2009-05-06
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 143 petitioners praying that the 2009-10 allocation of the Northern Territory Operations Grants for the Wagait Shire be no less than the previous year’s allocation. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the roll-out of a significant investment program to improve public housing across the Territory. Yesterday, the government announced a record investment in Housing in Budget 2009-10 - $390m has been committed. That is up $187m, or a 92% increase, from the previous year. It is a funding commitment focused on housing the Territory: more land to grow, more places to buy, more places to rent at an affordable price, and new public housing.
These housing projects will create 355 jobs across the construction sector, creating Territory jobs in one of our key industries. Importantly, they will deliver more housing options for Territorians, helping build the Territory by making it easier for Territorians to own their own home. Public housing is an important option for many Territorians.
This government is investing strategically in public housing to meet the areas of most demand, and Budget 2009-10 increases funding of $10m for Bellamack seniors village, and $9.4m to build new and upgrade existing public housing. We are working with the Commonwealth government to get jobs created in projects quickly and more effectively.
The federal Labor government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan commits $65bn across the nation to build 20 000 homes and refurbish around 2500 social housing dwellings. To date, the Territory has received $4.1m to upgrade 175 existing public housing properties. We are not standing still; we are getting work out the door to protect Territory jobs and to support our housing and construction industry.
I am pleased to report that $2.35m will be allocated to put 47 vacant properties back into use for Territory families across Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. Internal upgrades such as kitchen repairs and replacements have already been carried out in 23 properties. Tenders are being awarded now for the installation of solar hot water units, roof repairs and replacements, creating real opportunities for Territory businesses. A total of $650 000 has actually been spent and subbies across the Territory have received this work which they are very thankful for in these difficult times.
A further $7.1m has been received from the stimulus package to create 20 new public housing homes, houses, duplexes and units in Darwin’s northern suburbs, two new duplexes in the rural area of Humpty Doo, units in Palmerston, and new homes in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. $6.2m is committed in Budget 2009-10 to complete these works. Tenders have been called to construct three houses in Central Australia, and one in the northern suburbs. Tenders close soon and I look forward to seeing construction get under way as soon as possible.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: It may be a joke to the other side, but these projects will deliver new and improved homes for Territory families and, at the same time, protect jobs.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Yes, there is money allocated in the budget but it is all about allocation when, really, it should be about outcomes; what is actually happening on the ground. There are no new land releases to build houses. We have the Bellamack situation which is not on track. It will be unlikely there will be any land released there this year. There are also problems across the board with public housing. We know we have tenant problems with a huge amount of unpaid rent, and nothing is happening in regard to that. We also know that we have huge property maintenance issues in regard to public housing.
Let us look at Alice Springs in regard to land for housing. Alice Springs only had 12 more rateable properties last year – only 12. There will be possibly 80 blocks released in Mt John, but only 40 of those will come online in the next 12 months. Alice Springs needs 100 blocks to survive in regard to the growth of that town. They, too, suffer from what Darwin suffers; that is, high rents and high land prices. That is contributing to people leaving the town because (1) they cannot get housing, whether it be private housing or public housing, and (2) if they can source something then the rents are far too high. Therefore, Alice Springs also has a problem securing and holding people in that town, such as tradespeople - and these are the people who would be used in some of the remote communities building houses. There are issues across the board; it is not just the Darwin and urban areas. Alice Springs also suffers from this government’s appalling track record in regard to public housing and their policies.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments about public housing. I believe the facts speak for themselves; we are going backwards in relation to public housing. If you look at the wait times – and this is just off your own web page – five years is required to get a one-bedroom non-pensioner flat in Alice Springs - five years waiting, 59 months. For a three-bedroom home in Alice Springs there is a four-year wait, 49 months. In Darwin and Casuarina, it is approximately three years for a one-bedroom home and, for a three-bedroom home it is 50 months - and it goes on and on. In Nhulunbuy, to get a one-bedroom home it will take 74 months. You will nearly become a pensioner by then and, of course, you cannot get a pensioner one-bedroom home in Nhulunbuy.
The waiting times for people who wish to move into public housing is terrible. I have had contact with older people who have wanted to have accommodation outside a retirement village or something like that, who have, perhaps, lived at Batchelor or Adelaide River and had to come into town looking for a one-bedroom unit. It is extremely difficult for them to find accommodation. They have had to stay with other people simply because the waiting times are too great.
Madam Speaker, the proof of the pudding is in the waiting times, and the proof of the pudding shows that the government has failed when it comes to public housing in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I will just comment on the member for Nelson’s topic. The wait times are concerning, but the sad reality is that we are better off than any other jurisdiction ...
Mr Elferink: You sold off the stock.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: It is a national issue and we try very hard. The nation building stimulus package was all about addressing that - $6.4bn for social housing across Australia. The other side of this House voted it down. It voted down repairs and maintenance, more social housing, seniors villages - everything in that stimulus package. They voted down jobs as well. The stimulus package was about doing two things – getting more social housing and maintaining jobs in the biggest financial crisis in 75 years - and the other side of this House voted against that.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of the release of an issues paper and progress of the Northern Territory Sport and Active Recreation Policy.
The formulation of the first ever Sport and Active Recreation Policy will be the Territory government’s blueprint for the future as we continue to build on our successes. As we know, Territorians love their sport, whether it is participating or being a spectator – as I was at the Masters Games. It is part of our great Territory lifestyle and we want to ensure that every Territorian has the opportunity to participate in their chosen sport.
On 3 April, I launched the Sport and Active Recreation Policy discussion program, which will give Territorians the opportunity to play a part in formulating this policy. The launch included the release of a dedicated website, which includes information such as a document Towards a Sport and Active Recreation Policy: An Issues Paper.
The policy program has now progressed into Phase 2, consultation and engagement. A private consultation firm has been appointed to assist the process of gathering public feedback regarding the policy’s development and content. The public consultation program and approach will include face-to-face meetings, online survey responses, online comments, and written submissions, and will give all stakeholders the chance to have their say on the future directions of this important policy.
Face-to-face meetings will commence on 27 April 2009, and will continue through until 19 June 2009. Northern Territory government agencies, the Australian government, and local government agencies, will also be formally consulted. Community stakeholder workshops commence this week in Darwin. Regional and remote consultations will take place from 11 May 2009 to 18 June 2009, commencing in Katherine and concluding in Tennant Creek. Stakeholder and community workshops will take place across the Northern Territory and include workshops in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek Alice Springs, Nguiu on the Tiwi Islands, Warrawi, Goulbourn Islands, Nhulunbuy, Yuendumu and Papunya. Face-to-face discussions will occur with the elected members of seven of the eight shire councils.
The consultations will seek feedback in relation to overarching issues, sport and recreation in communities; sport and recreation pathways; sport and recreation and environment; and sport and recreation events. Overarching areas relate to key issues that impact on the industry sector as a whole. This includes collaborative sport and recreation partnerships that maximise outcomes, define the role of the government, and provide a Northern Territory perspective to the national sport and active recreation agenda.
Key focus areas consist of four topics. These are: communities, relating to the people involved in sport and active recreation industries, users and providers; pathways, referring to the avenues for entering the sporting environment through grassroots on to elite sport - that is, active recreation to high performance competitions; the environment, relating to facilities and surroundings where people participate in sport and active recreation; and events relating to the Northern Territory government’s sporting events’ initiatives such as the AFL matches, NBL matches, the Australian Rugby League matches, and cricket matches, etcetera.
The local government framework, made up of shire and municipal councils, will be approached to gain regional feedback. The municipal and shire councils have been sent information packs advising them of the program and inviting their input, either through face-to-face meetings, post or via the online facilities.
Contact has been made with the relevant national sporting organisations and an invitation extended to them to submit feedback on the Northern Territory government’s policy development. In addition to the national sporting organisations, contact has been made with the Territory-based sporting and recreational peak organisations, and invitations extended to them to submit feedback or attend workshops. The Australian government agencies are also being invited to provide feedback into the policy via face-to-face meetings, online and or postal submissions.
To date, 11 online submissions and numerous phone calls requesting information have been received. Independent consultants are responsible for organising and managing public workshops and meetings with the department’s direction and assistance. The first draft Sport and Active Recreation Policy will be released for public feedback in July 2009, with the final policy document being scheduled for release in September 2009.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Territorians to get involved and have their say on this important initiative.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for releasing the document. I have read that document and it is not bad. Well done on putting something out.
I hope you will personally get out there and speak with these people and visit as many places as you can because, unfortunately - and this is not detracting from you, Madam Speaker - too many times, the consultation period has not involved the minister. I believe you have the ability to get out there and do that. Get out there and see these people. That is what I have been doing for the past nine months. I understand what some of the needs are for people, and that is why we have been listening to them. Make sure you do the same.
Do not make the mistakes that some of your other colleagues have, because it is really important. We need to ensure that young kids and Territory people enjoy the lifestyle that they are used to. They need to keep active and ensure that they keep a healthy lifestyle. That is one of the ways to do it; by keeping our sporting groups and associations running properly, and our facilities up to the best standard possible in the economic times we have. There is nothing wrong with questioning people on what they need. I hope you go out and do that because I am sure you are going to find some very interesting answers, as I have. There is much work out there. There is also much promise. We have some fantastic sporting personalities in the Territory and I am sure they will come to the forefront and say what they need to say.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It is difficult not to be a little cynical because we did, in the last Assembly of parliament, have a sport and recreation committee which, unfortunately, was cut off by an early election.
The reason I raise that is because the last thing I want to see is not only duplication but, also, wearing people out in some of these communities. I know they get sick and tired of people visiting these communities and asking the same questions and nothing happens. I am interested to see whether there were any results that came out of the sport and recreation committee that do not need to be duplicated in this new survey. People get very cynical about what this is all about. Last time, it did not really come up with much. It was cut off because of an early election, and we did not hear much more about it after that.
The wrong message is being sent out in this budget in relation to the government talking about elite sports people. According to the budget papers there will be 29 fewer NTIS athlete scholarship holders this year. I am interested to know why that is happening because that seems to be sending out a message that we are cutting back on the possibilities for elite sports people in the Northern Territory to achieve more than just being local athletes, and succeed more in the wider sports arena.
From a very parochial point of view, if I asked how much money the government was going to put into the Freds Pass sporting and recreation facility in the Northern Territory this year, I would say it was pretty well zero. Considering that it is one of the biggest sporting and recreation facilities in the Northern Territory, it is very disappointing that year in, year out, it gets very little funding. If we really believe in helping young people, and that sport is an important part of our community then, sometimes, the government has to put some money into that facility - not just to rely on funding through voluntary work or them occasionally getting a little money through a community grant, but putting some real money into places like Freds Pass to make it a worthwhile facility.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Nelson for their comments. Member for Drysdale, I have been out and about since becoming Sports minister, and also in my time as the local member for Stuart with a large electorate. I am fully aware of that, and I will be attending as many of those workshops as I can.
Member for Nelson, you have raised some very good points. Regarding the Sport and Youth Committee, I was the chair of that before the last election. I did instruct my department to look at the report that was tabled to parliament, and consider some of the important things that were picked up by that group during the last parliament.
In terms of the NTIS scholarships, I am happy to look at that and get back to you. I take that question on notice. Regarding the Freds Pass sporting facilities, we have an annual sporting facilities grant and I encourage it to apply for that. We have put extra money into that, and there is $30m in this budget that supports sporting bodies and events.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the current state of the backpacker market within the Northern Territory tourism sector. As we have found on many occasions over the years, backpackers continue to show strong resilience in times of trouble, and 2008 was no different.
Last week, the Northern Territory hosted the Backpacker’s Conference as part of the Australian Tourism Export Council Symposium. Tourism NT was congratulated at the event for its dedication and innovation in marketing to this segment. This is an important and resilient market, supported by the fact that we do have jobs still available in the Territory, such as fruit picking, bar work, casual retail roles - a whole range of them.
Backpackers spend more than double that of other international visitors. They stay more than two-and-a-half times longer and spend just over one third of their time visiting regional areas. To grow our share of the backpacker market, Tourism NT released its Backpacker Development Plan in May 2006, which provides the framework for the industry to work cooperatively to position the Northern Territory as a competitive backpacker destination and identify opportunities to ensure the continual growth of the sector.
The plan coined the term ‘experiential backpacker’, implemented a range of strategies that embrace new and emerging technology, and focused on mutually beneficial partnerships. One example highlighted was ensuring Tourism NT provided interesting content on social websites like YouTube and flicka.com.
I am pleased to advise our efforts have paid off. In 2008, over 92 000 backpackers visited the Territory and contributed $54m to our local economy. The Northern Territory attracts up to 17% of all backpackers to Australia, and has recorded exceptional growth in 2008; the number of backpackers increased by 7% compared to the rest of Australia which experienced a 1.2% decline. Backpacker visitor nights increased by more than 33% and backpackers stayed, on average, eight nights in the Northern Territory. Approximately 320 Territorians are employed by visitor hostels and many more jobs are supported through the money backpackers spend across the Territory.
In 2008, backpackers, as I said, spent $54m in the Territory and, wherever they spend money, that means jobs for Territorians. The survey of tourist accommodation reported that last year the visitor hostel sector in the Northern Territory saw guest nights occupied increased by 12.1% to 582 000 nights, and accommodation takings were up 22.9% to $15.2m.
Many tourism operators and local businesses rely on young, independent travellers, which is why the government is supporting these businesses by promoting the Territory directly to UK backpackers. I know that you were part of that on your visit to the UK just recently, Madam Speaker.
In March this year, Tourism NT launched a new promotion with gapyear.com which is designed to help independent travellers plan their trip to Australia and, in particular, the Northern Territory. The gapyear.com site is one of the world’s leading sources of independent travel advice with over two million unique users each year. We produce two guides to the Territory for gapyear.com: one is dedicated to Kakadu, and the second is for travel experiences across the whole Territory. Gap year is a long held tradition in the UK and, despite the global economic downturn, it is holding. Evidence suggests that travelling for these young people is more attractive than the doom and gloom and rain surrounding the current financial climate in the UK. More competitive flights in and out of the Territory also encourage backpackers to use the Top End as the entry point to Australia.
