the term ‘Henderson Labor government’. It is when you referring to the Chief Minister that there is the issue. You clearly referred to the Chief Minister so that is what I would like you to change.
Mr Conlan: As opposed to what? The member for Wanguri?
Mr Tollner: No, you cannot call him member for Wanguri. She made that ruling in Alice Springs.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I thought I dropped the reference to the word ‘Henderson’, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. I am giving you more leeway here in saying to you that you can refer to the Henderson Labor government, but if you are referring to the Chief Minister then you must only refer to him as the Chief Minister.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand what you are saying. I will just call it the failed regime under the Henderson Labor government, which has been the government responsible for such poor handling of these latest environmental issues.
We heard the revelations in the last week or so of the numerous spills of toxic substances into the Darwin Harbour. The copper oxide is a classic example of how this government has dropped the ball on the environment. The first the Environment minister knew of the dust problem on the wharf with copper oxide was, apparently, when it was revealed in the Northern Territory News. The Environment minister then told us - and here is an extract from the Daily Hansard from Tuesday’s Question Time where the minister for Environment said:
- As I said, this government’s credentials in terms of the environment, in contrast with the opposition, is miles apart.
It certainly is, minister. Then he went on to say:
- Earlier on, we heard the opposition going on about their record, how proud they are about their record. Well, I will just compare the two, this side of the House and that side of the House, and in doing so I can say that this Labor government was the first government to protect mangroves by legislation. We are the ones that established the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee.
I suppose that is the same Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee that did not tell the minister about the problems two years ago with spills into the harbour. Anyway, I go on to what the minister for Environment said further:
- It provides a regular report on the state of the health of the harbour, and open and transparent policy on the environment.
- We are also the first to introduce security deposit bonds to cover the cost of rehabilitation of mines. We also administer the Mining Management Act to ensure that fines and penalties applicable under the environment legislation was also applicable to mines.
With respect to that, I would like to correct the record. What the minister for Environment said with respect to this is patently false. Let me refer to the 2001 legislation that was introduced by the CLP. If I go back to February 2001, in Parliamentary Record No 27, the topic is Bills, the subject is the Mining Management Bill (Serial 301), and the Mining Amendment Bill (Serial 302) dated 1 March 2001. The minister was Mr Manzie, and he said:
- Included in the authorisation will be the requirement for the operator to provide a security for the purpose of ensuring an operator’s obligation to comply with the act, or for the payment of work in relation to environmental harm or rehabilitation in relation to the mining site. The security can be varied depending on the circumstances and conditions on the mining site at any particular time.
I hear the Labor government constantly trying to rewrite history. Here is another example of it. I go on the record correcting that - and so endeth the history lesson for the minister for Environment for today.
What needs to happen is for this government to actually grow up if it wants to play with the big boys. I am sure the federal minister, Martin Ferguson, must have had kittens when the Montara disaster happened. I am sure the NT minister for Resources would have assured minister Ferguson the NT had the capability and the capacity to handle regulatory matters in the offshore petroleum sector on behalf of the Commonwealth, yet, look what happened: thousand of litres of oil spread all over the ocean. This is what happens when you give this Labor government credit for the capacity to do a job, which they clearly do not have. The chickens came home to roost for the Resources minister over Montara; they are continuing to come home to roost for the Environment minister as well. I reckon Territorians are getting sick of you over there letting pollution, poison, oil, copper concentrate, Avgas as well - better not forget the Avgas - getting into our harbour and the ocean. Shame on you!
Having dealt with those matters for now, I move to other amendments within the Petroleum Act. Effectively, these amendments tighten up some parts of the act and provide more certainty around the exploration permit application process, and the size of the permit areas, upon reapplication or extension of time allowed for a company to carry out its activities beyond the original permit.
Clause 4 of the amendments adds some new definitions. First, ‘aggrieved person’, for the purposes of section 57AB(1), being an applicant permitee or licensee who was dissatisfied with a determination under that section; and secondly, a definition of ‘panel’ for the purposes of conducting a review of the decision made under section 57AB(1).
Section 15A of the act is repealed. It details definitions around applications where exploration permits can be repealed, as that regime for making up applications for exploration permits changes under these amendments, rendering section 15A irrelevant.
Beyond the minor amendments I just mentioned comes the two major changes to the Petroleum Act. First, there are amendments to section 16 which deals with the competitive nature of application for exploration permits. It is noteworthy that current legislation does not preclude the competitive process for making applications for exploration permits. I am advised many of the provisions relating to competing exploration permits amended by this bill were only introduced by the current Resources minister under the Petroleum Amendment Bill 2004 – so, six years later, we are making some changes. They were introduced in response to recommendations apparently made by the National Competition Principle Agreement, and expanded and clarified procedures for handling multiple exploration applications for the same area of land, among other things.
During the debate of the 2004 Petroleum Amendment Bill, the then shadow minister, Mr Dunham, referred to the competitive nature of the exploration permit application process as harking back to gold rush days. The opposition supported those amendments, describing them as non-contentious and supported by the industry.
The interesting thing at this juncture is the change of paradigm by this government and the minister who was, as I pointed out, the minister at the time in 2004 when those amendments were made. The question that hangs in the air is: what happened or changed, or by whom was the minister lobbied, to bring about the current raft of changes to the act? Perhaps, in the interest of openness and accountability, the minister might like to advise the House just why and for whom these changes are being made.
Now, an applicant will not be able to apply for an exploration permit over a permit area if that area is subject already to a permit or licence. They will also not be able to apply for a permit over an area for which an application has been received by the minister on an earlier business day. However, if two applications for the same area are received on the same business day - that is, prior to 4 pm on that business day, the minister must accept both applications as outlined in the new section 16(4). That, effectively, means only applications received on the same business day can compete with each other.
In all cases, whether competing or not, the new section 16(5), allows for the minister to request further information or to request an applicant amend or vary the application.
After applications are received, the remainder of the act, with respect to the processing and determination of the application, escaped relatively unchanged, although I do note the new section 18(1AA) comes into play requiring the minister to lodge a notice of application in a circulating newspaper, after having dealt with the provisions of the amended section 16 which relates to the application process, further information and amendment to the application in a timely fashion; that is, according to the amendment, as soon as practical. Although this is somewhat a subjective term, it does require the minister to have a bit of a rocket under him which, if I receive any complaints with respect to the mining sector or the petroleum sector, will not be a bad thing because I get complaints about the ways of processing of applications.
The second major change to the act relates to the provisions around the reduction in the number of blocks within an application area where a renewal of a permit is applied. If there is any part of this amendment that might be a little contentious, this would be it.
At the present time, section 24 of the act provides for a reduction, by half, of the number of blocks for which a renewal may be sought. So, if an exploration permit holder - who holds the maximum number of blocks permitted under the act, numbering 200 - makes application for a renewal after the five-year permit period, the number of blocks permitted upon that renewal are automatically cut down to 100. Each subsequent renewal would trigger the same halving regime down to 50, then to 25, and so forth. The amendments before the House today provide a process whereby an exemption may be sought by a permit holder from the requirement to have the number of blocks under the permit reduced by half. That exemption may be granted by the minister under certain circumstances. The provisions for, application for, and granting of an exemption are provided in new section 24A(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6).
I understand the reasoning before the particular amendment is, as technology improves - once again, this is information I received at the briefing, and again, thank you to the departmental staff and minister for providing that - exploration companies may need additional time in which to fully explore their permit areas. This almost sounds a little contradictory in a sense. If exploration technology is improving would that not mean exploration can occur more quickly and efficiently? Possibly yes. However, improvements to technology can also mean an improvement in the methods used to determine the location of possible sources of hydrocarbons, including coal seam gas.
An improved technology may also mean methods by which exploratory holes can be drilled away from the traditional straight up and down hole can be possible. It is possible these days to drill holes which go off on all sorts of wild angles away from the perpendicular; holes can be almost curved to the horizontal as well. It is this technology which allows for greater exploration of a given area without the need to move the infrastructure associated with the drill hole.
Hence, the time which may be required to fully explore an area may need to be longer should a company suffer the fate of losing half its blocks in the renewal process. If it can justify the need to maintain its original entitlement is a question I am sure was canvassed and the thought behind the reduction of it. Under the amendments, the minister will have the call in determining whether, on merit, a renewal can be granted without the requisite halving of the number of blocks.
I can see how current explorers would benefit from this amendment, however, I am mindful new players and would-be players in this industry might suffer the frustration of having to wait for longer periods before they could make a claim on blocks that may be effectively tied up for those longer periods. Some people would call this warehousing, where companies which have existing exploration permits can continue to hive off large tracts of land, effectively tying them up for longer periods of time, to the exclusion of new players who would like to come in and explore.
I have been lobbied by some in the petroleum industry to ensure this does not happen. The argument is one company may have a large number of exploration permits and will need to spend money in each of those permit areas in order to satisfy the caveat requirements. Bearing in mind any individual company will only have a finite financial resource, and other resources, it would have to allocate those finite funds across numerous permit areas and, subject to an exemption from the halving requirement, those funds would have to be spread across the whole gamut of lands under their permits.
The opposing regime might see half of those permit areas freed up for other explorers, other companies, with funds allocated exclusively for exploration on those newly freed up areas. This may well inject more funds into the exploration process, more funds into the community and, ultimately, more funds into the broader economy of the Northern Territory, so I can certainly see their point.
Whilst I support the competitive process around the exploitation of our mineral wealth, and the last thing I want to see is large tracts of land being tied up by companies that have neither the intention nor the financial capacity of development of the mineral wealth contained within those lands in a timely fashion, there is also the bigger picture; that being, the benefit to the entire Northern Territory economy through the exploitation of that mineral wealth.
That is where the capacity of the minister and the Resources department will come into play. The provisions of these amendments allow the minister to make a decision on whether a renewal of the application will invoke the halving regime or will get an exemption. I know if I were minister and making decisions of this nature, I would get it done absolutely right. I would be taking into account all of those things I should be taking into account to make a decision of this nature. I would ensure the Territory economy is not disadvantaged by allowing an exemption under the new provisions.
I know there will be other companies champing at the bit to get into blocks that are, or would ordinarily, be released under the halving regime. But, the imperative here is on the benefit to the economy of the Territory and not in favour of a particular company. Each company requesting an exemption under these amendments must have their applications scrutinised to the nth degree to ensure they are complying with exploration plans and caveats, and they have the capacity, financial or otherwise, to carry out the work on the unreduced permit areas to the advantage of the Territory. Minister, there will be people who will be watching you in this regard, and I daresay some of them - particularly those who are waiting for blocks to be released - will fall on you from a great height if you get this wrong.
The other question which was posed to me in my discussions with companies around this is: why is the legislation retrospective? The companies which currently explore for petroleum in the Territory bought into the petroleum exploration sector knowing the regime as it existed prior to these amendments; that is, knowing after their permit period expired, any renewal would invoke the halving regime. I ask this question: did the minister consider non-retrospective legislation; that is, will explorers with permits under the current provisions continue under a permit regime where renewals invoke the halving regime, and only new applicants would be able to access the exemption provisions once their original permits were up for renewal? Territorians, and companies who would explore under this act, can only hope the minister does properly apply this ‘in the best interests of the Territory’ test as detailed in section 24A(4)(b)(ii).
In my reading of the new section 24A(1), an applicant for a renewal may apply for an exemption from a reduction in the number of blocks for a period not exceeding 12 months. Section 24A(2) refers to a permittee giving reasons for applying for the exemptions. Section 24A(3) provides for a deferral of the reduction of the area, or for the reduction to be a lesser number of blocks than would be required under the halving regime. Section 24A(4) provides for the circumstances under which the minister may grant the exemption. Section 24A(5) provides for the exemption to be in writing, specifying the period of the exemption not exceeding 12 months. Section 24A(6) provides for the extension of the exemption. So, we have an exemption, perhaps it is 12 months. Section 24A(6) provides for the extension of the exemption and goes on to state:
- … the minister may extend the exemption for a period not exceeding 12 months.
I take that to mean the exemption may be for up to 12 months, and the extension to the exemption may be up to a further 12 months, taking the total time for which an exemption may be granted for the halving of the number of blocks regime to two years maximum. In the briefing I received from the department, I was advised the number of times the exemption may be applied for and granted totalled five times, or a maximum of five years. That is not how I read the amendments to this legislation, and it is for this reason I will seek clarification on that point in committee.
My only real concerns lie not directly with the raft of legislative changes contained within these amendments, although I do have some concerns about the implications, but more so with the capacity of the minister and the government in the overall management of the petroleum sector within the Northern Territory and its waters. Montara, of course, is a prime example of what I mean. However, I do not intend to steer this debate any further in that direction at this time, as there will certainly be plenty of time for that matter to be brought before this place.
Madam Speaker, in general terms, I will give the current minister for Resources a fair bit of cred when it comes to the Resources department. I guess that may be a reflection, maybe not so much on the minister, but more on the capabilities and dedication of the staff within the department. You are only as good as the people underneath you, Kon. I hope the minister does not let us down with the decisions he may now take under new provisions of this act, lest you cripple or hobble the onshore petroleum, coal seam, or shale gas industries in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to make some comments about this particular legislation. I will get onto the bucket of bollocks the member for Katherine presented in his speech. First, I congratulate the minister on bringing forward these amendments. This minister is probably the most proactive minister ever in the Northern Territory, with respect to the mining industry. Lately, I have done some travel around the Asian area. They know this government, and this minister in particular, is very proactive, and very much open for business. Come and do business in the Northern Territory, from Japan to Jakarta. It is open for business.
I was recently at the OZMINE conference in Jakarta. The Northern Territory stole the show! We were there making the contacts. Today, we have the opening of the 3rd Indonesian Mining Procurement Forum - it is here. This is not only a Territory initiative; it has become a national initiative in the procurement of mining services to Indonesia. Congratulations, minister, and congratulations to your department, to Alister Prier, your Director for Mining. He has made that seamless transition from chasing cattle around to getting into the mining industry. But, it is all linked; it is all about economic development, export trade, supporting our local businesses, and growing our economy. To all your staff, I congratulate you on all of the work you do.
This is very good legislation, modernising the act, allowing for those new technologies and the flexibility which is in the marketplace. You have to move with the marketplace and with technology. I imagine we will see, in coming years, perhaps some more changes. If we see changes in floating LNG technology or other technological changes, we need to adapt our legislation to be a place where you can do business easily, and create jobs and support local business.
I was heartened to hear the minister and his department are working with the sector in the development of this legislation - out there consulting, coming up with draft proposals within this legislation, and fitting in with industry. Obviously, in industry there will be different people who have different vested interests - and so they should; they are in business and they want to make their business more attractive. This is great legislation to create a new environment which fits into the new technologies, and makes it fair and reasonable for those businesses to continue their exploration work.
I will touch on a few points made by the member for Katherine. Sadly, he is not here to hear this ...
Ms Carney: Oh, steady, Eddie.
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I understand, under standing orders, one should not refer to a member who is not in the Chamber.
Mr KNIGHT: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr KNIGHT: The member for Katherine was, I guess, chastising the minister for not having more staff out there, or retaining those staff. However, it is CLP policy to cut back 800 public servants. Where are those public servants going to come from? Are they nurses, teachers, or are they staff within the mining sector or within the energy department. You cannot have it both ways. The member for Katherine’s party position, if in government, will be to cut back these staff. He seems to think we can put a Northern Territory government officer 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, sitting on every single exploration well in the waters of the Northern Territory, or Commonwealth government waters within the Northern Territory government jurisdiction.
It is a bit ambiguous. He said you need to put on more staff; but their policy is to cut back staff. It is a bit ludicrous in that area. The member for Goyder jumped up just before. It is interesting, when we are talking about Mt Todd and that little clarification the member for Katherine put forward - and I am sure the minister will talk more about that - was a bit after the fact.
Mt Todd went down. Hundreds of businesses within Katherine, the electorate the member for Katherine represents, were hurt by the folding of Mt Todd. The environment there is still suffering. Millions and millions of dollars worth of rectification work has to be borne by the government with respect to Mt Todd. That was a policy failure of the CLP government - a policy failure - and we are still paying for it.
Ms Purick: Checked the gold price at the time?
Mr KNIGHT: Oh, we passed legislation … Well, it was a bit too late, do you not think? The member for Goyder, who was the CEO of the Resources Council at the time - not a word from her. She was the one out there saying we did not need an EPA, we did not need an environmental watchdog out there to protect against these types of incidents happening: ‘We do not need an EPA’.
Recently, she has had an epiphany. Now, she is a big supporter of the EPA. It is great to see. It was interesting - I think it was on Tuesday, minister, we were talking about Mt Todd - she said there is no problem down there. Well, member for Goyder, go and have a look. Look at the legacy of failed policies from the CLP with respect to environmental protection in the mining industry. I will not talk about Alice Springs, member for …
Ms Purick: Show us your ignorance at its best.
Mr KNIGHT: It is great to see the member for Goyder has moved over to the left; she has now become green after those years of going along with the mining industry, holus-bolus. It was interesting.
It was recounted to me recently that the economy here is booming under good policies from the Henderson Labor government. We have the policy settings. We have the attitude with investment into the Asia Pacific area about investment and building our economy.
In 2001, the economy was dead. The member for Sanderson was talking about people having to leave the Territory at the moment. Well, member for Sanderson, the population growth here is about 4000 to 5000 people a year, coming to the Northern Territory because we had well paid jobs here. But, in 2000, 2001, they were deserting. Subbies were out of work, they were deserting the Territory. The economy was dead ...
Mr WOOD: Can we get back to the petroleum amendment? A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know there is a fair bit of latitude in regard to relevance, but we are talking about the amendment to the Petroleum Act, not the amendment to the world.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. Minister, I will allow you to continue for a while. Bear in mind, member for Nelson, there was been incredible digression with every bill which has come before this House recently. I have allowed that, partly because of calls from members on the opposition side for that. I will allow the minister to continue; however, bearing in mind it is legislation and the things that are said during legislation are used by the courts to determine how they are going to judge matters.
Minister, I will allow it, given I have allowed significant digression, both by the member for Katherine, and in previous debates with significant numbers of members. Bear that in mind.
Mr KNIGHT: I advise any future lawyer to use my contribution with care.
The point I was getting at is the economy is dead; tradies were leaving town. When we came to government, staff members from the new Labor government walked into the former Mines minister’s office and there was this pending tray stacked with 700 exploration licences waiting to be granted by the Mines minister. Guess what? Our economy is built on the resources sector at the moment. Guess why the economy was flat? Because the CLP government was not approving exploration licences. It was bloody-mindedness – that is all right, is it, Madam Speaker? - that the former CLP government would not allow exploration to happen. If you do not have exploration you do not have mines, you do not have jobs, and you do not build your economy.
The point I was making is this government is about building our economy, being very much open for business, chasing more investment. By modifying and improving the act it is fitting into that economic development policy setting we have. It is making it more conducive, more accessible for oil and gas explorers to do business in the Northern Territory and around the coast of the Northern Territory. That is what this government is all about, and what we will continue to do in years to come.
I thank you, minister, for bringing forward this legislation. I congratulate you and your department on the work you do. At the forums I have been attending, those investors in Indonesia, Japan, or wherever it may be, certainly know we are open for business and this is a can-do government ...
Mr Tollner: Really?
Mr KNIGHT: Nice to have you back, member for Fong Lim.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: Congratulations to your department, and I look forward to more improvements in the oil and gas industry in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I might digress a little after your ruling ...
Madam SPEAKER: I think my ruling is indicating you are, in fact, supposed to speak to the bill; however, I have allowed a level of digression.
Mr WOOD: No, that is all right.
Mr Tollner: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Is that a point of order?
Mr Tollner: … before the member for Nelson starts, can I ask how is it the minister …
Madam SPEAKER: Is this a point of order, member for Fong Lim?
Mr Tollner: … can talk about bloody-mindedness. The Transport minister can talk about bloody idiots, but I am pulled up as being unparliamentary when I talk about bloody idiots?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. If you wish to have a conversation with me you can ask me about it in my suite afterwards.
Mr Tollner: It seems to me …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you are on a warning!
Mr WOOD: I speak in support of the amendments to the Petroleum Act. I will not go into as much detail as the member for Katherine has; he has covered the crux of the bill substantially. I also had a briefing this morning in relation to this particular amendment. There are a number of issues I should raise publicly. They were raised in the briefing, but it is worth putting on the record that I did raise these questions.
They are in relation to section 24A, the exemption from requirement to reduce the permit area. Although I gather there is a limitation on the number of times one can ask for an exemption, it certainly does not appear to be clear in the act - maybe it is in the original act. However, there is no clause saying there is a maximum of two exemptions that can be granted. It, basically, says you can ask for an exemption and, before the end of the period of the exemption, you can actually ask for an extension of that exemption. Where is there anything in the act which says you then cannot ask for another exemption? I would like to get that clarified.
One of the issues put forward is in relation to companies saying this might lock up areas that would stop another company moving in. I wonder whether there is any appeal mechanism against allowing an exemption under sections 24A(3) and (5). I am interested to know if there is some form of mechanism where a company feels another company is simply using the process of getting an exemption as a means of locking up an area so they can keep another company out of applying for this area for an exploration permit.
The other area which is interesting is that the minister can give an exemption. It is when the minister is satisfied with the extent to which the permitee has complied with this act, the conditions to which the exploration permit is subject, and any directions lawfully given by the minister. I presume what that is saying is, if the company has put forward a management plan for five years - which I presume is the period in which you are given a permit - the minister has to be satisfied a fair bit of that management plan has actually been put into action. In other words, they have not put down a couple of pegs on the ground and said: ‘We have spent some money’; there has to be something fairly concrete to say that they have been doing the work.
The other part of that is it will be ‘in the best interests of the Territory’. You can take that in two ways. You can say it might be in the best interests of the Territory another company takes over because you have been a bit slack, or it might be in the best interests of the Territory you keep going because you have spent some money in that area. It is interesting to know what the ‘best interests of the Territory’ means. Obviously, it will be subjective, but it would be nice to hear from the minister as to what that actually means.
Retrospectivity is a fair point. I have also been lobbied by a member of the industry saying they feel people who have a permit under the old act knew what they were going to get, and they should run that permit out under the old requirements, and that all the new permits should, therefore, be given under the new system. It is an area that needs some debate and discussion. I am interested in hearing the minister’s viewpoint about it.
The other item I would not mind clarification on - and I did not ask during the briefing - is when you get an application the amendments say ‘two or more applications for an exploration permit are lodged on the same business day in relation to or a part of the same application area the minister must accept each application for consideration’. The question would be: how does the minister define which one is better? What guidelines will be put in place to say the one that came at 8.10 am was not as good as the one that came in at 3.55 pm? Of course, I could add to that: why do applications only have to come in on the one day? If you take planning applications; they can come in 14 days before the cut-off period. They do not have to be in on a particular day, but they have to be within a particular period.
There might be some historical reasons I do not know about, but I am interested to know why exploration permits cannot be lodged - I beg your pardon, it does say ‘application for an exploration permit lodged with the minister on an earlier business day’. Sorry, I will rephrase that. It says you cannot put it on an earlier day. The question is: why can you not have it on an earlier day as you do with planning applications; you can have them 14 days before the cut-off date?
From the briefing I had, these changes have tried to update legislation in relation to technological change. I have known, just from discussions with people in the gas industry - especially when ConocoPhillips was developing some of its gas fields – and from the briefings I had and that is 10 years ago and things have probably changed quite remarkably now - that when you are dealing with oil and gas some of the new technology is mind-boggling. Not only do they go down great depths, but they are nearly able to turn right angles to take out gas or oil that, for many years, would have been regarded as not possible. Technology is certainly changing.
One of the issues I raised during the briefing, is that with that kind of technology when you are working well under the sea bed, what controls are there that a company cannot suck out the oil from another person’s exploration area, because you are able to have nearly horizontal drilling? I am interested to know what mechanisms ensure that does not occur.
There has been some comment about the government’s record when it comes to mining, especially in the environmental aspect. The member for Daly mentioned how much the Territory depends on mining. There is no doubt that is the case. Darwin depends on mining; it depends on taking sand out of the rural area. Most of the sand comes from my electorate, and most of that sand has probably built most the buildings you see in Darwin. That area needs to be looked at because I do not believe the reclamation or revegetation of many of the sand mining areas is up to standard.
I am concerned there are not enough people on the ground in the department. I have had a complaint from inside a department saying they simply do not have enough people to do the work that is required. That needs to be assessed to see whether there are enough people on the ground. The minister for the Environment spoke yesterday of how he cannot have somebody 365 days of the year, seven days a week, 24 hours a day on the ground checking on environmental impacts. The question needs to be asked: is that because there is too much work and we do not have enough people, or has the government cut back on the inspections? Are there enough people going around doing some of the basic-type inspections? The question might come up in estimates. In 2001, how many inspectors were there to look at environmental breaches? How many are there now? That would be interesting because recent discussions in parliament relate to mining to some extent.
We are talking about copper concentrates, manganese, and iron ore. We are also talking about, in this case, drilling for petroleum and that has some environmental issues. The member for Katherine mentioned the issue of the offshore well and drilling rig that recently blew up. Environmental issues sometimes get pushed under the carpet because many people do not take a lot of notice unless they go into the rural area and walk through the bush and come across sand mining or gravel mining areas that have long been finished but never put back into a reasonable state. No one expects the land to ever recover to the state it was before it was mined - especially with gravel and sand, because it tends to take it from the surface. I know the topsoil is supposed to be retained, but what you end up with is a hole below the level of the normal surface; therefore, you get waterlogged and acidic soils which it makes it hard to revegetate. We can do a better job in revegetating those areas where we take much of our sand and gravel from required for the economic growth of Darwin.
When I see the economic growth of Darwin, and the millions of dollars that have gone into Darwin, and look at the amount of money that has actually gone into revegetating and restoring some of these sites, I say chicken feed has gone into the restoration, and huge amounts of money have gone into development. That balance should be brought back to a more level playing field.
I digress, Madam Speaker. I would like to repeat what I said at the beginning: I support the legislation which has been put forward, but I would like the minister to respond to those questions I raised.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have to ask the question: how can this government be trusted to regulate anything? What good is this legislation going to do if you have a deadbeat, dropkick government in power as we have now?
These guys have shown time and time again they do not have the ability to regulate anything, let alone things as serious as our mining and offshore petroleum industries. This lack of oversight was probably highlighted best by the Montara oil spill. The federal Labor government’s own department, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, estimated the Montara oil leak could have been as high as around 4000 barrels of oil per day pouring into the ocean. That is a staggeringly large number, considering this leak occurred over several weeks – for 10 weeks it was spewing thousands and thousands of barrels of oil per day into our ocean.
The first attempts to plug the oil leak by the company failed, but the fifth attempt succeeded on 3 November 2009 when PTTEP pumped approximately 3400 barrels of mud into a relief well to stop the leak. By the way, Madam Speaker, I should say that I am quoting here from Wikipedia. I did a quick search on the Internet, and this is what is says on Wikipedia. On that web page they say the slick was reported to have spread over 6000 km2, or 2300 square miles of ocean, with evidence that the oil is killing marine life. They say that by 30 October 2009, PTTEP acknowledged the spill had spread as far as Indonesian waters, but had not yet reached their coast – this is an oil spill that has almost reached Indonesian waters.
It was quite laughable to listen to the member for Daly, the minister for goodness knows what he is these days. He has pretty well been stripped of most responsibility. He proved over a number of years he could not build a house in remote communities, he has been a complete failure on energy. However, he had the audacity to talk about the good standing the Northern Territory has with international governments and the like.
What does Wikipedia say about the good standing of the Northern Territory government and the response they put in place to that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I did not quite hear that interjection.
The international reaction is that NGOs in Indonesia expressed concern about the oil spill’s effect on Indonesia’s environment and traditional fishing grounds as the oil drifted towards the islands of Timor and Sumba. They say that, in East Nusa Tenggara, Governor Frans Leburaya said Australia and the operator of the oilfield should be responsible for environmental damage caused by the oil spill.
Fishermen in West Timor are recorded as going bankrupt because of the effect of the oil spill on fishing stocks in their waters. East Timorese President, Dr Jos Ramos-Horta, said the Australian government and the Thai company that owns the platform are responsible for the spill, and he will seek compensation for damage caused by the spill to his country’s environment. Ramos-Horta called for Australian environmental organisations to help assess if the spill has caused damage to East Timor’s maritime area.
It does not add fact to the minister’s claim the Northern Territory is held in high esteem by Indonesia. I believe he mentioned Indonesia specifically, and other international bodies. A quick search on Wikipedia shows the Indonesians are not really happy. The West Timor and East Timor governments are not really happy that fishermen are going bankrupt in West Timor because of this oil slick. This is the worst oil disaster in Australian history! Thousands of barrels of oil are going into the ocean every day. Absolutely disgraceful! Whose job was it to regulate that industry, that particular resource? Whose job? Everyone knows it was the Northern Territory government’s job. The Northern Territory government has been receiving millions of dollars a year - and it would be great if the minister could tell us exactly how many millions of dollars a year the Northern Territory government has been taking off the Commonwealth government to regulate this industry. It would be useful for the minister to tell us exactly where those millions of dollars have been spent. I will bet London to a brick none of it has been spent on regulating that industry.
Suddenly, his comrades in Canberra, minister Ferguson and Kevin Rudd, are now taking the pain for something the Northern Territory government should have been doing. Ramos-Horta is jumping up and down about the Australian government. The Indonesian government is jumping up and down about the Australian government. The West Timorese are jumping up and down about the Australian government. Comrade Ferguson is in Canberra taking it on the chin. Why? Because the comrades in the Northern Territory could not do the job. Not only could they not do the job, they did not even try to do the job.
I bet you took the money and spent it elsewhere! We have looked, over the years, and seen the way this government has dumbed down the Resources department! Removed the petroleum registrar, removed the Director of Energy - has not been replaced yet! Where is the pipeline engineer the government employs? Is there a pipeline engineer working in the department of Resources? Who in the department has the technical expertise to deal in these emerging industries, such as coalescence and shale drilling, such as your wonderful hot rock technology, and the plethora of things emerging and coming into usage now? No one, minister!
You can sit there and smile and think it is all great, but 6000 km of our ocean was covered in oil due to your lack of oversight, minister! You waddle in here and tell us you have this wonderful new legislation, with which, in some regard, the Country Liberals agree. However, it is not the words, minister, it is the action! That is where you constantly fall down - in the action! You are interested in the money. You want the money the Commonwealth will give you to do the job; however, you will not do the job! It is the same as SIHIP; yes, you are welcome to $672m, but where are the houses?
We heard the minister talking about the environment yesterday and what a wonderful job we are doing in the environment. This is right on the heels of the worst oil disaster in Australian history! He has the audacity to say they look after the environment! We are seeing tonnes and tonnes of copper concentrate being dumped in the harbour, stuff happening on Groote Eylandt, in Gove, and these guys live in some sort of fantasy land where they turn up here and say: ‘Oh, we do such a great job, we care about the environment. The Country Liberals do not. The Country Liberals do not care about it’. Meanwhile, you have the worst oil slick in Australian history happened much less than 12 months ago. You have not even got out of the woods on that.
Another thing I will tip right here and now - we will see how good we are at forecasting - I reckon the feds are not going to stand for your incompetence much longer. I reckon they have had a gutful of this government not spending the money where it is supposed to. I would not mind betting somewhere down the track minister Ferguson may well strip you of the responsibility to regulate these industries. He will say: ‘No, the Commonwealth will keep its money and we will do the job ourselves because, quite frankly, our Labor comrades in the Northern Territory are incompetent’. And guess what? I have to agree with him - totally, utterly incompetent. You come in here, talk about mining and how proactive you have been - what an absolute joke!
Everything is turning to custard in this place, and still you march out on the steps of this place to talk to the media about how you are some great saviours of the environment. What a load of absolute nonsense!
This legislation would be quite fitting if you had a government that was prepared to walk the walk. They do plenty of talking, they do plenty of telling people how good they are, what wonderful things they are going to do, how they are going to fix all this stuff - but they never do. Where does the money go? You have to ask yourself: where does the money go? It is an absolute joke - a complete and utter joke.
I am not going to speak for long. It is one thing to support this legislation, but it is another thing to show the intestinal fortitude and the spine it takes to actually do something, to act. I could not help noticing, every time one of our guys jumped up - particularly the member for Katherine and his very well-thought-out and well-researched speech which made a few hard hitting points - that the minister laughed. The minister laughed like all this is some joke. You can imagine upstairs in their office: ‘Oh, there is another couple of tonnes of copper concentrate gone into our harbour, giggle, giggle, giggle, how funny. We have the environmental badge, our opponents do not. We can do what we like’. The member for Nhulunbuy is sitting over there being very quiet. She does not seem to care about all the stuff that is being dumped into the harbour at Gove. What about the people at Groote Eylandt? I am sure they are all in fits of laughter that they are finding manganese being poured into their harbour.
I am sure the whole fifth floor went completely berserk and thought it was a great big joke when 6000 km of ocean was covered in oil from the Montara oil leak: ‘Does it really matter? We have the money and we have the credentials’. Everyone says: ‘Oh, Labor is good on the environment’. I will tell you what, minister, that may have been the case a few years ago, but things are changing ...
Mr Elferink: How many parks do you think they have added to the parks estate they inherited?
Mr TOLLNER: That is a good one. It would be wonderful if we were having a discussion about parks but, at the moment, we are talking about mining. Member for Port Darwin, there are a plethora of things you could point to that this government has stuffed up in an almighty large way – and not just them but their colleagues in Canberra, in the Rudd Labor government. They are not short of a few monumental stuff-ups of their own.
In this particular case, the Rudd Labor government has been funding the Northern Territory government to do a job, like they funded the Northern Territory government to do other jobs and, like other jobs, the Northern Territory government has squibbed it. It would be interesting to see how many times the minister has actually fronted the media to put his case about the Montara oil slick. I do not remember seeing him. Maybe he can correct me and tell me that I am wrong. I would love to know how many times the minister has stood in front of the media and said: ‘Okay, we might have it wrong. Maybe there are a few things that have gone wrong. Maybe we have killed a couple of billion fish in the Timor Sea. Maybe the Indonesians are not happy with us, and maybe the Timorese are not happy with us, and a whole plethora of other countries to our near north are not particularly happy with us. We know we got it wrong and we will fix it’. No, we have not heard of any of that. We have not heard the minister say anything; he has gone completely to ground - completely and utterly to ground.
Madam Speaker, this government is a failed government. This government has no ability whatsoever to manage, let alone regulate and keep a close eye on what is going on here in the Northern Territory, let alone offshore. I urge members, when they are considering this legislation, to remember that legislation is one thing, action is another thing completely. This government fails on every count on the latter.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak in relation to the Petroleum Act amendment today because there is another component. If you take the totality of the debate as it has proceeded so far today, there is another component to the management of the areas which have been identified in this legislation. As has been quite correctly pointed out in this House today, management is not only applying to the bits of paper you fill out, it is also the quality of the regulation conducted by the frontline staff.
I pick up the comment from the member for Katherine in relation to those two unfortunate staff who were, essentially, cast to the four winds by their minister whilst having to front the inquiry into the oil spill. As it turned out, those unfortunate staff had to confess, sadly, to an environment where the process of authorisation and approval was nothing more than a flick and tick, I think was …
Ms Purick: Tick and flick.
Mr ELFERINK: Tick and flick. … tick and flick system, which is a rubber stamp, an approval. A piece of paper arrives at your in tray, you look at it and you think: I have to authorise this. What does it say? It says I can do certain things, etcetera. As a consequence of that, I will then do one of two things. I will get out of my chair and go and inspect and look at the thing that I am about to authorise, kick its tyres, pull its widgets, make sure it is all working correctly and, then, I go back and put the rubber stamp on saying this has all been ticked off; I have checked up on it. That is not what has occurred at all.
If the evidence we have seen is to be believed, what those poor staff were forced to do, by virtue of the arrangements put into place by this government, was it arrived in the in tray, stamped, out tray. That is a tick and flick. That is how it works. What happens is the pulling of the widgets and the kicking of the tyres does not happen. So the inspectorial role which is presumed by the legislation – and I invite honourable members to look at section 87 of the act – is not complied with.
That, then, draws my attention to another issue about how this government operates. If you need any clearer evidence of how this government operates, and its attitude towards its inspectorial or policing functions, then there cannot be a clearer example of it in the Special Gazette posted today, but authorised on 23 April 2010. It was Special Government Gazette No S – for special - 15. It is not a long gazettal notice. These Special Gazettes never are because the normal Gazette, which is this one, is about 10 to 15 pages long. Special Gazettes are for a specific reason.
Let us have a look at this gazettal notice. The Waste Management and Pollution Control Act – hang on, that sounds familiar. Where did I hear that recently?
Ms Purick: Waste Management and Pollution Control.
Mr ELFERINK: Was that something to do with the …
Ms Purick: Harbour.
Mr ELFERINK: Harbours, that is right. Thank you, member for Goyder. Harbours - that is the one. It is an appointment of authorised officers. It says:
- I, James William George Grant, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts, and Sport under section 70(1)(a) of the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act, appoint each person specified in Schedule 1 to be an authorised officer for the purposes of the act.
It is dated 22 April 2010, and signed by the CEO, Mr Grant.
The schedule appears directly below, and there were three inspectors appointed on 22 April.
I am used to seeing these lists; these lists come out all the time. In fact, I draw honourable members’ attention to the Gazette of five days later. Five days later, the Gazette has several of these lists in them. There is a list on page 4 of that Gazette under the Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act, with a list of people authorised to become authorised officers under the legislation. Under the Traffic Act, the Commander of Human Resource Development Command with the Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Maxwell Pope, has authorised a list of people to become operators of breath analysis instruments - those are police officers. These are policing functions we are talking about.
The question then suddenly appears in my mind’s eye: what is so important about the individuals who, suddenly, have their own special Gazette issue, under the Waste Management and Pollution Control Act? Goodness. There is no indication in that special Gazette of any urgency. These things are done normally and routinely in normal Gazettes. Yet, for some reason, there is a sense of urgency which sees the issuing of a special Gazette five days - only five days - prior to the delivery of a normal and regular Gazette No G17.
One would start to ask some fairly curious questions about what is implied by all of this because, to be an authorised officer implies a certain amount of training. I have taken the liberty of doing some public searches on the three people named in Schedule 1 of the government Gazette, and they are, indeed, public servants. From what I could make out, only two of them actually work for the department; one is in a slightly different area. They seem to be well qualified and professional people - I have no doubt about that - in their fields. I am always impressed when a person tells me they are something like a microbiologist, which one of these individuals is. However, I am also aware that, in most universities - reputable universities - policing is not taught in courses of microbiology. Regulatory enforcement is not taught as a regular part of a course of microbiology.
It is not unreasonable to ask a question: how do these people get trained? You can almost picture how these ducks are now lining up. ‘Oh my gosh’, says the minister, as he opens the paper, realising his department has told him nothing and kept him in the dark – Mr Mushroom himself – ‘there is a headline and it does not look particularly good’. Ring up the department, with a couple of phone calls back and forwards: ‘Oh my goodness, gracious me, we have to be looking like we are doing something. We are going to have to have people on the ground - people on the ground!’ ‘Oh, how are we off for people to put on the ground?’ says the minister. ‘Well’, says the department, ‘we have a few but we might have to add a couple more to the list’. So, in a state of urgency, on 22 April 2010, so it could be publicly gazetted on 23 April 2010, they introduced three new inspectors. Could you imagine how these poor people turned up to work? ‘Hi, I am here to do my microbiology’ - ‘Here is your badge, here is your gun, off you go, go and do the policing’. ‘What? What am I supposed to do?’ ‘Just read the act. It is in section 70’.
If you read section 70, it provides these people with some extraordinary powers. The area that deals with authorised officers gives them some pretty extraordinary powers. If we went to any of these individuals, I wonder if they would know how to obtain a search warrant, as required by the legislation? I wonder if reasonable force for breaking open cupboards and entering property rights these inspectors carry are something they are familiar with, and the implications of reasonable force? I can imagine their training - somewhere between 10 am and 10.15 am on that particular morning during tea time: ‘Here is your badge; go and do this’.
That is indicative of how this government operates. I hope that did not happen that way. I apply Occam’s razor to these circumstances and cannot be left with anything but the impression that is exactly how it did happen. The reason it stands out in that fashion is the urgent nature of the gazettal notice to introduce these people.
This is an ad hoc way to run government. The policies and priorities of this government; those priorities we always hear of - this is an absolute priority in this area, and an absolute priority in that area – are not set in the Cabinet room. They are set in the editorial suite of the Northern Territory News.
They may laugh; I hear the minister chortling away: ‘Ho, ho, ho, as if that would be the case! You have to be joking’. I can tell you! I invite the minister to leap to his feet and explain why it was urgent, shortly after this story broke, to suddenly start hiring authorised officers for the ‘purposes of the act’.
This is the nature of how we are governed in the Northern Territory; it is a 24-hour media cycle. We do what we can to respond to the news outlets in an effort to show we are doing things. It is all about message, and massaging the message.
I pointed out last night to the government they actually own the Darwin Port Corporation where these poor, new inspectors will have to inspect the pollution which has occurred in our harbour. Every piece of language I have heard from the minister is that, somehow, this organ is at great length from government. No, read the last annual report; they wrote to the minister. If you read the last annual report, also the CEO of that particular organisation, the Darwin Port Corporation, said they could not operate without the support of the Northern Territory minister and his Cabinet colleagues.
This is not a government-owned corporation in the sense the Power and Water Corporation is a government-owned corporation, which places a slight distance between government, because this one appears in our budget books as carrying line items – Power and Water does not. This one is listed as a government business division, not a government-owned corporation. I refer members to the back of Budget Paper No 2. In the definition of government business division, it is clearly outlined it is a Territory-run organisation.
The government owns and runs the Darwin Port Corporation. In some way to suggest they are at length from government is patently, completely, and utterly absurd. It is all about how we make it look. ‘We have inspectors’ is the answer I heard from the minister yesterday. You have had them for five days. How many inspectors did you have before these three were added, minister? I invite you to entertain and answer that simple question in this debate, and do it by way of documentary evidence.
I would also like to know, minister, whilst you are on your feet and answering these questions, what training they received to do their job effectively and fulsomely, so they do not end up sitting in front of an inquiry being embarrassed because the government, which is supposed to care for them and their training, offered them none.
Perhaps one of the training lessons they might want to take is from those poor public servants in relation to the Montara inquiry, and how they felt when they had to say it was, basically, a tick-and-flick exercise. That is what you are setting these people up for if they are not properly trained. If it is what it appears to be, this government then continues to show its lack of understanding, of its duties and responsibilities to the people who serve it. They continue to place above those duties and responsibilities their own image as ministers of the Crown, as a government, and as a political organisation.
Madam Speaker, it is the core function of government to ensure governance is done effectively. It is not always going to be perfect, but you are setting people up to fail if you are doing what it looks like you are doing.
Madam SPEAKER: I remind honourable members we are debating the Petroleum Amendment and Related Matters Bill 2010 ...
Mr Elferink: I digressed, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: While a level of digression is to be expected, it is probably not appropriate that an entire speech should be a digression.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I will address my comments to the bill. Before I do that - and they will be brief - I will pick up on the comments made by the member for Daly in reference to me being somewhat of a lefty, which I find rather amusing. It will be rather surprising to my family, and particularly to the statue in my garden which is a portrait of Genghis Khan, that I have been referred to as a ‘lefty’. It also might be a concern to my colleague, the member for Araluen, who is our side’s token lefty.
I am also surprised at the member for Daly’s comments regarding Mt Todd and the mining industry generally, given that in his CV he has had a time in the mines at Tennant Creek. I am not sure what he did there, but I thought he would have had a greater appreciation of the problems in the industry, generally, when companies go broke or they go out of business for whatever reason.
In regard to the Mt Todd comment - which seems to be the only mine that has gone bad, although it is better again now - is they can only think of Mt Todd when, really, there are many examples around the Territory, previously and currently, of excellent rehabilitation and remedial work. It is disappointing the Chief Minister and the minister do not refer to this. For example, the Pine Creek gold fields, when rehabilitated, was one of the first leases actually relinquished and the bond paid back to the company.
For the record, it should be noted that Mt Todd had two lives. I am not sure which one the Chief Minister ever refers to. The Mt Todd in the first phase was a joint venture, or a project managed by Pegasus and Zapopan with the passing of the time. The reason, quite simply, why that project went down the first time was Mt Todd’s ore grade is very low. It is only about one gram per tonne and, depending on the company’s expertise, they do not always extract that. The minister and others would know the rock is exceptionally hard and it has to be crushed down very finely. This is a result of using a high level of energy. Where a mining company usually spends about 30% of its costs on energy, Mt Todd, in the first and second phases, was somewhere near 45% of their costs going on just processing the ore. That company collapsed when the gold price collapsed, and the Australian project took down the company in America.
Some years passed before Mt Todd rejuvenated. General Gold got into a very bad joint venture with Multiplex Resources and reopened the mine. Sadly, it did not last long when Multiplex Resources refused to come forward with the payment - I think it was about mid-year. It is generally viewed and accepted that Multiplex Resources used the Northern Territory and that project for its own commercial and financial gain. The same issues presented at that project, which were presented the first time; which was, low grade, hard rock, and high energy consumption. However, it is good news that Vista Gold has management of that project.
Yes, while I was with the Minerals Council, the government did set up the Mt Todd Reference Group, which was a very good move. I sat on that group with other stakeholders, and the government did, I think, commit about $1m in the first phase and then it might have gone up to about $3m.
It is interesting to note there are still excellent assets at that project area. I think the company has currently revisited the amount of gold that is there. It was three million ounces, but they may have adjusted upwards of about five or seven. The tailings dam is a very good piece of engineering, and there has never been a problem with the tailings dam. Where the problems were was in regard to the heat leach pads and the bund walls breaking down in some of the retention ponds. As I understand it, between the stakeholders, the government, and the company now, those problems have been rectified. With good management and good regulation, I hope that project sees another life.
I turn briefly to the bill. I concur with a comment the member for Katherine made in regard to this new legislation. Sadly, in the Territory, we have not had much activity with onshore exploration for oil and gas. The last major wave, or burst, was from Amadeus Basin. There has been a lot of exploration in Central Australia. Central Petroleum is probably the main player that has many permits and is spending quite a bit of money. There are some smaller companies around which are very interested in the Territory, but they need incentives to come here. They need assistance, both from a regulatory point of view and otherwise, to get them up and running and to get them into the Territory.
The coal seam my colleague, the member for Fong Lim, mentioned is big business and it is starting to boom in Queensland. I do not know if we really have much scope in that. I believe we have a teeny bit of coal potential in the bottom part of the Territory. Previously, it was seen as a problem with methane but now, of course, it is seen as an asset, which is good news for Queensland. Of course ConocoPhillips, which is here, has big projects planned for Queensland in regard to this industry.
As mentioned also by colleagues, the next wave that we will probably see in the Territory, as well as elsewhere, is in regard to shale gas, which is where they drill the horizontal wells. It is big in America; not quite here with the technology but, hopefully, with the incentives and the encouragement of the minister and the government, we can try to get some of these smaller players in to spend a bit of money, because it is the explorers who actually find these things and then joint ventures will sell them on to the bigger operating companies.
The only concern I mention - and my colleague, the member for Katherine, did raise it - is the retrospectivity of this legislation. When the petroleum companies put in for their permanence, did they know that, after five years, they have to drop 50%? There is a school of thought that says it is a little unfair to any new players coming into the Northern Territory, or to encourage new players to come into the Northern Territory. Potentially, it could sterilise some of the ground for new players and …
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you mind if I just acknowledge these students. Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Clyde Fenton Primary Year 5/6 students, accompanied by Ms Sophia Perry, Ms Sandy Cartwright and Mr Glenn Hayles. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms PURICK: Welcome to the students.
Minister, that is my only area of concern. Some of the smaller players put those concerns to me in regard to the retrospectivity and, also, some lack of encouragement for new investment into the Northern Territory for new players, given there is this potential in the Northern Territory for a range of petroleum, oil and gas, and hydrocarbon-type activity.
Madam Speaker, I have just been given a note by my colleague, who said it was announced last night - and I think it is confirmed - that Woodside is going to go to floating LNG at Sunrise, which is a bit disappointing, I guess, from the Northern Territory government’s point of view. It means a lot of activity will not come to the Northern Territory. You have to ask: why?
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, we are disappointed about the floating LNG. Sunrise, unfortunately, is controlled by international treaties within Australia and East Timor, and Australia …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Well, you might not want to accept international treaties because you are totally ignorant, but the reality is …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Mr VATSKALIS: The reality is the federal minister for Resources advised me it is subject to international treaties and, if East Timor does not accept that it comes to Australia, it will not come to Australia - and East Timor has a big say in that.
I will come back to some of the issues raised by the member for Goyder. It is obvious the CLP, in the last few months, hired the bus, got on the bus, and went to Damascus. On the road to Damascus, they have had this transformation. All of a sudden, the Country Liberals became green liberals. The people who actually pillaged the Territory now tell us what wonderful greenies they are. I suspect some of them will probably stand for the Green Party at the next election. Let me remind some of the members opposite what they left behind, apart from the fact they left a dying mining industry because they refused to sign exploration applications because they would not accept the rights of Indigenous people in the Territory. They left us 2000 legacy mines - abandoned mines all over the Territory. We have a classic example of one person dying in Alice Springs when he fell down the shaft of a mine.
Regarding Mt Todd, no one blames the companies; companies go bankrupt, I agree. However, what we say is the CLP government was the one which actively - the local member and the then Treasurer - imposed a $900 000 bond because, otherwise, Mt Todd would not have gone ahead. They told us they would use legislation about environmental bonds in mines but, if you listen to what the member for Katherine said, it was so flexible you could not even pinpoint what kind of bond it was.
What we say today is 100% bond for rehabilitation, and that bond will be assessed by the Valuer-General - not by the minister, not by the bureaucrats, by the Valuer-General. What they left behind us at Mt Todd, was a disaster, a legacy for years to come. We have stepped in; we have spent $5m to replace pumps and pipes to recirculate the water. Mt Todd would be a disaster, destroying not only the Edith River. They come to us and talk about a disaster of copper oxide in the port. Did you know that, every year, Mt Todd released 17 tonnes of copper into the Edith River? Do you know that at Mt Todd, the company left abandoned 700 000 of high concentration cyanide …
Mr Mills: Do you reckon people would think this is a great response, for the current, right here and now problem that you are responsible for?
Mr VATSKALIS: ... that we have neutralised. Did you know that they left acidic water in the pond at Mt Todd? You can actually use it in your battery, it is so acidic. That is a disaster.
Mr Tollner: And 6000 km2 ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: How can I take note of people like the member for Fong Lim, whose source of information is Wikipedia? What is Wikipedia? It is an open source encyclopaedia. According to their own website: ‘this is compiled by contribution by anyone’ - no scientists, no research, no facts; anyone can write whatever they like. That is the encyclopaedia, the source for the member for Fong Lim.
Member for Fong Lim, you mentioned we actually got rid of a lot of people from the department. He asked: ‘Where is the Director of Energy?’ I tell you where he is - at his desk. Gerry Whitfield is at his desk and he has been there for many years, because he is the Director of Energy. He asked: ‘Where is the Registrar for Petroleum?’ At her desk, because we have to have one by legislation and she been working there for years. Where is the pipeline engineer? In the department, working for the past few years. We did not get rid of these people; they have always been there.
The CLP has a trend now; they come here, they make statements and they think people will believe them. I am not going to leave these statements unchallenged. I am not going to leave this. Here you have a statement that is untrue. He implied we do not have these people. These people are currently working in the department.
Let us go to Montara. The member for Fong Lim said: ‘You have all this money. Where are the inspections?’ It was the Howard government in 2004 that amended the legislation to self-regulate. The industry should regulate itself. We will not send our inspectors out there. How much money did we get back from this? We do not get paid from the Commonwealth. We receive a portion of the income from the petroleum licences. We are not the authority. We are a delegate of a designated authority.
Let me put it another way. At the time the approval was given for Montara, there were four people working in the unit - it was four staff; four people. That was March 2009. The disaster of Montara happened in August 2009 - six months later. They ask why we are not out there saying something. Because there is an inquiry to find out what was the real cause of the Montara disaster. Our people are out there giving evidence, and I have been advised - I have received legal advice - that at no time our people went out of the guidelines as prescribed by the Commonwealth legislation.
There must be something else, Madam Speaker. Let us wait until the inquiry finishes and, before we make statements that we read in the newspapers - despite the fact they accuse us if we respond to editorials - let us find out what the situation is about the 30 minutes approval and the tick and flick. What these people do not say is that, when something is produced for drilling to the department and the petroleum minister, it is not given in bits and pieces. It is given as a whole plan of what is going to happen and, as things happen, they seek our approval. Our department looks at the package as a whole when the application is first received and, as different things happen, the company requests approval and the department gives it. The 30 minute tick and flick is absolutely untrue.
I thank the member for Nelson. He is only member who spoke on the legislation. He raised some very good points, and I would like to clarify some of them. He said there is no limit on exemptions. We know a person can apply for an exploration licence for five years. Under the proposed amendment, a person can come to us and say: ‘I want an extension of the package I have for 12 months because, under the existing legislation I get a five-year approval, after five years I have to relinquish 50% of the tenement I have. Because of new technologies, new interest, I would like to maintain that whole tenement for another 12 months’. That can happen time after time. However, after 15 years, the person, or the company, has to relinquish the whole tenement. You receive a tenement for exploration for five years, but in the 15th year, you have to relinquish it. There are only so many times you can ask for the extension.
When someone applies for an extension, it is not definite they will get it. What the government and the minister have to consider is the performance of the company, how much money this company has spent, and what is going to be their future program to spend in exploration. It is not a fait accompli, a tick, and a signature that he gets; he has to satisfy very strict regulations.
Regarding retrospectivity, I cannot see it. We apply official legislation now, and this bill will apply to everything in place now. We do not go back to someone who lost the right for an extension and say they can have it now. If you have an exploration application now, the current legislation applies now. I find retrospectivity very difficult, and I insist there is no retrospectivity.
I strongly agree it is good the member for Katherine received a briefing from my department. However, before you read what an advisor on the fourth floor wrote for you, it would be a good idea to ask questions. The question you should have asked is: are these amendments unique to this legislation? These amendments are not unique to this legislation. These amendments bring the Petroleum Act into parity with the Mining Act. Under these amendments, we now give the right to people to apply for an extension. The same thing happens in the Mining Act under section 18(aa) where people can apply for an extension for a period of up to 12 months in the same circumstance. If they want an application for exploration for minerals and their five years finishes, they can request an extension of 12 months. This is exactly the same as we are proposing.
The other matter I would like to discuss is an application for an area already under exploration. I believe it is extremely unfair when someone has lodged an application for exploration, someone else, when they realise the potential, submits another application for exploration which has already been granted. That is exactly the same in the Mining Act. You cannot do it in the Mining Act, why should we have to do it in the Petroleum Act? We are saying if you have two applications on the same day, we will assess the applications and will approve the one which is in the interests of the Territory: you are going to spend money, you are going to actually use it, and you have a program to develop it in a certain period of time.
It is very important to avoid the situation which occurred in Western Australia: two competing companies put in for a very rich resource area in Western Australia and the minister was caught in the middle and had to make a decision which was very controversial.
This has arisen because technology has changed. In the old days, we had a drill rig, put the drill straight down, you find oil, or you find gas. Now, because of the high price of gas and oil, people can develop new technologies that can drill vertically, then drill horizontally in order to break the rock and release the gas or oil from the rock. This is the new technology. This technology is extremely expensive, and needs a lot of work. People never search for oil and gas in the Territory onshore, on the ground. They have come to us and said: ‘We want certainty, but we want certainty for a period of time because we cannot do that in one year, two years, or even five years’. It is an expensive way to prepare; it would be excessive. In some cases the figure of $20m a year has been indicated to me. No one is going to invest $100m over five years then, all of a sudden, 50% of the tenement disappears and goes to the open market. That is why we have done this. We have to move with the times, and with the technology.
Another issue raised was the issue of WorkSafe taking control of the occupational health and safety issues with the Petroleum Act. On 1 July 2008, NT WorkSafe became the agency responsible for occupational health and safety in the Northern Territory for the mining and exploration industry. Why do we have an industry controlled by WorkSafe, and a similar one for petroleum, which is controlled by the minister responsible for occupational health and safety? Would it not be better to have one agency so it can overlook the petroleum and mining and exploration industries?
In July 2008, people who worked in the Mines department looking at mining exploration moved to NT WorkSafe. These were the same people who were looking after the petroleum occupational health and safety industry. These people are already trained, and they already have experience in the industry. By moving to WorkSafe, nothing is going to change. It will be even better and more efficient because there will be one agency to control occupational health and safety in the Northern Territory.