Madam Speaker, our strong economic situation is also encouraging many repeat visitors. Confidence in the market for both Alice Springs and Darwin is strong. Adventure Tours Australia recorded their best summer ever with a 10% increase on bookings ex Alice Springs in 2008 compared to 2007, and the next quarter is also looking very healthy. Melaleuca on Mitchell in Darwin also reported a busy first quarter and solid forward bookings. All things considered, the future of the backpacker market in the Northern Territory remains very positive.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for updating the House on the contribution that backpackers make to the Territory tourism industry. I welcome the experiential backpacker section that was put on by ATEC at its recent symposium in Darwin. You wonder what sort of an experiential program it would be for backpackers coming through Darwin, and through the Territory. They arrive in Darwin, they go out, they might get glassed in a nightclub, or beaten up on the street. Then, they have the wonderful opportunity to travel down the track, experience the drunkenness, violence, and bad language that occurs in all our regional towns.
What a shame it is that we do not have a government which is prepared to act on crime, because crime is probably the biggest deterrent for tourists in the Territory. One of the things most tourists comment on when they come to the Territory is the fact that there is a high level of crime, drunkenness, and antisocial behaviour. A very sad situation, indeed.
I go back to the fact that the minister mentioned the ATEC Symposium. It was good to see that he was there for the opening of it, but very disappointing that not one single member of the government decided to turn up to the ATEC dinner. Bearing in mind that all of the big tour operators around the country - people who bring tourists into the Territory - were all there, it would not have cost the Territory government a cent to send a minister along to do a little networking amongst that group. But, sadly, there was not a minister to be seen, let alone the Tourism Minister or the Chief Minister. I understand they were both a couple of hundred yards away with comrades, at a May Day dinner celebration. Good on you, fellas, but it is just a shame that you do not take more time with our tourism industry, mixing with those people who send tourists to the Territory. It is a great shame, and the Territory tourism industry is suffering because of your indifference to them ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Ling, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I cannot really thank the member for his response. He was there at the opening of the ATEC Symposium, he heard me talk passionately about what a privilege it is to be the Tourism Minister in the Northern Territory, to be a politician in the Northern Territory, and be a part of our great Northern Territory and see its assets - both natural and people. I am very passionate about this.
I am very disappointed to hear the member for Fong Lim talk it down. That is all he could do when he was confronted with a positive outlook, particularly amongst the backpacker market that I presented here today. All he can do is be negative, and that is not being much of an ambassador for the Northern Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the former member for Macdonnell, Mr Neil Bell. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that at 11 am during government business, I will call on the Leader of the Opposition to deliver the opposition’s response to the budget. The member speaking at that time will be asked to continue their remarks at a later hour.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009, (Serial 41), and Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40):
Madam Speaker, I provided the second reading for these bills yesterday and I tabled them yesterday as well.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I notice the bills are being taken together and I understand the motion. I am not going to raise an issue about it, but it shows the lack of communication from that side of the House to this side of the House that these motions, as a matter of course, are being brought in and then we are not being offered an explanation beyond ‘I tabled something yesterday’.
I ask members opposite to be mindful that, for the purposes of making this House run more smoothly, when they start to bring in motions like this - and they gave notice of it yesterday - that there is at least an explanation as to why they are binding these bills together. I understand it, in this instance. However, the levels of communications could be improved so that we can make these bills’ transition and move through the House more smoothly. We would not want a situation where something like an Appropriation Bill was being brought into this House, as has happened in the recent past, without the reason for that Appropriation Bill being properly explained.
Motion agreed to.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 43)
PENALTY UNITS BILL
(Serial 44)
______________________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Pass Two Bills through All Stages
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 43), and Penalty Units Bill 2009 (Serial 44):
While I understand why the government wants to do this - and on this occasion we will not resist it because of the length of speeches that apply to the passage of bills - it nevertheless behoves this government to explain why it is doing this.
She introduced this motion for us to now debate the suspension of standing orders to enable them to do this, but she introduced the motion and sat down. There is no explanation at all attached to why the motion is being asked for in this House. I and other members now have to second guess what the Treasurer is actually asking us to do.
I suspect what has happened is the government wants this motion up so it can hear these two bills together, so it does not have to debate twice the charges and fees it is increasing and levelling on Territorians. These will include fees such as the costs of the penalty units, as well as other fees and charges which will be incorporated into this legislation.
If the government wants me to stop standing up when it tries to bring these procedural motions on, and debating these procedural motions, then the best way to do it is to walk around to this side of the House, well in advance, and give notice of what is going on. This House does not have a trap in every corner so that we can squeeze through this way, or squeeze through that way. If explanations are brought on in a timely fashion before we walk into this House, then you will find that this House will work much more smoothly.
Madam Speaker, I understand what the government is doing. I know that it does not want to talk about the increased fees and charges twice. Without having seen the bills, I suspect there will be sufficient time to deal with the fees and charges issue in one debate, which is why we will not be resisting this motion. But, my goodness gracious me, Madam Speaker, a little communication goes a long way.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for agreeing to treat these bills as cognate bills. It is quite standard practice within this House to treat bills as cognate bills, particularly when they are complementary, when they have a theme, as these bills have in budget measures. In no way is government seeking to fetter debate on these particular bills, and members will be free to speak to these bills. There is no plan to fetter debate. This is fairly normal practice where cognate bills come into this House. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill puts in place a package of revenue measures announced as part of the 2009-10 Budget. This bill proposes amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act, Stamp Duty Act, and Taxation Administration Act.
I will now address the changes proposed in the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill in more detail. The key proposals of the bill include changes to landholder stamp duty to counter an avoidance scheme and to address inequities existing in the current legislation by imposing landholder stamp duty on the takeover of companies and unit trusts that are listed on the Stock Exchange, including imposing stamp duty on mergers; changes to the stamp duty legislation so that a purchaser can nominate a related person prior to settlement to receive property without double stamp duty consequences; and changes to the eligibility criteria of the First Home Owner Grant and Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession so that these home incentives are subject to a value cap.
The stamp duty legislation has had landholder stamp duty provisions in place since 1988. These provisions generally provide for the same stamp duty outcome to occur, whether a person acquires ownership of land directly or, in the alternative, indirectly by the transfer of shares in a landholding company or units in a landholding unit trust. This ensures that the direct and indirect transfer of land is treated consistently.
The bill introduces a number of changes from 6 May 2009 to landholder stamp duty addressing a number of inequities existing in the current legislation, and to counter an avoidance scheme. The changes to landholder stamp duty will result in the takeover of listed corporations and unit trusts being subject to landholder stamp duty where an interest of 90% or more is acquired. The threshold for all other unit trusts will be revised to be the same as for unlisted companies; that is, landholder stamp duty will apply where an interest of 50% or more is acquired, rather than the current level of 20% or more. These amendments are consistent with legislation existing in Western Australia.
The bill also imposes stamp duty on mergers, including the merger of listed entities. Generally, where one or more entities merge into a single entity, whether an existing entity or a new entity, duty is payable on the value of the dutiable property of the entities that merge into the new or existing entity. Where there is a merger, and the merging entities continue to exist, such as when BHP and Billiton merged, duty will be imposed on 50% of the dutiable property of each of the merging entities. Where the entities are listed entities, duty will be imposed on 50% of the entities’ landholdings, notwithstanding the normal 90% acquisition threshold.
The bill also addresses a stamp duty avoidance scheme that enables a person to obtain control over the landholding entity without obtaining any entitlement to the property of the entity on its winding-up. As such, a person can take control of a landholding entity and gain indirect ownership of the land while avoiding paying landholder stamp duty. This avoidance scheme has already been used at least once in the Territory and, if the legislation is not amended to close this loophole, it is possible that this practice could become more widespread, potentially costing the Territory significant lost revenue.
The proposed anti-avoidance amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions because there are no commercial reasons for framing a transaction in this manner other than to avoid stamp duty.
The bill also allows a listed unit trust to ‘top hat’ a new parent entity without landholder stamp duty consequences from 1 July 2009. This means that restructuring property trusts and stapled securities by imposing a new head trust can occur without stamp duty consequences. This treatment aligns the Northern Territory with other jurisdictions and allows the exchange of stapled securities to be more competitive.
Often, a person enters into an agreement to purchase property and later decides - or gets legal or accounting advice - that the transfer of the property should go to a related person such as the person’s family company. In these circumstances, provided the purchaser and the transferee are related and no consideration passes, the bill allows the original purchaser to be substituted with a related person without double duty consequences. This ensures that taxpayers are treated fairly, and also reduces red tape for taxpayers and compliance costs for government.
In relation to the First Home Owner Grant and Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession, the bill limits eligibility to these incentives to situations where the home being purchased has a value of $750 000 or less. The $750 000 value cap is about 1.7 times the median house price in Darwin for the December quarter 2008, and is consistent with the first homeowner grant caps in New South Wales and Western Australia. A first homeowner grant cap also applies in Queensland.
Where vacant land is purchased for the purpose of building a first home, it is proposed that the eligibility for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession be limited to situations where the value of land is no more than $385 000. This is the current concession level.
These measures will improve the targeting of homeowner assistance and are proposed to commence following the expiry of the Commonwealth’s First Home Owner Boost Scheme, which is expected to be 30 June 2009.
I now address the other measures in the bill which, unless otherwise indicated, commence on 1 July 2009. The bill also includes a number of stamp duty exemptions for individuals, business and non-profit organisations. First, the bill exempts non-motorised trailers and caravans from motor vehicle registration stamp duty. This will provide savings to Territorians purchasing a caravan or trailer weighing no more than 4.5 t. The measure also ensures that Territory trailer and caravan dealers maintain competitiveness with other jurisdictions which provide similar stamp duty exemptions.
Second, the bill extends existing stamp duty exemptions for public benevolent institutions, religious institutions, public hospitals and schools so that the exemptions are also available to organisations with a sole or dominant purpose that is benevolent, charitable, philanthropic or patriotic. The measure provides stamp duty savings to the non-profit organisations in respect of lease, conveyance and motor vehicle registration stamp duty. The exemption in relation to lease and conveyance duty will remain conditional on the property not being used for commercial or profit-making activities, or in competition with other businesses. Similar exemptions are provided in other jurisdictions and under the harmonised payroll tax legislation.
Third, the bill exempts First Home Saver Accounts from life insurance duty with retrospective effect from 1 October 2008. This aligns with the commencement date of the Commonwealth First Home Saver Account Scheme.
Fourth, the bill exempts leases in retirement villages from stamp duty that would otherwise be imposed on the up-front premiums, to reduce costs to pensioners and seniors. The bill also removes the stamp duty exemption for residential leases, as this exemption is now redundant following the abolition of stamp duty on rent for leases.
The bill will also reduce red tape for taxpayers and conveyancers, as it removes the requirement to lodge cancelled agreements, unless a sub-sale of the property has occurred. This removes the technical requirement to lodge a cancelled agreement, and for the Commissioner of Territory Revenue to remit the duty payable under that agreement.
The final change in the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill is a technical amendment to the Taxation Administration Act clarifying that a statutory charge can be placed on land subject to a pre-existing 1 January 2008 landholder transaction. This measure is consistent with the intention of our act and the manner in which the legislation operated prior to 1 January 2008.
I now turn to the Penalty Units Bill. The Penalty Units Act allows for monetary penalties for offences to be expressed in penalty units. Expressing penalties in penalty units allows for across-the-board adjustment of financial penalties. This ensures that there is a simple way of maintaining the real value of penalties. Penalties cease to have a significant deterrent or punishment effect if inflation is not accounted for. The act does not currently set out a process for changing the value of a penalty unit so that it maintains real value. This means that the value can only be changed by new legislation that changes the value.
In 2002, legislation changed the value of a penalty unit from $100, as set out in 1999, to $110. The consumer price index (the CPI) for Darwin, was used as the basis for determining the change in the value of the money and, therefore, the applicable value of a penalty unit. The value of a penalty unit has not been reviewed since then.
The first purpose of this bill is to increase the value of one penalty unit from $110 to $130. This figure is based on the CPI for 2002 and 2008. The Commonwealth and other Australian states and territories, except for South Australia, use penalty units. These are periodically adjusted. The value of one penalty unit varies between states and territories from $50 to $120.
The Penalty Units Bill additionally allows for a review of the value of a penalty unit in accordance with a CPI calculation to be applied at the start of each financial year. Tasmania and Victoria also provide a legislative mechanism for automatic annual review. The review mechanism will take effect from 1 July 2010, and will only result in changes to the value of a penalty unit if the value yielded by the CPI calculation was equal to, or greater than, a $1 increase to the penalty unit value since its previous review.
The Administrator may then prescribe that amount as the new penalty unit value by regulation, to take effect from a time after the notification of the regulation in the Gazette. It would be expected that the regulation would identify a date sufficiently in the future to ensure that adequate notice is given to law enforcement agencies responsible for penalties. The bill provides that, where the value of a penalty unit is increased by regulation, the increase does not apply to penalties for offences committed prior to the regulation taking effect.
Based on advice from Parliamentary Counsel, the Penalty Units Bill provides for the repeal of the current Penalties Act and replacement by a new act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to the honourable members, and table the explanatory statements to accompany the bills.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As part of a national project to reduce payroll tax compliance costs for businesses, the government introduced amendments to the payroll tax legislation last year that harmonised the Territory’s legislation with the other states in eight key areas from the 1 July 2008. Consistent with the government’s announcement at the time, this bill further harmonises the Territory’s payroll tax laws by putting in place a new Payroll Tax Act that is almost identical to the payroll tax legislation in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, and is consistent with payroll tax legislation in Queensland. South Australia has also announced that it will move to fully harmonise its payroll tax legislation from the 1 July 2009.
The new Payroll Tax Act streamlines administration for all businesses that operate in the Territory, and provides further red tape reductions for businesses that operate in more than one jurisdiction. This is particularly important for the Territory, as around 83% of its registered payroll tax employers also employ interstate. In addition to compliance costs savings, the new Payroll Tax Act is expected to save Territory businesses a further $1.3m in payroll tax in 2009-10. Taken with the harmonisation measures introduced last year, this is a total tax reduction of $3m.
The new Payroll Tax Act introduces the following new major practises and policies. In relation to contractors, the new Payroll Tax Act contains provisions to provide clear rules for the taxation of payments made to contractors that predominantly provide labour services. The current payroll tax legislation does not contain similar provisions but, instead, relies on the common law employment test to determine whether a worker is an employee. The common law employment test can be difficult for businesses to apply in order to accurately asses their liability when they engage contractors. The new provisions seek to provide a clear set of rules to aid employers in this respect. The introduction of these provisions has the benefit of being consistent with almost all jurisdictions in providing greater legislative guidance to employers that engage contractors. The introduction of these provisions does not expand the base, as the common law employment test currently applies so that any contractors these provisions apply to are already taxed within the payroll tax base as common law employees.