When I first became the minister for Mines the record of the mining industry with regard to occupational health and safety was abysmal. It was surprising the CLP government had never taken any legal action against any mine, or any mining company, or the mining industry in the Northern Territory. When I took over, I believe my first instruction to the department was to take appropriate action when ERA released contaminated water into Magela Creek, and the second one was when there was the tragic death of a worker at the Alcan factory. That was the first time for many years, under our government, where legal action was taken against the mining industry, and the fines imposed were significant.
The mining industry is very important for the Territory. At the same time, it is very risky industry - risky for the workers and for the environment. I was very disappointed yesterday to hear about the incident at GEMCO on Groote Eylandt. The fact the company took immediate action to clean under the conveyor, and to dredge the area where the manganese was spilt in the sea is commendable. However, I am very disappointed because they breached their obligation under the Mine Management Act to report the incident immediately. The same thing happened at Alcan.
I have put the mining industry on notice. I have already instructed the department to amend the legislation of the Mine Management Act so, from now on, all the environmental management plans on a mining site will become public, will be in the public arena on the web page, and the public will know what they have to do.
These amendments might be small, but they are significant. They are significant for the future of the petroleum industry in the Territory. These amendments open the road, an avenue, for exploration in the Territory - exploration that, as the member for Goyder said previously, was never before in the Territory – or very sporadic and very small. These open areas in Central Australia, in Dunmarra and in Alice Springs, were never explored before. This new technology will open these areas and will ensure we have exploration in the Territory, employment and, hopefully, if the outcomes are positive, we will have a gas and oil industry - not offshore, not 1000 km north-west of Darwin in the Ashmore Cartier area where Montara was, but in the centre of the Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Debate suspended.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Barkly
Member for Barkly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of absence for the Minister for Transport for the rest of this sitting date.
Leave granted.
PETROLEUM AMENDMENT AND
RELATED MATTERS BILL
(Serial 91)
RELATED MATTERS BILL
(Serial 91)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! For the purposes of Hansard, the member for Katherine will be occupying my chair during the meeting.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to seek leave from the Chairman of Committees.
In committee:
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move from my position to the member for Port Darwin’s seat.
Madam CHAIR: Leave is granted, member for Katherine.
The committee has before it the Petroleum Amendment and Related Matters Bill (Serial 91), presented by the minister, Mr Vatskalis.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: This should not take too long, by the way. I do not think there are a huge number of issues that need to be canvassed unless, of course, the members for Nelson or Goyder have a great deal to ask.
The first question is an odd one. I notice on the Northern Territory government’s Legislative Assembly website, it says that this bill - the Petroleum Amendment and Related Bills 2010 - has already been passed. I am just curious about how that might have lobbed on to the website.
Mr VATSKALIS: I do not control the website of the Legislative Assembly. It must be a mistake.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: For the first question, I will go to the first issue I raised during my speech, which was in respect of staffing under the change of regime, under OHS. I can repeat directly out of here - useful to know whether staff operating under the current OHS regime will be the same as those in the new regime, or whether they will be subsumed into NT WorkSafe? Will there be sufficient trained and qualified staff to carry out the requirements of the act?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Chair, on 1 July 2008, NT WorkSafe became the agency responsible for occupational health and safety for the Northern Territory mining and exploration work sites. NT WorkSafe is also the designated agency responsible for all occupational health and safety matters with respect to activities undertaken on a petroleum permit with the exemption of production facilities. So, if it is exploration or anything but production, NT WorkSafe is responsible. When it goes into production, then the minister, under the Petroleum Act becomes responsible for OHS. We now put everything - exploration and production - under NT WorkSafe.
The people who were transferred in July 2008 to WorkSafe were people looking after the Petroleum Act, and they continued to do that for exploration and other purposes. They are the people who were already trained to do that. So, there would be further training as part of the job, but they were already trained to do that job.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, do you think there will be a significant increase in their workload, or will there be additional staff made available to monitor the provisions of the exploration part?
Mr VATSKALIS: These people will be transferred to NT WorkSafe. Depending on the volume of work that will come to the Territory, NT WorkSafe has to address the issue of occupational health and safety. It is not going to come under the department of Resources but, as happened before, when there is more work to be done NT WorkSafe has responded to the demand for more workers.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister. I might just move to the ...
Madam CHAIR: Member for Katherine, I ask you to pause, please. I remind visitors in the public gallery that photography is not permitted. Thank you.
Member for Katherine, you have the call.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I might just go straight to the most, or one of the most, pertinent questions I have. In the briefing I received, I was advised that, under the new provisions, where an exemption from the halving regime could be applied for, there would be five occasions of the maximum period of 12 months each where an extension to the exemption may be given, totalling five years. Yet, my reading of the act says to me you can apply for an exemption for 12 months, followed by an extension of an exemption for 12 months. Can you clarify please which it is?
Mr VATSKALIS: As I already indicated, a person can apply for an exemption for 12 months then, at the end of the 12 months, can reapply for an extension of 12 months, and can reapply for an extension of 12 months. However, in order to get the extension, he has to provide sufficient evidence why the company should get the extension, plus the program of exploration, plus what the benefit will be to the Territory. However, the whole thing lasts for 15 years. You get the tenement for exploration for five years. After five years, you can apply for an extension and so on but, by the 15th year, the tenement is refused. You do not have any more rights to that tenement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I understand the 15-year cut-off, but just to clarify, how many years, potentially, can an exemption run for?
Mr VATSKALIS: The extension runs for 12 months only, but you can reapply for the same extension year after year for 10 years, until the exploration or the total tenement of exploration. The act, on purpose, prescribes it can apply for one, two or three extensions, because the safety valve there is not the number of extensions you can have; it is what the program and the expenditure will be for every extension in order to be granted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I understand that, minister. Is there a legislative instrument that says you can apply five times or 10 times for an extension to the exemption?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, the reason the act is silent on this in on purpose because, as I said before, it is an emerging industry which develops from year to year. We know now what we can do. In the next year, it will be a further development. Because of the further development, there might be more discoveries from the same tenement and we want to allow a company that has already invested millions of dollars for exploration to be able to seek an extension for a year, and a year, and a year after. But, they will be controlled by strict rules of what your expenditure is, what your exploration is, and the benefit to the Territory. We do not want people applying for an extension and land-banking.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I take it, minister, in reading the amendments where it says under section 24A(5) and (6) basically, you can get an exemption for 12 months, then you can extend it for 12 months and, because there are no limiting parts to that, those extensions can continue on?
Mr VATSKALIS: That is correct.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Right, thank you. That leads me to the next question. I understand, minister, you received quite a number of submissions in respect to these amendments, and a number of those submissions suggested the period of exemption should be five years to provide a greater degree of certainty for prospectors, or for drillers who want to explore. Why did you not accept that recommendation?
Mr VATSKALIS: This is an emerging industry, especially for the non-conventional oil fields and gas fields. The industry is still developing. With a limit of five years, a person would not be able to, or not be willing to, spend a significant amount of money because after it is developed he can expect to find more gas and oil. Putting a limitation of one or two years on it will actually make them quite concerned about spending the amount of money they intend to spend for exploration if they are not sure they can continue to explore as the industry develops.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Under section 24A(1), what would be the process for a person applying for an exemption to the permit or to the halving regime?
Mr VATSKALIS: If a person applies for an extension he has to provide evidence, once again, about the expenditure program, the exploration program, and what would be the continuous activities on the site. We will not accept a person saying: ‘I want an extension, I am going to spend $200 000 this month and nothing later’. We have to see continuous activity.
One more thing to clarify, under the current Mining Act we have a very similar regime. Under the current Mining Act, an exploration permit is issued for six years; then they can apply for two years, plus two years. In the new model introduced today the original permit is for six years, and two, plus two, plus two, as long as they provide us with an expenditure program which satisfies our demands, and satisfies the interests of the Territory.
What we will now do, both in the Petroleum Act and the new Mining Act, is apply the same regime; continuous extension until you satisfy the Territory’s demand, and until the end of the exploration permit of 15 years.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That probably completes my questions.
Ms PURICK: Madam Chair, just a couple of questions to the minister. How many granted permits are there in the Territory for onshore petroleum?
Mr VATSKALIS: My advice is in excess of 12.
Ms PURICK: Twelve?
Mr VATSKALIS: In excess of 12.
Ms PURICK: How many companies is that spread across? How many active companies take up those 12 permits?
Mr VATSKALIS: Nine companies.
Ms PURICK: Given a company has a permit area and is coming up to their renewal, and you know they are thinking of asking for an extension, but you also know there is another company interested in the parcel of land because the way industry talks, would you take that into consideration in your decision whether to grant the extension, so that they do not have to drop the ground, or not? Knowing that you want to get new players into the country, into the town, would that be one of the factors you would take into consideration?
Mr VATSKALIS: They have to put in an application in order to be considered. If they have not put in an application and the land is already occupied, they cannot apply for a permit on an exploration tenement.
Ms PURICK: In seeking a deferral, is there a fee associated and, if so, how much?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, there is no fee applicable.
Ms PURICK: In regards to section 24(3), it says: ‘An exemption may provide for a deferral of the reduction of permit area or reduction of the permit area by a lesser number of blocks’. Would you allow for a deferral time line? Have you set a sliding scale, or is it at your discretion how they are going to go about the deferral?
Mr VATSKALIS: They can apply for an extension of the exploration tenement as a whole, or they can apply for an extension on only half of it, or a quarter of it, or an eighth of it. It is a decision by the company. The company will decide the most prospective area they want to maintain for another 12 months, to apply to us. It is not my discretion. It is an application by the company.
Ms PURICK: I guess it is a procedural thing; what is the time frame - if the company comes to the department and says they are going to be seeking a deferral to when they get granted, what is the time frame? Is it two weeks, is it a month, or …
Mr VATSKALIS: It has to be a reasonable period of time before the permit expires, for the simple reason we will be asking questions. We will be asking questions about exploration, about expenditure, about exploration program, about proven resources. We will be asking for quite a lot of information. It should not come to the last week or the last month, because it would be a rigorous examination assessment why we have to approve the extension. If that person cannot provide us information we want, cannot give us a real program exploration expenditure, why should we let that person keep that land? It is land-banking. Let it close down, let someone else do it.
However, if a person comes with a comprehensive program of expenditure, exploration, and proven resources, and in a timely fashion, then it would be, for us, good enough to provide an extension.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister. That is fine, I accept that. Once you have all that information and the department has done their rigorous assessment, what is going to be the time frame to expect a decision from the minister?
Mr VATSKALIS: We need about two months to assess it. So, we will request that about two months before the exploration, and we will provide the extension before the expiration of the tenement.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, minister.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, a couple of questions around some of those the member for Goyder posed. Is there an appeal process? If a person or a company were to apply for an exemption and not be granted that exemption, is there an appeal process?
Mr VATSKALIS: No, there is not an appeal mechanism, and neither does any other act actually allow them to come back and argue why they should get it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you. Will determinations under section 24 be made in such a timely fashion that a company which, perhaps, is not granted an exemption would have time to come back and make a second application for the exemption, while the original permit still exists? Do you know what I mean? Basically, will there be an opportunity for two bites of the cherry if a company was to fail in its first bid for an exemption?
Mr VATSKALIS: If a company asks for an extension and it is not granted, and they want to reapply for this particular tenement to be reissued to them, they have to go through every single process as per the original application for an exploration permit. There is not only going to be the process that gives us information about the expenditure of the program, they have to go through every single process including probably the Aboriginal Land Act and all other legislation. It would be like a brand new application.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, minister.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
PUBLIC INFORMATION BILL
(Serial 77)
(Serial 77)
Continued from 16 February 2010.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Public Information Bill 2010 (Serial 77) is to establish an independent mechanism to review advertising and public information campaigns produced by members of the Legislative Assembly and government agencies through a post-review process conducted by the Auditor-General on request from a member of the Legislative Assembly, or on his own initiative.
The Chief Minister has called this legislation ‘groundbreaking’ and attributed this legislation to his ‘government’s commitment to being transparent and accountable’. I can only comment that this is a newfound commitment; what is called in some terms ‘a foxhole conversion’. On the battlefield there are no atheists; they come to faith when they are in the foxhole. To say this is your commitment to being transparent and accountable has come as a result of a near-death experience; that being, standing in front of the cameras in August 2008 and being flabbergasted; perhaps uncertain about your tenure. The vote of the people of the community, effectively, against the government has caused a change of heart. I need to use those words, to recognise these statements – such as the commitment to being transparent and accountable – have been used before, but the context in which these are now uttered is as a result of external forces; that being, a near-death experience.
I applaud the government’s introduction of this bill. I will explain why it is supported: because we need these much-needed controls over the indiscriminate promotion of Labor Party politics using public funds. Of course, I will draw a big bow – everyone else has done it. However, for anyone who is trying to deal with what is right and wrong, that is no defence. Everyone else did it, so it is okay is the implication. Well, it is not ...
Mr Henderson: John Howard was quite good. He was master of it.
Mr MILLS: See, there you go. If it is wrong, it is wrong and, because other people have done it, does not make it right, nor is it ever any justification. If that is the depth of the conviction, the analysis, or the assessment of this, then that is why we end up with statements made that assert certain things that are plainly false and is pure confectionary; that being, ‘we are now committed’. It is like Mr Kevin Rudd, who has the greatest moral dilemma of our time - postponed for some time because it does not suit today. These are just mere words …
Mr Henderson: No, it was because the Liberals blocked it in the Senate. That is why.
Mr MILLS: No.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, whether you have an anchor of actual belief in the things that you say, or the things are uttered for mere political convenience is really the point which, obviously, escapes the Chief Minister.
I applaud …
Mr Henderson: The Libs blocked it in the Senate
Mr MILLS: The greatest morale crisis of our time is what we are actually talking about - those words. It is confectionary and fake, when I then attest to some of these grand statements.
That being said, we welcome the Public Information Bill, because I cannot help but wonder if the government would have bothered to create this bill at all had I not introduced a similar bill in February 2008 in the Tenth Assembly, and again in April 2009 of the Eleventh Assembly. Where has this newfound moral courage come from? Clearly, the effect of 2008 and what people said, and the requirement of government to hold on to its position has found a new place, and new words and new decisions, which I am pleased with.
Also, in being fair here, when I introduced a similar bill in February 2008, I drew upon the statements which were made by the then Opposition Leader, Mr Kevin Rudd, at the time, who committed to doing such things upon entering government. There was a very similar response, made by the federal Opposition Leader, Mr Kevin Rudd at the time, because the community needed the right thing to be done. We had clear evidence a government had no deeper connection than ensuring they were able to attend to the political objectives of the time, and were able to use public funds to achieve a political objective. There is plenty of evidence of that, which I will go into in a moment.
That is the context in which this arose. I thought the now Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when he was in opposition, did the right thing. Anyone with a conscience would recognise that is the right thing to do. Then, surprise, surprise, and to my delight, it was continued upon entry into government, which further strengthened my resolve this should be brought back.
It was resisted in February 2008. Note the date, February 2008, before the election. So, there were plenty of grounds to object to such arguments, which were plainly right. You know they are right. But, then, April 2009 - note the date, that is after the election. Now, we have a change of heart, and we had the example already set by the now Prime Minister. That is how we find this moral courage.
The aim of the bill at that time was that public money, as it is now, should not ever be used to promote party-political agendas, the un-factual or biased. That sounds fair enough. My original bill introduced in 2008 was in response to the letterbox drop and other advertising released in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election attacking the Howard government’s $100 alcohol restriction paid for by Territory taxpayers.
You may recall those. I brought them into the Chamber on a number of occasions to look at those; to recognise hard-earned dollars of Territory families and Australian families had been used for a plainly political purpose I found offensive. That is a moral challenge: are you actually going to do the right thing when it comes to the use of public funds if you know how hard it is to make a living; the cost of living, etcetera. Real money which has been entrusted to the care of a government that is then utilised and appropriated for the prosecution of a political agenda is wrong, wrong, wrong. I thought that would have been known.
If you are going to run an argument that others in the past have done as justification for doing the wrong thing today that will not stand up. I am fully aware of what I am saying. If I am in the position, I have to live for the words that I am speaking today. That is a challenge that I must face, and I face that publicly. That is why it was brought in.
These expensive ads - and I know how costly it is. We are always asked as MLAs - governments are asked, oppositions are asked, and we are asked individually - to advertise. We know how much it costs to advertise.
However, to have full-page ads saying these $100 restrictions are bad, and linking it directly to Mr Howard, was clearly and plainly a misappropriation of funds for a political purpose at taxpayers’ expense. Wrong! The fact these restrictions have not changed is the telling point. They have not changed, and there has been no follow-up advertising criticising the Rudd government’s $100 alcohol restrictions. If it was offensive then, it is offensive now; how is it the money is not spent now? It was spent then for a political purpose. It is all right if you had a whip around Caucus and paid it out of your own pocket, but to put your hands into the pockets of hard-working Territorians, families in my own community, that is plainly wrong. It is criminal, in my view.
This is despite the NT government’s internally published guidelines preventing any party-political advertising using public funds. It is a blatant contradiction of that which is stated, and that which is done. That had to be fixed. Thank goodness there was a change of heart brought about by the events flowing from 2008 - a government which had to hang on for dear life, and found faith.
This blatant disregard of government’s own guidelines was the catalyst for the opposition developing the Public Information Bill introduced in February 2008. Again, the extraordinary amount of advertising this Labor government undertook in the lead-up to the 2008 election - and I remember it all; Elton John and all. There was so much being pumped out ...
Mr Henderson: That was not advertising, it was a concert.
Mr MILLS: It was a great concert, but it was used as a vehicle to promote government.
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr MILLS: Well, fortunately now …
Mr Henderson: If a promoter had come to you and said: ‘We want to bring Elton John to Darwin’, you would have said no.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, you will have your chance to debate later.
Mr Wood: The Auditor-General will solve that, Madam Speaker.
Mr MILLS: That is exactly right. Fortunately, now there will be a mechanism for that question to be tested; whether that is the best use of public funds, and should it be smiling faces of Chief Ministers to promote such things or not. They are questions which can now be adjudicated far more cleanly, and to know whether Territorians’ valuable contribution to a government is going to be used in a way that benefits them most directly and effectively.
Despite the best intentions or internal guidelines, it is very easy to blur the lines between promoting new government policies and promoting party-political interests. Be honest, and have a look at everything that came out before the last election. What was the real purpose of it? There will be several things I can say which will show the real purpose was. We say, each morning: deliver us from temptation. There has been a massive temptation there many times to swing things in a way that promote the interests of government - have not been able to resist that! Fortunately, now we might be able to move to a place where we have the capacity to have better decisions made.
There is a stark divide between the amount of genuine public information campaigns compared to self-serving, and somewhat needless, self-promotion. The lack of public awareness campaigns about mosquitoes, for example, and Murray Valley Encephalitis following two deaths last year. Where were the strongly funded, well positioned media campaigns funded by government around those deaths? There was one suspected case reported earlier this month by the ABC.
Comparing this to the amount of advertising associated with the Tiger Brennan Drive extensions is an example that springs to mind. There seems to be a greater interest in using this vehicle to promote self, rather than using these instruments to promote public awareness about things which would be of value and importance to families. These are the sort of questions that, hopefully, we will have a better chance of being dealt with in a more honest and fair way.
In fact, there is no mention of Murray Valley Encephalitis on the DHF website at all, despite Murray Valley Encephalitis showing up in sentinel chickens. It is not promoted. There is no effort put in to say how we can inform. We are here to govern in the best interests of Territorians; what should we do to ensure they have the information that is of benefit to them? That is a novel approach! What should they be informed of? How best can we strengthen the understanding of citizens so they can get about their business? That is the sort of question which should be at the centre of all this.
The other bone of contention with advertising by this government is the unbalanced nature of spending between different departments. This is also telling. Hopefully, we can deal with this. The Education department spent $1.528m on advertising, marketing and promotion; DHF spent a total of $2.819m on advertising, promotion and marketing; and NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services spent a paltry $335 000 on advertising, promotion and marketing. The Department of the Chief Minister, on the other hand, spent $4.504m on advertising, promotion and marketing - over $4.5m.
Keeping in mind these figures, they do not include consultants, document production or employment advertising. How is it a department that, ultimately, provides administrative and policy development services to the government spent almost as much as the three agencies combined that deliver some of the most important services to Territorians?
To give some context to the exorbitant amount the Chief Minister’s Department spent on advertising: $4.5m is around the amount stripped from the budgets of key DHF output groups - Health and Wellbeing Services, $3.844m and Public Health Services, $4.632m - and it is 37% more than the entire budget for Emergency Services which is $3.272m. When belts were tightened in last year’s budget by many important frontline sections within government, the advertising, promotion and marketing budget of the Chief Minister’s Department increased by a whopping 10% - when all those government departments and agencies had messages running down the wire: ‘Tighten up. If anyone drops off do not replace them. We have to tighten up’. Yet, the Chief Minister’s Department’s capacity for marketing and promotions increased by 10%. This is wrong.
I am going to back it this way and say politically, I reckon if a government took an entirely different approach and got on with the important business and the hard work of governing, and made sure every amount that you had at your disposal was used to the max to the benefit of Territorians, and tried to make government smaller and make the people bigger in their capacity to get involved in issues, they would reward you. Making the government really big and pumping the government up so they can look really good, and invading letterboxes and newspapers with glossy brochures and smiling stuff, you do things that make people think you are popular and you are chasing popularity. In the end, I do not believe you will be rewarded. I actually believe the other way. People are looking to get on with their lives and to ensure you reduce the presence of government and enlarge the capacity of people to get on with their business. It is just my belief, Madam Speaker. Hopefully, I get it tested one day.
I introduced the Public Authorities Advertising Bill almost 12 months ago. The Chief Minister approached me in August and requested I defer my bill so we could sit down and work together on proving the bill – a fair call. I am pleased to say our contribution was accepted and included in this bill. That is good and I appreciate that. It is disappointing that, in this groundbreaking legislation the Chief Minister attributes to ‘transparent and accountable government’, he has completely failed to mention this bill took shape through bipartisan discussions between our offices - omitted that element – then, once again, promoted himself and the role of government, which is a betrayal of the very essence of this bill - a bit disappointing.
Nor has the Chief Minister tabled the guidelines departments must follow, and the Auditor-General must take into consideration when conducting a review of public information. We still wait for these.
Nevertheless, the process will be significantly improved when it comes to the use of public monies on advertising, and that can only be a good thing. Of course, I am supportive of the bill; however, not all we wanted was included. I am a realist and accept such an outcome is the nature of negotiations.
Madam Speaker, the Country Liberals support the bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill and take note of what the Leader of the Opposition said. Political advertising has been around a long time. It is an area that has concerned me even before I was in politics. I remember in the 1990s looking at TIO ads which, under the guise, I suppose, of TIO being a wonderful company, really were, to a large extent, the government’s way of putting forward this idea of what a wonderful Territory we live in, and all the advantages of living here which, I have no doubt, are all true. I am not denying the adverts were based on deception, but it seemed these ads from TIO came out very close to an election. It seemed to me a convenient way of promoting a government without looking like it was promoting a government.
One of the problems we have, even with this legislation, is if you have these lifestyle ads. They are not necessarily giving hard, concrete information; they are a feel-good approach. They are the areas the Auditor-General, when looking at advertising, is going to find it difficult to apply some of these guidelines.
The object of this bill is for an act to provide for the review of public information. Of course, the Auditor-General, who is going to be given power to look at the contents of advertising, must work on the principles that the content of public information must not promote party-political interests or include statements which are misleading or factually inaccurate, or clearly distinguish a statement of fact from a statement of comments. I suppose it is where you get the lifestyle-type ads on television, the radio, or in the paper, that you can get into that fairly grey area of what is party political and what is legitimate government promotion of the Territory or various Territory departments. It will be interesting, when the first complaints come in, to see a ruling from the Auditor-General.
I welcome the legislation. As the Chief Minister said in the second reading speech:
The primary purpose … is to establish a transparent and accountable mechanism for the review of public information produced by public authorities. This review process will ensure public funds are used appropriately to provide the public with information which does not promote party-political interests, and clearly differentiates between facts and opinions.
That is an important area which also needs to be discussed. Government advertising is using public funds. The public, I would say, would all support or understand governments have to advertise. The bone of contention the public would have is if they feel some of the advertising is self-promotion. It would be interesting to do a survey of the elections from 1990 to 2010 to see whether you could draw a graph of the number of government advertisements that appeared, say, in the two months before an election that did not have the stamp on them ‘written and authorised by’ someone, but were, basically, presented as government advertising. I believe you could find a correlation between the density of advertisements verses the proximity to the calling of an election.
I certainly remember many a claim …
Ms Carney: What a cynic!
Ms Purick: That is a bit cynical!
Mr WOOD: Well, I was not born that way, but having sometimes watched television and groaned, I always felt there was a certain approach which was a bit suss when ads appeared on television under the guise of both parties when, in actual fact, I thought they were really getting close to the bone of being actually politically incorrect - in this case, advertising.
I should say, on that note, in regard to elections - and especially as we have fixed elections these days - I am interested to know if we set a cut-off date for when government advertising can cease, because there needs to be something like that. I remember raising this in the debate when we were talking about fixed elections, that there needs to be some process where government advertising ceases, unless it is for contracts, or important public announcements - whether it is a cyclone, or there are pests and diseases. There needs to be some cut-off date when it comes to advertising so we do not get into this discussion as to whether the advertising which is on television is political or not political. I believe that is another area we should be looking at in relation to government advertising.
The bill is quite simple in the sense that the Auditor-General will look at advertisements or public information that comes from the government. He will have to make a decision as to whether it breaches any of the guidelines. He can do that on his own volition or, if a member of this Assembly puts in a complaint, he can do it on behalf of that member. Of course, then he reports to parliament to say whether the complaint was upheld or dismissed. It is pretty straightforward. I suppose there is no real penalty. The penalty really will be, if the government decides not to pull or change the advertisement because of what the Auditor-General said, there would be a fair bit of public criticism, and the government would have to live with that criticism at its political peril.
There are a couple of other comments I would like to make. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister did get together, and I had some input at the early stages. I was also disappointed that there was no mention of the Leader of the Opposition in the second reading speech - not only because he involved himself in this discussion, but this original bill was a private members’ bill, or an opposition bill, that had been put forward on General Business Day. The bill had first been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and I felt there should be some recognition of that in the second reading speech.
Be that as it may. Sometimes we can lose the crux of this and I felt it was important that the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were able to get together to negotiate what I believe is important legislation. It might be a small bill; other people might even think it is nothing to talk about. However, I believe it is important.
The media people get their knowledge about how our government works. The principles of openness and transparency are all intertwined. The media can be used as a very powerful tool. You only have to go back through the 20th century to see all those governments you are probably glad you never lived under; how they were able to manipulate people by the use and control of the media. Where is one of the first places people go when there is a coup d’etat? They take over the television and radio station; probably these days they take over the website. Everyone knows about Google in China recently. Why do the Chinese want Google out of there? Because they do not want freedom of information.
It is important we have legislation which ensures there is not a misuse of public information through the media, and through other methods of passing information to Territorians. Territorians want the truth. They do not want political spin. If there is information out there about the roads, they want information about the roads, the state of the roads and when they can travel on them. If it is information about a plant disease, they want to know what that plant disease is and why the government is putting roadblocks on the highway. If it is information about a new government loans scheme, or people buying their house, they really want to know about that. They do not really want to know what a wonderful job the government has done here, there and everywhere. They just want the facts. I believe that is where government needs to spend its money. I do not believe we need too many feel-good advertisements – people see through them.
What people want to see is the government putting out real information to the public. Sometimes, they should put out information that hurts them. If there is a problem with the availability of land they should say: ‘Yes, there is a shortage of land. Yes, we are trying to do this, this and this’, and admit those things. Use the media to not only promote what the government is putting forward or telling people what is being put forward - the good stories - but if there are issues the public needs to know about, then I believe the public is more understanding of government if it tells them the facts as they are and does not gloss them over; otherwise people will say that type of advertising is purely political.
Madam Speaker, it is an important bill; it is something I support. I know there are issues about ensuring the Auditor-General is not seen to be political. I believe, in this case, he has nothing to do with the setting up of these advertisements. That is part of the reason he actually comments on them after they have appeared on television, in the newspaper, or on the radio. He will make a comment after - it is not his job to screen the advertisements before they are shown - and he will simply report on that.
At the same time, I appreciate the Opposition Leader did bring this to parliament in the first place. I also thank the Chief Minister for sitting down with the Opposition Leader – some people might say: big deal. People know my viewpoint; we are a small parliament and the more we can work together the better. If this is an example of it, then I say it is a good example. I congratulate both parties for getting together and putting this legislation forward today.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the bill as well; it is groundbreaking legislation. As the Chief Minister said in his second reading speech, there is no precedent in the Territory or any other Australian jurisdiction for a legislative mechanism to review public information as proposed in this bill.
Since that time, we have seen the ACT introduce a similar bill; however, the ACT has an important caveat compared to us - they have a limit. They have a preview period and a $40 000 limit; ours is obviously post-review and no financial limit on what can be reviewed. I believe the important difference there regarding the limit actually makes ours a better bill.
As most members would be aware, government is involved in many information campaigns. You only have to turn on the TV, open a newspaper, or go to your letterbox to realise there is information government is circulating and advertising. I did a quick list off the top of my head of advertising campaigns I can remember - and I have no doubt I have missed many: swine flu, wash your hands, do not buy a rubbish car, finito mosquito, championship moves, building moratorium, go for two and five, HIV awareness, infant feeding, sexual assault, green rebates for water tanks, domestic violence. It is a long list of advertisements I can think of. I know I have missed some: do not play in pipes and drains, Croc Wise – I saw the minister for the Environment before with a boxful of Croc Wise DVDs of the Croc Wise ad campaign that is going at the moment. There are several more campaigns.
There are many campaigns government runs and, from time to time, there may be an information campaign people might argue could be tied to a party-political policy. This is a complicated issue. Governments have policies and they implement them. When implementing a policy, there is often a need for an information campaign. Changes in policy and law do affect people, and they do need to know what those changes are. With all policy debates, there will often be times when the government and opposition disagree. That is an important part of the contestable process. That is what we need to have a better government, make better decisions, better policy and better laws - you have to have a contestable debate.
There will be policy issues and we will disagree from time to time but, because we disagree that does not mean a subsequent information campaign is party political. It is critical for people to be informed about issues that will affect them. One example I can think of is road safety. There has been a disagreement between government and opposition around road safety policy. Despite that disagreement, I believe both sides would agree that if you make changes to road rules it is important people are informed of them. There are always going to be policy debates in this Chamber. We are going to disagree, but we still need to have an appropriate information campaign to back that up. So, just because there is a party-political debate around an issue does not necessarily mean the subsequent information campaign is party political.
We are here today because we agree public information is important, and we also agree we need to ensure taxpayers’ money is not used to promote the interests of a political party. We agree it is important people know if public information campaigns are in the public interest, and not a party-political advertisement. This bill will ensure public information campaigns are reviewed; that there is a transparent and accountable process for ads made by public authorities.
The difficult part of the process with separating fact from fiction is the decision that needs to be made from campaign to campaign to ensure public funds are used appropriately when informing the public about policy, and that campaigns are not promoting party-political interests. We are all agreed on the principle that it will make government more transparent and accountable. This is one more step in a long series of steps which have been taken over the last 10 years to make government more transparent and more accountable.
Most recently has been the Council of Territory Cooperation as part of the agreement with the member for Nelson. I know other members on that council would agree it has gone a long way in asking people on the ground questions, talking to people, bringing out the issues, identifying things, opening things up, and it is a very important process. To quote the Chief Minister, it was a logical extension of policy by the government to open up and make government processes more transparent in bringing in advice, input and ideas from outside government.
Territory 2030 is another example of opening up government or bringing other people in - actually bringing people into the Cabinet process which is a really important part of the Territory 2030 model. That is part of the process of reform we have had over a long period of time; a consistent series of reforms. You can go back to our first term which touched on the first Estimates Committee. I am looking forward to chairing that in a month’s time. The Estimates Committee will be occurring in about a month and that will be an interesting time.
Quoting from a media release from the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin:
- We gave an election commitment way back then to improve budget scrutiny and enhance the accountability of ministers and senior public servants to the parliament and the people of the Territory. While the budget outlines how the taxpayers’ money has been spent, Territorians have the right to question the budget and hear reasons for why certain decisions have been made. Establishing an Estimates Committee will ensure a free and open flow of communication about budget decisions which is a critical part of the democratic process.
- It was also a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in a final report tabled in parliament yesterday, the accuracy of budget paper published in 2001-02 budget papers. The report found that there was a large potential for a lack of scrutiny of budget processes unless proper accountability measures such as the Estimates Committee were in place.
When we were first elected, we had taken a series of reforming steps for how our government works. The Estimates Committee is one of them. It is still going strong and we still, through cooperation with the opposition and Independents, are looking each year at how that Estimate Committee runs, how we can make it better each year, or improve on the previous years about how we open up government and how we look through those budget processes. We have a very strong track record of reform.
In speaking to this bill, we are taking advantage of a reform of a government, which is to increase the scrutiny of government. The provision of explanatory statements is something this government took upon itself about five years ago, in about 2005 from memory. We started releasing explanatory statements when we tabled bills in the House, which improves the quality of debate in the Chamber, I believe. It is an important part of the process of opening up government again.
Earlier today, we saw another initiative with cameras in the Chamber during Question Time. We introduced freedom of information that gave Territorians statutory rights to access government information. Freedom of information also saw the first-ever Information Commissioner to provide good information privacy, and access to information practices to monitor how the public service deals with FOI requests and protects personal information. The Information Commissioner is an independent statutory position. That person is also the Public Interest Disclosure Commissioner, looking after the whistleblower legislation which protects people making disclosures from reprisals. It provides a mechanism for people to make disclosures, and provides for those disclosures to be investigated in relation to improper conduct of public servants and/or public bodies.
I could keep going but, in essence, the Council of Territory Cooperation, Estimates Committee, Territory 2030, freedom of information, an independent EPA, the first-ever Information Commissioner, the first-ever Children’s Commissioner, an independent Electoral Commissioner and, today, a bill to make public information more accountable.
The person who has been charged and given the authority to review public information is the Auditor-General. We all know the Auditor-General does a very good job. Anyone in that position does. The Auditor-General will judge public information against three principles: it must not promote party-political interests; include statements that are misleading or factually inaccurate; or clearly distinguish a statement of facts from a statement of comments. Public information can be referred to the Auditor-General or, importantly, the Auditor-General can self-refer, establishing a very good mechanism for how we review public information.
As I said at the beginning, government does many information campaigns, so the ability for people to refer, or the Auditor-General to self-refer, means any campaign people have questions about can be targeted, rather than locking up the Auditor-General’s Office pre-review. That is an important distinction. To ensure public authorities help the Auditor-General in his role, there will be a set of guidelines to assist public authorities in their compliance.
This bill will provide an independent and transparent mechanism to review public information. It will give taxpayers confidence their money is being spent appropriately; that is, objective and factual, and free from political bias.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who contributed to the debate for their support of this bill, and acknowledge the support and the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition.
First of all, to eat a bit of humble pie, I apologise that the second reading speech did not include any reference, Leader of the Opposition, to the discussions we had. It was an oversight. The second reading speech is drafted at a departmental level. Second reading speeches are, essentially, technical speeches to provide clarity and detail for interpretation processes. I did read, obviously, the second reading speech before I delivered it, and did not think to put that acknowledgement in. So, I apologise and state on the public record this was a collaborative piece of work between my office, me, and the Leader of the Opposition to get us where we are today. That is the humble pie and that is the apology first up – just a total oversight.
Second, to get to, I suppose, more normal debate in this Chamber, having dispensed with a genuinely made apology, I have to comment on and respond to some of the hypothecation of intent and the political comments the Leader of the Opposition made. My colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, very clearly demonstrated there has been a long period of reform since we came to government in 2001. Reform is ongoing in regard to making this parliament and government more open and transparent. The timing of in which year certain reform elements took place can be open for political debate, but there is absolutely no doubt history will look back over this period in the Northern Territory and see there has been significant improvements in transparency and accountability over the last 10 years or so, compared to the 27 years that preceded it.
If we go back to the 27 years that preceded the 10 years that has just gone, we did not have an independent Electoral Commission; the Electoral Commission was a part of the Chief Minister’s Office. We did not have an Estimates Committee process. Every other parliament in Australia, for many years, had had an Estimates Committee process. We had a farcical process where the opposition was required to submit detailed questions to the government of the day in order to get answers provided in writing for ministers to read out - a farcical process that did not exist in any other Westminster Chamber that we could find. For years and years and years, the public of the Northern Territory have been calling for FOI legislation which was steadfastly refused and never implemented under a CLP government.
For years and years and years, people asked for whistleblowers’ legislation. It took some time to get there. It was under me, as Chief Minister, that we introduced whistleblowers’ legislation. I suppose some of that does come back, in a political way, to make difficulties for a government which we can see in regard to the recent events at the port. However, that is what the legislation is designed to do: to bring forward issues. We can understand why the CLP did not do it for 27 years; neither to have an independent EPA. Again, there has been much debate around that. For years and years and years, that was called for but it was never introduced.
We had an Ombudsman Act, and I acknowledge that is very difficult legislation for a government to reform. It took us longer than we had hoped but, with great support from some really good public servants who are not sitting too far away from me, we finally got that reform through, and it provided additional powers for the Ombudsman. We have introduced a Ministerial Code of Conduct; we have totally overhauled the Members’ and Ministers’ Register of Interests, which previously you could have driven a truck through. We certainly did not have any transparency in regard to budgets that were handed down in this parliament, particularly the last budget in the dying days of the CLP administration, when subsequent inquiries identified the numbers were there for ‘presentation purposes only’. We now have a Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act to give transparency to government budgets.
The media, for years and years, had asked to have cameras in this Chamber to be able to record Question Time. That was steadfastly refused by the previous government. We now have Internet broadcasting of everything that happens in this Chamber. Also, of course, we have the Council of Territory Cooperation. There is no doubt this government, under my predecessor, brought significant transformation of accountability to the business of government and parliament. This is another step forward.
I congratulate and acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition’s input in bringing this bill before the House. To say that it was done, kicking and screaming on the back of ‘we had no choice or obligation’, belies the fact we have had significant expansion of transparency and accountability over the last 10 years.
The Leader of the Opposition then went on to question government expenditure on advertising. That is always ripe for political debate. As I pointed out by way of interjection, John Howard was pretty good at this. I do not recall - he may have made some comments at the time - the Leader of the Opposition criticising a lot of the advertising of the former Liberal Coalition government in the lead-up to the last election. I do not recall him criticising John Howard, but maybe he did.
He mentioned the Chief Minister’s Department last year had spent some $4m on advertising. My advice is, for the entire 2008-09 financial year, the Department of the Chief Minister was $2.15m, not $4m and, to date this financial year, is $1.08m. All of that is tabled every year in the Estimates Committee process. It is one of the standard questions asked, and the details of all that advertising is tabled. I do not recall any questions, certainly since I have been Chief Minister, on much of that advertising.
There are all sorts of bits and pieces and rats and mice - employment strategy, Getting Started in Business seminars, the Upskills program, Charles Darwin University Careers Expo, skilled workers campaign, NT Job Show, Office of Multicultural Affairs, religious fact sheets, launch of Charles Darwin 200th birthday celebrations, outstations policy discussion papers, Sabah International Expo display - you can go on, and on, and on.
This bill will provide for the Auditor-General, as the independent umpire, to decide whether that expenditure is appropriate. However, $4m; I am happy for the Leader of the Opposition to chat to me later about where that number came from. It is certainly not the number given to me as a result of his comments.
He then went on the moral high ground and, basically, put his hand on his chest: ‘I would never do anything underhand. I would never, ever countenance the misuse of public monies for blatant party-political purposes’. He quoted several examples, but was right up there on the high moral ground about how he, as Chief Minister, would never, ever countenance such expenditure. Maybe one day we will be able to hold him to account for that.
I have to ask, as the Leader of the Opposition, on a number of occasions now, had a very politically effective - or not effective, time will tell - glossy brochures which go out as an insert into the NT News. There is nothing in this newsletter at all which identifies it has been authorised by the Country Liberal Party. In fact, it has the parliamentary crest, and says to contact Terry Mills you e-mail the Opposition Leader. It has Parliament House, not CLP headquarters - wherever CLP headquarters is these days. There is a promotion of the Country Liberals’ team on the back, without any reference to the Country Liberal Party’s logo. I can never call them Country Liberals - they are still the CLP ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: They are still the same CLP to me; the leopard never changes its spots. No matter how they dress up, they do not change their spots ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: There is nothing here to identify this as being a CLP political piece of material. One has to ask: did the taxpayer pay for this …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr HENDERSON: … and numerous other flyers which have gone out. There is certainly no reference to the CLP in this; it is all about the Leader of the Opposition, and ‘contact me in Parliament House’. It has the Parliament House crest. It is not authorised by the CLP, so one has to ask the question - and we will find out. We will go through the expenditure and the budget around the time these were prepared. The Leader of the Opposition has said: ‘I would never do this! I would never do this! I would never countenance this type of behaviour. That is appalling! It is beneath politicians, and it is what causes us to have the reputation we have’.
If the CLP did pay for this, prove they paid for it. Let us see the invoice from the printers. It is not only this, there is any number - it should not promote party-political interests; it should not include statements which are misleading or factually inaccurate. You can drive a truck through this.
There is a story here about easing the housing crisis: ‘We would develop the old ConocoPhillips workers camp near Palmerston’. They did not even ring the owners to see if it was for sale! They did not even ring the owners! Are these statements misleading or factually inaccurate? ‘I am going romp in and build a workers camp on land I do not even own without asking the owner’. That is extraordinary! I know who owns that block of land. We picked up the phone and asked them, and they said it was the first they had heard of it!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, electricity prices have gone up. That is factually accurate, but the rest of the story is not. No mention at all of the total lack of expenditure for many years in Power and Water the previous government were part of, and the Reeves report. There is a quote here that I said - and it is in quotes that: ‘Henderson claims we are just imagining crime is increasing’. I have never said that. I have never ever said that, yet it is in quotes from me. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to provide any quote from me where I have said: ‘We are just imagining crime is increasing’.
The Leader of the Opposition stands there bleating like bloody Moses – sorry, I should not swear - like Moses up on the bloody mountain - sorry, I should not say it again - like Moses up on the mountain: ‘I am so pure, I am so transparent, politics is a dirty game and I would never get involved. Trust me, I would never say anything that was factually misleading. I would not be involved in misspending public money …
Ms Lawrie: Pure as the driven snow.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, pure as the driven snow.
We have this trash being put out, peddled throughout the Northern Territory. If it had been authorised by the CLP and is part of the political argy-bargy, fair and square. But when it is paid for by the taxpayer and, then, he swans in here, pure as the driven snow, hand on heart, self-righteous, up there in the pulpit, high on the mountain, saying: ‘I would never behave like this’. I have to ask the question. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition: if he is going to quote me - and how many photos of the Leader of the Opposition are in here? One, two, three, four, five photos of the Leader of the Opposition on four pages. Leader of the Opposition, you play the game by the rules, so you say. Tell me when I have ever said we are just imagining crime is increasing? I have never said that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It is in quotes. Show me the quotes and, if you can, fair enough. But, I have certainly never, ever said that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I suppose in terms of goose and gander, whichever we go here, we have both signed up to this now, and we have an independent umpire who will be the adjudicator of these points of political debate.
At the end of the day, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson, that governments should not misuse taxpayer funds for party-political processes. This bill is another big step in the reform program of this government and the previous government in regard to transparency and accountability of governments and the parliaments. I thank all honourable members for their support of this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2009
Note Paper – Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2009
Continued from 26 November 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank you for the call to speak in relation to this matter.
The process of determining these things is always one that is in the public mind. Clearly, the newspapers, in particular here in the Northern Territory, but in many jurisdictions, are more than happy to often comment on political income for members of this House. It is one of the reasons it is important we have an independent organ look at what income is worth and what the position of being a member of parliament is worth.
I note that commentators in the media go so far as to say this vocation we choose to take on should go unrewarded. I have noted that in various areas. The other end of the argument, of course, would be we should have reward showered upon us. I am mindful of Barnaby Joyce’s comments in relation to our Prime Minister, saying the guy should be paid $1m a year.
Quite frankly, whilst I do not often agree with Barnaby on many things, I confess on this occasion that is absolutely right, because people like the Prime Minister are in charge of a government which employs many thousands upon thousands of people - much larger than many of our corporations. Yet, as I understand it, our Prime Minister is somewhere around the $350 000 to $450 000 bracket – not a huge amount considering the size of the corporation he is required to run, under a level of scrutiny which is unmatched anywhere in the commercial world.
Also, the importance of an independent referee means we do not stand accused in the public domain of influencing our own income. One of the products of the way the Westminster system works is we, ultimately, have to set our own income. We are the final arbiters, which is why we then turn to an independent person to run their ruler over it and set what they think is a fair amount.
Madam Speaker, I am sure the public of the Northern Territory can feel comfortable an independent person has looked into it. I certainly note the report.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was on the business of substantiating the responses which were required to meet the Chief Minister’s allegations that were made in his reply. However …
Mr Henderson: Questions. I did not allege, I questioned you.
Mr MILLS: Questions – and those questions will be soundly answered. Given, first, we obviously support the bill - and I acknowledge the acknowledgement that has now been provided and appreciate that.
However, the point of this is now a standard which had already been in existence, and now has a mechanism whereby that standard can be adjudicated and maintained. The point is there is still no existing guideline that has been published, and that is required ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are on the Remuneration Tribunal order of the day, not the previous legislation.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr MILLS: I thought it was the third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we have done that. We have passed the bill. Please pause.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member for Port Darwin held the fort while we were waiting for you to come, Leader of the Opposition. It is on the Remuneration Tribunal …
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, I was debating this issue.
Mr MILLS: Well, we support it. Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Support it?
Mr MILLS: I was just building up.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): It has been a long few days, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the remuneration determination, again, I thank the Remuneration Tribunal for their work and John Flynn, who does a magnificent job. He is accessible to all of us, as members of parliament.
The tribunal completed its 2009 inquiry into the entitlement of members of the Assembly and provided its report and determination to government on 9 December 2009. Under the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act, the tribunal is required to review the entitlements of magistrates – I have magistrates here – is this the one we are doing?
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, that is true, the tribunal looks at magistrates as well, and members of parliament, yes.
Mr HENDERSON: Magistrates as well, thank you. The determination must be tabled in the Assembly, this House, if it chooses to disallow all or part of the determination within 10 sitting days. The tribunal has previously noted the desirability of a precise relativity between judges and magistrates based on remuneration.
On 1 October 2009, Northern Territory judges’ salaries were increased by 3%; accordingly, the tribunal has increased magistrates’ base remuneration by 3% effective from 1 October 2009. Other salaries and allowance for additional duties is similarly increased by 3%.
Rates of travelling allowance have been slightly increased to reflect the increases determined reasonable by the Australian Taxation Office. Overseas travel allowance rates have been determined to be paid in accordance with Taxation Determination 2009-15, or any subsequent taxation determination made in substitution.
Madam Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal’s Report and thank the Remuneration Tribunal for their work.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note paper - Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note paper - Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 27 April 2010.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have 16 minutes remaining.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I continue my comments from yesterday. I wish to turn my attention particularly to the Power and Water Corporation. I am grateful to see that, finally - when I say finally, it has been years - the Power and Water Corporation is now getting unqualified reports in its annual reports now the dispute of the reporting of assets between the Auditor-General and the corporation itself has been settled. Nevertheless, this gives me an opportunity to raise one particular area I am concerned about.
I note the Auditor-General has, essentially, provided an unqualified report in relation to the corporation, where he said, on page 94:
- The audit did not identify any matters of significance nor were material weaknesses in controls identified.
That is gratifying, and I am sure it is gratifying to the two ministers who have carriage of this particular institution; that those qualifications have disappeared from the Auditor-General.
However, this sort of audit is, essentially, a form of a desk audit, which means the Auditor-General, or whoever he sends his work out to, basically, does a check of the books and determines if the books add up. There may be some further minor auditing in inspection but, generally speaking, it is basically making sure the controls are in place and the money is flowing through the organisation appropriately. What these audits do not do is extend into the domain of passing opinion about how these organisations position themselves.
The Auditor-General noted, on page 96 of the report, that the Northern Territory government’s capital contribution of $50m was included in part of the corporation’s revenue. The reason I turn my mind to that particular attention and make these comments as I start out is I am somewhat concerned about the way the Power and Water Corporation is being positioned, particularly in relation to the amount of debt it is carrying. Bearing in mind we are talking about a report that refers to the end of the last financial year, and some of the larger capital items which have been purchased by the Power and Water Corporation over recent times, I am concerned about the potential ramifications of this positioning.
I draw members’ attention to the corporation’s annual report for the financial year 2004-05, and page 50 of that report. What was marked as the Statement of Financial Position says the corporation – and I am referring to the consolidated columns here – was carrying an interest-bearing liability - a loan if you like - of $274.1m. The overall equity position of the company at that time was $630m. That is the platform on which I then base my next few comments.
As you track forward in time, I take members to page 56 of the annual report for the year 2006-07. I start to note a shift in what is now called ‘borrowings’ under Non-current Liabilities, to the end of 2006 of $307.9m; at the end of 2007 it became $338.4m. As we then track to the current environment we discover, at the end of 2008, the borrowings of this institution were $421.2m, increasing up to $559m.
Bearing in mind the cash flow statement from that year, I note the figure which appears on the bottom of the cash flow statement - $103.6m - appears on the top of the current assets. This organisation is seeing an increase in its borrowings without seeing a substantial increase in its equity position. Whilst I appreciate we are not quite comparing apples with apples in going back to the 2004 position because of the way the assets were dealt with at that time, it is sufficiently safe to make some observations.
I note the asset equity position of the Power and Water Corporation has increased by approximately $100m since 2004 to the end of 2009; the original equity position of the Power and Water Corporation in 2004 was $630m, the equity position by the end of June 2009 was $736m, or $100m more. The debt position of the organisation, the borrowings, had shifted from $274m to $559m, not including the generators which have just been purchased for Darwin and Alice Springs.
This means you have an increase in equity, whilst your total assets have increased substantially. The increase in equity has been approximately $100m, when the increase in debt has more than doubled. That is an area of concern. I am aware the Reeves report – and Reeves is now our Utilities Commissioner - into the position of the Power and Water Corporation offered the government two particular options: commercial viability and sustainability. The options which were presented to the government at the time - and this is now, to a degree, an historical document - were based on the structure of the Power and Water Corporation as it existed at the time the Reeves report was handed down. The advice given to government was if you wanted to reach a point of near sustainability then you had to increase power by 18% one year, and 5% the next year. That has now been done.
What has now occurred is the debt position of the organisation seems to have changed since that time. I am unsure how they are financing the purchase of these large items which have been trumpeted quite recently. Moreover, I also have some concerns about some of the costs the organisation has incurred in other areas, not least of which is the purchase of diesel fuel and what, I suspect, may well become a dispute as to who pays for some damage to the turbines at the Weddell Power Station. More on that later.
The position of this organisation is such that, I believe - or one could well form the impression would be a more accurate way to express it - they are starting to move towards the upper thresholds of their capacity to repay, hence, a Northern Territory capital contribution of $50m. Hence, the increase in power prices we have seen. Hence, and more importantly, the dividend holiday the government is now giving the organisation for a couple of years. These are not insubstantial amounts of money. When you consider the cash position of the organisation in the last financial year changed by about $14m, and if you do not factor in the injection of $50m, this organisation would not have been running well at all.
I believe the Northern Territory government should now start telling Territorians what the financial position of this organisation is, and is going to be over the next two years. The impression I gain from what is occurring in the organisation is it will be in a position where it will have to come back to government with one of two options. Option 1 will be the organisation will need another capital contribution. That can come in, in several forms. It can be a straight cash injection. It could be, basically, government offering to pay its debt, because government actually organises the borrowings for this institution through Treasury Corporation, or they can increase power prices.
If there is a determination or plan to increase power prices to serve the increasing debt this organisation is carrying, particularly in an environment of shifting interest rates, then the government should be telling that to the people of the Northern Territory sooner rather than later.
The way this organisation is currently positioned is it will either have to increase its tariffs or it will have to seek further assistance from government beyond mere holidays in the dividend payment, but actually seeking capital grant or grants or debt relief.
In any instance, I am concerned this government will have to do something of this nature, and it is up to this government to identify where this money is going to come from. Moreover, we heard today in Question Time the answers from one of the ministers for Essential Services; that there is going to be a substantial spend in the network of the Power and Water Corporation. What he did not say was who was carrying the borrowings and the debt for that. I hope the minister will be quick to get to his feet on this occasion, as he has the ability to do so in this debate, and inform the House how this infrastructure expenditure is going to be expended; where is it going to be expended; and how, ultimately, that infrastructure will be paid for. Will it be in the nature of capital grants to the Power and Water Corporation, debt relief through to the Treasury Corporation by the Northern Territory government either via the Power and Water Corporation itself or directly through further dividend holidays, or will it be through increased tariffs?
If one of the ministers do not climb to their feet and explain this situation, then my concerns will not be allayed but, rather, amplified.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am not going respond fulsomely to the rubbish just uttered by the member for Port Darwin opposite. He well knows that Power and Water will have a Statement of Corporate Intent. He well knows the budget books next week will answer many of his queries. He also well knows this government does not apologise for the $1.4bn investment into capital and repairs and maintenance for Power and Water Corporation, because we are repairing a system that was run down, stripped down, and almost destroyed by the greed of the CLP when they were last in government. We are rebuilding it. Yes, that takes capital; yes, that takes borrowings. We make no apology for that and, as shareholding minister, I absolutely know how that is being paid for, down to the minutiae of the detail.
I will do this for him, though, because he is foolish and he likes to whip up a bit of fear and loathing out there in the community. I will say this categorically: no tariff increases. I have said it before and I will continue to say it: no tariff increases. Do not go running around trying to whip up fear and loathing. You are a nonsense. This is the only person who does not want reliability in the power supply system. The member for Port Darwin would rather the lights go out than genuine investment in new generators to provide for reliability in the system and, important to business, growth in capacity as well - really important to business and to all those customers who will come online in the Palmerston east suburbs. There will be 15 000 people, ultimately, who will benefit from the growth in capacity.
He flicks through the Auditor-General’s report, says: ‘Yes, it is good to see there is an unqualified audit’, and then just goes off on his little rabbit chasing tangent of folly, fancy, and nonsense when it comes to Power and Water. He does not do the title ‘shadow’ any good whatsoever with this folly and fancy he pursues. Repeat, repeat, repeat: no tariff increases in Power and Water. Quite appropriately, government is making the sound acceptance of decisions of the Power and Water Board to invest in generation capacity at Channel Island to ensure we meet reliability in the system but, also obviously, growth capacity - sound decisions made by the board which this government is absolutely fully supportive of.
As shareholding minister, I am responsible for all the work done with Power and Water to ensure we can well and truly cover the capital program and, indeed, the R&M program going forward.
In the Auditor-General’s February 2010 report, he undertook the control and compliance audits and the financial statements during the period 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009. He provided some qualified audit opinions of the financial statements of NT Build. The qualification, we know, surrounds the uncertainty of whether all revenues due to the board have been recognised in NT Build’s financial statements, and whether all prescribed construction work can be identified and, therefore, corresponding levy collected.
This is certainly no reflection on the Board of NT Build; however, it is linked to the Territory building approval processes. I acknowledge the good work of Theo Tsikouris at NT Build. I know he has gone to great lengths to get payments into NT Build through the levy undertaken. Whilst I recognise the audit is qualified, I also recognise the extent to which NT Build, and the team there under Theo, go to get the employers paying into that levy. It is good to know a strategic audit and levy compliance has been introduced to ensure levy payers are declaring and remitting the correct amount of levy. For the 2009-10 reporting period, NT Build will continue to work closely with the Department of Lands and Planning to pursue suitable amendments to both the Building Act and the Planning Act in order to strengthen NT Build’s ability to maximise levy compliance.
Regarding CDU Amenities Ltd, there was a qualification opinion given, as the company did not comply with section 319, Lodgement of Annual Reports with ASIC, and section 250N, Public Company Must Hold AGM, under the Corporation Act 2001, but no other major audit findings were issued of control and compliance audits.