The new Payroll Tax Act also extends existing payroll tax exemption for wages paid by religious institutions and public benevolent institutions, so it is also available to non-profit organisations that have a sole or dominant purpose that is a charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose. This is consistent with similar concessions in the income tax field. This exemption remains conditioned on the wages being paid to a person who is ‘exclusively engaged’ in work of a religious, charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic nature.
In addition, the new Payroll Tax Act introduces payroll tax exemptions for wages that are maternity or adoption leave for a maximum period of 14 weeks of wages, and for wages paid to employees participating in voluntary work for bushfires or emergency relief.
The new Payroll Tax Act does not impose payroll tax on wages paid by an employment agent in certain circumstances where those wages would be exempt if paid directly by the client; that is, it allows an employment agent to treat wages paid to an employee as exempt when services are provided to an entity such as a charity that would normally be exempt from payroll tax. The new legislation is fairer because, otherwise, the exempt entity would bear the cost of the payroll tax when it is passed on by the employment agent.
Other features of the new Payroll Tax Act have not been covered, as they are broadly similar to the operation of the current payroll tax legislation. Further details about the bill are set out in the accompanying explanatory statement.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 2/3 Wagaman Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Donna Kimm, Mrs Joan Motter and Mrs Raylee Parker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome
Members: Hear, hear!
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 29)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome the students from Wagaman Primary School today. It is great to see you here enjoying parliament.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In 2003, this government created the Land Development Corporation as a commercially oriented land agency, with the primary aim of providing strategic industrial land associated with the port, rail, oil and gas industry. The success of the organisation in delivering appropriate land for industry is evidenced by the volume of large-scale development occurring at the Darwin Business Park and surrounding areas. Today, we see an impressive array of businesses operating, and new businesses becoming established at the business park, with the total value of development already exceeding $200m.
The Land Development Corporation currently owns and manages over 100 ha of strategic industrial land at the business park, and administers another 208 ha of Crown land at East Arm, with an unimproved capital value in excess of $120m.
The current year’s capital works program for the corporation exceeds $20m, which will deliver nearly 20 large parcels of industrial land in the next stage of the Darwin Business Park. It will also deliver services to the common user area near the Darwin Port Corporation gates at East Arm. These developments, as well as others planned, provide support for major industrial activities, and cement the role of the Land Development Corporation as a central player in the strategic growth of Darwin as an industrial hub.
Building on the success of the Land Development Corporation as a land developer and, as part of the Chief Minister’s recently announced measures to address the critical shortage of accommodation in Darwin, the Northern Territory government has decided to expand the role of the Land Development Corporation to undertake the development of residential land and affordable housing projects in urban areas. It is no secret that the accommodation situation in Darwin, like other cities in Australia, has reached a critical stage where business and government workers are having difficulty finding appropriate affordable accommodation.
Every other state and territory has a land development agency which is tasked with delivering residential land and, more recently, with the delivery of affordable housing. All the land agencies are not only commercially oriented operations paying dividends back to government, but are also providers of solutions and innovations in the delivery of land estates and housing. Most of the interstate agencies also deliver a full array of government land requirements such as subdivisions, land sales, leases and licences over a wide range of residential and commercial accommodation, as well as community facilities and infrastructure in whole urban precincts.
For example, in Western Australia, the LandCorp has developed many residential estates, providing the full spectrum of housing developments. Some of these include shopping precincts, transport hubs, and are often undertaken in joint ventures or partnerships with private entities. Notably, the Land Development Corporation has a strong focus on delivering large scale industrial land, as well as residential solutions for key workers in the fast developing areas of the north-west. The South Australian Land Management Corporation delivers all government land estates, owns the state land bank around Adelaide, and has a focus on the delivery of affordable housing. The New South Wales Landcom Corporation and the Queensland Urban Land Development Authority both develop whole urban precincts. The New South Wales Landcom’s design guideline for buildings and streetscapes is currently being reviewed by the Northern Territory Land Development Corporation to develop a set of standards for its landscaping and street designs.
The interstate land development agencies are also increasingly focused on providing sustainable development solutions. As a result, there are continuing innovations in water sensitivity and environmental design of developments being delivered. A range of sites are being developed around the country by these agencies and, if members visit Adelaide, they should take time to see Lochiel Park, Mawson Lakes and New Port Adelaide to appreciate the innovations in new environmental and sensitive design, and redevelopment of past industrialised areas.
Likewise, developments by VicUrban have made it a leader in developing housing solutions with the environment, transport and technology at the forefront of its new residential developments. It has recently undertaken a six-star environment development called Aurora at Epping North, with rear loading housing lots providing aesthetic streetscapes and pedestrian safe areas for families.
The Australian Capital Territory, or ACT, is a jurisdiction most close in size and rate of growth to the Northern Territory. Members might be interested to know that the ACT Land Development Agency is responsible for a significant proportion of that Territory’s revenue, with returns to the ACT of just over $390m last year. Unlike other states and the Northern Territory, the ACT land agency does not have the option of dealing in freehold land, but has developed a number of lease options for developers including an innovative affordable housing program called OwnPlace. OwnPlace not only delivers the land and financial arrangement, but the completed house with carpet and curtains installed.
The Northern Territory’s Land Development Corporation has developed a close working relationship with all the other jurisdictions, and is fortunate to have a board of highly-qualified people experienced in delivering residential and industrial estates.
The board consists of Mr Steve Margetic, Managing Director of Sitzlers, the Chair; Ms Margaret Michaels from Clayton Utz, the Deputy Chair; Mr Philip Duval, Director of Reality Solutions Australia, in Adelaide; Mr Marek Petrovs, director of several companies and the founder of the annual interstate government land agency forum, and the Chief Executive of the Department of Business and Employment.
This combination of networks and experience means our Land Development Corporation is well placed to take on the expanded role in delivering residential solutions for Territorians. With its highly experienced board and strong interstate connections, the Northern Territory is well placed to take the best of residential models developed interstate and apply them here.
The current functions and powers of the Land Development Corporation restrict the corporation to dealing only in industrial land. In order for the Land Development Corporation to take on residential development, its power and functions need to be broadened. In light of this, I announce today the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill 2009.
The bill aims to expand the role of the Land Development Corporation and the amendments required to do this are not substantial. The changes are intended to ensure the Land Development Corporation can avail itself of the commercial development opportunities experienced in other jurisdictions, and best serve the Northern Territory’s residential and industrial requirements.
Apart from the obvious inclusion of the residential description, the amendments provide for development of facilities associated with the amenity of urban development, the ability to enter into joint ventures and partnerships, as well as being able to borrow or raise money. In order to achieve this, it is proposed to repeal section 6 of the existing act, and replace it with the new section 6, specifically allowing the Land Development Corporation to engage in development, management and promotion of land for residential and or industrial business.
This section will also allow the corporation to provide services, facilities and general assistance in relation to commercial, recreational, and heritage and environmental conservation activities. Examples of developments might include multilevel residential development with offices or shops at the ground level, or precincts with childcare or community facilities such as a swimming pool.
The intent is to allow the Land Development Corporation to engage in its primary development areas and to provide appropriately mixed development.
Madam Speaker, I will pause there as it is 11 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, minister, I ask you to resume your seat. As previously advised, we will call the Leader of the Opposition on the Appropriation Bill.
Debate suspended.
Continued from 5 May 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, if, during the times of plenty, you make no preparation for lean times, you have failed. Labor has made no preparation. It has saddled future generations with an enormous debt and diminished capacity to create the wealth needed to repay that debt. It is true that, without a progressive vision, the people indeed suffer. After eight years, Territory families will reap the consequences of a failure to develop courageous, comprehensive and coherent plans.
This Labor government has squandered the bounty on self-promotion and a short-term political fix. $1.2bn of unexpected, un-budgeted GST payments have been squandered. The Labor Party has completely failed to build the security and diversity necessary to ensure the Territory economy is resilient to the pressures and fluctuations of the world economy.
Not only did those opposite fail to reduce debt, they failed to put in place a contingency plan to ensure the Territory’s economic stability through the bad times. The Treasurer likes to claim good economic management ‘does not happen by accident’. I could not agree more, but her claim to being a good economic manager is, in fact, in tatters. Labor’s economic stewardship has placed a $26 000 debt on the head of every man, woman and child in the Territory. This is an increase of almost $10 000 per head in debt since Labor first came to office. It is a disgrace that we will see, by the end of the term, the Territory in debt to the tune of $6bn.
By way of comparison, Victoria also brought down its budget yesterday. Victoria will have to repay a debt of $31bn by 2012; that amounts to $6000 per head of population. How did we get to the staggering figure of $26 000 for every man, woman and child?
To paraphrase the Treasurer, massive debts ‘do not happen by accident’. Just consider the financial year 2007-08. That year, Labor pocketed $330m in unexpected revenue. What did Labor do with that windfall? It spent it. Which is exactly what it did with all its unexpected revenue - the whole $1.2bn of it. Had Labor kept to its budgets and used the unexpected windfalls to retire debt, Territorians would be saving $70m a year in interest payments; $70m this year, next year, the year after - and on and on. We would have had another budget surplus this financial year - not the first of what promises to be a long line of deficits.
Let us take a moment and look at the electricity network – a casualty of the government’s failure to look forward beyond its own interests. State and territory governments’ principal task is to deliver services, in particular, essential services. Power and Water’s ‘do not fix it until it breaks down’ maintenance regime put an essential service at risk, and it has cost Territorians dearly. Not only were thousands of homes left without power time and time again, the resulting repair bill ran into tens of millions of dollars. All of this could have been avoided with basic preventative maintenance. Power and Water could not deliver because the government froze its maintenance budget, at the same time helping itself to $80m in dividends. If this is not a monumental failure, then what is? When electricity infrastructure is allowed to degrade to such a level that Australians are forced to buy generators because their First World government can only provide a Third World service - that is real failure.
Then there is Blacktip, a project that has been delayed so long that we have a $71 000 a day diesel bill to run the Top End electricity supply. This is not only expensive, but also environmentally irresponsible, especially when this government failed to negotiate any downstream supply of LNG from ConocoPhillips. With the Territory public in one of the best placed jurisdictions to take advantage of solar energy, this government has, with the exception of a small trial in Alice Springs, largely funded by the federal government, neglected its responsibility to develop and invest in solar energy.
What about infrastructure projects the Territory so desperately needs? For eight years - eight years - it has sat idle while it could have been investing in the future. It could have put in place the necessary works to begin development of a heavy industry precinct – but no work on that front. If it turns up, the government will stick it in the harbour. The Chief Minister’s performance in planning for infrastructure projects is, in fact, so dismal that a couple of overtaking lanes are now considered ‘major transport infrastructure projects’.
What was the centrepiece of yesterday’s budget? A $1.3bn spend on infrastructure. While the government can continue to headline record infrastructure spending, the reality is that, each year, we continue to see projects delayed, money left unspent, and communities like those on the Daly left isolated due to an abject failure to fulfil budget commitments.
In 2008-09, this government had projects worth $220m in the infrastructure pool of revoted works - that world of budget announcements that are promised but never arrive. Come budget time, it announced, just like this year, a record spend - $870m. But, what did we get? $355m. Where did the rest go? The Tiger Brennan Drive extension, Stage 2, due for commencement in July 2008, was $89m of that, and it still has not started. There was the $48m for the SIHIP program, and $35m at East Arm port - Commonwealth money, and Territory plans, but no outcomes for Territorians.
Let us not forget the work at Power and Water: promises of $51m for the Manton Dam upgrade, and $35m for the Larrakeyah outfall closure; a $1bn commitment for ailing infrastructure - but no achievements or results. The government demonstrates, time and time again, that it makes promises on infrastructure but never delivers.
In 2009-10, we hear of a record $1.3bn of commitments, but what do we see? We see the pool of uncompleted projects swell to $485m at the beginning of the financial year. We see $113m for Indigenous housing, but no houses built. We see $116m of Commonwealth infrastructure spending on primary schools, but nothing from the Territory government. While this government rules a $1.3bn program, in reality, it spent half of that - some $653m with the Commonwealth providing the bulk. It is riding on the coattails of historic, federal surpluses and GST revenue streams. These are the facts.
It puts the rest up on the never-never, to be revoted again and again - just like the Daly River bridge - or left off entirely like the Tennant Creek sobering-up shelter. What happens when the Commonwealth says: ‘Sorry, too late’? What then? The government promises new ideas and delivers nothing.
Territorians are sick of it, and today I announce the Country Liberals’ firm commitment to the development of a heavy industry precinct. We would immediately put down $30m for the development of a heavy industry precinct. The time for delays must end.
Let us look at this government’s performance on health. Next year the Health budget will exceed $1bn. The Health Minister sees this as a great achievement. To my mind, reasonable waiting times in emergency departments, or reduced waiting lists for elective surgery would represent an achievement. No chance of that, of course. Worried mums will still wait 12 hours in emergency with sick kids in their arms. Pensioners will still be told to hobble around for another year while waiting for a hip replacement. Nurses will still be forced into working dangerously long shifts, and the Territory will suffer extremely high and very expensive staff attrition rates. The $1bn Health budget will fall short of actually improving the measurable health services on the ground for the average Territorian.
We must be very serious about preventative health and primary health care. Improving the basic health of Territorians across the board will go a long way to reducing the burden on our acute services. This should be the government’s priority, rather than throwing money hand over fist just to look good and as though they are working hard. One clear example is we have smoking rates around 30% in the Territory, one-third, some 10 to 15 percentage points higher than the national average and, yet, little has happened. The government’s solution? To ban smoking outside RDH - I was there the other day; that ban does not appear to be working – and, off in the dim, dark future, to ban smoking in pubs and clubs. We must be serious about preventative health.
Our efforts in primary health care have, so far, been too little and very poorly targeted. It is called the Health department, but it really should be called the sickness department - you only need its resources when you are sick. It would follow the line of argument that an ever-increasing health budget means a sicker and needier population. I announce today that the Country Liberals stand by our commitment to green and lifestyle prescriptions.
I would also implement a number of direct actions in respect to driving down the rate of smoking in the Territory, including a rebate for quit smoking and education campaigns, thereby reducing the burden on our acute health system. A similar model must be applied to alcohol, an area of the Health budget that has, in fact, been slashed - shame! If 10 people were diverted from alcohol abuse at an earlier point - just 10 - and they did not require dialysis, the department would save around $700 000 per year just on those 10 alone. I am talking about changing people’s behaviour early to free up health resources and improve their quality of life. Prevention is better than cure. This measure will see the Country Liberals invest an initial $250 000 in this action.