Within the Department of Business and Employment, an audit identified a few issues, with the audits of TRIM, MyHR and IT outsourcing that required management’s attention in relation to the need to standardise policies and procedures, the distribution of information to system users, and disaster recovery procedures. I am advised the agency is putting in place processes to address these findings.
In reference to the Honda Masters and Arafura Games of the Department of the Chief Minister and the NT Major Events Company Pty Ltd, issues were identified with the transfer process and lack of performance management system to identify, assess, and report on the achievement of performance goals. I am advised continued implementation of a post-gains review by external consultants will address the issues raised in regard to the Auditor-General’s report.
Further, on page 73 in the Legal Aid Commission, as reported in the Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly, the commission contracted Merit Partners to resolve the issue of estimating the value of certain provisions in relation to work which has been performed but unbilled at the end of the reporting period. Merit Partners has assisted the commission in reviewing the above policy. Their methodology involved meeting the principal auditor of the NT Auditor-General’s Office, and reviewing accounting policies used by Legal Aid Commissions in the different states and territories throughout Australia. Merit Partners has made a recommendation the commission adopts the South Australian approach. This is acceptable to the Auditor-General and will be adopted by the commission for the current reporting period.
I take the opportunity regarding the Auditor-General’s February Report to report on behalf of the Minister for Lands and Planning, and Infrastructure who is attending the Transport Ministerial Council and has been given a leave of absence for the Chamber. I provide a report on his behalf in thanking the Auditor-General for the work he and his team has undertaken auditing the government agencies that are the responsibility of the Minister for Construction and Lands and Planning. There were comments in relation to the Construction Division, Darwin Bus Service and Darwin Port Corporation.
In relation to the Construction Division, it is a GBD - that is, a Government Business Division - under the host agency of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for the 2008-09 financial year. It now falls under the Department of Construction and Infrastructure. Importantly, the audit did not identify any matters of significance, and no material weaknesses in controls were identified. For the 2008-09 financial year, the total number of projects and value of program increased from 2475 projects worth some $530m in 2007-08, to 2875 projects worth some $790m in 2008-09. That is a significant increase in workload for the division, and one which certainly deserves our thanks. It was a deliberate decision by the government to invest heavily in infrastructure projects across the Territory, building business confidence and promoting jobs when we saw that private sector slow down. In 2008-09, the Construction Division also undertook many initiatives, such as a whole-of-division technical training program, and numerous corporate initiatives such as the industry forum.
In relation to the Darwin Bus Service, I am pleased to note the audit did not identify any matters of significance and no material weaknesses in financial controls. The Auditor-General noted there was a rise in personnel expenditure due to a restructure and the negotiated Public Sector EBA of 4%. Repairs and maintenance increased by 7.6%, and fuel costs by 5% in comparison to 2008. The increases in expenditure were more than offset by a 12.9% increase in total income, resulting in a nett surplus for the operation. Darwin Bus results provided the ability for DBS to provide for the payment of taxation equivalents and dividend to Treasury of $267 000 and $311 000 respectively. Importantly, our Government Business Division for public transport remains in a strong financial position for the future. DBS has $9.4m in nett assets, up from $9.2m in 2008. With $3.8m in cash, $3.9m in 2008, this reflects an improved operating margin.
In relation to the Darwin Port Corporation, the Chief Financial Officer has confirmed the Auditor-General’s report found no audit issues relating to the audit of 2009 annual financial statement. This is good news for the port which, as we know, is a multiuser port which is continuing to grow at an amazing rate.
In closing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank our Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, who is always very thorough in his investigations and he provides a comprehensive report following in-depth review of government finances. This government makes it clear we expect all our agencies to comply with the Auditor-General’s findings and recommendations. As Treasurer, I hold our Auditor-General in very high esteem, and I thank him and his audit staff, and the teams, for the very fine work they undertake in auditing the government’s accounts.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly includes two matters relating to minister McCarthy’s portfolio responsibilities.
The first of these is the Auditor-General’s comments in respect to the Jabiru Town Development Authority. The Jabiru Town Development Authority, chaired by a senior officer of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, was established under the Jabiru Town Development Act to, first, hold land leased from the Commonwealth Director of National Parks for the township and, second, to enable contributing parties to provide funding for the original establishment of the township.
Today, the authority continues to hold the lease for the land used for Jabiru town purposes, and to administer the 1985 cost-sharing agreement relating to the establishment of the town. The Auditor-General has issued an unqualified independent audit opinion in relation to the JTDA issued on 29 October 2009. While the audit of the JTDA was unqualified, the Auditor-General has noted the authority’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the continuation of a moratorium on the authority’s future interest and repayment of loans due to the Northern Territory government totalling $8.8m.
The background to this is, in the course of establishing Jabiru, the then Northern Territory government, through the Northern Territory Treasury, provided loan funds to JTDA to fund over-design services; mainly water supply and sewerage services constructed to meet the expected population needs of the town. The expectation, at the time, was the Northern Territory would recoup this investment as further development occurred in the Kakadu region.
In 1986, the government granted JTDA a moratorium on the repayment of the loan and interest payments, in acknowledgement the anticipated growth of the town had not occurred. Each year, the authority’s auditors request the Northern Territory Treasury for confirmation of the status of the moratorium. In respect of this audit, the Northern Territory Treasury has confirmed the moratorium on the interest payment and loan repayments is ongoing.
The authority remains capable, as it has in the past, of operating and performing its functions in relation to the administration and development of Jabiru, while the government maintains its moratorium on the repayment of the loan. This situation will continue until it is addressed at some future time in the context of review of the 1985 cost-sharing agreement, and in the government decision-making about the future of the Jabiru lease arrangements.
The other area of comment in relation to minister McCarthy’s portfolio responsibilities is in relation to Territory Discoveries, a Government Business Division operating as the commercial wholesaling arm of Tourism NT. Territory Discoveries is responsible for generating business for the Territory’s tourism industry, particularly small- to medium-sized Territory tourism businesses. It does this through packaging and marketing the largest range of NT Tourism products and services to travel agents and consumers in Australia and New Zealand, as well as other major international markets.
The audit of Territory Discoveries for the year ended 30 June 2009 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion issued on 9 October 2009. The Auditor-General noted while Territory Discoveries’ end-of-year accounting and control measures were generally satisfactory, some key financial reconciliations had not been performed on a timely basis for several successive months. The Auditor-General noted weaknesses such as this represented an increased level of risk; that errors may remain undetected and not be dealt with properly.
Minister McCarthy was advised two account reconciliations were not performed on a timely basis due to the trust account having to be reconciled back to 2002-03 to resolve an outstanding GST issue. Arrangements were made for monitoring of remedial action on a monthly basis, and regular meetings were held with officers of the Department of Business and Employment to resolve this issue, resulting in both accounts being fully reconciled in June 2009.
I note the JTDA issue is long-standing, not materially affecting the operations of the JTDA, and unlikely to change pending resolution of legacy issues dating to the establishment of Jabiru and negotiations in relation to land tenure underpinning that township.
In respect of Territory Discoveries, that matter has now been attended to and, like the Treasurer, I commend the Auditor-General. The policy of this government is for all the departments which are named in Auditor-General’s reports to respond in a timely and comprehensive fashion to attempt to address, work through, and resolve the issues which have been identified by our Auditor-General.
That was not always the case. When I came to government in 2001, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee one of the first briefings we had was from the then Auditor-General, Mr Iain Summers. Basically, he informed the Public Accounts Committee the departments did not even respond; that he felt his recommendations were just going out into the ether not being responded to in any significant way. It was very frustrating for the then Auditor-General. As a government, we moved to direct all departments they need to respond to the Auditor-General’s issues in a timely fashion and attempt to resolve outstanding issues raised by the Auditor-General.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are a government which is open, accountable, and transparent. This is a demonstration of the importance we place on the Auditor-General and his work, and his reports to this parliament.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly reporting on the Department of Business and Employment. There were six matters identified in this report; the first being a records management system audit, TRIM; MyHR; IT outsourcing; a financial statements audit, Data Centre Services; financial statement audit, NT Fleet; and financial statement audit, Government Printing Office.
I will move through those six points. With respect to the records management system audit, the audit found that IT controls over TRIM Records Management System were considered to be generally satisfactory. A number of issues were identified for management attention. The following actions were taken to resolve the identified issues: DBE was required to draft amendments to the NTG Records Management Standards and a service description; also they need to detail DBE and the agencies’ roles and responsibilities in that area. These were in response to amendments to the Information Act. Also, DBE continues to develop policies and procedures to improve efficiencies and compliance, and actively encourages agencies to share common information, guidelines and also procedures. Additionally, redundancy options will be revisited from TRIM in the future once a decision is made on the data centre services risk management strategy. The last point was with respect to the first area of TRIM - the implementation of a new back-up restore product with the facility to ensure audible periodic restore, and testing commenced in March 2010.
The second point raised by the Auditor-General was in respect to MyHR. The audit found the systems controls could be generally relied upon, and audit tests conducted were unable to breach the system security. That is always good. A number of opportunities to improve the security controls were identified resulting in following actions: the issues regarding personal information data and data classifications have been rectified; additional security controls identified in the report, where applicable, will be incorporated into maintenance programs for the system; with respect to the IT outsourcing, the audit found a formal and consultative approach had been defined and was being followed for management in IT outsourcing initiative; and the Auditor-General was of the opinion it would be prudent for DBE to confirm alignment between NTG strategic technology drivers, ICT strategic intent 2010 to 2015, and the sourcing strategies. One other point in respect to the IT outsourcing was to review - subsequent to the audit confirmed - the alignment of NTG strategic technology drivers, the ICT strategy strategic intent, and the ICT outsourcing strategy.
The Government Business Division financial statements I spoke of: the report confirmed unqualified audits, but no significant problems were identified for the three DBE Government Business Divisions; those being, the Data Centre Services, the Government Printing Office, and NT Fleet. The summarised financial statements and the analysis and commentary of the Auditor-General’s report were a fair representation of the 2008-09 financial performance and situation of the GBDs. Detailed financial information for GBDs is available in DBE’s 2008-09 financial report, which is also published on the DBE website.
Apart from a few suggestions for improvement, I guess a clean bill of health of the activities of the Department of Business and Employment. I thank the Auditor-General for his work, and I look forward to further reports to help us do better business for the Northern Territory government.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be fairly short.
This government always welcomes independent scrutiny, particularly of the Auditor-General, and I welcome this recent report. In my portfolios, the report examined the Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park Board, the Nitmiluk National Park Board, and the Territory Wildlife Park. The Auditor-General’s report identified no significant areas of concern, and I note his comments that the audits did not identify any matters of significance and no material witnesses and controls were identified.
In additional matters to the Auditor-General’s report, in respect of the wildlife parks, the Auditor-General has noted they continue to record deficits since inception, and rely on community service obligations from the government to enable cash flow requirements to be managed. Also, the Auditor-General’s report noted my department - and I have been working on it as well - has been reviewing these and other issues associated, in particular with the Territory Wildlife Park, and options currently under consideration.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Opposition
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with Standing Order 57, the Leader of the Opposition has approached me, and leave has been granted in order for him to deliver a personal explanation in regard to comments made in debate earlier today.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am making a personal explanation to meet the challenge the Chief Minister issued to me with regard to two points in particular. I wish to go beyond the bounds of the constraints of the personal explanation, but I will not fulfil that wish; I will stay within the bounds - just two points.
The first one was the accusation that I, or we, the Country Liberals, did not gain permission of the owners of the block. I state here - and it can be verified - the owner was contacted and did agree. The owner then gained the approval of his partner. The time frame for the project was discussed and agreed to by the owner. A meeting was held on-site with the owner’s consent. Permission was sought and gained to launch the initiative on the block.
The second one is - and I noticed the language changed slightly as I rose to leave the Chamber seeking the verification to refute the accusation - was the contention Henderson claims: ‘We are just imagining crime is increasing’. By way of refuting this claim, that is something the Chief Minister never said. The Eleventh Assembly, First Session, 28 April 2009, on 6 May, I asked a question of the Chief Minister. We go down through the exchange to the asking of the question, and to the Chief Minister having dealt with economic aspects, then he said:
- Having dealt with the furphy about the debt position and the fact that this government paid $380m-worth of CLP debt, let us now go to the indicators. The CLP runs this line that there has been an increase in crime. That is patently false - absolutely false ...
The Chief Minister was, therefore, saying there had been no increase in crime. They are his words. He challenged me to find the words which he denied ever issuing ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Leader of the Opposition, you have the call.
Mr MILLS: Thank you.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory Government Response to the First Report of the
Council of Territory Cooperation
Northern Territory Government Response to the First Report of the
Council of Territory Cooperation
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, for and on behalf of the Chief Minister, I table the Northern Territory Government Response to the First Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
MOTION
Note paper - Northern Territory Government Response to the First Report of the
Council of Territory Cooperation
Note paper - Northern Territory Government Response to the First Report of the
Council of Territory Cooperation
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of the report and, on behalf of the Chief Minister, reserve comments for a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Information and Communications
Technology Achievement
Information and Communications
Technology Achievement
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I report on this government’s recent achievements in information and communication technology, and our ongoing partnerships with the private sector and the Rudd Labor federal government to deliver the benefits of world-class ICT to the Northern Territory.
I am absolutely delighted to report $75m-worth of infrastructure is being invested in the Northern Territory by telecommunications company Nextgen Networks, with substantial funding support from the federal government. Nextgen has commenced the construction of some 3800 km of a new competitive fibre-optic backbone link from Toowoomba in Queensland to the Northern Territory, Darwin, with 1500 km of this fibre link being laid in the Northern Territory. I congratulate Nextgen on winning the federal government contract to deliver this link, and also for committing over and above that to a further 760 km of fibre which will connect to Alice Springs.
As the minister for ICT policy I, and this government, have lobbied long and hard in Canberra, pushing for the Territory with Senator Conroy, the federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. I am delighted to report today our hard work has paid off. I emphasise $75m of this new ICT infrastructure is coming to the Territory and, as we speak, is being laid south of Alice Springs. The construction of a new network of nearly 2300 km of modern fibre cables and electronics will add more than 200 jobs to the Northern Territory economy over the next 18 months. This is an historic investment in the Northern Territory.
As stated, the investment means 200 extra jobs for the Northern Territory over the next 18 months, as well as many more economic opportunities directly generated from this project. Also, new economic, social, and environmental opportunities will be made possible for users of ICT across the Territory. More importantly, we are delivering the benefits of world-class ICT for all Territorians. We worked hard to secure this investment from the federal government, and we, on this side of the House, are proud of this. It is yet another great outcome for the Northern Territory. It is also another great outcome for the National Broadband Network.
Across the world in the last decade, we have seen an extraordinary growth for our use in information communication technology. Information technology has created new economic opportunities, opened up new social vistas, and has made it possible to maintain our environmental security in ways we have never been able to do before. Information communication technology has been the biggest contributor to productivity and service improvements in business and governments for the last 20 years, and it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Indeed, many members of this Chamber use these technologies on a regular basis. Some have used them more productively than others.
Given our demographics and geography in the Northern Territory, few places in the world have so much to gain from world-class ICT. Yet, only a decade ago, with a few noteworthy exceptions, the Territory was seen as the ICT backwater of the developed world. That is why I am proud to report today this government understands the importance of information communication to Territorians, and is delivering an unprecedented ICT capacity and infrastructure to the Northern Territory. The scale of the ICT investment in the Territory to provide Territorians with infrastructure required to enjoy the benefits of world-class ICT in the Territory has been enormous. This government has worked hard to ensure jobs, economic opportunity, community development, and environmental health are delivered to Territorians through these fantastic investments.
Fibre links are the arteries of modern communication such as phone calls, videoconferencing, television and, of course, the Internet. Optical fibre provides the capacity to carry the enormous amounts of data used in 21st century homes and businesses.
In 2008, this government partnered with Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan, and the Northern Land Council to deliver $35m worth of 800 km fibre link connecting nine communities, including seven of the Territory’s growth towns, and more than 10 000 people across Arnhem Land. This project has been acknowledged, both nationally and internationally, for the great outcome it has delivered. The schools in these communities now have broadband links comparable with schools both in Darwin and Alice Springs. Some 3600 students in these communities can now enjoy high-speed broadband as opposed to the old, slow, and unreliable Internet connections. Over 60% of all Territorians now have access to broadband. Compare that to 2002, where there were a handful of locations in the Territory that had access. Another example is the hospital at Nhulunbuy. For the first time, it has reliable access to the online patient information system.
In 2009, the government successfully lobbied the Australian government, and supported industry bids to the Australian government for a new fibre link to Darwin to provide Territorians with new capacity and new competition for telecommunications. The project, through Nextgen, will provide fibre links for interconnection at the following places in the Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Noonamah, Howard Springs, Berrimah, Palmerston, Casuarina, Nightcliff and Darwin.
The completion of these links will bring increased competition to service provision and competitively priced broadband services for NT businesses, something I am sure people have been crying out for, for many years. This government has worked hard to ensure improvements to the telecommunication services are delivered to Territorians with a significant focus on our remote communities and growth towns. Last year, the Northern Territory government again successfully secured the Australian government’s joint funding of $15m through the Digital Regions Initiative in ICT investment in 17 of our 20 growth towns. This will bring the number of Territory growth towns connected to high-speed broadband from 11 up to 17, and allow the deployment of applications to improve health services, education, and staff professional support and development.
To help not-for-profit organisations in the Northern Territory, this government has again recycled and refurbished well over 1800 ex-government computers including 40 to support East Timorese organisations.
Mobile phone coverage is now available to around 40 towns and communities throughout the Northern Territory. In 2001, only 11 towns and communities had mobile phone coverage. With a car kit installed, there is almost continuous mobile phone coverage now available from Darwin to Mataranka and it is something I enjoy as I am driving through the northern part of my electorate.
With this infrastructure in place, this government delivers the foundations of world-class ICT infrastructure and services to Territorians. There are many benefits to that; obviously, the jobs, the economic opportunities, social development, and environmental security. ICT applications are the muscles of modern information and communication networks. Whether it is Internet banking, e-mail, distance education, e-health, Facebook, YouTube or e-tax, applications allow us to access the benefits of world-class ICT. ICT applications developed by the Northern Territory government departments improve and extend the delivery of our services to more Territorians, and makes government more efficient.
As a result of sustained commitment from this government in funding from both the Territory and Commonwealth governments, the Territory now has the most advanced electronic health records systems in Australia. These records allow clinicians and the public health system throughout the Northern Territory to view the health records of Territorians who require treatment away from home or in an emergency. The broadband infrastructure going into our 17 growth towns will allow this application to be enhanced in this area of e-health.
It will also allow clinicians in these communities to utilise medical high definition videoconferencing cards - something we did a presentation to the Ministerial Council in Alice Spring last year - and also allow connection via broadband to specialists in Darwin, Alice Springs, interstate or, indeed, anywhere in the world, to diagnose and provide advice for patients and conditions. More patients will be able to be treated locally without the logistical and excess costs of travelling hundreds of kilometres to see specialists. With the introduction of standard definition videoconferencing, families in these communities will also be able to communicate with other family members who have had to attend Darwin or Alice Springs hospitals for treatment.
In addition, broadband connectivity will allow clinicians and teachers remote access to powerful online learning programs. While in their place of work or home, they will be able to receive online learning that was previously restricted by the lack of broadband availability. This also creates the opportunity for schools to use interactive video to deliver expertise of specialist subjects teachers to remote students through virtual schooling. Schools will no longer be limited to their ability to attract and retain specialist teachers to live in the community.
Spatial information such as Google Earth is becoming increasingly important as a tool for businesses and governments to make better decisions on investments and the allocation of assets and resources. Spatial information can be used to link other information across different organisations, thereby supporting the delivery of improved and integrated services to the community commonly termed as ‘joined up government’. The Northern Territory government has, for many years, been a leading jurisdiction in the application of spatial information systems and technology in the fields of land and natural resource management and development.
To make it easier for Territory businesses to interact with government online for licences and permits, this government is developing Smart Forms, which allows applications to be made simply and conveniently from your computer at home or in the office. ICT is also progressively transforming support services in government. An example of this is, currently across Northern Territory government agencies, there are 15 000 purchasing-related paper forms per month processed, and 4000 recruitment-related paper forms processed each month. Replacing the processing of paper forms with electronic workflow has a potential to significantly improve efficiency and accuracy, and reduce the carbon footprint associated with government’s administration and meeting our Climate Change Policy.
An electronic invoice management system is currently being implemented which will virtually eliminate manual processing and reduce paper flow, improve accuracy, enable tracking and reporting, and reduce costs. Systems such as this reduce the government’s carbon footprint by reducing the use of paper forms, and free up resources for the redeployment to the provision of services to our community.
Other corporate services, systems, and developments which have been implemented, or are in the process of being implemented, include: electronic travel management; recruitment; automation to replace manual processing of timesheets, overtime payments and casual pays; and automation of purchasing processes for procurement below the tender threshold. Most of our 400 000 accounts created when the NT government pays for goods and services each year are now electronically recorded and processed.
Later this year, to help businesses manage their cash flows, this government will begin sending text messages notifying suppliers immediately when payments are in their banks. This government is consistently seeking ways to improve online services, support, and interaction with the Territory business community.
I want businesses in the Territory to be able to access business information, interact and communicate with government service providers, and engage in regulatory processes online in simple, easy and satisfactory ways. For this, then, the Henderson Labor government is developing a comprehensive business centric and seamless end-to-end online service to business customers which will include the implementation of the COAG initiatives, which are business online services and national licensing systems.
ICT accounts for most of the productivity improvements in businesses so it is important the Territory has a local ICT industry with the capabilities, skills, and modern practices to service the NT business community, organisations, and government. Forecasts show there will be an increase in demand for ICT workers in the short-, medium-, and long-term future. For the last three years, the Henderson Labor government, in conjunction with Fujitsu Australia, has run a road show to Territory students in Years 8 and 9, encouraging them to consider a career in ICT. These students certainly know how to use the technology - I know my sons do – but are less aware of the range of career choices available in ICT.
In addition, it is important Territorians have the basic skills to effectively use these applications and benefit from them. In 2009, this government secured $2m from the Australian government to establish free public Internet access in libraries and learning centres in 40 remote communities. Local library staff will be trained to teach community members applications such as Internet banking and how to record their local history on computers for future generations.
Earlier this year, federal Small Business minister, Craig Emerson, and federal Tourism minister, Martin Ferguson, announced the Business Enterprise Centres in the Northern Territory will receive $320 000 in funding to deliver a Territory-wide program called Get Online NT. Funding is provided from the Rudd government’s $10m Small Business Online Program, which has been boosted by another $4m to extend it to more tourism small business operators.
In the Northern Territory, additional financial support of $40 000 will be provided by this government, and the Bendigo Bank will provide $15 000. BECNT has joined with the NTIT1PL, a long-established Darwin service provider, and Patrick Baker Pty Ltd, an Adelaide-based industry leader, to provide a comprehensive training package which will assist NT businesses to get online and improve their website capability to attract additional sales and revenue.
Targeting 675 NT business owners and operators across a range of industry sectors, the Northern Territory program will deliver a series of 60 informative, interactive and collaborative workshops, followed by one-on-one business coaching sessions. Tourism, real estate, accommodation and hospitality services, construction, trade and pastoral industry sectors are among the priority industry sectors to be part of this training program.
The Get On Line theme complements existing training programs delivered through the Department of Business and Employment, such as Upskills and the October Business Month. ICT has enormous potential to help Territorians overcome barriers of distance and isolation to access services, and also develop enterprises and manage their environments and interact with the rest of the world. That is why this government has been working hard to ensure all Territorians have access to the benefits of world-class ICT. In many ways, we are rolling out the future. The recent investments in ICT I have outlined in this statement tonight, such as the Backbone Blackspots Program, the Arnhem Land Fibre Project, and the Digital Regions Initiative, will enable Territorians to grab hold of their futures today in real ways.
This government’s ICT policy enables projects like the One Laptop per Child to connect to the Internet, and allow remote community schoolchildren to get the full benefit of this terrific project which this government has supported wholeheartedly. This government’s ICT policy assists traditional owners and Indigenous people, together with Indigenous rangers in Arnhem Land, to identify hot spots and manage wildfires and generate millions of dollars-worth of carbon offsets. This government’s ICT policy has connected the hospital at Nhulunbuy, for the first time, to reliable access to the Northern Territory’s world-class online patient information system.
We will continue to build on terrific empowering real life examples like these into the future. I am looking forward to contributions from other members.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House today. The devolvement of information and communications infrastructure for any country or state is vital. The advancement in medical treatment is breathtaking. Interactive learning, interactive whiteboards have begun to revolutionise the way we teach and reach out to our students, no matter where they are. The advancement in technology in the world today is simply blistering.
Just 10 years ago, Smart Phones were a dream for the average person worldwide. Just five years ago, Smart Phones began to appear. Facebook was a thought bubble. The Internet cloud was building, not week by week, but minute by minute. In August 2008, I got my first Smart Phone. Today, most members in this parliament have a Smart Phone, allowing e-mails to reach you 24 hours a day …
Mr Vatskalis: Unfortunately.
Mr BOHLIN: Unfortunately. … never out of reach. Mine is always just there. Your calendar is directly linked, updated live from your office in the palm of your hand. The power of the Smart Phone far outperforms that of a Commodore 64 in the 1980s. My Smart Phone has more than 16 times the RAM - random access memory - of my first computer.
The minister has wandered around the National Broadband Network and some of the benefits of technology. It is now time for the minister to cough up the detail. The minister claims to have worked hard with the federal Communications minister, Conroy, on the delivery of the NBN for the Territory. If this is true, then I call upon minister Henderson to now disclose and table the implementation study - that has cost the taxpayers of Australia $25m - into how the Rudd government, your comrades, intends to deliver and implement fibre to the door across Australia. The details of the delivery of the NBN are, to date, missing in action. The Rudd spend-a-thon has continued without a detailed implementation plan or a cost benefit analysis.
However grateful we might be of NextGen’s input to complete the fibre optic to Alice Springs - a 760 km fibre link at their own cost - we need an explanation from this government as to why any business would hand over $19m investment without some form of connection back. What is the link other than fibre optic? What is that link, and why would any company, in today’s climate, say: ‘No worries, mate, I will invest $19m into you’? That is the cost; at an average of $25 000 per kilometre fibre optic - that is still the going rate as at last week - it adds up to $19m.
I ask the minister to explain how the plan will be delivered to the door in Nightcliff, Marlow Lagoon, Howard Springs, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Wanguri, or Malak for that matter - and the list goes on? How will it be delivered to the door? The minister must explain how long it will take to deliver fibre to the door in those suburbs, and how they intend to get around the underground infrastructure access issues.
Will this government lie in bed with its comrades Rudd and Conroy in Canberra, and continue to press the gun to the head of Telstra and its 1.5 million shareholders to blackmail them into handing over the cabling infrastructure to Rudd to allow the completion of NBN?
The minister must explain how much it will cost the end user, the mums and dads, the brothers and sisters, to have this 100 Mb broadband speed in our home? The minister must explain who will pay for the retrofit of all hardware required in the home for fibre to the door, and who will maintain this and ensure compliance with the USO - the universal service obligation. Who will pay for this?
Fibre optic is dramatically different to copper. A brief run is simple, currently, even if we have fibre in many areas, which we do, it comes to the suburb corner, comes into an interchange or a node, all the little signals of fibre optic are converted and sent down the line to your house via copper currently, as an electrical charge, which self feeds.
With fibre, because it does not actually carry electricity but a light source, you must have power sources at both ends of the optic-fibre cable. If you do not, then it will not work in your home! Under the universal service obligation, it must last for eight hours without power; that is, for fax machines, Internet, and telephones. That means in the home we must have something to convert the fibre-optic signal, we must have a connection which goes to your telephone - whether that be the same phone, or perhaps a new phone. We must have a UPS, an uninterrupted power supply, to ensure that converter will run for eight hours. Then, we must have a fairly large box similar to the size of the power box outside - but it must be inside, it must be ventilated, it must be big enough to protect so children cannot get into it. This will allow the system to comply with the USO. Who will pay for that cost?
The current lines development has fibre to the door, and the current back of envelope figure I obtained last week was around $4000 a house. Who will pay for that cost? There is no plan; there is no outline to say who will pay for the cost! An estimate on cost for monthly rates will be $200-plus a month for your new Internet service if you sign up for the new NBN. Plus, who - if most people take up the offer - will then pay for all the hardware? The cost will either be passed on to you or the Telco provider will have to hold the cover.
The minister must start explaining himself. He must start explaining the plan to the people so they have an understanding of where it is going. This is a massive infrastructure program of $43bn, yet, there is no detailed plan. Will you have to dig up all of the verges or everyone’s front garden to get the fibre to the door? Many places do not have cable through conduit to the door. Often, they are direct buried. Who will pay for that? At what cost? What impost? They are all reasonable questions which must be answered.
I want to clarify the government’s position on communications in the Northern Territory. In last year’s estimates process, I had the opportunity to ask questions of minister Hampton, and I would now like to make a comparison for those answers …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, I remind you, when you are referring to ministers, it is by their portfolio responsibilities, not their names.
Mr BOHLIN: Roger, Madam Deputy Speaker. The minister for ICT, which is information, communications and technology. I will read extracts from Parliamentary Record which, for everyone, is available on the Internet. I will read some points. During last year’s estimates process, I asked questions of the minister for ICT. One of those questions, in part, was:
- What is your understanding of the NBN and its service and delivery to the NT, and in what time frame do you believe it is going to occur?
The response from the minister:
- The NBN represents one of the biggest building projects in Australia’s history. Senator Conroy is pushing that agenda.
He went on to ramble about what the federal government was doing. The question was: ‘What do you believe, what is your understanding, minister?’ I followed on with a further question, part of which was, in the last line when I had to ask it again:
- What plans do you have for integration and linkage with the NBN for the NT?
The minister then told us, ‘… you know I have been on the front foot …,’ and continued to talk about what the feds were doing. I again came back to the minister:
- Minister, my question before was what plans do you have? There is more than the NBN; the NBN will only deliver so much. What plans do you have for integration to link in with the NBN for the NT? There is the NBN, but then we still have to tie into it better, because the NBN will not supply everything. What plans do you have or are you looking at now?
The Minister for ICT’s answer: ‘I will ask Mr Graham Symons to detail that’. I asked the minister for his response, his understanding, and he straightaway, when questioned three times on it, had to hand-ball it because he could not answer the question.
As we continued through our talks in the estimates process, I continued to question the minister. ‘What is your plan?’ At the end of one of my questions, I said:
- You do not seem to have allocated any money in this budget to further expand the mobile phone network along our highways.
The minister’s response, astoundingly, was:
- Member for Drysdale, I am not sure if that is relevant to this output.
He is the minister for ICT! I went on to say:
- Very much so. I am sure you are the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology, which includes the phone network system. We have fibre optic. There is a mythology, you can tap into that and expand that. Both Telstra and Optus will tell you that, and you know that. Is there a plan to continue to slowly expand it?
The minister’s reply:
- Mobile phone coverage is not our responsibility, member for Drysdale.
- In the light of the obvious benefits this investment will bring all Territorians, it is difficult to understand the CLP’s sustained opposition to the National Broadband Network.
What a hypocrite! Let us, for the record, recap. I will not recap what the minister said in estimates last year, except to say he did not even believe a major part of his portfolio was his responsibility. How can he blindly follow the Rudd’s spend-a-thon? No plan; a $25m implementation study vanished into thin air - the plan itself, the delivery nuts and bolts, the guide to how it is to be delivered. Why not be of questioning minds when the play orders of the game are non-existent for the review of the people - at a cost of $25m? More importantly, the workshop manual on delivery standards and methods may well save lives. The minister dare question our questioning when the Rudd spend-a-thon has gone from one nightmare to another and, now, another. Yes, we stand here questioning it for the safety of people.
SIHIP is a $750m Rudd-applied project failure given to the Northern Territory Labor government to implement results. We see, two years on, tens of millions of dollars consumed and six houses fast-tracked. Whoops! I got a little carried away; I used one of the Labor lines: fast-tracked. I am confused by this term because, after two years and tens of millions of dollars of your resources, you only supplied six houses. I am sorry, I was a little confused and carried away by the moment, but fast-tracked it is not - like the release of land. SIHIP implementation is an absolute joke! And you wonder why I question the NBN and this minister’s lack of knowledge.
The Rudd spend-a-thon continues with the pink batts insulation rebate scheme. Four young Australians have, tragically, died installing insulation, there have been 120 house fires as of 24 March 2010, and 1500 potentially deadly electrified roofs out of 48 000 homes with foil insulation installed - that is only those with the foil insulation. There are calls for a full inspection of every house and a Royal Commission into the program. Labor could not even deliver free insulation, let alone govern the country. You cannot trust the government that bungles its giveaway of pink batts to get it right with broadband. You cannot trust the government that bungles its Indigenous housing program to get it right with broadband.
The insulation scheme of the Rudd spend-a-thon was allocated over $2.4bn to insulate an estimated 2.9 million homes. This scheme of $2.4bn cost the lives of Australians and, still today, puts lives at risk. We have a plan of $43bn, and he dare have a go at us for questioning it.
We now come to the NBN, the National Broadband Network - the NBN plan, a plan without a plan. The minister for ICT wants the Country Liberals to blindly jump on board the Rudd spend-a-thon without asking questions. It is a $43bn plan, $33bn greater than the original $10bn NBN tender, yet it delivers about 5% less ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is the minister’s statement.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, there is not a quorum. Ring the bells.
Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, the $33bn more than the original $10bn plan, a total of $43bn, delivers this great broadband to about 5% less of all Australian residents. Who would not question such a plan - or plan-less plan - the $25m implementation study which is yet to be given the light of day?
Minister for ICT, when did you first become aware of the life-threatening concerns that are now plaguing the NBN roll-out? You should listen, all right? I will say that again, minister, when did you first become aware of the life-threatening concerns that are now plaguing the NBN roll-out? When did you intend to advise this House of the potential risk of electrocution during the installation phase that has occurred in Tasmania during the first phase of roll-out in that state?
Minister, I call on you to now advise the House of this alarming, life-threatening NBN plan and what you, as the ICT minister, have done to ensure the safety of all Territorians involved in our implementation of the NBN plan. I call on you to tell this House of the conversations in detail, fax correspondence, e-mail communication, your advisors’ communications with the federal Senator Conroy or his advisors, on the electrocution that occurred in Tasmania in March which, until 27 April 2010, appears to have been kept secret.
I am disgusted by one of the members of this House who chooses to laugh at this risk. I will point out some minor articles here. On news.com.au, dated 28 April 2010 - in fact, it hit the web first on April 26:
- The Tasmanian rollout has been hit by complaints about potentially deadly work practices.
There are also concerns over unqualified and underpaid workers and delays.
Tasmania was selected as the first state to benefit from the $43bn national project.
But, just months into the rollout, insiders have painted a damning picture, including an account of an apprentice who got an electric shock installing fibre-optic cables.
Electrician Greg Henderson saw the incident and says he was sacked …
… by the subcontractors Power on Electrical after speaking out about safety.
Another article on abc.net.au/news has the following headline:
- Broadband rollout halted after worker shocked
This is a quote from Mr Quigley: ‘I think it was related to an insulator on a pole’. ‘He thinks’ he has the answer, whilst lives are risked. Another article, abc.net.au, was dated 25 March:
- Fears over broadband on power lines
The roll-out of the federal government’s National Broadband Network in Tasmania has been criticised for its heavy reliance on overhead power lines.
It then goes on, but not once mentions the electrocution.
From 27 March to date, we continue to see more threads on the wire coming out about electrocutions and safety risks. News.com.au: ‘Safety Concerns Plague NBN in Tasmania’. Scrolling down towards the last paragraph, it said: ‘There have been six incidents reported’. Six incidents reported, and we are expected to jump on board and say: ‘Hallelujah to the NBN plan’, which has no plan when lives are at risk.
From The Mercury off the Internet, themercury.com.au, the headline reads ‘Broadband Rollout Backlash’.
This is another Rudd spend-a-thon that has no plan - a $25m implementation study not brought into the daylight for scrutiny. This is another enormous spend which has no plan. That is why lives are at risk. There is no difference to the Labor insulation program that claimed four lives; a program that should have a royal inquiry. This lack of planning appears wherever you see Labor blindly following comrades in Canberra, fearing to question the leader while lives are put a risk.
Minister, you said in estimates you are on the front foot of this NBN plan. Where are your feet now? What responsibilities do you take, along with your federal comrade in Canberra, Senator Conroy? We read some great quotes …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. It is the government’s statement after all; they are not even here to listen to it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. There is no quorum, ring the bells.
We have a quorum, turn off the bells.
Mr BOHLIN: I am going to skip a few of my points here. Do I have an extension?
Ms Purick: Take your time.
Mr BOHLIN: Labor rejects the need for cost-benefit analysis. I quote Finance minister, Lindsay Tanner: ‘The project could not be subject to a normal cost-benefit analysis because of the long-term unknowables’. That comes from the ABC Insider program on 20 September 2009. The long-term unknowables! This is their plan, and they admit there are unknowables. Ministers for mates; Senator Conroy admits he recommended senior long-standing Labor figure, Mike Kaiser, be appointed to NBN Co and, soon after, Mike Kaiser was appointed on a $450 000 annual salary. Senator Conroy told Senate Estimates on 8 February: ‘I suggested him as a person of possible relevant experience’ ...
A member: Jobs for the boys.
Mr BOHLIN: Jobs for the boys! Jobs for everyone. Here you are! We are going to fund this place for $43bn. Jobs and jobs and jobs.
There is $30m wasted on NBN, one failed tender process. On 3 February 2010, an Audit-General’s report …
A member: Tut, tut, tut.
Mr BOHLIN: Tut, tut, tut, I hear coming from the other side – tut, tut, tut when I am talking of an Auditor-General’s report. It is not something you should take lightly, or should you perhaps leave? It revealed the total cost of the failed NBN mark 1 tender process was in excess of $30m. The report revealed Senator Conroy oversaw a fatally flawed and costly process, and he ignored increasing warnings the process was failing. This is about Senator Conroy. This is what an Auditor-General has said about one of our federal Senators the minister from this House says we must follow blindly and accept everything he says as all great. We have an Auditor-General who says the Senator has failed; he oversaw a patently flawed process.
Under the headline, ‘Labor ignores expert industry concerns’, AAPT CEO, Paul Broad said the NBN plan was absolute rubbish. He said it is a complete waste of money: ‘If they spent one tenth of it (the proposed $43bn) they would probably be right on the money. People want wireless as they want a more flexible life’, was a comment he made in The Australian, 19 November 2009, page 24.
Michael Porter from the Committee for Economic Development of Australia said: ‘That is a pretty important sounding thing’. Let us skip to what Mr Mike Fries, Chief Executive of Liberty Global and Chairman of regional pay-TV provider, Austar, said; that the NBN costs were baffling: ‘Do consumers need 100 Mbps? No, what they need is access’.
They need access; you got that right. The safety of workers and the public should be the No 1 priority for the rollout of the NBN, not only in Tasmania but here in the Northern Territory. We did not hear one single word from that minister which identified there were problems. There are problems, and he has ignored them. He will be held to account for his ignorance.
If the minister and his federal comrades had actually taken the time to plan the NBN, we may have seen serious expansion of ICT services throughout the entire Northern Territory. We would have seen mobile phones and wireless broadband all over the Territory highway system and, in most …
Dr Burns: We might have.
Mr BOHLIN: Did you wake up?
Dr Burns: No, no. I was just thinking about the member for Fong Lim and his promises about highway coverage.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I move, pursuant to Standing Order 77, the member for Drysdale be given an extra 10 minutes to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BOHLIN: I thank you very much.
If they had planned this properly, we could have seen the entire Northern Territory …
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am trying to listen to the remarks of the member for Drysdale, but government members keep interrupting. I cannot hear what he is saying. I find it pretty disgraceful.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling. If members could cease interjecting, please.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Deputy Speaker, we could have seen mobile phone and wireless broadband all over the Territory’s highway system and in most, if not all, our communities had they planned it right and used the money much more efficiently - had the federal government even considered to consult before they rolled out their plan and said: ‘Here is our great $43bn plan that has no plan, no nuts and bolts’.
We have a map here. It is a beautiful looking thing and is a time line of the expansion of ICT services into the Northern Territory. It depicts where fibre-optic cable is and where it is not. It depicts - for those on the other side who have problems seeing it, the little grey splotches are where we have NextG coverage. We are not really doing that well for NextG coverage. We have a lot of fibre-optic cable ...
Ms Scrymgour: Do you understand it?
Mr BOHLIN: Yes, I do actually. The thing is I actually understand it very well. Thank you, member across the floor. I have had a very extensive brief and I do not think the minister has. Would this not be much better, instead of having two lots of red lines all over the place which depict fibre optic, why would we not have, perhaps, a lot more grey which shows where we have mobile phone and wireless broadband coverage? We could have our own little blue Kombi van …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is the government’s statement after all. I expect them to be here to listen.
Dr Burns: It is everyone’s responsibility to maintain a quorum.
Mr Tollner: That is exactly right, minister.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr Tollner: More to the point, it is the government’s responsibility, but anyhow.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, it is actually all members’ responsibility to maintain a quorum.
Mr Tollner: It is but, ultimately, it is the government who wants to keep the party going.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, we have a quorum. Member for Drysdale, you have the call.
Mr BOHLIN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just shown a map I am sure the other side has the opportunity to view if they like. It shows the ability for a further extension of our networks, if the money had been appropriately applied to the Territory’s needs. We heard the Minister for ICT talk about one laptop for all these students. Well, I do not see a laptop for every student in every school and wireless Internet coverage to deal with that.
The minister talked of how his government has heavily invested, and we looked at comments from the web by our own Chief Minister. I read those comments from newsrooom.nt.gov.au with a backslash and a few other things:
- Speaking near Jabiru in Kakadu National Park, Mr Henderson said the Northern Territory government had committed $6.8m to the $34m project, which would deliver Internet access to communities that are home to some 10 000 people.
That is a great investment, but the way the Minister for ICT touts it, it was their money - it was all theirs and they did the world’s best thing. Well, he chipped in $6.8m. Not even a third of the project was funded by the Northern Territory government; that is how much they have put their weight behind the expansion of ICT service in the Northern Territory.
Minister, you gloated of your outcomes and, if it was not for others, you would have achieved little or nothing in the last 10 years. Not that it matters because hardly anyone sees it. This map depicts where we have government involvement in the expansion of ICT services. A proper briefing, if the minister have had the time to take one, would also have identified that the ACCC controls the line rental costs - not any one particular Telco, but the ACCC! Unfortunately, because they break it down into segments, let us say four segments - 1, 2, 3, 4 - throughout Australia and charge different rates, places such as where you come from, Madam Deputy Speaker, are charged at the highest rate, above what is the common competitive price of, let us say, $32 a month capped. They charge the line out at over $48 a month - and that is the ACCC, not by any particular single Telco. So, competitive nature is driven by the federal government. They are right under the foot of the federal government. If you want to talk about competitive nature, then you bring in that balance and you sort that out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to wrap up, the details of the delivery of the NBN that, to date, are missing in action, and the Rudd’s spend-a-thon has continued without a detailed implementation plan or a cost-benefit analysis. I ask the minister to explain how the plan will be delivered to the door in Nightcliff, Marlow Lagoon, Howard Springs, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Wanguri, or Malak for that matter? The list goes on: Maningrida, Gunbalanya, Ramingining, Hermannsburg, Papunya, Elliott - it just goes on.
There is the list - look at these little things here. What is this? In the Barkly Shire, a place called Tara will not get NBN. Another one, Canteen Creek in the Barkly Shire, will not get it. That is Barkly Shire. Who is the minister for there? I do not know. In the Victoria Daly Shire, Pigeon Hole, they will not get it - Peppimenarti, Victoria Daly Shire. Some of the towns in the electorates of members on that side are the ones that will be hurt the most, because they failed to deliver for the Territory in an appropriate way.
They ask us to jump on board when there are risks, and they fail to disclose to this parliament, the people of the Territory, when there has been life-threatening risks. The minister gave his statement, but not once did he declare this program that he throws his weight behind has potential life-threatening risks. It is all over the wire, the Internet, talking about life-threatening risks. This minister has failed to advise this House. He is culpable. He should be brought to order. The Chief Minister must make him explain what he is up to and why has he not been honest to the public. You cannot even get high-speed troopies in the Barkly ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: You can get high-speed troopies, but you cannot get high-speed broadband. The minister must explain how long it will take to deliver fibre to the door, and how they intend to get around underground infrastructure access issues; and how they expect, and what they expect the mums and dads of the Northern Territory to pay for this service. What is the cost? Minister for ICT, cough up, what is the cost? What is that cost burden to the public to have this great scheme, this spend-a-thon? Will the government lie in bed with your comrades, Rudd and Conroy in Canberra, to continue to press the gun to the head of Telstra and its 1.5 million shareholders, to blackmail them into handing over cabling infrastructure to Rudd to allow the completion of NBN? The minister must explain how much it will cost the end user - the mums and dads, brothers and sisters - to have this 100 Mb broadband speed in our homes. The minister must explain who will pay the retrofit of all the hardware required into the homes, fibre to the door, and who will maintain this and ensure compliance with the USO.
Minister, you must demonstrate your understanding and delivery of this NBN plan that has nearly already taken six lives. Tell Territorians you know what you and the federal Labor government are doing. Tell them that you know what you are doing. However, the problem is, I do not think you know what you are doing.
__________________
Pairing Arrangement
Members for Barkly and Fong Lim
Members for Barkly and Fong Lim
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to an update on the pairs arrangement for this evening. The member for Barkly is paired with the member for Fong Lim until the Assembly rises this evening.
__________________
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I thank the member for Johnston for allowing me the jump on this particular occasion. I have an appointment a little later that I want to get to, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this somewhat extraordinary statement the minister has put in front of us. I thank the member for Johnston. I know, quite often, the members on the other side do not like hearing some of the things that I have to say, so I appreciate the opportunity ...
Dr Burns: Oh, I love it.
Mr TOLLNER: I know the member for Johnston loves it. It gives him great opportunity to respond, at times.
At the outset, I should say that everyone wants to see better, faster, and cheaper ICT services everywhere. I do not think it matters where you live on the globe; people want to see information and communication technology delivered to them quicker, cheaper, and faster - faster speeds of a better quality and reliability. I believe that is something that possesses everyone - whether you are Labor, Country Liberals, Greens, Democrats, whether you are in America or Australia, or the Northern Territory or India; it does not really matter. We all want to see things improve.
This industry is improving at an incredibly quick rate. It was not so long ago mobile phones were invented, and broadband was just something that used to happen in the major centres of big capital cities. All of a sudden - and I am talking literally only a decade or so ago - such is the nature of this industry everyone wants everything now. I fully appreciate how difficult it is for governments and organisations around the world to deliver things because, obviously, you cannot do everything all at once. You have to have a stepped method of doing that, because it is just not possible to keep up with people’s demands in this particular sector.
I have to say, reading through this and listening to the minister make this statement, to me, this minister’s statement is a serious victory of fantasy over logic. Anyone in their right mind who knows a little about this industry will understand that. I have questioned today why this minister would be putting this quite bizarre statement in front of the Chamber to discuss. Maybe there are ulterior motives. Maybe there are issues of a political nature he wants to get off the table - focus in another area.
The minister is a great person; I enjoy a chat with him from time to time. However, I have to say he has never impressed me as a person who understands the technicalities of the ICT industry, and who has spent time and effort working through policies and procedures and things that might actually improve information and communications technology in the Territory. Looking at the speech he gave, I do not, for a second, believe it was the minister who prepared it. There are some things in there are completely out of his league. As I said, this is a victory of fantasy over logic. The previous speaker, the member for Drysdale, spoke about some of the problems this NBN has in Australia.
It is probably worthwhile stepping back a little and understanding where this thing came from. Prior to the 2001 federal election, the then Coalition government had a plan to roll out Opal, which was something quite different to what the Rudd opposition, at that time, was proposing. The Coalition policy was about putting in place wireless broadband with towers and making broadband far more accessible. It was not so much about speed; it was more about making broadband accessible for a range of people who otherwise could not get it.
Needless to say, Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor Party detected within the community a certain desire to see faster broadband. The technology has not been able to keep up with demand, and neither has the infrastructure. Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor Party noticed this and acted on it. I suppose, at the time, you would have to say it was very good politics. They came out, as a pre-election promise, with the National Broadband Network. I think they allocated $4.5bn to the National Broadband Network.
Well, lo and behold, as we all know now, Kevin Rudd and Labor were elected, and one of the things they wanted to do was fulfil their election mandate and get a National Broadband Network happening. Eighteen months into it, and having spent more than $30m on a tender program, the whole thing fell down in ashes. It was seen right across Australia as a complete disaster. Kevin Rudd and his government, like so many other things, totally stuffed up the whole process and the plan. Not one to lie down and die, Kevin Rudd immediately jumped up and allocated a massive $43bn to National Broadband Network 2.
He had no mandate whatsoever to spend $43bn of taxpayers’ money. He did not go to an election committing $43bn of taxpayers’ money to a government-owned network. Bear in mind we have had 20 years of privatisation in Australia with telecommunications companies. We have completed the final sale of Telstra, and Kevin Rudd, after 20 years of privatisation with both Labor and Liberal federal governments, has turned that completely on its ear and is putting $43bn into a government-owned telecommunications network - right at the stage where most Australians have decided there is a level of competition out there in the marketplace within this industry that could easily pick up that slack. But no, Kevin Rudd has decided $43bn. Just to give you a bit of an idea of what $43bn is in the telecommunications world - $43bn is more than the current total valued assets of Telstra. It is more than the value of all of the assets of our biggest telecommunications company in Australia, and the government now owns that. After privatising government telecommunication services over 20 years, we have now gone back into the future, I suppose - however you want to call it - to the point where now government is only owning a major piece of telecommunications infrastructure.
You have to ask the question: why would you trust Kevin Rudd and Labor in particular, and probably more generally any government, to handle a private business better than a private business? Why would you entrust a Labor government which has a track record - in a very short period of time by the way - of failure? We have heard, on numerous occasions, of a range of failures Kevin Rudd has experienced in the short time he has been Prime Minister of this country. You do not have to go too far -. SIHIP, the FACS fiasco, people being killed with pink batts and their installation. There is a whole range, including the relaxation of border protection policies to the point where we now have a flood of illegal immigrants coming into Australia. There seems no end to that. Everything Mr Rudd touches seems to turn to custard. But, no, here we have a federal government now that is going to spend $43bn on something the private sector would have been quite happy themselves to pick up.
As the member for Drysdale said, the day Kevin Rudd announced this, he announced it through a media release. There was no detail. Government announced a $43bn policy in a media release without any economic modelling, without a detailed business plan, without any analysis of customer demand, the financials, or the technology choices. They, basically, said: ‘We are going for high-speed fibre-optic cable to the home and that is better than the node. We will go straight to the home and we will spend $43bn of taxpayers’ money’. That is where we are at the moment.
We have a minister trotting into this place, putting this statement out, talking about the wonderful deal this government has secured from the Commonwealth government. They are not saying how much money they are spending or what they are going to do to assist Territorians in getting better services, getting faster broadband or the like. They just came in here and, basically, announced the fact that Kevin Rudd and Nextgen have decided to build 3500 km of fibre optic here in the Territory and through Queensland and, somehow or other, this is just a great boom. As the member for Drysdale said, this creates more questions than it answers.
The questions are in some ways: what about the people of Papunya, Mutitjulu, Wadeye, Numbulwar and all these remote communities? You know we all know about Kevin Rudd’s other great plan of one laptop per child. It is an interesting contradiction in itself. Kevin Rudd has prescribed that we are going to have fibre to the home but he is going to give everyone a laptop which is, of course, a mobile workstation. You unplug your laptop, you go somewhere else. Would it not be far better and far more complementary if you are going to give everyone a laptop, to give them wireless broadband?
In fact, before this debate started, I wandered around the crew on this side of the Chamber - and I apologise to members opposite; I should have surveyed you guys as well – and asked the 13 people who sit on this side of the Chamber whether they have taken up the Legislative Assembly’s option of home broadband, or whether they have taken up the option of the wireless turbo modems. I am sure everyone knows the difference. On this side, of these 13 people, eight people …
Dr Burns: Thirteen? You would be in government.
Mr TOLLNER: Well, I am counting the two Independents as well, minister.
Dr Burns: Oh, I see. You had me worried for a while there.
Mr TOLLNER: There was one person on this side of the Chamber who did not know what they had ...
Dr Burns: Do not tell us who that is.
Mr TOLLNER: I will not say; I have no great political allegiance with the person, I have to say, but I will not name him …
Mr Wood: Three guesses!
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, there was one person who did not know what they had. There were another three people who had both. They had paid for broadband into their home, or they paid for a plan to get their wireless modem but, in any case, they had both. All of the rest had wireless modems. Why is that? It is because, when people come to making choices about what they want in information communication technology, and their provider, it is not necessarily high speeds. They are not necessarily after high speeds. In most cases - and it is estimated in the majority of cases - people are actually after mobility. That is one of the great things, I suppose - if it ever eventuates - about one laptop per child, because the child will have mobility with that laptop. However, there is not too much they can do with their laptop if the only places they can plug it in are at home or at the school. It is not like they can go down to the local park and plug in their wireless modem if what they are being prescribed by government is fibre to the home.
The question I have to ask, and what Kevin Rudd is suggesting, is people are demanding high-speed broadband - 100Mbps. I have a quote here somewhere from one of the major telecommunications companies, if I can just track it down. Here we go; it is from Mike Fries. I know the member for Drysdale also mentioned him. He is the Chief Executive of Liberty Global and Chairman of the regional pay-TV Austar. We know Austar in the Territory. He said:
- Do consumers really need 100Mbps? No, what they need is access. It will evolve, it will get faster, but we sell 100MB in 50% of our footprint and very few people buy it. Most people buy 20MB, 30MB – that’s … the sweet spot.
Obviously, there are organisations - I went to one of the online bookmakers the other day and saw the service those guys had. It was quite an incredible office; an office full of probably 50 people working there, all on computers, and they need some pretty high-speed access to some good high-speed broadband to run that sort of equipment. Similarly, if you are running a bank or some other large institution, you are going to need some pretty quick broadband. However, most people in the home or small business or the like, are not so much interested in the speed. What they are more interested in is the mobility.
Another interesting little fact I dug up from somewhere - I am not too sure where this came from, but it is a fact, I have it here somewhere. Currently, 10% of homes in Australia do not have a landline. Ten years ago, that was 4% of homes that did not have a landline. As I said, 10 years ago, almost all houses had a landline, to where we are now where there are only 90% of houses that have a landline.
The reason for this, of course, is people are opting for mobility. They get themselves a mobile phone and they do not see any use - in, obviously 10% of cases - for having a home phone; they want mobility. I was talking to one of our members here who uses his mobile phone as his turbo modem. He is, obviously, embracing technology …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you member for Drysdale; it really is a lucky afternoon for me.
Dr Burns: Do not be late.
Mr TOLLNER: I will not be late, minister, and thank you for your concern.
The other thing about this NBN is it is going to take a good eight to 10 years, according to Kevin Rudd’s own view. This is his time line he puts on it. God help us if he has the same time lines the NT government has – 10 years ago they were saying they were releasing land for Bellamack. They did not say it would take 10 years. They did not say it would 10 years for an oncology unit, or anything else for that matter. You are launching things now.
We asked the question during Question Time of the minister for Housing about a workers camp being set up. The contract was to be awarded two months ago, and we heard from the Treasurer: ‘Oh, no, no, that is not true’. But, here we are, we have it in writing as to when deadlines happen and all of this sort of stuff - very detailed time line they put out in January this year saying they would have a work camp up and running, I think by the end of this month or June. They have not even released the contract yet, so goodness me, who knows how they are going to do that.
If Kevin Rudd is as good as his word and, as I said, we have no reason to believe he is, but if he is, it is going to take 10 years around the country to get this NBN out there and happening. It is a bit like, if you are a bloke without a car, and someone says to you: ‘Do you want a Ferrari? I am going to give you a Ferrari, but I am going to give it to you in 10 years time’. The bloke sitting there without a car says: ‘Oh, gee whiz, I would love a Ferrari in 10 years time, but can you just not give me a Beetle Bug or a Mini Moke or a Commodore right now? What about now?’
This is the question to the minister: why are we going down this track of high-speed broadband when, clearly, there is only a small proportion of the population which is actually demanding it. Most people are demanding access - access and mobility! That is what we should be concentrating on. When you look around, we have an enormous amount of infrastructure here that has taken years and years to cobble and put together. We have been very well served here in the Northern Territory. I note the minister said we were some sort of backwater until the Labor government turned up, which is absolute complete and utter nonsense. The reality is the Northern Territory has been the playground for telecommunications technicians and specialists for goodness knows how long, starting with the Overland Telegraph.