However, the problems with health are serious and systemic. At the moment, hospital health funding is undertaken by a block funding model; that is what we funded last year plus costs and plus new initiatives, minus efficiencies. This is not practical and is very shortsighted. The Territory government has no long- or, for that matter, medium-term model for hospital funding. It does not attempt to anticipate what the needs are going to be or what action needs to be taken now to save money into the future.
I announce today that a Country Liberal government will invest $900 000 to set a new direction for Health funding. This new direction will involve a three-stage process. The first stage is the diagnostic stage. There is already a large body of work undertaken. We will take the last 10 years or so of this work and undertake a diagnostic analysis to gain an understanding of exactly where we are at now. This will see an investment of $100 000 to bring this together. Alongside this, we will invest in a comprehensive, demographic projection study and, following that, a comprehensive health care future needs study. These will form part of the second stage of our health care action plan.
The second stage is understanding the unknown, and we will invest $300 000 to engage the professional services of someone like Access Economics, working closely with organisations such as the AMA and experts like Steven Duckett, to ensure we have all the information we need to put in place an effective short-, medium- and long-term funding model and identify our future health needs. When we have this data, we will invest in the implementation stage. I announce $600 000 for the development of an appropriate funding model for Territory hospitals, and to map out a pathway for both primary and acute care needs. This total investment of $900 000 is money that should have been spent a long time ago. This is not about cutting health funding, it is about putting the funding where it is needed and making sure it works for those who need it.
We have two very clear examples of what happens when we do not: Gove obstetrics and Alice Springs thoracic surgical capacity. The situation in Gove was something that the Health department knew was coming for a very long time. The government was simply not willing to spend the money to do what was needed before it reached crisis point. Now, it is offering the equivalent of $2000 per day for a doctor. That translates to around $700 000 per year. Clearly, that is not sustainable.
Then there is Alice Springs which is sitting on the cusp of disaster. There is one thoracic surgeon in Alice, Dr Jacob, and while he is a fine man carrying an enormous load, where will we be if something happens to him or if he chooses to move on? Our second largest hospital would have no thoracic surgical capacity.
While the Treasurer and the Health Minister want to celebrate additional monies going into Health in this budget they are sitting on a time bomb. I want to see a little more common sense. There are many good GPs who are trained and would be more than happy to operate as surgical GPs. They are unable due to the cost of ongoing training and insurance. Why could we not, for those regional and remote GPs, install a system to cover their insurance costs, or part of them and, at the same time, offer transport and training costs back to Darwin? This has to be less expensive than $700 000 for a single obstetrics GP in Gove.
However, those on the other side are not looking to face the reality that they have failed Territorians when it comes to health care - they have failed the Territory Health system. Yesterday’s announcement of more money will leave Territorians with more problems and costs, eating up those extra dollars quicker than they hit the table.
Once we have a model, we will ensure that the funding required is provided and that our hospitals are efficient and effective in their service delivery. Critically, though, we will need to be able to map out our primary health care needs and, in so doing, manage a process that will improve health outcomes for all Territorians and, ultimately, save the Territory money on acute care into the future.
Much has been written since the 1999 Productivity Commission report, warning how much of state and territory budgets would be taken up by health care if we do not change our approach to primary health care.
Another serious problem is housing affordability. The budget has seen yet another reworking of HomeNorth. It is destined for the same outcome as the first two overhauls that were going to save this scheme. Let us go back and look at the media releases. Those opposite are, yet again, tinkering at the edges rather than addressing the root cause of the problem. It is a bit like a teenager cleaning their room by shoving everything under the bed or in the cupboard. Its new saviour to HomeNorth is headed for failure because it is poorly constructed and planned. It is also destined to failure because the underlying problem of supply has not been addressed.
Let us go back to 2007 when the Treasurer announced the Bellamack housing estate – Bellamight, a housing estate that has not yet been lot surveyed; a housing estate that is supposed to turn off 230 lots this year and still does not have a signed contract; and, curiously, a development contract was awarded outside the Territory despite very capable and attractive offers being made by locals. So much for the ‘buy Territory’ strategy of this government. Revamping HomeNorth and introducing Buildstart will always be inadequate when massive land shortage has seen the value of vacant land increase by 100% in Palmerston just in the past three years. Surely, it is time for the member for Karama to concede failure. It is time to end the bottleneck.
I announce today the Country Liberals’ recommitment to two things: first, the creation of the Territory housing land corporation and, second, a fundamental overhaul of HomeNorth. The Territory housing land corporation will partner all future land developments, taking the frustration away from businesses, cutting the time required and the cost of doing business in the Territory. Not only will it assist in expediting land release to get supply and demand pressures in balance, it will also be required to report openly to the public on the performance of related Territory departments to drag the inefficiencies out of the departments.
Those opposite seem to have forgotten that the growth and development of the Territory is driven by the private sector – small and large businesses across the Territory. Loading up that engine room with more regulation, red tape, and hurdles drags that potential down. Simply saying you will bring down red tape does not cut it. We have seen far too many years of that promise going unmet. A loan of $25m will be provided to the Territory housing land corporation to begin its operations, and it will be tasked with providing real low-cost housing to those who need it and, along the way, improve the affordability of housing for those who would like to build a home in the Territory.
Our overhaul of HomeNorth is not like the tinkering we have, yet again, seen provided by this Labor government - tinkering that has and will continue to see very little real improvement. A Mills-led Country Liberals’ government will open up HomeNorth. We will allow up to 49% of property purchase equity to be held by HomeNorth, and loans for this arrangement to be sought from any financial institution. This will allow homemakers to enter the market and, over time, buy more of their equity as they can afford to do so.
However, my reforms of HomeNorth will not take effect until the first blocks of land in Bellamack are turned off. We must meet the demand and supply pressures at the same time. These two changes will have a direct impact on housing in the Territory and will provide, over the course of the next decade, stability to the market pressures; get more people into their own homes, and clean up the operations of the government so that businesses can operate efficiently and effectively. A public reporting of departmental operations through the THLC will impact all departments and this will bring reality to the statement of cutting through the unnecessary red tape.
My colleague, the member for Braitling, has spoken much about the hub-and-spoke model for funding and the operation of Aboriginal services in the Territory. This model will take the Territory forward and address a very real and growing problem that we have closed our eyes to for a very long time. I know that those opposite, and past members of the Country Liberal Party, were not the best at addressing this issue. For them, as I suspect with the federal government of both persuasions, it was a problem that was just too big to handle. It was a problem that looked unsolvable.
I will not sit back and do nothing while another generation of Aboriginal kids gets lost in the system of welfare, abuse and alcoholism resulting in a lifetime revolving through the justice system. A Country Liberals’ government would implement the hub-and-spoke model. We will nominate 15 centres that will provide services, and we will expect the federal government to pull its end. We will board children in the hubs each week and then return them home each weekend. They will get an education and access to health services and understand that there is more to life; that they have an opportunity to understand and respect their culture and grow and develop their culture, while being a part of the broader community and making a contribution on equal terms. More - much more - will be said about this in the coming months.
I put this question to the Aboriginal members opposite. To those members I say, through you Madam Speaker: will you stand by and watch the budgeted education standards for Aboriginal kids lowered? Almost every single measure has been lowered in respect to standards required, some by as much as half. How can it be acceptable to have an expectation that 76% of Aboriginal kids in Year 5 will not meet the most basic standard for reading? How is it that the Treasurer and the Chief Minister can bring forward a budget that projects just 24% of these kids can pass a basic reading test - just 24%? Those on the other side have given up on these kids. It is a sad and tragic day, and all those opposite should be ashamed of their support for this.
When you scrape off the political hype and spin, the reality is, sadly, they have no answers. When you go below the first layer there is nothing; those opposite are bereft of solutions and have simply given up. The answer from those opposite is not to deal with the issue in any substantive way but to lower - to lower - the bar of expectation. What a disgrace! For all the hope and promise of Territory Labor, there is nothing but deep disappointment, particularly in the quarters of those who expected and hoped. I cannot understand how the Indigenous members can hold their heads up when they are part of this degradation of standards in education. We are going backwards not forwards, and that is a fact. I say to those Indigenous members opposite: find your courage, dig deep and stop this from happening. Please do not let another generation of those kids get lost in welfarism, abuse, crime and, eventually, an early death seeing so much of their potential left unfulfilled. We will need to find ways to support people to stand on their own two feet and, in so doing, culture is also strengthened and developed. Letting kids go through a system where 76% are not expected – no expectation to be able to read to an absolute basic standard in Year 5 - Madam Speaker, I am speechless.
On this side, we have been clear about the fact that we want to move forward with a joint office. We want to break up the areas of responsibility. We want to have in place a council of Aboriginal elders to ensure cultural recognition and development. We have made our commitment to addressing the problems in Aboriginal affairs and in the communities, and we have the courage to implement these plans. The problems that are generated in these communities affect all of us. We are all in this. It should never be forgotten that many of those opposite sat idle under the previous Chief Minister until national television exposed the abuse that exists in Aboriginal communities. The hub-and-spoke model approach, which my colleague, the member for Braitling, is so very passionate about, sets out a clear positive pathway forward, and I share his passion.
Law and order: no budget response can be complete without dealing with the issue of law and order. I have said much in the past about dealing with law and order. I stand by what I have said previously. There must be a comprehensive solution to this growing problem. It must come from the top and it must be strong and unwavering. A Mills-led Country Liberals’ government would immediately stop the process of the development of a new prison. I urge the government to do the same. You have the wrong approach.
Efforts must be directed toward breaking the cycle of poverty, welfare, and crime. I announce the Country Liberals’ support for the immediate establishment of low-security prison farms, the first in Katherine. People who go before a court and cannot read will go to the prison farm and learn to read. If they have no job skills, they will gain them and, during this period, they will repay their debt to society through hard work. In 2009-10, only 30% of eligible prisoners – only 30% - are estimated to participate in education and training courses. This is down from an estimated 50% participation in the 2008-09 Budget – a reduction of expectation in spite of all the hype. Over 69% of adult prisoners have been previously imprisoned. How can the government members keep a straight face when they talk about prisoner reform when they estimate only 30% of eligible prisoners will participate in education and training programs during their imprisonment? If those opposite think this will address recidivism rates, they must be dreaming.
Instead of spending $300m on a prison which the government’s own figures show will be full in a few years, it is time to take a commonsense approach. We also need to ensure that we have the right support at the other end of the Corrections system, so that the people with those skills get into work and really have a chance to turn their lives around. It is a hand up, not a hand-out approach that will be the hallmark of a Mills-led government. The investment in the prison farms will be immediate. It will be an immediate $30m.
I have also announced my support for graffiti cleanup teams. This will see $3.1m invested in partnership with local councils. If graffiti goes up, then it comes straight down.
We have identified significant waste from the government. We will cut that waste. We will also identify further savings through scrutiny during the budget process. We will save $5.8m by cutting the number of political spin doctors on the fifth floor, and $10m from media and advertising expenditure. We will also save $800 000 by closing the Chief Minister’s self-promotion offices in Palmerston and Katherine.
In closing, Madam Speaker, the changes that I have announced, including the change to Health funding, Aboriginal funding, Corrections funding, improving business/government relationships, and development of a heavy industry precinct, will see a faster return to surplus and a better footing for the future of the Northern Territory.
In respect to those opposite, I say: wake up! I fear that, after another three-and-a-bit years of Labor vandalism of the economy, it will take many of us many years to repair that damage. Families across the Territory, from the south to the north, and east to the west, face serious and complex social and economic challenges. These challenges cannot be met by a government that failed to manage in the time of plenty, made no provision for the lean times and offers, instead of leadership, excuses, spin and slogans.
Madam Speaker, in the best interests of Territory families, it is time for a change.
Debate adjourned.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that intervening business be postponed until after further consideration of the Appropriation Bill (2009-2010) (Serial 41); and Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40), to enable me to continue debate on the budget.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for his communication behind the Chamber to enable this motion to pass seamlessly.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the budget-in-reply from the Leader of the Opposition. He did throw many ideas in the air, but the take-home message for me, as part of his reply was the way in which he almost studiously ignored the global financial crisis. He edged around that, he dipped his hat to it a little. At the end of the day, this is the biggest issue that is confronting not only this government, but governments around Australia and around the world: how to adapt and frame budgets, confronted with this savage economic crisis that is worldwide.
The government has put its point of view very clearly. It is prepared to go into deficit on a temporary basis. It is prepared to invest strongly and readily in infrastructure. It is prepared to curtail expenditure over the next five years so that we can come back into surplus once again. This government has delivered successive surplus budgets, and it is proud of that. What do we see on the other side? We see them quibbling about this government going into deficit. I have not picked up any adverse comment within the business community or other sizeable sections of our community in the Northern Territory about the government taking that particular step, because everyone recognises that these are extraordinary circumstances; our economy and jobs need to be protected.
There are only three options for an opposition that does not want to go into deficit in the current economic climate. One is to slash services, another is to slash jobs - and those two really go together - and the other one is to raise taxes. There are only three options because, as the Treasurer has pointed out, there has been a collapse in GST revenue that applies to the Territory. From memory, the Treasurer said it was somewhere around 65% or 66%, or it has decreased by a sizeable amount down to that amount. The Territory relies heavily on GST revenue.
In a time of serious international crisis, where unemployment for many Australians is a reality, the CLP would slash more jobs and cut more services, all with the aim of reducing the budget deficit. We believe that is unacceptable. They will slash jobs; we will protect them. They will cut services; we will bolster them. They attack, and will continue to attack, public servants; and we will work hard with our hard-working, dedicated public servants to improve the lives of Territorians. Ours is a budget with a fundamental goal to protect Territory jobs. In the Territory’s history, there has never been a tougher budget to frame, and I really commend the Treasurer for this. I believe the business community joins us in that commendation.
Around the world, people are facing the toughest economic times since the Great Depression. It is within this unprecedented economic climate that Budget 2009-10 has been framed. The global financial crisis has led to a global recession and, as growth slows, governments have a simple choice: they can act to stimulate the economy and protect jobs or they can do nothing. It is hard to divine what the CLP would do from their leader’s budget in-reply speech today. If I was a member opposite I would be very concerned about the lacklustre performance that has been put today.