In fact, the Northern Territory is one of the most technologically advanced places in the world as far as remote areas are concerned; we have some absolutely fantastic services. We have much to thank the PMG, Telecom, Telstra, Optus and SingTel, and a whole range of organisations which now occupy that sector in the Northern Territory for. To suggest, somehow, what we have now has just appeared in the last decade of Labor, I believe does a disservice to all the great pioneers of those industries over the years.
It was only recently the HFC networks were announced by Telstra in the Northern Territory, and Optus. Around Australia, the Telstra network passes some 2.5 million homes, Optus around 2 million homes, and both operators have made it clear these networks can deliver 100 Mbps with relatively minor upgrades. Mike Fries, from Austar, said, for example, of the 2.5 million homes in the capital cities, you can have 100 Mb to every one of those homes for less than $100m. Foxtel could connect every one of the 2.5 million homes to broadband at 100 Mbps for less than $100m. It pales into total insignificance compared to Rudd’s $43bn spend-a-thon.
Whilst we have a minister here jumping up and down saying what a wonderful thing we are getting this fibre-optic cable through to the Territory, I believe it is a great thing when we have any sort of expansion in telecommunication industry. I do not believe this will eventuate, but the questions which need to be answered are: why is the government in the Northern Territory not working more closely with these other providers? Why are they not doing more to assist in wireless Internet? Why are they not doing more in remote communities? Goodness me, if Kevin Rudd is as good as his word and every child is going to have a computer, why are they not trying to get wireless broadband out into these communities? Kevin Rudd said the National Broadband Network is going to cover 90% of Australia.
Guess where the 10% is he is not going to cover? Ninety-nine percent of the Northern Territory; that is where. We see blokes such as Warren Snowdon and Damien Hale trot down to Canberra and roll over. They see Rudd selling the farm, giving everything away, and what are we getting in the Northern Territory? Five-eighths of nothing!
Again, this is a clear victory of fantasy over logic. I believe the minister is a decent man; I believe he is under a bit of pump at the moment with all the scandals he faces in his other portfolios. I have never seen him as a person who is particularly switched on to information technology. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he goes home at night and jumps on the computer. I would not call myself an expert in this particular area either. There are probably very few people in this world who could call themselves an expert in this area because it is evolving so fast. That is not any sleight on the minister. Where I think the minister is wrong is he has glibly taken this advice. Obviously, as a party, you have to support comrade Rudd and make him look good; it is an election year for him. This is, obviously, going to be another one of Rudd’s great disasters.
There are too many people in too many positions where they know things, who have bagged Kevin Rudd: AAPT CEO, Paul Broad, declared the NBN was complete rubbish and a complete waste of money. He said if they spent a tenth of it, they would probably be right on the money. Michael Porter, from the Committee of Economic Development made a similar point. He said:
- There is a need for better services in many areas, but that doesn’t mean there’s need for a government-owned NBN rollout financed by taxes or debt.
Most informed assessments of the NBN roll-out are that it is foolhardy and unnecessary. Mike Fries, the Liberty Global Chairman, said: ‘$43bn is an inordinate amount of money and it’s baffling’. Similarly, Kenneth Davidson pointed out only a month ago that even in high-income, high-density markets overseas, the take-up rate of high-speed broadband on the fibre has plateaued at about 30% of households. He cannot see a reason why government would be spending $43bn on it.
Minister, I think you are a decent bloke and all that, but do not let the eggheads in the Labor Party convince you of this stuff, mate, because it is a flight of fancy and these guys are going to lead you up the creek. Do not get too close to Kevin Rudd because the guy is a walking failure; everything he touches turns to custard. I hope the Northern Territory is not dependent on Kevin Rudd for information and communication technologies into the future.
Dr BURNS (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member for Fong Lim. I have a prepared speech here, but I pick up on a couple of things the member for Fong Lim said when he talked about flights of fancy and non-delivery. I recall the member for Fong Lim, when he was the member for Solomon, promised mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway ...
Mr Tollner: No. I did not do that.
Dr BURNS: Do I stand corrected on that?
Mr Tollner: You do stand corrected on that. You have mixed me up with the Senator.
Dr BURNS: Oh! I will just read from an ABC news bulletin in 2006. It said:
- A funding request coming from the Northern Territory government follows a promise made by the federal member for Solomon, Dave Tollner, back in 2001 to fix mobile coverage in the Northern Territory.
Mr Tollner: Who gave them that information? The Northern Territory government? Who gave the ABC that info?
Dr BURNS: It is my recollection you were in that particular promise, and it has never been delivered. We did not get the mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway, either from you or from your then federal colleague, Nigel Scullion. Really, it is something you advocated. It was something that, hopefully, you had agreed to; something you did not deliver. Similarly with the black spot at Ludmilla of Internet access, and something you promised to many Defence families on the base that you were going to fix. Well, you did not. So, once again, we see the litany of failures of the former member for Solomon. What do we have? Tiger Brennan Drive, the radiation oncology unit - we have a whole range of things. I was amazed the member for Solomon was caught speeding going down the Stuart Highway the other day because he has so much baggage ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … I doubt whether his car could go over 130 km/h. I am going to enjoy all this. He is quick to blame Kevin Rudd and attribute failure, but he needs to look at himself. Do not look at what they say, look at what they do or what they do not do.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: That is your motto. People in glass houses should not throw stones, member for Fong Lim. I always listen with a lot of interest to what you have to say about everything really, because there is usually a reference to your career. What was it? A seven-year career, it must have been. No, eight-year career ...
Mr Tollner: Six.
Dr BURNS: Six, sorry. Six-year career within the former federal government. It really makes you wonder. Solomon was probably, and remains, an extremely marginal seat. Yet, here is a member in probably one of the most marginal seats in the country who could not get his hands on the goods. He could not get his hands on the money for Tiger Brennan; could not break through on the radiation oncology unit. Obviously, he could not break through on mobile phone coverage along the Stuart Highway. Yet, he comes in here and wants to criticise everyone. Just look in your own back yard, member of Solomon.
I will not keep you anymore, I know you have a very important appointment and I do not want you to be late and have the temptation of speeding. So, there you go. I will turn to my prepared speech now.
Advances in information and communications technology in the Northern Territory are transforming the way we deliver education and training services. Investments by the Northern Territory and Australian governments mean Northern Territory schools have access to world-class computing network and online learning services like never before. Over 20 000 computers are now connected for the Northern Territory school network, making it the largest IT network in the Northern Territory. This includes laptop computers for all teachers and principals in government schools, an initiative of the Labor government that recognises the increasing professional use of ICT amongst teachers in accessing curriculum documents and support materials. The laptops are an important professional development tool which allows teachers to access professional learning online, as well as stay connected with other teachers and share ideas and resources.
Electronic student learning profiles containing a complete record of enrolment, attendance, and achievement information are now available for all students in Northern Territory government schools. Parents can get online access to these profiles to monitor progress and assist in their child’s education.
The At School Program is often referred to as virtual schooling, as it delivers senior secondary and vocational education subjects to students in regional and remote areas using online and interactive learning systems. It is highly possible virtual schooling will grow to become an imbedded feature of education service delivery in the 21st century. As well as delivery of education to remote areas, virtual schooling has an important role to play in providing extended subject choice to students living in a less remote context. An example of this is Japanese language studies being available to a small number of students at Darwin and Tennant Creek.
The Katherine and Alice Springs School of the Air continues to enhance their world-class Distance Education Program using the Star satellite network that is providing broadband communication services to isolated students across the Northern Territory. The expertise developed in delivering online and interactive e-learning systems for students is now being used to deploy online professional development and training for teaching and administration staff in schools. Through the digital education revolution, all 5000 students in Years 9 to 11 will have access to a computer by the end of 2011, improving the quality and range of education and training programs, and offering more flexible ways for students to engage in learning.
A total of 2500 low-cost laptop computers provided by the One Laptop Per Child Initiative are being installed in primary schools to help engage disadvantaged students in learning and building foundational literacy, numeracy, and technology skills. A new leaning technology precinct is being developed at Nightcliff Middle School to provide a hub for the enhancement of ICT enabled learning, and a showcase of the application of these approaches across all stages of schooling.
Ongoing innovation in ICT has had a significant implication for schools. The old ‘tyranny of distance’ clich as an excuse for non-delivery of services is challenged as technology improves at what seems like an exponential rate. The demography of the Territory demands the application of new technologies as the means by which to deliver education services. Interactive Distance Learning, or IDL, delivers interactive video linkage broadcast from an IDL studio in either Darwin or Alice Springs to isolated students who may live on cattle stations or in small homeland communities. IDL is a valuable learning aid which will reduce educational disadvantage with small numbers of students living in extremely remote locations, as well as delivering expanded subject choice for senior year students in urban and remote communities.
The Northern Territory has a population about the size of Geelong, living in up to 600 communities spread over an area roughly the size of France. For every child in every one of these locations, ICT will, as technology advances, increasingly provide the opportunity for students to communicate, participate, and interact in what SBS Television often refers to as the Global Village.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on this very important topic. The member for Fong Lim did say something profound in what he had to say; that the Territory has always been at the cutting edge of technology. I suppose we were the highway through which the Overland Telegraph line was built and provided the connection with Europe and other nations throughout the world, and that continues to be the case. But, as with the Overland Telegraph line, it requires significant investments in infrastructure over long distances, and that is always an issue.
I know other speakers, such as the member for Nhulunbuy, will talk about some of the exciting developments that are occurring within their own electorates.
I close now, once again complimenting the minister on what is a great statement. It is pointing the way forward. It certainly is pointing the way forward for education in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I support the statement from the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy. It is recognised that ICT will be one of the drivers of productivity in Australian businesses and industry for the short, medium and long term. Although a significant industry sector in its own right, it is the impact of the ICT across government, community and other industry sectors which distinguishes the ICT industry as a force for innovation and change in our society.
I concur with the minister’s observation that the Northern Territory needs a strong and capable local ICT industry sector. The new NT ICT industry is made up of approximately 250 ICT companies, with over 2500 locally employed ICT professionals. Positive industry forecasts suggest there will be a sustained industry growth in a short, medium and long term. We have ICT companies in all the major centres in the Northern Territory, and Northern Territory companies have developed a number of award winning applications and technologies.
The NT ICT industry is going from strength to strength. It has formed an industry association to develop and promote its capability to the world. In February, I was delighted to launch the NT ICT web portal, at www.ntict.net. This is an exciting tool which will help market the industry as a whole and showcase the capabilities of individual companies. Recently, the ICT industry successfully presented their capabilities and skills to senior ICT managers of INPEX. Although we tend to think first of the jobs and investments associated with the construction and plant management aspects of the INPEX project, there will be over 250 individual ICT requirements directly related to the INPEX project. These INPEX ICT projects are potentially worth many millions of dollars to the NT ICT industry.
The industry has recently formed a number of working parties to maximise opportunities in e-business, e-government, Defence, and other major projects in the Northern Territory. They are also are looking at how the industry can play a role in providing ICT support in regional and remote communities. A subgroup in the NT ICT industry is looking to update the industry’s 2005 to 2010 strategic plan.
Due to past growth and predicted future growth in the industry, the industry is conscious of the continuing need for available ICT professionals. In 2011, in collaboration with the NT ICT industry, Charles Darwin University will be offering a specialised Bachelor of Information Technology program to high-achieving students. These students will have the opportunity to be placed in ICT businesses as part of the degree program. This provides benefits by attracting students to CDU, and gives employers the opportunity to keep graduates in the Northern Territory. It also provides real ICT work placement experience, and financial gain to the students.
The minister mentioned the ICT careers road show which visits schools across the Northern Territory. Industry members explain to students the enormous opportunities for ICT workers in their industry, and also how ICT is a career path into just about any sector you can imagine. Technology provides the tools for business to increase productivity and profitability. Prime Minister Rudd recently stated the National Broadband Network will help transform the Australian economy and facilitate the shift to more knowledge-based industries, as well as radically change the way businesses manage inputs, customers and resources. This digital revolution will arguably be the single greatest multiplier of productivity growth.
We, in the Henderson Labor government, agree we need to increase the effective use of networked information and communication technologies, especially the Internet, by NT businesses to drive higher productivity growth and participate in the online digital economy. Technology in business means using technology to grow your business through improved efficiencies in operations, improved management systems and performance, client relationship management, staff management and marketing, financial management, the use of computers to monitor business performance, using the Internet to access information and, lastly, using technology to reduce wastage and resources consumption in the business process; that is, basically, leading to greening the business processes you have.
Combining local intelligence with private sector and ICT industry participants, the technology and business program was established in 2009 to promote emerging technologies and to assist businesses to maximise online and mobile capabilities. The objective of the technology and business program is to encourage NT businesses to use network information and communication technologies, especially Internet, effectively, in online business functions. Over time, the program will further develop awareness skills and understanding within small to medium enterprises in targeted industry sectors, to make best use of the advances in technology. This is being achieved through identifying gaps and facilitating opportunities in Territory businesses to improve online business systems capability.
Emerging priority issues for Northern Territory small to medium enterprises include digital marketing strategies, internal constraints and attempting to keep up with rapid technology changes, managing content costs effectively and quickly, and budget, time and connectivity.
Activities undertaken to date include a series of well-attended private and public sector information seminars on Web 2 technologies, in partnership with the Business Enterprise Centre Northern Territory, consultation with targeted industry sectors such as hospitality and accommodation services, real estate and tourism.
In 2010, the program to which the minister has referring called Get Online NT is running workshops and seminars across the Northern Territory on topics which include: Web 2 introduction, advanced and master classes; digital advertising and marketing; content management and streaming; hosting and e-commerce; and payments.
In 2009, following the Chief Minister’s call for the Northern Territory government to fully harness technology such as broadband to provide better education, health, and business online services, a consultancy was commissioned to examine the current status and future potential of the Northern Territory government’s online relationship with its business customers. The investigation found the Northern Territory is the only jurisdiction without a dedicated online business portal. The recommendations of that investigation include rationalising systems and processes across agencies around integrated client-focused service delivery to business; developing online forums for business customers to make e-business the ‘business as usual’ channel; leveraging from and aligning with the COAG-approved initiatives of business online services to deliver online registrations enabling businesses to register for both their ABN and business name in one transaction; and a national licensing scheme for occupational licences; and, lastly, to establish a joint governance arrangement across agencies to implement and manage the e-government support to business strategy.
My Department of Business and Employment has established a steering group of agencies which have a regulatory relationship with business to ensure a streamlined whole-of-government approach to electronic service deliver to business. By reducing the cost of doing business in the Territory, this initiative will contribute towards the Territory 2030 economic sustainability objective of the Territory being a highly competitive business environment. This initiative will also contribute to improving customer service for businesses by reducing potential turnaround time, rationalisation of licences, improving e-business adoption rates, a streamlined transaction process to increase agency and business productivity, alignment with the business online services and national licensing system national initiatives, and the establishment of key e-business performance indicators.
My vision is one portal through which business can electronically access information on all governments, including the Northern Territory and Commonwealth regulations and assistance programs; that they impact on business and can transact electronically with government. The second part of that vision is an integrated Northern Territory government back end for licensing and regulation which eliminates data duplication and optimises the use of a common system.
The advantages for business will be one portal can provide access to all information on government regulations and programs impacting on a business; for example, licensing, planning, taxation, grant assistance, training programs, workforce attraction programs, and government procurement. It should eliminate the requirement to provide the same information to multiple government bodies. It has the potential to simplify government regulations and licensing arrangements. For example, at present a Territorian wishing to establish a bed and breakfast and tourism business may have to obtain as many as 25 different licences. This government is aware, with increased use of the ICT, there is a corresponding increase of greenhouse gas emissions. Our action plan to combat climate change extends to developing initiatives to improve the environmental sustainability of ICT, and includes the use of ICT as an enabler for government agencies to reduce their overall carbon footprint; for example, simple measures such as power management on desktop and laptop computers, reducing printing and paper use, and making use of technology such as videoconferencing in place of travel to produce less carbon.
The commonly used term ‘green ICT’ refers to the reduction of energy and other resources consumed from manufacturing to procurement. The use of ICT in an organisation is through to recycling disposal. My department is developing a green ICT policy for government agencies and for ICT service providers. The policy focuses on ICT procurement, energy saving initiatives, equipment compliance with environmental standards such as the electronic product environment assessment tool (EPEAT), and the disposal of ICT equipment without resorting to landfill. These green ICT measures offer potential to improve environmental performance, increase financial efficiency, and reduce the Northern Territory government’s carbon footprint.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the statement and look forward to working with the minister to improve the online services to NT business, which is the driver for the economy in the Northern Territory. We have a very large jurisdiction and it is always good for those businesses to improve their capabilities. It really has not been a long time since we have had Internet and e-mail, and it is a changing world. You have to be up-to-date with it, to have the modern equipment, and the capacity within the Internet to actually participate. So, this is a great statement. This government is, obviously, very focused on improving those services and encouraging the industry to do the same thing.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, before I start, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr Knight: Oh, Adam! As soon as you stood up, your members all walked out. What is going on there?
Mr GILES: I heard that you cannot make assertions of people not in the Chamber. Please withdraw, member for Daly.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no quorum. Please ring the bell.
Member for Braitling, you may proceed, there is a quorum.
Mr GILES: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is great to have such a large audience to listen to my remarks in relation to this statement on ICT.
I have had a look through the statement by the minister and cannot help but think something is missing from it. I do not know what it is. The intent of the statement about rolling out broadband is very important.
I note the comments of the minister and the member for Drysdale. I listened to the members for Johnston and Daly. The points I picked up on were the comments of the member for Fong Lim when he spoke about mobility and the design of any broadband plan. He provided a lot of information about how people, these days, are moving away from fixed lines and moving more to a mobile system. I am a person who, if I could get rid of my home telephone line, I would love to; I do not need it. I end up paying money for a telephone line I do not need. I do not know if it is because of my age generation, but I am in a position where I agree on mobility; that is the way to go. I am not a big supporter of the fixed line system the Prime Minister is putting all Australians in debt to the tune of $33bn for.
I am a supporter of ensuring people have open access to the Internet for the benefit of information dissemination so to be more connected as a community across the Northern Territory. We hear a lot in this Chamber, from both sides and the Independents, of Indigenous disadvantage. I believe one of the ways to improve that, or ways in which we can seek to have some intervention in that area is by having information more accessible; that is a positive step forward.
Madam Speaker, before I go on, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is called. Ring the bells. I remind honourable members a quorum relates to all members, not merely government members.
Mr Mills: Responsibility …
Madam SPEAKER: The quorum relates to all members, Leader of the Opposition. Thank you. A quorum is present.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I recognise this is the government’s statement on about ICT, and I expect the government to be very keen to listen to all members’ contributions for ICT. As I said earlier, I believe something is missing in this statement. I cannot put my finger on what it is. This announcement by the Prime Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: It is Madam Speaker, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, thank you for the correction. As I said, something is missing in this statement; I cannot put my finger on what it is.
I doubt this will ever go ahead. It has been three years since the federal election. This was one of the biggest commitments before the federal election. There is nothing to say this will be put in place. The member for Drysdale, quite accurately, dissected this $43bn loan from Territory taxpayers and Territory children from now into the future, because we all will be paying it back.
I have some concerns about whether this model is right. I am not saying that access to broadband services is the wrong thing. I believe it is the right way to go, but I am not sure whether this model is right. I note from comments through many different mediums in the media that people are saying this is not the right way to go; this is not the right amount of money to be spending; and it is not the right amount of money to be borrowing from our future generations. This is not the right plan on how we do that.
The member for Drysdale gave an example about Tara, a little community about 15 km off the Stuart Highway north of Barrow Creek. That community is going to have this cabling go down the Stuart Highway, 15 km away from where their community is, yet this community gets absolutely no access to this new broadband that is going to be coming out through the NBN. These instances are right throughout the Northern Territory as part of this broadband plan. I do have grave concerns in the roll-out of this.
The old model the previous Prime Minister, John Howard, proposed sought to get some more of the population in Australian than this current NBN plan - this loan from future generations - will actually get to. That is why I am very condoning. If we were in Victoria or Tasmania, some of the smaller states where the population is more urbanised, they would get to a greater population under the NBN - this loan from the future generations.
However, I cannot see this meeting the needs of the most vulnerable people in the Northern Territory, the people who need this service more than anyone else. The ability for wireless or mobile broadband for these locations in the Northern Territory would be most suitable. I do not know whether everyone needs 100 mbps in all parts of the Northern Territory. Maybe it only needs to be 100 in the business districts and 50 in other places, and 20 in some other places. I know there needs to be improvements, but I am not sure that this is the right model that suits the needs of the Northern Territory, and that it meets the needs of people in the bush.
I have some reluctance to accept this program will ever go ahead because, going on the form of this Prime Minister - which there is not much form for getting things done; there is a lot for making announcements - we know this $43bn NBN plan was announced by a media release, the same way this government operates its spin: make an announcement and not actually do anything. We heard the announcements about Bellamack, and land not being released. We have heard about that across the Territory.
We know the great commitment for 260 childcare centres to be built around Australia by the Prime Minister. Across the Northern Territory, the waiting list to get into childcare centres is atrocious. There is a need for more childcare centres; whether the private sector, the federal government, or whoever builds them, there is need. The point I am making is the Prime Minister made an announcement about more childcare centres and, then, does not deliver on it.
He made an announcement about the ETS, Australia’s greatest moral challenge; that it was his greatest moral challenge and he will do all he can to bring it through. He has rolled over on that one too, just like the childcare centres. I find it hard to believe this NBN program will actually get up. What else has he rolled over on? He has rolled over on border protection ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance.
Mr GILES: I am getting to it. Of course, there is relevance. Madam Speaker, I am talking to …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I will give you a little leeway. Get to the point fairly quickly, please.
Mr GILES: I am happy to continue my remarks and make comment on that point of order; that is, the NBN is a federal program that was talked about as part of this statement, and there is form for these federal programs to not actually occur. You are talking about a federal roll-out of the NBN program. Well, the announcement of 260 childcare centres did not happen ...
Ms Lawrie: We received two in the Territory.
Mr GILES: I believe it is highly unlikely. You received two in the Territory? They were supposed to build 260 Australia-wide.
The ETS was the greatest moral challenge. We had the minister for Environment lecture us about the greatest moral challenge. I believe they have made statements about the Country Liberals not being on board. The Chief Minister made the same comments. It is highly relevant when we look at the form on this. Look at border protection. Kevin Rudd was going to get tough on border protection. This is the same as the $43bn NBN plan; it is going to be exactly the same. Now, we have people coming into to Darwin. This is what happened with him rolling over and not delivering.
We know the failures of the insulation program; we know four people were killed under that program. Now, the Prime Minister has rolled over on that program. He rolled over on the solar rebate program. He has rolled over the remote solar program. This is Mr Roll-over. It is not Mr Rudd; he is Mr Roll-over. He is rolling over and not delivering on any of his commitments. How can we take his word he will deliver the NBN, which this statement is about? How can that be?
We have seen the Building the Economic Revolution, the school halls and the covered outdoor learning areas. These are good for students who want to use those facilities, but how do we know we are getting values for money? We have seen in New South Wales, and now in Queensland, the huge fees going out the door, and the facilities are not going on the ground as promised. The schools, the school principals, the school councils, and the students are not getting value for money on the ground. The same is happening in the Northern Territory. The facilities, when they are on the ground, are good, but you have to look at what the contractors are paid, as opposed to what is being charged by the government out the back end. Value for money; it is the same process.
Let us look at SIHIP. SIHIP is exactly the same; another federal program, this time partnered through the Northern Territory government. We have seen reviews, negative reports, and negative stories. Another federal initiative, this time rolled through the Territory government. We have seen so many negative stories. The government still will not act. It will not uncover the books.
We have heard the response to the CTC report today. This report tabled today confirms some of those concerns. The CTC report has in it some amazing recommendations on how the government needs to be transparent; how it needs to itemise the cost of individual houses; and needs to put down a structural plan about where the works will be undertaken, when they will be undertaken and whether they will be undertaken. In their response, they said they are not going to do that. They have actually gone so far as to say - and before I make that point, let me take one step backwards. They say SIHIP costs so much money because of all the Indigenous employment costs. However, that is being paid out of a different bucket. Now, we hear about these 20 other review officers who have to audit houses before they are being handed over …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance. He is really drawing a long bow. It is a very long bow and it is growing …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, Standing Order 67 says you need to be relevant to the topic. You have digressed significantly. Can you please come to the point? We are referring to a statement about ICT.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether these SIHIP houses are going to have broadband access …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, could you please come to the point! If you are going to speak about something that digresses, it needs to be linked to the statement.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: No, no. I have already ruled. Just speak to the statement, thank you.
Mr GILES: No worries, Madam Speaker - no worries at all. In this statement today, this is a federal government program tailored on ICT. There are many areas of federal programs which have not been followed through.
One of the areas followed through is SIHIP. Where we have had the NBN program that has not started yet - we are worried that it is not going to follow through - SIHIP has been started, and it is in partnership with the Northern Territory government. We know there is extra money going everywhere. In the government’s response to the CTC’s report - and I would like some clarification on this at a later date - it says on the third page, second paragraph:
- Refurbishments will be supplemented by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services repairs and maintenance program. This will see houses further upgraded in a programmed way and will occur via service agreements with shires or other contracted parties.
That is highly relevant to this statement. I will tell you why. What this is saying is they have it wrong. They are saying that alliance model no more; they are going in direct contract to shires. They are saying they need to put more money in because they have it so wrong. Do you know why they have it so wrong? Because Labor cannot manage. This is the paragraph that says they have to put more money in the program because they have it so wrong. This is the paragraph that says they have the alliance model so wrong they are going to the shires. This is the paragraph that confirms the e-mail by Ralph Dein where he says - and I will paraphrase - that it is much cheaper to go through the shire model than go through the alliance model.
This is the paragraph that puts to bed the comments the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing made on ABC radio, where he said he was not sure and he would have a look into - and I am not quoting - the e-mail. This is the paragraph, this second paragraph, which confirms the invoices by MPH Carpentry & Construction which went out there and did all the works on those houses at Willowra. This is the paragraph that confirms Labor cannot manage. This is the paragraph, in this CTC response:
- Refurbishments will be supplemented by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services repairs and maintenance program. This will see houses further upgraded in a programmed way and will occur via service agreements with shires or contracted parties.
Labor has admitted their failures. They have thrown the alliance out the door, and they are pouring more money into it - $672m is not enough. I ask the question: why? This is Labor - federal Labor and Territory Labor. Is the same going to happen with the NBN? That is how it is relevant. The Treasurer said this is a long bow. This is not that long. You have the same two things that are relevant in these two programs. You have the same thing with the childcare centres, the same thing with the ETS, the same thing with insulation, the same thing with the solar rebate, the same thing with the remote solar program …
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr GILES: I knew you were going to come and save me, member for Arafura.
You have the same thing with the remote solar program. You have interest rates going up, inflation going up, the Consumer Price Index going up. The same thing is across all of this; that is, Labor.
Madam Speaker, I started my speech tonight by saying there is something missing in this statement. I still cannot put my finger on it …
Ms Lawrie: Here comes the punch line!
Mr GILES: But when I talk about - not yet, hang on, do not get ahead of yourself.
Ms Lawrie: You have two minutes to get that punch line.
Mr GILES: Do not get ahead of yourself. I only have one dot point. I cannot get it out yet.
When we saw this statement, we asked ourselves some questions. We asked when the alliance contract was cancelled by this government, what was the pay-out figure? We asked ourselves that. How much money is getting paid out for the Earth Alliance contractors? What is the pay-out figure? We asked ourselves questions such as why was the New Futures Alliance contract cancelled and an urgent Cabinet meeting saved it in the last minute? We asked ourselves those sorts of questions …
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move my colleague have an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: I pass on my thanks for the indulgence of this Chamber and the member for Drysdale for providing me that extra 10 minutes to conclude my remarks, which are very important to this debate.
I have just listed a litany of failures by the federal government and the Territory government. How do we know the NBN is not going to be exactly the same? The member for Drysdale spoke about someone getting electrocuted in Tasmania as part of the NBN. We know about people getting electrocuted during insulation installation. We know the program was not rolled out properly. This is just a free gift - come and rip us off. This is insulation all over again. This is a free gift, like SIHIP: ‘Come and gross up your costs so you can roll up your profits’. This is the same thing.