In these tough times, our government has chosen to act. Budget 2009-10 will protect jobs and the livelihoods which support thousands of hard-working Territory families. Budget 2009-10 builds on a broad range of substantial outcomes since Labor first came to office in 2001. I have a list; I am going to go through some of the things like education and health, and other matters …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … but before I do that, Madam Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The rabble opposite is interjecting. Standing Order 51. I am very interested in hearing what the Leader of Government Business has to say on the budget.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, that:
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One shining example is in Budget Paper No 4, on page 5, if members would care to turn there. It relates to Tiger Brennan Drive - $89.5m in this budget, the tenders are on the way - this is happening.
This was a project that was bogged down for years when the previous federal government, under John Howard, was in power. They would not come to an agreement, not only with the Territory government, but also with other governments about funding of major road projects across Australia. Warren Truss was the minister at that time - this is how focused it was on having budget surpluses and not investing in our infrastructure – and he wrote to me on 21 December 2005 and said:
What does that mean? Even if it was wholly and solely a Commonwealth project within a jurisdiction, the Commonwealth steadfastly refused to meet any cost escalations. Anyone who has been involved in project management or project development knows, particularly at that time, there were massive cost escalations. Steel was going up, bitumen was going up, oil prices were increasing, the cost of labour was going up, but Warren Truss put that position very clearly.
The member for Blain, and also the member for Fong Lim, as a federal member, could not effectively advocate with the federal government to come to those cost escalations - in this case it was a 50:50 cost escalation. The member for Solomon flirted with the idea …
Ms Lawrie: No, former.
Dr BURNS: Former member. He said on ABC radio on Tuesday, 29 August 2006, ‘I, for one, want to see their $25m …’ – this is the cost escalation money – ‘and if they have $25m to expend on the Tiger Brennan Drive, I will gladly go to Canberra and fight for more funds for the Tiger Brennan Drive extension’. That is what he said, but he did not do it; he flirted with the 50%. Why …
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: It was non-existent.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: It was always there, and it is there now …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: We have reached agreement with the Commonwealth government on Tiger Brennan and it is going ahead. The point I am making is that the …
Mr Tollner: You are a joke. You have cost taxpayers $80m-plus.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Dr BURNS: … previous federal government was so miserly and completely unapproachable in negotiations, that Tiger Brennan Drive extensions languished because it would not hold its end of the deal up, it would not consider …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister for Business knows that this government has cost the taxpayer $80m …
Ms Lawrie: Make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, it is not a point of order. Minister, continue.
Dr BURNS: At the end of the day the Tiger Brennan Drive …
Mr Tollner: At the end of the day, you have cost us a bomb …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms Lawrie: It is under construction.
Dr BURNS: … that will be delivered through the efforts of the Treasurer and Infrastructure minister, and her dealings with the federal government, means not only …
Ms Lawrie: It is under construction.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Karama continues to jump up and claim interfering when people are speaking, yet she continues to interject, as she did this morning during ministerial reports when the Chief Minister, the member for Johnston, and the member for Karama continually interjected. They call for …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, are you calling a point of order about the current situation?
Mr STYLES: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, resume your seat.
Mr STYLES: The member for Karama continues to interject and I am trying to listen …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Sanderson! I remind all honourable members of Standing Order 51:
I remind honourable members that I warned members last week about defiance of the Chair. The comments which I made last week stand for today and every other day of these sittings. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the end of the day, in terms of Tiger Brennan Drive, not only will we receive the extension to Tiger Brennan Drive, which was the original negotiation with the Commonwealth, but there will be grade separation at Roystonia Avenue, which the previous federal government steadfastly refused to negotiate; this means there will be a set of lights cut out. I am happy and in favour of cutting down the number of traffic lights.
There is one thing that this government is delivering on in spades. The former member for Solomon could not deliver it; the member for Blain could not prevail when they were in power, either.
There are other things in Budget Paper No 4. There is the accommodation for the radiation oncology unit; there are further extensions to the Palmerston Health hub, all being delivered by this government - things that members opposite could not deliver when they were in power or when they were in opposition and the Howard government was in power.
Some highlights in the budget. In education, we have implemented the largest education reform in the history of the Territory. This includes the construction of the Darwin Middle School, Palmerston Senior School, Katherine Middle School and substantial upgrades to Taminmin High School. Every teacher in the Territory is now provided with a laptop computer and we are assisting Territory families with the cost of getting their kids back to school with the $75 Back to School payment - all practical things.
There are 50% more people being trained in the Territory since 2001, and per capita, there are more Territorians in apprenticeships and traineeships than anywhere else in Australia.
In health, there is a $1bn budget and, instead of having consultancies and committees - I am not sure where the Leader of the Opposition was going in his budget speech; it did not include a hospital at Palmerston. That was conspicuously absent from his speech. That was another thing that my attention was drawn to.
We have had improvement in the life expectancy for Aboriginal women. Infant mortality has improved. Cervical cancer rates have declined by 61%, and anaemia in Aboriginal children has fallen from 50% to below 30%. It is a difficult area. I agreed with much of what the Opposition Leader had to say about preventative health and primary health care. However, that is something that is part and parcel of core business within our health system.
We need to work more to reduce smoking rates in the Territory, and I am very much in favour of that. There are partnerships and ways in which the department is working to achieve that goal.
There are an extra 127 hospital beds, 162 doctors and 523 more nurses, and elective surgery waiting lists have been cut by 31%. As part of all those extra hospital beds, a Rapid Admission Unit at the hospital is cutting admission times.
Law and order: we have increased the number of police by almost 340 - twice as many police per capita than the Australian average. These are very important things that this government has done.
Regarding employment, the Territory’s economic fundamentals in 2009 stand in stark contrast to the budget mess the government inherited from the CLP in 2001. Average trend total employment is a good example of CLP budget mismanagement. In 1999-2000 the trend was 2.27%, and in 2000-01 it was 1.4%. By comparison, under Labor’s job growth strategies the trend has risen to 5.35% in 2006-07 and 5.69% in 2007-08, defying the national trend.
There is much business confidence in the Northern Territory, and that is because this government has been fiscally responsible since coming to power. It has delivered surplus budgets, invested money into infrastructure, and invested money into services. What would happen under this mob? I believe Tiger Brennan Drive is a perfect example of their hoarder mentality - their inability to spend and invest on major programs that never get up under these conservative people. It takes a Labor government in Canberra to come to an agreement, and the Tiger Brennan Drive extension is happening. It never happened under the CLP.
The CLP members appear to be the only people on planet Earth who are unaware of the global financial crisis and the difficult times we face. In addition to this astounding ignorance, the CLP has proven, once again, its absolute incompetence. The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the budget process and the economy in the Northern Territory. Like other governments around the country and the world, the Henderson government has made a deliberate decision to go into deficit. We have done this to protect Territory jobs. The Leader of the Opposition is critical of this measured, pragmatic and appropriate response to the global financial crisis. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we do not go into a temporary deficit. It is clear how the CLP plan to avoid a deficit. They plan to slash thousands of Territory jobs ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The Opposition Leader stated on the record in last year’s budget reply - and read it - the CLP will slash and burn $50m worth of jobs from the public service. Go and read it, it is there in black and white.
A member: Who said that?
Dr BURNS: The member for Blain.
Doctors, nurses, teachers, police, frontline staff we rely on across the Territory - how many would lose their jobs under the CLP plan?
He does not learn anything. One would have seen from Lawrence Springborg’s feeble attempts in the last election in Queensland, where he criticised the Labor government in Queensland for going into deficit, and talked in very non-specific terms about reducing the public service, and he got hammered. He got hammered; they expected to win in that election, but the electorate saw through it. I tag the member for Blain as the Lawrence Springborg of Territory politics. I believe you mob need to have a little think about that and see who is waiting in the wings who might do a better job for you.
Under this inept plan, I would like to know how many of our extra 340 police the CLP plan to get rid of. Which police station is he planning to close?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You have form on it. You froze recruitment for about three years. Which suburb will need to do without law and order under the CLP? To stay in surplus against the advice of economic experts would require the CLP to slash services and raise taxes. That is a simple equation; it is not a complex equation. That is a simple equation and you need to put facts and figures behind it, not talk about woolly diagnostic plans for health.
What you need to understand is that health is demand-driven. Everyone who walks through the doors at the Royal Darwin Hospital, the Gove District Hospital, Tennant Creek Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital, or Katherine Hospital needs to be seen. You cannot change demand. You must meet demand within our hospitals, and that demand is growing. That is a simple fact. You do not need a diagnostic study to do that and, in fact, much of the work the Leader of the Opposition talked about in his budget reply has already been done, both at Territory and Commonwealth levels, so he is, basically, reinventing the wheel. I am not sure where he is going with it, but it is nowhere strategic.
The CLP could also reach its surplus by cutting on infrastructure spending. Perhaps the CLP is planning on writing to parents at Dripstone High School to tell them that there will be no new science facility? Or maybe the CLP plan on scrapping the plans for a youth hub in Alice Springs? As the Treasurer has outlined, we will spend responsibly - $1.3bn worth of responsible spending to stimulate the economy and protect jobs in a record infrastructure budget. This means better roads, more residential and industrial land, and housing for those who need it most within our community. Which of these initiatives does the CLP plan to put on hold?
The CLP would cut government spending and condemn the Territory to higher unemployment and no growth, all because of their fiscal ideology inherited from Peter Costello and Malcolm Turnbull. They are blindly following it. They need to wake up. They need to see that they need to represent Territorians.
Within my portfolio responsibilities of Business, Tourism, Asian Relations, and Trade, the budget has been welcomed as an appropriate budget for the tough times we face. The tourism industry supports 17 000 jobs across the Territory, and Budget 2009-10 will protect these jobs. I have already made announcements about the appointment of an aviation director, greater support for tourism operators through accreditation assistance and enhancement of the Trade Support Scheme, and more funding being shifted into the domestic marketing activities; some $15m. I heard at the breakfast this morning people in the accommodation industry saying not only were their figures holding, but they were probably better year-on-year, so that is very positive.
The government is investing $42.5m in tourism; that is a 55% increase since 2001. We are also positioning the Territory to rebound quickly when the economic crisis eases and people start travelling from overseas again in large numbers, and also providing $400 000 for specialist advice for Territory tourism operators. The services may include business plan mentoring, suggestions for operational improvements, and we will ensure Territory businesses have the support to get through the tough times ahead. We will provide $90 000-worth of subsidies on tourism accreditation fees - very important for the industry. We have also made appointments within the aviation part of our operation and increased the budget by $270 000 to $1.57m to attract more flights into the Territory.
As Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, I am pleased to advise the House that Budget 2009-10 has provided enhancements to the Trade Support Scheme. Grants to attend trade shows and expos will be increased from 50% to 75% of the total cost. I will continue to ensure that we have strong trade links with our neighbours to the north. As I said to the House, I will be travelling to Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Japan after these sittings to bolster what we can do in our overseas representation. $300 000 is also part of the budget to provide Territory businesses with their export marketing objectives.
It also invests $28m to develop the Darwin Business Park, and there were very positive comments about that in the budget breakfast today. That is an investment which business likes and they are moving there in droves. It is a fantastic area, and I advise members of the opposition to get out there. It focuses on oil and gas support services; mining support services and maintenance; marine services and maintenance; transport and logistics; engineering; fabrication and assembly of buildings and equipment.
We are also expanding, as I said in my second reading speech, the function of the Land Development Corporation to get involved in the release of residential land.
The member for Port Darwin spoke in this House last week about, ‘woolly mammoths’ and ‘some excavator or archaeologist finding woolly mammoths encased in tar’. The only relics - and they are fiscal relics, fossilised from a past time - are the members opposite. They are the woolly mammoths; they are the fossils, because they cannot adapt to change. The cold, icy blast of economic change is roaring across the world. The world is in recession. The only people on this planet who do not recognise that the world is in recession are the members opposite.
The CLP could not manage in the good times; they flatlined growth and left us in deficit. Now, the Leader of the Opposition cannot even add up his major health plan figures. His three-point plan adds up to $1m, not $900 000. There will be holes in all their proposals. None of them have been through a Budget Cabinet process. They do not understand the advice that Cabinet gets from Treasury, which looks far and wide regarding the economic circumstances.
I commend Treasury and the Treasurer on this budget. It has been a very difficult budget and it is a budget that shows wisdom. It is going to be very interesting, as time progresses, to see the offerings by the opposition, particularly the ‘could not delivers’ from the member for Fong Lim when he was part of the Howard government some years ago. He promised big - Tiger Brennan, radiation oncology, after-hours medical service at Palmerston. He kept on announcing them in the media; I have all the clippings here. I do not have time to go through them. There is also his little brochure from the election where he said that some of these things had been delivered. They had not been delivered.
It has taken management by this government. Yes, in some cases it has taken longer than expected. However, regarding the radiation oncology unit, I have a very direct question for the member for Fong Lim: did he, during the 2007 federal election, know that the tender process had failed for the radiation oncology unit? He has never answered that question - not publicly or in any other way. He fumbled the ball when Cam Smith asked him at the hospital one time. I was there and I saw the look of distress on his face, which led me to conclude that he did know during that time that the tender process had failed under Abbott and his time as Health minister, but he was not game enough to ’fess up to Territorians that it had failed. I am interested to find out in his budget speech - no doubt he will touch on the radiation oncology unit - whether he knew, during that federal election campaign and prior to it, that the tender process had failed.
On a positive side, that building is going up. There is $2m in the budget to build accommodation for cancer sufferers, and this is coming together with services to be offered in 2009.
I commend the Treasurer on the budget. It has been a very difficult budget. She has shown a level head and a very strategic approach, and it stands the Territory in very good stead in these difficult economic times.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, is it the intention of the government to continue this after Question Time or are you wishing the debate to be adjourned?
Dr BURNS: We will continue after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support Budget 2009-10. Budget 2009-10 has been the toughest to frame in the Territory’s history, with the global recession and the collapse in GST revenue.
The cornerstone of Budget 2009-10 is protecting Territory jobs and, at this time, a focus on jobs is so important. On 31 October last year, as the financial crisis was unfolding, the Treasurer said in parliament:
In the six months since, she has been proven correct. While unemployment has been increasing around the world and Australia, the Territory has stayed stable at around 4% this year. Similarly, with growth, we see other jurisdictions all heading into negative country while, despite some moderation, we still have positive growth figures and growth forecasts - forecasts that do not take the potential of INPEX into account.
These unemployment and growth figures are a remarkable result, but the Henderson government is not complacent. That is why Budget 2009-10 has such an emphasis on protecting Territory jobs and building the Territory. After six surpluses in a row, we are investing $1.3bn in infrastructure to protect Territory jobs. We made a deliberate decision to go into temporary deficit to protect Territory jobs in the toughest economic time Australia has faced in generations. Budget 2009-10 protects Territory jobs in the face of the global economic recession and collapsing GST revenues. The $1.3bn infrastructure spend is a 47% increase. For the government to make such a substantial commitment in a time of declining revenue is very brave. However, it is very important. It will create 2500 jobs and build the Territory for when the global economy rebounds.
There is record housing and land release funding, and the new Homestart NT will help Territory families buy their own home. There are increases in frontline services where we need them most - in Health, Education and Police. I will say more about the extra frontline staff in health soon. I make no apology for boosting public service staff in frontline services.
Budget 2009-10 has no public sector job cuts and no new taxes, but the government will make savings and concentrate on core business.
I turn to my portfolio area of Health. Despite declining revenues, I am delighted that, once again under the Henderson government, there is an increase in the Health budget continuing the precedent set when we first came to government. The budget for the Department of Health and Families in 2009-10 from all funding sources will be $1.05bn. This is an increase of 117% since 2001-02 under Labor’s governance.
The CLP has suggested that the government should have put a public service freeze in place in 2007. This would have been a disaster in Health. It also means that the CLP does not support the Commonwealth intervention, as it is the intervention that led to many of the positions we have put in Health.
On Tuesday, 5 May, the CLP said that if you are not a doctor or a nurse then it does not consider you provide a frontline service. This is an insult to the following professions: mental health workers; child protection workers; domestic violence workers; sexual assault counsellors; disability support workers; aged care workers; alcohol treatment workers; Aboriginal liaison officers; dentists; psychologists and psychiatrists; speech pathologists; occupational therapists; and radiographers. If we had followed the advice of the CLP and put a public service freeze in place, there would be 233 fewer dedicated health professionals at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I accept that the CLP does not agree with me on this, but I consider every one of the 1700 people who work at RDH as working on the front line, whether they are doctors, surgeons, nurses, hospital security, ward clerks, counsellors, cooks, or cleaners. Surgeons simply could not do their jobs without cleaners and, without cooks, that hospital would not operate. In their day-to-day operations, they all deal with the reality of providing a frontline service.
The CLP frequently attacks the policy people in the department, but these are the people who are so important in ensuring, for example, that the Territory is so well placed to respond to an outbreak such as swine flu, should it become a pandemic. Many of these people are among the best health experts in the country, and we are glad to have them here.
I turn to some of the specifics of the Health budget. In Budget 2009-10, Acute Services will receive an additional $30m in funding. This means that $602m will be provided for services in our five public hospitals and associated acute care services for all Territorians.
Every hospital receives an increase and has record funding. The Royal Darwin Hospital will receive $245m, up 118% since 2001; the Alice Springs Hospital will receive $118m, up 120% since 2001; $27m for Katherine District Hospital, up 90%; $19m for Gove District Hospital, up 71%; and $12m for Tennant Creek Hospital, an increase of 94% since 2001.
I am aware that the CLP has attacked the government for the increase at RDH, but I will not apologise for this. RDH provides services for all Territorians. More specialist and critical care services are provided at RDH, and that is where the increase in health costs occurs. The suggestion that we are ignoring the regions is wrong. $600m from our $1bn budget is expected to go to Indigenous-related health. Acute Services additional funding includes an additional $2m to provide improved aeromedical retrieval services to the Top End and, in particular, to the Katherine region. We will also invest a further $1m to provide a central coordination service for all aeromedical services across the Northern Territory.
As part of this government’s program to improve renal services to all Territorians, a further $1.7m will be provided to enhance services to clients in Central Australia. Construction of a new satellite renal facility in Tennant Creek will also commence in 2009-10 at an estimated cost of $2.4m. The government remains committed to its plan to address patients’ needs for renal services, with plans to construct and operate a further two facilities in future years.
As part of the federal government’s Specific Purpose Payments and National Partnership reforms, the department will receive additional funding to meet service demands and to target specific areas of concern. This funding source will specifically provide:
$145m under the new National Healthcare payment, an increase of 6% on 2008-09 funding, for improved acute care and public health services;
$1.25m to expand subacute care, including rehabilitation, geriatric, and Hospital in the Home services, with a further $2.6m planned in future years; and
Under the government’s Closing the Gap initiative, the department will receive an additional $77m over the five-year program. While most of these initiatives come within the community services area, there are some important initiatives within the Health outputs. In Budget 2009-10, the government will invest an additional $1.3m to extend programs targeting chronic disease, and an additional $500 000 to improve maternal and child health services.
In Budget 2009-10, this government has also made specific funding available to honour election commitments in both the Acute Care and Community Health outputs. These are:
$960 000 to improve ambulance services to Palmerston and surrounding areas;
$630 000 to establish cardiac services under the Heart Health Plan; and
$2m to provide services from the Palmerston Super Clinic, incorporating the urgent care after-hours services.
In the Community Health output, the department will commence a dental blitz to improve services to remote areas and to reduce the general service waiting lists. The government will provide one-off funding of $1.5m in 2009-10 for the blitz, and provide additional ongoing funding of $750 000 for 2010-11 to improve oral health service capacity.
The government has also approved an additional $22.2m for additional capital works programs. In addition to the Tennant Creek renal facility, the following programs will commence in 2009-10:
$4m to improve staff accommodation at Royal Darwin Hospital;
$4.5m for secure care facilities in Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospitals for youth and adults;
$7.3m to continue the Alice Springs Hospital rectification and essential works project; and
$2m for suitable accommodation facilities in Darwin for oncology patients and carers.
This year’s $1bn Health budget is a record, but I expect it to be even higher as the year progresses. In recent years, there have been increases to the Health budget as the year progressed. This financial year has been no exception, with around $98m in extra funding. The bulk of these funds, $68m, were from the Australian government and related to the intervention; more health services, dental services, ear health programs, and family support services in remote areas.
The Northern Territory government also completed significant enterprise bargaining agreements with nurses and dentists during the year, making our salary packages attractive and competitive with the rest of Australia. Additional revenue was allocated to the department to cover these EBAs.
In 2008-09, the department negotiated funding agreements with the Australian government to the value $267m. Many of these agreements were for one-off projects. In 2009-10, the Australian government funding for the department has reduced to $235m. The reduction in revenue from 2009-10 is reflected in reduced expenditure in some outputs where there is a high level of externally funded projects. It is expected that new agreements will be negotiated in the coming year to maintain service delivery in these programs.
I turn now to the Budget 2009-10 reply by the Leader of the Opposition. The CLP’s solution to the Territory’s health problems is to spend $900 000 on some studies. The government would spend that money on employing even more doctors and nurses. A $900 000 investment – the three stages actually add up to $1m. How can you trust them with a $1bn budget when they cannot work out funding for a simple project?
The next comment was about elective surgery. Labor’s effort with a blitz in 2007-08 has reduced the overall waiting list for elective surgery by 31%.
He talked about emergency department waiting times. We have implemented extensive measures to reduce demand on the emergency department. We opened the 24-bed Rapid Admission Unit, and we put in extra resources. We opened Ward 3B with 24 extra beds - the one that the CLP closed, and the Palmerston Super Clinic urgent care after-hours service.
The nursing workforce: the CLP had sacked 200 nurses. There is now a record of 1845 nurses. He talked about people leaving. The stability of the nursing workforce is at the highest level of 80%; four out of five nurses who worked here last year chose to stay and work with us. We reviewed the nursing hours per patient day model and levels of overtime at RDH and Alice Springs have been dramatically reduced in recent months.
The medical workforce: maternity services are currently provided at Gove Hospital through the provision of locum GP proceduralists. The Royal Darwin Hospital will commence training GPs, with the first trainees to complete the course in January 2010. The Labor government has provided numerous incentives through the Medical Officers (NTPS) Workplace Agreement 2008 to 2010, aimed at attracting doctors to work in remote locations. This includes a generous retention allowance paid annually, remote training study leave, and an annual professional training allowance. The current workplace agreement outlines significant increases in salary payable with the increased degree of remoteness that the doctor works.
Smoking: in the past the CLP has done nothing about smoking. We used to get the Dirty Ashtray Award year after year. We have now implemented a smoke-free policy in the department from 1 July, and we will support staff and the patients to give up smoking with Quit programs and nicotine replacement therapies.
Preventative health: the Leader of the Opposition was offering to invest $250 000. Labor has increased funding for preventative health measures by 89% since 2002. In 2007-08 alone, the government provided $91m for preventative health, because we believe that prevention is better than cure. We put the money where it has to be put. On a per-capita basis, the Territory spent three times more on preventative health than the rest of the country. Our investment in health is working.
They talk about outcomes. They ask: ‘What about the outcomes?’ I will give you some outcomes. The life expectancy for Aboriginal women has improved by three years. The infant mortality rate for Aboriginal children has improved by 35%. Anaemia in Aboriginal children living in remote communities has fallen from almost 50% in 1999 to the most recent report of below 30%. Cervical cancer rates have declined in Territory women by 61%. There has been an even more dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 92% for Aboriginal women. These are real facts and figures. These are the changes we have made in the Northern Territory.
With a record $1bn budget I could talk about Health all day, but I want to get to my other portfolios because they are very important too.
The Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources will continue with a number of major projects thanks to continued funding in the budget. I will start with mining because it is such an important part of protecting Territory jobs.
One of the reasons we are weathering the global recession better than most is our continued ability to attract foreign investment in the mining industry. The Territory remains the only jurisdiction in Australia with a dedicated Chinese investment attraction strategy, part of our four-year Bringing Forward Discovery initiatives. I am pleased that this budget continues with this $14.4m program, allocating a further $3.8m this financial year. I will be going to China next week, as an important part of this initiative, to host further investment attraction seminars. Our previous seminars have led directly to investment in the Territory, like the recent investment in Arafura Resources.
The budget also continues the $2.4m allocation for the three-year drilling and geophysics initiative designed to increase the intensity of exploration drilling and geographic surveys in the Territory.
While I am on the subject of exploration, there is a provision in the budget of $900 000 for the development of new strategies to increase exploration access to Aboriginal land. One of my department’s important roles is ensuring that miners and explorers comply with Territory mining legislation. The $3.1m allocated in the budget will be used in policing compliance and ensuring that environmental best practice is upheld on all Territory mining sites because, as we found out with Mt Todd, this compliance did not happened under the CLP.
Further, in this time of global challenge, the 2009-10 Budget allocates $4.6m – money managed for the Commonwealth - for the Alice Springs Solar Cities renewable energy project. It also provides $3.7m of Commonwealth funding for rebates to undertake major renewable energy projects in three Indigenous communities.
In addition to the minerals and energy sectors, the Territory’s primary industries remain a vital part of our economic and social fabric. They underpin and support the absolutely vital activity of food production. I believe it is telling that, while other sectors of the economy expand and contract from time to time, our primary industries remain viable and still underpin much of the original prosperity of the Territory. This sector has been increasing in value over the last few years, recording a 16% increase in 2006-07 and a 7% increase worth $414m to the Territory’s economy in 2007-08. In this budget, primary industries will receive $37.5m.
As you are aware, the structure of this division has changed considerably as a result of the recent review, with the Executive Director and his support team now located at the Arid Zone Institute in Alice Springs.
Both the pastoral and the primary industry sectors of Primary Industry have been supported in this budget with $650 000 earmarked for research to improve the performance of breeder cattle. This funding will be used to identify the main drivers affecting cattle performance and develop practical systems to apply positive traits in the real world. The budget also allows $280 000 for research into native improved pastures; $990000 for hands-on research into improvement of pastoral management methods; and, importantly, a further $100 000 for the investigation of new markets for live cattle export.
Biosecurity has also been identified as an area requiring funding, with $200 000 allocated to implement the Plant Health Act and Livestock Act throughout the Territory; $1.95m for plant pathology and agricultural chemistry services; and $1.8m for veterinary laboratory services providing animal health testing for our livestock industries.
Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker, the pastoral industry is important to the Territory’s future, as there is potential for 100% growth in coming years.
We saw 295 000 head of Northern Territory cattle exported from Darwin in 2008, with a further 70 000 head of interstate cattle also coming through the Port of Darwin. The exact figure is not known, but it is estimated that a further 30 000 head of Northern Territory cattle were exported through the port of Wyndham in Western Australia. This figure was significantly higher than the previous year, and was the highest number of cattle exported from the Northern Territory for at least the last 10 years.
Our current live export market is focused primarily on the supply of cattle to Indonesia, which takes over 90% of cattle exports from the Northern Territory. These markets still retain a number of strong indicators that continue to provide evidence of a significantly increased demand over the longer term, despite the current short-term reduction due to the global financial crisis. However, in line with sound business practices, we are not putting all our eggs in one basket.
The current market development program into Vietnam is progressing well. The MOU signed in 2008 by the industry in the Northern Territory, represented by the NTCA and industry in Vietnam, and witnessed by the Northern Territory government - and I was there - underpins the provision of technical advice and assistance for the construction of feedlot and abattoir facilities, and training in animal nutrition and handling. A recent visit to Vietnam by the Northern Territory government and industry representatives inspected a feedlot which is currently under construction in Vietnam and due to be completed by July this year. This market development program is now moving to the commercial phase, and it is anticipated that commercial negotiation will begin for the supply of live cattle for August or September of this year.
Similarly, the Territory’s horticultural industries are dynamic, coming from $96m in 2005-06 to a 40% increase in 2006-07 of $134m. Horticulture continues to expand, driven by market niches resulting from a climate substantially different to other production areas in Australia. The budget delivers $5m for crops, forestry and agriculture research and extension, and associated diagnostic services.
The diversity of horticultural production is vast in the Territory. We produce substantial amounts of traditional fruits such as melon, mangoes, cucumber and citrus, but also less mainstream products such as Asian vegetables, rambutan, dragon fruit and other tropical fruits. Our nursery and garden industry is a significant employer, and turf production is increasing.
The horticulture industries are primarily driven by Dry Season production under irrigation and, because of this, access to water and improving irrigation efficiency in a sustainable way is of paramount importance. Indeed, the overall sustainability and production efficiency of the industry is improving through efficiencies driven by economic necessity and the demand of markets for clean, safe, and environmentally responsible food production.
It is not within my portfolio, but one of the best initiatives in the budget for the mining, primary industries and live cattle industries is the $322m for roads. Compare this to the $80m from 2001, and it is obvious that the combination of the Rudd and Henderson governments delivers much more for Territory roads than the CLP/Howard combination.