Madam Speaker, when I saw this statement, I thought there was something missing in it. I thought there was something missing ...
Dr Burns: Here we go, come on!
Mr GILES: It is not that big. Do you know what I see when I see the roll-out of the NBN? When I see the roll-out the NBN, and I look at this statement, I ask how it is going to work, the key thing I see missing is the Northern Territory government. The Northern Territory government is the thing missing out of the NBN. I will tell you why they are missing out on the NBN. It is because they are failures. They have failed across the board. They have failed at education, in housing, on health …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: You only have to look at the NAPLAN results ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: … you only have to look at the hospital outcomes …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order, honourable members, humorous though it may be. Please continue, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, it is a very important speech.
You only have to look at the Montara oil leak. You only have to look at what is happening at the port right now. You only have to look at the statement made today about the $930m being spent on infrastructure and, then, when you look at the budget, it says $640m will be spent this year. I am pretty sure they did not spend $300m more. Have a look around. They then put out $300m more. They are merely revoting as much work as they were actually going to commit. I can tell you, if they spent an extra $300m, it was not on SIHIP houses, education of kids in our schools, hospitals, or on fixing roads.
There is something missing in this statement; that is, the Northern Territory government. They know why. It is because they have failed. The federal government knows why; that is, because they have failed. I often sit down with my colleagues and have a bit of a chat and think how upset the federal government must be. They would have loved to see a change of government in August 2008. They could have had someone to kick. I note the member for Casuarina is laughing, so I will share another one of my stories with you.
I also often think it is much better with Liberal governments. The world is a happier place – I will come one step back. Australia is a happier place when the Liberals are in power. You can have your lefties over here complaining. You have Labor over here complaining. Your comrades are all upset, and the Liberals are getting on and doing the job. Everyone is happy. But look what happens when we flip it over. Labor is in charge - wall to wall Labor until WA came along. No one knew who to kick.
The greenies are asking: ‘Can we bash our mates up in Labor, the comrades?’ Well, that does not work too well. Bob Brown is running around town, not knowing if he can attack Labor or not. He must lie awake at night thinking, ‘Bring back John Howard. We need someone to kick’. I actually find it quite amusing.
I hate being in opposition. I would love to be in government, but I find this kind of thing quite amusing; watching the left looking for a punching bag. They cannot find one. There are some amazing things: sitting here watching the Labor faithful destroying the harbour, putting copper concentrate through the harbour. The greenies, I can just imagine if it was the Country Liberals in government – Madam Speaker, I am coming back to the statement …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I am reminding you of Standing Order 67, Digression from subject. There are three items on which you can digress: one is on the Address-in-Reply on any matter; one is on the adjournment of the Assembly; and the other is in Appropriation Bill or supply bill. None of these apply to this actual statement.
Member for Braitling, keep that in mind, because I have asked you several times to come to the point.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I am sorry for the digression.
You could just imagine if the Liberals were in power and we were building that NBN, and we had to come through and knock a tree down or something while we were putting the NBN in. You could just imagine Labor and the Greens saying: ‘Oh, here they are destroying the environment!’ They are the kickers that would deliver the NBN. But, we would deliver the NBN. We would make sure there was broadband to all these people who are not going to get broadband in the Northern Territory.
The Greenies will be happy, because they could abuse us, Labor would be happy, because they could abuse us, but Territorians would be happy because they all are getting NBN.
I will conclude my remarks on this very important statement by saying this. The $43m …
Ms Lawrie: Here we go – punch line.
Mr GILES: There is no punch line, member for Karama. It is not an entertainment thing; this is a House of debate, this is a serious matter. We have failures right across the board from federal Labor trying to deliver programs, or supposed to deliver programs in the Northern Territory, the NBN program, I doubt will be any similar. I cannot see how they can actually get value for money out of rolling this program right across Australia, how functional it will be coming out in eight years’ minimum time, whether or not technology will have advanced by that time. There has to be a smarter way to spend money borrowed on behalf of Territory’s taxpayers which our children will pay off.
I appreciate the minister bringing this statement on; broadband is a highly important issue. I do not think the NBN is the right way to go. I believe there are better and cheaper ways to do this. I look forward to your response to some of the concerns I raised, particularly in relation to how the Northern Territory government now has to bankroll extra works into SIHIP, and how they have moved away from the alliance model. That will be quite interesting.
If you are, as Minister for Central Australia, and on the task force for SIHIP redevelopments, you may also be happy to clear up which town camps will be closed down as part of that town camp redevelopment, particularly White Gates, minister.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks there. I look forward to the day when all of these wonderful promises that are made, in a future in Never-Never Land, possibly 2030; I am not sure when. I look forward to that day, and I look forward to the day when I can turn on my computer and access that broadband. I hope technology has not advanced by that point in time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I am always amazed when I listen to the members opposite; how they have memory lapses. I listened to the member for Braitling talking about the alliances. Was it Mal Brough, the minister in the Howard Cabinet, who insisted on alliances?
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Correct, he came in said …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: It was Mal Brough who came here and insisted SIHIP would take place only under the alliance model – ‘Take it or leave it because we use it in Queensland, it worked, and you have to use it’. For you to now criticise us for having the alliance model is a big joke. It is not a good joke, but it is still a joke.
The other thing is the question we have today about the National Broadband Network has nothing to do about the quality or the efficiency of the network; it has to do with pure politics. They will oppose anything the federal Labor government will do just for the sake of opposing it.
He said we would love to have a Liberal government in Canberra so we can kick them. We are not afraid to kick a Labor government in Canberra, and we would love one now because we are opposing the nuclear disposal site which, once again, was put to Territorians by force, by stealth, by the Howard Liberal government. None of these people stood up for Territorians; none of them opposed it. They sat there quietly, they did not say anything, they told us it was happening; we had to have it. They did not even argue when places were proposed for a nuclear dumping site. They were totally appropriate, like Katherine and Central Australia. For them to tell us now we would like a Liberal government in Canberra to kick it - no, we would love kicking a Labor government in Canberra. If we disagree, we love to kick it. I do not have a problem with that.
It is not only that; we have them now becoming totally un-Territorian. They love to put the Territory down; they come up with everything to put the Territory down. They are enjoying it.
I noticed this morning the member for Fong Lim saying: ‘You know what Ferguson is going to do? It is a secret, but he is going to take the authority to control the offshore petroleum from the Northern Territory’. Really? A secret? He has introduced legislation in the federal parliament to take control of all offshore petroleum from all states and he called it NOPRA - National Offshore Petroleum Regulation Authority. How did he do it? The same way he did with NOPSA - the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority’.
It is not a secret, member for Fong Lim; it has been put into parliament. The Commonwealth government said they were going to do it, they are doing it, and it has nothing to do with the Northern Territory. Do any of them know where Montara is? Do any of you understand how the legislation operates? Do any of you understand the position of the Territory, and how much money the Territory raises or receives from the Commonwealth to administer, as a delegate, this offshore petroleum?
That is the introduction, and I do not want to digress from a very important speech, because the National Broadband Network is going to benefit all Territorians. Most of all, it is going to benefit Territorians who do not live in Casuarina, Karama, Nakara, or in Johnston. It will benefit the Territorians who live in places like Yirrkala where you only have two votes, or people living in Yuendumu, or in remote areas. It will also benefit people living in the city because the National Broadband Network, with its capability to transmit data, is going to provide us opportunities we never had before.
The member for Braitling asked: why have a NBN? As a matter of fact it will be better if we have 200 or 500 NBNs, because this network will give the opportunity to Territorians to enjoy benefits other people take for granted. Let me give an example. I was in Brisbane watching advice given by a surgeon to a person operating in a theatre in another southern hospital through a broadband network - real time advice to a real person operating in a theatre in a hospital.
Can we have exactly the same in the Territory? As a matter of fact we do have it here today because we have put the money into that network. If you go to the oncology unit we have delivered, thanks to the Labor federal government - something the member for Fong Lim failed to deliver, but he told the Territory he would deliver it where money went onto the table - we have the installation and the equipment in the oncology unit for doctors in the Territory to communicate, in real time, with people in the Royal Adelaide Hospital with regard to operations, procedures, or treatment of people in Darwin.
The other thing this network will provide us is something we actually initiated and, now, the federal government has picked it up; it is going to go national. That is the e-health records - electronic health records. Territorians can have a card, can have e-health. It does not matter where they are, where they go, they do not have to spend time explaining to the doctor what their problem is. They do not have to tell the doctor what their medicine is. They do not have to tell him what the procedures or what allergies they have because everything is included in the electronic records we provide to the doctor. The doctor will be able to retrieve all this information in real time. We now have more than 20 000 people’s e-records. It is so efficient, so effective, the federal government, as part of the health reform, is going to adopt it and apply it throughout Australia.
Where did it start? In Katherine, of all places. Why? Because they can see the benefits. I believe it is such a good idea it should apply, not only to Indigenous Territorians, but to all Australians. It is like Medicare, but Medicare would carry not only the Medicare number; if you are sick and you have to go to the doctor for a period of time, it should carry all this information with it. It should carry what tests you have had, the results of the tests, and the medicine you take. It makes things easier and safer.
In 2008, the Shared Electronic Health Record commenced operation in Central Australia. At that time, it had 20 000 healthcare consumers registered. Now there are 37 000 people in the Territory. One in five or one in six throughout the Territory has an electronic health record. The Shared Electronic Health Record is very much an accepted clinical tool in the provision of healthcare services at the 90 health centres, GP practices, and public hospitals which are participating. In recognition of the importance of this service, our government has committed ongoing funding of $2m per annum for the continued operation of this service from 2009-10.
The achievements in e-health in the Northern Territory reflect the strong partnerships which have been built and maintained since inception. This includes partnerships with the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing, the Aboriginal Medical Alliance of the Northern Territory, and the General Practice Network NT, as well as the many individual clinicians and healthcare provider organisations delivering healthcare to the Territory population.
The Shared Electronic Health Record and other e-health initiatives are only possible where there is widespread use of electronic health record systems at the point of care. That is the reason we have accelerated the roll-out of the Primary Care Information System, PCIS, across its network of remote health centres over the past three years. PCIS is a major IT system, the most advanced clinical system in operation by my department, introducing for the first time electronic health records used in real time by clinicians, completely eliminating paper-based records. The PCIS implementation is the single biggest undertaking by my department. It has the added complexity and challenges of the tyranny of distance and of providing support to ICT infrastructure and staff in remote communities. It has taken sustained effort to make the changeover from paper to electronic health records at 46 remote health centres across the Territory since July 2007. I take the opportunity to recognise the efforts of my department’s PCIS team and remote health services staff and management on their outstanding achievement.
The final example of how the government is using today’s technology effectively to manage the health conditions of today relate to exciting opportunities to build on the Territory’s existing e-health capability. This is provided by the Northern Territory government’s successful application for funding under the Australian government’s Digital Regions Initiative. We now have a total investment of $16.6m, with $9.6m provided by the Northern Territory government and $7m from the Commonwealth. The Northern Territory was the only jurisdiction in Australia that secured the maximum funding available under the first round of the Digital Regions Initiatives program.
The Advanced Shared Care Plan project will further enhance the quality of information available. The Advanced Shared Care Plan project will be designed to use current and emerging national e-health infrastructure and specifications being developed and implemented by the National e-Health Transition Authority, NEHTA. For example, it is planned to use an authority-compliant web services interface, national healthcare identifiers, clinical document architecture, and the National Authentication Service for Health and standard clinical terminology as these become available. For patients registered for the e-Health NT Shared Electronic Health Record Service, the Advanced Share Care Plan will improve the functionality and utility of the e-records to clinicians involved in their care, in line with emerging national standards for patient-controlled Shared Electronic Health Records. It will also provide the opportunity for more Territorians to access the benefits of the electronic health record.
The Telehealth network project under the Health e-Towns Program will use a range of technologies to provide patients and their clinicians with access to specialist service remotely. That means a clinician in Yirrkala will be able to contact a clinician in Melbourne, Darwin, or Sydney, in order to obtain information and show some of the results - and not only results, but also digital X-rays. We have a digital mammography machine that can take digital photographs of breasts for the detection of breast cancer. That would be able to be transmitted through high-speed network down south in order to have a diagnosis from a person who would be 5000 km away.
This is the important thing about the National Broadband Network and the benefits of a broadband network. It is not as if you have a four-lane highway from Brisbane to Darwin, because it is going to be built by a Labor federal government, and we do not want this to be one of the achievements of the federal government. The reality is - and I heard the comments about the debt for the future - if that federal Labor Cabinet had not spent that money in an economic stimulus, and the money had not flowed into the general population, I am afraid Australia would be in the same position, possibly, as Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and Iceland are in today.
I get the news from my mother country. I read the news, and we have a country that, a few years back, was very advanced and very wealthy. Today, their national bonds have been declared chance bonds by some of the international banking corporations. It is not only Greece. In fact, this afternoon, Germany and the other European countries approved a €120bn loan to Greece in order to avoid the collapse of a series of countries in Europe, in a domino effect. Australia has managed to weather the global financial crisis because of the massive spending by the federal government. The reason we are where we are today …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You took the time to point out digression from speech to members of this side of the House. I do not think the Greeks’ loan crisis has a great deal to do with this particular debate.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister seems to be talking about ICT, to my mind, but ...
Mr ELFERINK: No, Madam Speaker, I beg to differ from you. He is talking about the Greek loan crisis.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could come to the point, but it does seem to me the minister has been talking about ICT.
Mr VATSKALIS: On the point of order, what I was referring to was the comments made by the member for Braitling that we will pay so much money for these broadband networks that our children will have to borrow - or we have borrowed the money and put ourselves and our kids into debt. My point is, if we did not spend that money for the stimulus package, it would be a difficult economic situation today. It is a very clear connection between what the member for Braitling commented about the National Broadband Network and the effect we would have if the federal government was not engaged in projects of national significance. This is a nationally significant project ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, and he got pulled up for digression, and what are you doing?
Mr VATSKALIS: The member for Port Darwin likes to draw attention to what he thinks is not relevant. The reality is, it is very relevant and goes to the core of the comments made by the members opposite …
Mr Elferink: It is an objective call, is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Port Darwin!
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, it is not only in health that the broadband network is going to benefit, but also in the mining industry, or in the primary industry area.
Mining is a very exciting industry. In the Territory, we are doing very well because we have invested heavily in many new web-based applications in order for people in Shandong in China to be able to plug into our computers via our network and find information which is not available on paper or, even if it was available on paper, it would take time and effort to actually access it. A person in Shandong, China can actually plug into their computer, come into my department’s web page, and find all of this information in Chinese. Not only that, he can naturally find information in our web page that is several layers below the front page, and dig back to historical data and information for a particular tenement in a particular area in the middle of nowhere - in the middle of the Tanami. That is important. Ease of access and managing to obtain this information quickly, now, with the press of a button, is very important for us because that person will make decisions to invest in the Territory based on the information he will obtain via the network through a computer. We have seen that before, and we see it now.
The Northern Territory today, because of this application, because of the way we attract foreign investment from China and Japan, is now behind only Western Australia and Queensland in exploration. We have exceeded South Australia, which, two years ago was 59% above us. Today, the exploration there has collapsed by 39 percentage points, while ours has gone up.
Madam Speaker, it is an exciting project. It is a project of national significance, not only because of the number of jobs that it will engage, the number of people who will develop technology in order to provide the equipment, the tools, the planning for this project, but because it is going to provide opportunities for Territorians in the health sector, improving the health of Territorians, especially Indigenous Territorians who live away from major urban centres, and also jobs for other Territorians, because we will be able to provide and exchange information on a national and international level, cooperating nationally and internationally with many other companies that have common interests.
Mr Hampton: Primary industries.
Mr VATSKALIS: Thank you, member for …
Mr Hampton: Lord Chisholm.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. Another thing with this is we are the only country in this world that trace meat from the field to the plate. How do we do that? With a National Livestock Identification Scheme. I am very proud to say I was the minister who introduced it and, despite some objections by the industry in the beginning, they have now recognised the value. What that means is someone on a pastoral station - let us say Napperby - can scan the tag of an animal and record that in real time in a database in Sydney. They recognise the value of that because the only reason many importers prefer Australian beef is because, if something goes wrong, they can trace it to the paddock where it came from, and trace all the other animals. With the mad cow incident a few years back in America, they were unable to trace a significant number of animals - up to 1000 animals - because their system is not as efficient or as real time as ours.
We might be arguing about politics - and I do not have a problem with playing politics. However, you criticise something that is going to provide enormous benefits to Territorians and to Australians, because the party that is in power in Canberra is not your party, but is the other party, and you do not want to acknowledge another party can do really well. I do not have a problem with that. If the Liberals in Canberra did something good for the Territory, I would acknowledge it.
I can play politics but, in the end, I would acknowledge it, the same way I acknowledge if my party, in power in Canberra now, does something I do not like. The something I do not like is the Muckaty Station proposed nuclear disposal site, which I find unacceptable. I am prepared to argue with my counterparts in Canberra, and even with the Prime Minister.
However, this is a project of national significance and a project I wholeheartedly support. I support the statement of my colleague, the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy.
Debate adjourned.
PROPOSED MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Matter not Proceeded With
Matter not Proceeded With
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have before me an MPI, but the member who wanted to propose it is not in the Chamber. Unless the member is here immediately, I will ask a minister to adjourn the House.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I appreciate your ruling on this particular issue; however I …
Madam SPEAKER: It can only be the person who has proposed the debate.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, Madam Speaker, but we had no advice of the intended adjournment of this. This is clearly a little device by which they seek to try to embarrass members on this side of the Chamber ...
Mr Gunner: I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition and Kezia earlier in the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry? You spoke to the Leader of the Opposition? When did you do that?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am prepared to adjourn the House.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Can we just clarify: is the member for Goyder somewhere nearby?
Mr Elferink: I believe she is.
Madam SPEAKER: We have one minute maximum. We do not normally hold up the business of the House for a member.
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member moved the House do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Ms Lawrie: We will abide by the ruling. If they are not in the House, they are not in the House.
A member interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is very soon, it will not be much longer. We certainly never wait for a member.
Mr Elferink: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker, and thank you for your indulgence.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, as we are closing the week off and celebrated Anzac Day on 25 April, Sunday just gone, I acknowledge this very important event, and particularly the events in Alice Springs.
I place on the public record that at 10.30 am on Sunday I attended the service at Anzac Hill. I particularly acknowledge the President of the RSL, Mr Dennis Parker, and many of the people involved in that ceremony.
I acknowledge Major Adi Viney, who conducted the Prayers of Remembrance, and the member for Greatorex, who gave an official address at the ceremony and spoke about his family’s strong connection to service in war. Also, the Lone Piper, Mr Neil Ross who, all the times I have attended the service, has been the Lone Piper and has been doing a fantastic job. Well done to Neil Ross! I thank him for his contribution on this very important day. The Last Post bugler was Mr Peter Gilham, and I thank him for his service on this very important day.
It was a pleasure to attend the RSL Club Open Day after the 10.30 am service. It was great to talk to many people, particularly some of the old Vietnam Veterans, about their experience and what the day means to them.
My best wishes to all the servicemen and women who served in all the wars, particularly on a special day such as Anzac Day. My appreciation to the President of the RSL, Mr Dennis Parker.
I also place on the record the honour roll put together by IAD Press. It is a fantastic book. I believe 1995 was the first edition honouring all the ex-servicemen, particularly the Indigenous people of Central Australia who, willingly and unselfishly, volunteered or were conscripted into the Australian Armed Services to fight. This book was published by IAD Press. They have done some fantastic books over many years. It is a fantastic tribute to many of those Aboriginal people of Central Australia who, as I said, unselfishly volunteered, or were conscripted into the Australian Armed Services. Part of the book includes a roll of honour, which I place on the public record. The roll of honour honours those who served in the two great World Wars, and in various bitter campaigns and conflicts that subsequently erupted in a troubled world during that time.
I acknowledge some people who have played a key role in putting this book together, acknowledging the Aboriginal ex-servicemen, in particular, Mr Ken Laughton who has done fantastic research, getting oral history and records from people who have since passed away. It was very important work Ken Laughton did in catching up with some of the ex-servicemen and getting their stories which shape fantastic testimonies in the book.
I acknowledge other people who have since passed away. Mr George Bray, from a well-known, large extended family in Central Australia, and Mr Pat Forster who also assisted Ken Laughton in putting this book together, doing the research, the hard work, and collecting the photos for what now is a fantastic book which is there for all Central Australians to read.
I will quote from the introduction of the book Aboriginal Ex-Serviceman of Central Australia. The introduction is by Kenny Laughton; it was done in 1995. I will read this quote into the Parliamentary Record:
- It is worth remembering that the time of this commitment was also a time of great oppression for many Aboriginal people in Australia, resulting from divisive government policies such as the White Australia Policy and the Assimilation Policy; a time when, until the 1967 National Referendum, Aboriginal people couldn’t vote and were not even recognised as citizens of their own country. In spite of all this, Aboriginal people, not only in Central Australia but across the country, answered the call to arms in defence of their land.
That is a quote from Ken Laughton in the introduction of this book written in 1995. It brings home some of the events and the real life situations Aboriginal people faced in that time. Despite all those obstacles of government policy at the time, they stood up and were counted, and answered the call to arms in defence of their country and their land.
I would also like to read briefly some of the number of testimonies in this fantastic book that acknowledges the Aboriginal ex-servicemen in Central Australia. There are some really good testimonies. There is one from Charles Reid who served in World War II in the New Guinea campaign. There is also one from Roy Schaber who served in World War II in the Borneo campaign; Herbert James Laughton who also served in World War II, and Kenny Laughton served in the Vietnam campaign and there is a fantastic story there. Kenny actually wrote a book about it called Not Quite Men, No Longer Boys of which I have read parts. It is a great read and is all about his experiences in Vietnam. Kenny does a great testimony in this book.
Included is Charles Tilmouth who served in the Vietnam campaign, national service from 18 July 1968 to 30 October 1970; Geoff Shaw OAM, who is well known to many of us here, particularly those of us who come from Alice Springs, also served in the Vietnam campaign; Brian White who has, sadly, passed away, served in the Royal Australian Navy from 1964 to 1979, has also provided a great testimony in this book; and Anthony O’Callaghan, a lot younger than some of those I have mentioned already, served in 2/3 Field Engineers Regiment and the 3 Combat Engineers Regiment from 17 May 1988 to 4 February 1994.
As I said, there are some great testimonies in this fantastic book, Aboriginal Ex-Servicemen of Central Australia, published by IAD Press. There is something I would like to mention from one of the testimonies just to give an idea of what some of these great servicemen of Central Australia went through. I quote from Kenny Laughton’s testimony in this book:
- I did my recruit training at Wagga Wagga, then I went to the School of Military Engineering in Sydney. At the end of the course we were given a choice: pick a spot around Australia or Vietnam; most of the lads I knocked around with volunteered for Vietnam.
Originally, I was sent over as a clerk and was posted to Allied Headquarters, Saigon, working for the Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General, a bloke named Major Lovegrove. He was aide to Brigadier Stretton, the Chief of Staff, who probably is more famously known for his handling of Cyclone Tracy in 1974.
In my job I handled mostly what they called ‘noticases’, notification of casualties. It was a real cushy job -living in a hotel, maids to do our washing, the attractions of the bars.
But a little incident came up which affected me a bit. There was a lad I did corps training with in Sydney. He was a really good sportsman. At the end of our training we had a marathon and he cleaned us all up. He won by about two miles.
One day a ‘noticas’ came in and he had been hit in a very bad mine incident. They started chopping pieces off his legs and arms. I think he just gave up and he died. Someone I actually knew got killed like that! It really affected me.
That is the unfortunate side of war, but it really does bring home how important Anzac Day is. I know in my family, five of my uncles have served in the armed forces and one of those served in Korea, Japan, and Bougainville in New Guinea.
For our family, my uncle returned to Australia but never returned home to Alice Springs. It has been a family legacy to try to locate our uncle who served during wartime in Korea, Japan, Bougainville and New Guinea. It is an issue a lot of families around Australia come to grips with. Anzac Day certainly brings that home to many of us who have never seen loved ones once they have gone overseas and fought in a war.
Madam Speaker, I dedicate this adjournment to the Aboriginal ex-Servicemen of Central Australia.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I acknowledge the efforts of a number of Alice Springs community groups and individuals who brought about the recent celebrations for the 150th anniversary of John McDouall Stuart’s first expedition to Central Australia. Organisers chose the week of 10 to 18 April, as it coincided with Stuart’s crossing of the MacDonnell Ranges, whereas the focus of the centenary in 1960 was his arrival at Central Mount Stuart.
A broad range of community activities was organised by a team of local volunteers, led by Stuart Traynor, with the support of Mayor, Damien Ryan. These activities included a community barbecue, musical performances, public lectures, library activities, and an exhibition of artefacts from John McDouall Stuart’s expeditions.
Undoubtedly, the highlight of the week was the re-enactment of the explorer’s arrival on the MacDonnell Ranges hill on the afternoon of Sunday, 11 April, which I was honoured to attend with around 500 Central Australians. Torrential rain in the days beforehand forced a last-minute transfer of the event from Owen Springs, 50 km west of town, to Simpson’s Gap. The weather did not deter John McDouall Stuart, played by local icon, Bill Hayes, who arrived at 4 pm accompanied by William Kekwick (Jim Thomas) and Benjamin Head (Harry Osborn). They were met by descendants of Stuart (Anne Bachelard and Will Stuart) and Kekwick (Rick Moore).
A creek-bed concert followed until 6 pm, featuring legendary local folk group, Bloodwood, with Barry Skipsey who I have known for, probably 20 years, and also a wonderful performance by former Administrator, Ted Egan. It was the first time Bloodwood had played together for a number of years and, while they were older and greyer than their heyday in the 1980s, their voices were undiminished, as was their rapport with a large crowd who braved the grey skies. They concluded the concert with a song about Stuart they had written specifically for the occasion called What Drives a Man. Ted Egan also performed a song he had written titled John McDouall Stuart: Rider in the Mirage.
Journalist, Kieran Finnane, wrote in the Alice Springs News on 15 April:
- Sunday’s was a joyful event. Heavy rain had caused it to be moved from Owen Springs to Simpson’s Gap but if anything, the majestic qualities of the red sandstone rising either side of the gap against the sombre sky only added a fitting impressiveness.
The week’s program of activities was the combined effort of a number of community groups: McDouall Stuart Branch of the National Trust, McDouall Stuart Masonic Lodge, Parks and Wildlife, Rotary Club of Stuart, John McDouall Stuart Society, Tourism Central Australia, Adelaide House and the Uniting Church, Anglican Church of the Ascension, and the National Road Transport Hall of Fame. It was made possible with generous support from the Alice Springs Town Council and Public Library, Redback Productions, Desert Knowledge Australia, Museum of Central Australia, Commonwealth Bank, Dyson Group of Companies, Desert Graphics, Asprint, ABC radio, radio 8HA and Sun-FM, Alice Springs News, Centralian Advocate, DIY Tour Guide and Overlander Steak House.
In fact, it was Wayne Kraft, or Krafty as he is well known, who was the one who first told me about this event and convinced me that I should attend.
The people of Alice Springs have expressed the hope that Darwin will stage a similar community celebration in July 2012 to mark the 150th anniversary of the day in 1862 when Stuart and his family finally reached the shores of the Arafura Sea after being forced to turn back from their northward trek at Attack Creek in 1860, and from Newcastle Waters in 1861.
I congratulate and thank all involved with the 150th re-enactment of this history event in the Northern Territory’s history. It was wonderful to be there.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge some of the young rural kids in my electorate. I also make mention of the Under 13 boys and girls who are up-and-coming soccer stars who represented the Northern Territory at the Football Federation Australia’s National Junior Championships recently in Canberra.
I was very proud to help with the fundraising, which was being run by six of the girls’ team, who all came from the Litchfield Football Club. They were Emma, Mailey, Charlie, Caitlin, Dana, Peta and their parents, who were very proactive with the fundraising attempts and had a lot of fun with the many sausage sizzles they held at the Coolalinga Shopping Centre, which I participated in. They are great girls, and their parents give them great support.
Both the girls and the boys teams played extremely well, and though the scores were not in the NT’s favour, both NT teams were the crowd favourites. Congratulations to all players, with a special mention of three of the girls from my electorate. They were Peta Harman, Dana McAlear and Laura Vincent. I congratulate all those girls; better luck next year. It is great to see our rural kids getting out there, being active for and doing very well in sport.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016