Members will be aware that the Territory has the highest level of boat ownership in the country. With more visitors than ever before dropping in a line, recreational fishing is of vital importance to the Territory. However, we know little about the actual recreational fishing take, and this is why my department commenced a two-year recreational fishing survey in April this year. The budget allocates $200 000 for the finalisation of this survey in 2009-10. The total cost of the survey is in excess of $400 000, with extensive planning undertaken during the 2008-09 year. Yes, it is a lengthy project, but one which will provide important information on numbers and species of fish being caught at various locations throughout the Territory. This investment into the acquisition of much-needed fishing data is another example of the government’s ongoing commitment to the sustainable and prudent management of our fisheries.
While on the subject of recreational fishing, the government has continued to fund the Amateur Fisherman's Association of the Northern Territory with $190 000 a year, enabling the association to continue to employ its executive officer and office assistant, and also administer a separate $10 000 small grant program for fishing clubs. Speaking of associations, the budget also provides funding of $180 000 for the Northern Territory Seafood Council to enable continued support of the commercial fishing sector, and $40 000 for the Northern Territory Guided Fishing Industry Association, an increasingly important industry sector.
The budget also provides funding of $2.6m for the sustainable management and research of the Northern Territory fisheries and aquatic resources. An additional $1.8m over three years is allocated for the management of sustainable utilisation of inshore resources through buy-back of commercial barramundi licences. Funding of $640 000 is also provided for the highly successful Indigenous Marine Ranger program.
The government continues its investment in fishing infrastructure, including $1m during 2009-10 for new or upgrade works to boat ramps across the Territory. Priority for works will be determined in liaison with AFANT. As a separate commitment, funding of $4m, commencing in 2009-10, is earmarked for the Palmerston boat ramp, including a security compound, floating pontoon, security lighting, and power and water to the ramp. We are supporting our fishing lifestyle.
I will conclude my response by touching on another very important component of our lifestyle – racing. As minister for Racing, I am very aware that our racing industry is about more than just lifestyle; it is about jobs. Budget 2009-10 protects Territory jobs in the racing and tourism industry. Directly and indirectly through tourism, the racing industry employs thousands of people and injects more than $100m into our economy each year. The Henderson government has a close working relationship with the racing industry and the Territory race clubs.
The industry is presently faced with significant challenges, and we have listened to those concerns and will act. The industry convinced government that, without an increase in funding, the Darwin Cup and Alice Springs Carnival would be threatened, and we were not prepared to let that happen. The government has acted to protect jobs and has provided additional funding for Thoroughbred Racing NT of over $2m in Budget 2009-10, with total funding now over $10m. As we know, these are tough times and this is a tough budget. It was not an easy decision, but the government provided this funding increase to protect Territory jobs.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on this budget. This is a tough budget, but it is a budget that delivers. It is budget that protects Territory jobs, and builds the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to this Appropriation Bill, when I listened to the Treasurer, the Leader of Government Business and, now, the Minister for Health, they talk about the budget as though it exists in some sort of cocoon, which lasts 12 months. That is not what economic or fiscal planning is about.
Fiscal planning is about taking a broader view on how the world works. The inability of this government to achieve fiscal planning models is demonstrated in their own budget papers where they say that they are abandoning their fiscal strategy, yet again, in favour of a new strategy. That is not how fiscal planning should work. Fiscal planning works by picking a strategy which you stick to. If you go to the fiscal strategies of the 2001-02 Budget, the first full-year budget return by a Labor government in the Northern Territory, you will see that the fiscal plan identified in that budget was targeted primarily - or had a large focus - on savings and being able to make not only budgets balance, but to reduce debt.
It is interesting to contrast the period of the former Howard federal government with the performance of this government, because this government did carry debt, as did the federal government when the Howard years started. Some boom times started after the Howard years started. There was a recession in the late 1990s and leading up to 2001, amplified with the terror attacks in New York in September 2001. That had an effect on the world economy, in spite of the Chief Minister seeming to think it was all wine and roses; the fact is, it was not.
Nevertheless, two fiscal plans ran almost in parallel for some time. There was the federal government’s fiscal plan of debt reductions and savings to meet any growing superannuation liabilities, and there was the Territory government’s plan to incorporate debt reduction and deal with the growing superannuation liabilities. The federal government managed to not only wipe out a $90bn debt that they inherited, they actually ended up having about $40bn-worth of savings, including the creation of a future fund to deal with their growing and burgeoning superannuation liabilities into the future.
If you contrast that to the fiscal planning of this particular government, we saw a plan to reduce debt, and a plan to deal with the superannuation liability. At first blush, one could well be forgiven for believing this government did reduce some debt, because of the reduction on the general government’s balance sheet of the nett debt situation of the Northern Territory. However, underlying that are a couple of things we need to know.
One was the acknowledgement by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, that the superannuation liability was a problem, and that the Conditions of Service Reserve, established by the former government, should be receiving more money. Second, there was a decision to spend less money on infrastructure. That is not just a wild allegation on my part. If you go to the mini-budget of November 2001, it quite clearly stated the intent of the government of the time, reinforced in this House by the then member for Stuart, Peter Toyne, that this government was going to focus less on infrastructure development and repairs and maintenance, and focus more on social outcomes. I have said before in this place that is their business, but they went down that path. That enabled them to step away from borrowings and we saw various pieces of infrastructure start to fail.
People in the northern suburbs of Darwin late last year had the pleasure of trying to turn their lights on and off, and keep their refrigerators running as a direct result of this government’s failure to bring their increasing income to bear on basics such as power stations, transmission lines, and substations.
Through this approach, what they have done each and every year is that they have received extra money - and they knew they were getting more, because you can see that in each budget paper’s projections into the future. Rather than use a slice of that extra to reduce debt - in fact, I argue they had the capacity to eliminate the nett debt situation in the Northern Territory - they chose to spend it, but not on infrastructure; in areas of recurrent expenditure rather than in areas of infrastructure support and development. There was some, but not as much as they could have done.
What happened in those years is that, despite their fiscal plan, they were not even able to maintain sufficient discipline in those years to bring that fiscal plan to bear on their own budgets. Every year, we saw the Treasurer’s Advance drained, and repeated trips to the Administrator so they could get more money out of the Central Holding Authority. That culminated in an increasingly pronounced spending habit over that time.
When you watched the way this government spent money, it was like watching a drug addict going back to its dealer every so often. Every time they spent money it was not enough, we …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I believe that is an objectionable simile. I believe the member can find another simile on this particular issue. You did not call him last night when he said that the Treasurer is like a banshee on speed – I think he used. He has very colourful language and I just ask him if he could curtail it a little, please.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask that you withdraw that, please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I have not used a single word that is unparliamentary. I will live or die by what I say in this place, and it is not up to the Chair to censure, or in any way, vet what I say. If he has a problem he should put out a media release and say that ‘John Elferink said that the government is like a drug addict’. I am happy to have that debate.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I request that you seek advice from the Clerk on this particular issue.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, I will seek advice. Member for Port Darwin, the language you have used has been regarded as offensive and I ask you to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Very well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the language. Alcoholics, from time to time, find themselves returning to their supplier in the local bottle shop to feed their continuing addiction to alcohol …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have already …
Mr ELFERINK: I have withdrawn it.
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin gets super sensitive …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to rise to the debate, but the member for Port Darwin …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, your point of order. Order!
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin gets super sensitive with allusions like this of a general nature on the other side, and I ask him to show some respect and withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There is only one person who is super sensitive, and that is the super sensitive minister for pointless points of order and interjections. All he is trying to do is put the member for Port Darwin off his track and divert him somewhere else. You cannot possibly allow this fellow to keep interjecting the way he is with meaningless and pointless points of order.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I will confer with the Clerk once again. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like an alcoholic returning to the bottle shop every day looking for that extra bottle of wine and that extra packet of cigarettes to feed their addictions, the Treasurer particularly, but this government as a whole, continue to turn to that bottle shop only to find that the bottle shop is fuller every time and, so, the addiction was adhered to with greater passion and zeal than ever. That is fine whilst the bottle shop continues to fill with liquor, but now the bottle shop is looking decidedly bare. This government is now stuck with a situation where they have to feed their addiction - and their addiction is spending, and spending at any costs.
I find it curious - and I have yet to have it explained by any member opposite - how they see their current environment, putting aside the fact that they have had an extra $1.2bn of unexpected money - not just increased income, but money they did not expect to get over that period - and have not squirrelled any of it away. They have spent it all. Looking now at this particular financial year, I am still curious as to why they need to borrow so much.
I note with some interest that the projected growth for this year, according to the Treasurer, is still in the order of 4%; the projected growth for the next financial year is still in the order of 2%. They are growth budgets and, yet, the government is saying we are expecting an environment of growth and we have to borrow to stave off - what? A recession in a growth environment? How does that make sense? If they have a growth environment, then why are they responding with a recession-based response? I found it very interesting that, although the Prime Minister has said a recession is likely, he has not called it yet. However, I noticed in yesterday’s budget speech, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory was happy to call it. I find it curious that she can call a recession in the Northern Territory when she is predicting growth rates in both financial years – the current and the next.
It is a surprising approach from the government to want to pump-prime an economy that continues, according to them, to still be growing. What they are arguing for is a pump-priming exercise because the economy needs it. If you are pump-priming an economy in this environment of growth, then I am asking what your economic rationale for that is. There may be an economic rationale, and it may be that our growth rates are predicated on government expenditure. If that is the case, fine, come in here and say it; but do not come in here and tell me there is a growth economy: ‘By the way, we now have to pump-prime the growth economy’. Nationally, there is a real potential for recession and it is starting to look like one but, gee whiz, it is an interesting argument being put forward.
I also turn to the issue raised in the Budget Papers in relation to education of Indigenous kids. There was something very interesting played out during Question Time in relation to this, and I am curious on how we deal with it, as members of parliament. The government has decided to lower the expectations for Indigenous service delivery in the bush. In other words, they had a set of benchmarks; they realised how difficult it was going to be to reach those benchmarks; so they have lowered the benchmarks. If there was ever an exercise in cynical politics it would have to be that. We no longer think that we can reach the benchmarks for the lofty standards we set for ourselves, so we are going to review them down so that the next time round we will be able to say we met our benchmarks. Well, that is fine if you happen to be the minister and the government of the day. ‘We have met our benchmarks’, they can say proudly as they beat their chest.
How does that fix the lack of education that three-quarters of the Indigenous kids in primary school will suffer from in the bush? Does it make them any more educated; that the government has met its lowered benchmarks? The difficult problem I have now is the one I referred to when I started talking about this in my reply; the response from the minister for Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory. I am now confronted with the issue that, should I have any critical comment to make in relation to education in the bush, I will be accused of using Aboriginal children as a political weapon. That is a very awkward situation to place anyone in because it then means I have a choice to make: I either back off from arguing for a better education for kids in the bush because I am scared of being accused of using these kids as a political shield, or I continue and suffer the allegation.
I can place the Minister for Indigenous Policy on notice, as well as every other parliamentarian in this place: I will not be afraid to raise the issues of Indigenous education in spite of any such allegations being levelled at me. The member for Macdonnell knows, from her experience with me over many years, that I am genuinely concerned about what has happened in Ntaria, Papunya, Mt Liebig, Kintore, and in all of those places. I do not believe it is constructive, when I and other members on this side of the House want to see some improvement and are critical of government policy, to simply allege that we are using these kids as a political tool.
If that is the allegation that government wants to make, then I encourage them to make it because we will continue arguing that the benchmark should not be lowered, and that the government should actually set its targets not because they are easy, but because they are hard. That is why you have to set benchmarks, not because in the next budgetary cycle you can say: ‘We have met our benchmarks, we have achieved these results. See, 2% of Aboriginal kids in the bush have gone to school this year’. If that is the benchmark you want, you can say: ‘We have exceeded it; we have 4% of Aboriginal kids in school this year. See, we exceeded our benchmark by 100%. Aren’t we good?’ In those circumstances, of course, you have still have 96% of Aboriginal kids not going to school.
Whilst it is an extreme example, that is, essentially, what is being argued. That would be the easy benchmark to reach. You can say: ‘Look, our goals have been successfully achieved; it was worth all the money’. No, Madam Speaker, benchmarks are not there simply because you can then issue a media release at the end of the financial year saying: ‘We have met our benchmarks’. Benchmarks are there to lift us, to ask us to raise our effort, to redouble our vigour towards achieving a result - not simply because we feel embarrassed that we have not been able achieve our ambitions in the way that we would like. If we are really suffering a failure as a result of not meeting the achievements that we set for ourselves, then it is time to revisit what we are doing. Do not change the benchmarks, change what we are doing. Change the way that we do education. Change what education means.
What the hell is the use of having an education in the bush if there is not a job at the end of it? Why even get healthy? What is the point of being healthy in Yuendumu when the unhealthy person sitting down on the verandah next to you has a lifestyle which is no worse or no better than yours? There has to be something else at the other end. There has to be a reason for health. We talk about the increase of life expectancy of Aboriginal women - good. Now what? Does that exist in its own right, or are Aboriginal women allowed to have a better life? I am told – I heard it in this parliament today - that 45:1 is the ratio of violence against Aboriginal women to non-Aboriginal women in our community – 45:1. They live longer so they can be beaten up? They live longer so their kids cannot get an education? Goodness gracious, there has to be a purpose. There has to be a reason for all of this stuff.
There is such a massive dislocation between an announcement for Health and Education, that I am not seeing the logic underpinning what the government is trying to do. I see their compassion. I certainly see their desire to do well. I genuinely believe that the Labor members of this parliament want to see improvements in all sorts of areas. I genuinely believe that their compassion, although somewhat misguided at times, is genuine. All I ask is: let us not lower our standards; let us redouble our efforts to meet the benchmarks that we set in the first instance. Surely, that is not such an unreasonable plea?
Should I express some frustration at the government’s policy and be accused of using Aboriginal children for the sake of political outcomes and winning political points is, frankly, a cynicism that I did not expect from the member for Macdonnell. I hope she reflects on that and my motives, the motives of members on this side of the House and, indeed, the motives of all members, before that assertion is levelled again. In any instance, that is consideration for the member for Macdonnell.
I also find curious - and I notice that this is now getting a run in the federal domain - the term ‘the temporary budget deficit’. Five years - dare I hear? - of a temporary budget deficit. By that definition, we have enjoyed a temporary budget surplus in recent times. I do not hear the government and the Treasurer of the Northern Territory talking about having a temporary budget surplus. This has been an achievement of their monumental skill as fiscal managers. I find it curious that they call themselves good fiscal managers, when members opposite, particularly the Treasurer - and I suppose I am guilty of it from time to time as well - interchange the words ‘budget’ and ‘economy’ as if they were the same thing.
There is a void of difference between the budget and the economy. The economy is something that no government in the Territory - or for that matter internationally - is something that governments have a huge amount of control over. There is some capacity to affect the economy with government policy but if you need any indication that governments do not have a control over the economy, have a look at what happened in the last few months.
The argument for government control over the economy can only be made in the most general terms. The policy of monetarism, which came into flavour in the late 1970s, early 1980s, is something that all Labor governments globally signed up to - including governments such as, eventually, the Russian Federation after they decided to pull the Soviet Union apart, England, and Australia. It was Paul Keating who shifted the economy of Australia away from the old centralised regime which was still being presided over by Malcolm Fraser. This might sound like a bizarre comment but, in some respects, Paul Keating was a much better Liberal Prime Minister of this country than Malcolm Fraser ever was.
Having said that, what was done well in Australia, and largely through the Howard years, was that they created prudential guidelines and regulations. The issue should not be, and will not be - now or ever at any point into the future - whether the economy should be completely centralised or completely deregulated. The question should be: to what degree do we regulate? That is the question that is confronted two jurisdictions on either side of the Pacific Ocean. One side of the Pacific Ocean went for a less regulated model; on the other side the Pacific Ocean, there was a slightly more regulated model; that was the one which introduced the APRA guidelines.
As a consequence, the direct exposure of Australian banks to the sub-prime marketplace was nominal at best. We hardly carried any sub-prime loans because the prudential regulators would not have allowed that toxic debt to build, particularly to those sorts of levels. I believe there was a tiny fraction of loans classified as sub-prime loans in Australia. That is not what happened in the United States. If they had had the APRA guidelines in place, it is unlikely - dare I say, impossible - for what happened in the United States to have played out in Australia, particularly the way these sub-prime loans were packaged up and sold off as ‘AAA-rated, you beaut, gold investments’ to superannuation funds around the world.
The Territory government does not have control of the Territory economy. A case in point is the doubling, halfway through the financial year, of the amount of value in mining royalties received by the Northern Territory government. What was that based on? It took me a while to figure it out. I asked the Treasurer if she knew why she was 100% wrong. She got upset, but she could not answer the question. I went back and read the budget papers again, more carefully, and I discovered a few lines about what was happening.
What was happening was described in a media report; any commodity sold out of Australia into the international marketplace, or sold out of the Northern Territory into the international marketplace, is sold in US dollars. It is not sold in Australian dollars. When you are doing your budget projection at the beginning of the financial year and your Australian dollar is on parity with US dollars, you calculate what your mining royalties will be. However, because the Territory government does not control the international marketplace, the international economy, the national economy or even the Territory economy, what happens is that all of a sudden, parity falls to one half and, as a result, as this money is changed back into Australian dollars and run through the books of the company, we get a much bigger slice of Australian dollars into our budget income. That is how vulnerable we are to fluctuations in the economy.
The government says they are great economic managers. What, they have some control over China’s consumption of steel? They set the Chinese economy? What do they do? Pick up the phone and ring up Hu Jintao and say: ‘Mate, you have to import some more steel; our mining royalties are looking a bit flat’? Errant nonsense!
The link between the economy and the Northern Territory budget is that the Northern Territory budget is a large slice of expenditure inside the Northern Territory. I am always mindful, though, that it is not the government itself which produces stuff. That is the stuff the private sector does. We do not manufacture stuff. We occasionally use our tax dollars in building infrastructure so that the private sector can continue to make stuff, dig stuff up out of the ground, grow stuff, and grow other stuff that we can eat in the form of meat for our hamburgers but, at the end of the day, the economy is supported by large and small organisations in vast numbers, such as small to medium enterprises. It is these organisations which are the heart and soul of our economy.
The government is arguing that through increased borrowings they can sustain jobs by using taxation dollars to support business; to build infrastructure and expand the size of service delivery. I said it the last time, and heard members on the opposite side of the House scoff in derision, but I will say it again: every borrowing you engage in now, whilst it helps to create a job on an infrastructure project, will be at the expense of jobs in the future. The logic goes like this: if we continue to borrow money at the rates that we are - if you include particularly what is being borrowed by the Power and Water Corporation - you will discover it will incur a debt and an interest payment. We then have to service that debt and interest payment. Whilst the debt repayments of the Northern Territory at the moment are somewhere between $300 000 and $350 000 on a daily basis, if we return to a high interest environment - let us say it goes back up to 10%, in a period of recovery - our interest repayments on the debts that the Treasurer is proposing will be in the order of $500 000, $600 000, $700000 per day. Those are amounts which could go to a job in the future.
However, we will not have that money available to build a school or to put extra police on the road, or even create jobs for administrative public servants who have to support those frontline public servants because we are paying off a debt costing us $0.5m a day to service. If you run up a debt …
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Port Darwin be given an extension of 10 minutes to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members. If you run up a debt to create jobs now you will be doing it at the expense of the capacity to create jobs in the future. Let me paint a scenario – I touched on Aboriginal affairs before – and say that we as a government - and when I say we, I am talking about a government formed by either side of the House in the future - find some mechanism to create jobs in remote communities through simple government expenditure. It may be through some system of PPPs, or whatever. All of a sudden, we turn to the kitty and ask ourselves if we can afford to spend the extra money to launch this program which would create 500 or 1000 jobs in the bush. If the answer to that question is no because we are too busy servicing a debt created when we were too busy creating jobs five years ago, then that will be an opportunity lost.
Whilst the government claims that they are the government interested in protecting jobs, they are interested in protecting jobs into what the Treasurer described as a growth environment. I still do not understand, the Treasurer has not yet explained - nor have I heard any other person explain - what element of the Territory’s current growth environment requires protection. Maybe they are aware of some information I am not but, the last time I checked, it is still a growth environment.
As far as budgets are concerned, this is a big spending budget; there is no doubt about it. All of their budgets have been big spending budgets and, up until now, they have been able to afford it. They claim the surpluses as some great fiscal achievement but those surpluses are a product of a source of income which exceeded their wildest expectations - and that is provable. All you have to do is look back through the budget projections and what actually happened when those projections were realised, and there were hundreds of millions of dollars worth of difference.
It is like watching the Treasurer fall into a swimming pool and then arguing that getting wet was a matter of good management. No, you just get wet when you fall into a swimming pool. Now that the tough times are here, this is when the mettle of a government is tested. The mettle of a government is tested by decisions they make. They claim this is a tough budget. This is a tough budget in one respect only, and that was the decision to drive us into debt into the future which has to be paid off - probably not by people who are sitting in this Chamber now, but some people in the future.
This government’s failure to contain its debt situation, particularly when you look at it its unfunded superannuation liabilities, represents an unmitigated disaster for the future of the Northern Territory. In spite of these times of great plenty, debt has increased, the unfunded superannuation liability rests over the future of the Northern Territory as the sword of Damocles; and there is no comfort in any of these numbers for Territorians into the future.
We have a superannuation bill which is going to suck hundreds of millions of dollars out of our budget every year for the next few decades. We are increasing our debt. Take a look at the non-financial public sector balance sheet and the projections into the future. They are taking us is to a debt to income ratio of 130% - almost precisely the same limit as was experienced in 2002 when the growth in the Northern Territory actually became recessive.
They claimed at the time that the government of the day was engaged in financial vandalism - what was it? - economic vandalism and what was happening was unsustainable. As I said last night, and say it again to this House, if what was happening in 2001 was financial or economic vandalism and was unsustainable, why are they now subscribing to precisely the same policies - exactly the same policies with exactly the same figure outcomes – plus or minus 1% - as in 2001, with the smoke and mirrors environment of surplus budgets and all those sorts of things, and ignoring the fact that they have been recipients and beneficiaries of a taxation system that they passionately and vehemently resisted?
It does not take a great deal of effort to go back through the Parliamentary Record to see the tirades of abuse that were laid upon the government of the day for introducing a goods and service tax - a tax which, ultimately, proved to be rivers of gold except for one thing; that those rivers of gold were predicated on a high national growth rate. Those rivers of gold came with a warning every time that they were processed by the Northern Territory Treasury, which was repeated in the last set of budget papers to reach this House. The warning was this: GST presents a risk. We are way too exposed to the GST environment and, unless you respond to that, you are going to be in trouble. That is, essentially, the warning from Treasury. Finally, the prophecy has come to bear; when the government has turned to the cupboard which they should have stocked up for these difficult times, they have found that the cupboard is empty.
Madam Speaker, the budget process is not about a year; the budget process is about year-in, year-out smart planning for the future. A failure to plan has now, as the old adage so oft expressed in other circles, proven to be true: a failure to plan is a plan to fail. This government has, sadly, through not taking advantage of the good economic times it has had available, now planned to fail.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I take up this second reading speech that I paused at 11 am to allow the Leader of the Opposition to give his budget reply.
The intent of this bill is to allow the Land Development Corporation to engage in its primary development areas and to provide appropriately mixed developments. Section 7 of the Land Development Corporation Act 2005 is proposed to be broadened to include provision for the Land Development Corporation to enter into joint ventures, partnerships, obtain funds via loans with the approval of the Treasurer, and to erect and construct recreational, transport, sporting and other community facilities associated with a residential or industrial development.
The ability to enter into joint ventures and partnerships is fundamental to a commercial operation, and to ensure that our private sector is able to be engaged in corporation developments. All other Land Development Corporations enter into joint ventures and deliver quality and timely developments without the unnecessary draw on the public purse. To successfully engage in joint ventures and partnerships, the bill also includes the new concepts of ‘co-development land’, ‘community amenities and facilities’, ‘corporation land’, and ‘residential developments’. These changes will ensure the Land Development Corporation is able to use a variety of means to develop the range of facilities and amenities required for the successful developments seen elsewhere in the country.
Members should also be aware that the Northern Territory Treasury is currently working with the Land Development Corporation to transition to a government business division as quickly as possible, thereby cementing the Land Development Corporation's commercial outlook for the agency into the future.
For the purposes of clarity, a new section 41A is proposed specifying that the Treasurer may delegate his or her powers under section 7(3) in relation to approving loans or borrowings by the Land Development Corporation.
In closing, members may ask why the Northern Territory Land Development Corporation is not assuming the complete land agency role undertaken by land corporations elsewhere in Australia. The answer is simple: the existing operation is simple and efficient and other areas of the government currently undertake some of the land delivery activities. We do not intend to duplicate resources.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 11 February 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I indicate at the outset that the members on this side of the House will not be opposing this bill.
This bill, basically, is almost an administrative vehicle in its nature, to ratify and give legislative force, if you like, to the operation of the federal First Home Owner Grant, which has been operating for some time and, I believe, is due to expire at the end of this financial year. I am not sure of the exact date off the top of my head. However, there is nothing of any substance or concern within the bill.
Nevertheless, it does lend itself to some more general observations, which were indicated by the member for Goyder earlier today in another debate. It does deserve revisiting in this particular debate, because it is a debate which falls on all fours with the issue that was raised by the member for Goyder.
Essentially, the way the First Home Owner Grants are combined enables a fairly substantial grant to be made to first homeowners. The rationale for First Home Owner Grants nationally - in different jurisdictions as well as this jurisdiction – was to give first homeowners a leg up into the marketplace. However, we have to turn a cautionary eye to the value of these grants, because they do manifest themselves, when they become so generous, in a way which raises potential for concern.
I do not want to see, for one moment, people being deprived of the right and the capacity to live in their own homes. Anyone who has to pay rent in this jurisdiction, particularly in this city, will be fully aware of the extraordinary impost that rent is. Also, even in these times of low interest rates, anyone with a home loan has to pay vast amounts of money to simply service those loans for their own home.
I am somewhat concerned that if you encourage people into the marketplace by giving them a leg up to what can become, essentially, their deposit for a home, then they will be only asking themselves one particular question - the same question I asked myself when I bought my home: can I afford the repayments? That is generally the only question that is asked. An amount will be decided upon which can be spent which makes the payments affordable. Then, with that mindset, the borrower goes into the marketplace and says: ‘What can I afford?’ It turns out that they can afford more than they expected to be able to purchase if the leg up had not been available.
This becomes part of my concern. One, it translates into the houses in the marketplace becoming more expensive. You have people entering the marketplace with a particular leg up, and they are not asking themselves whether they can buy a $380 000 home; they will say: ‘I can afford to pay off a $420 000 home’. As a consequence, because they feel they have that new capacity, they will take that capacity into the marketplace, and the marketplace will respond by making houses more expensive, because there are more people in the marketplace who are prepared to pay that extra amount.
Further to that, the low interest environment that we currently have reinforces this capacity to pay off loans. Therefore, we have people on low incomes - often young people who have families, and often they are a one-income family, maybe two kids, the dog and an old Holden parked in the driveway – who buy their new home. It is a lovely home because they spent more than they expected, but they got more than they expected, or they entered the marketplace late, which means that the marketplace had been pushed up and that was the only place they could afford. As a consequence, there they are with their substantial leg up, their one income paying off this loan in a low-interest environment.
Pushing aside the leg up and just talking about that environment, what you have are people on low incomes paying off a loan on expensive homes who have received credit on a low-interest arrangement. If interest rates go up, it is trouble for them. If they lose their job, it is trouble for them. If the value of the house suddenly falls, it is trouble for them. If there are many people like this in the marketplace and the interest rates go up, the sudden default rate will mean you get a flood into the marketplace of that lower end of the marketplace. House prices start to drop and then people lose their investments.
Whilst I understand the logic of supporting a first homeowner with a grant, what is happening now is a situation not dissimilar in outcomes - not an intent and everything else like that, but in outcomes - as what happened in the United States to bring on the sub-prime marketplace. You have people on low incomes exposed to low interest rates in a marketplace where they are in houses they cannot afford. All it takes, the more that we interfere with that marketplace and with the money floating around in it is for one thing to change - the interest rates to change. Then, there will be a sudden flood of defaulting homes into the marketplace.
That is not a huge risk for Darwin. It would be in other jurisdictions; but not a huge risk in Darwin. It is interesting to draw the parallels between people who are now entering into the housing marketplace taking out loans they may not be able to afford in a high-interest environment - and I would hate to see our manipulation of the amount of money available for people to buy houses having a negative outcome, despite the very good intentions we have for putting these systems together.
Having made those observations, I urge the government to advance on these matters with great caution and care, and with a mind to the experience of other jurisdictions. However, as I said at the outset, we will not be opposing this bill because we understand it largely ratifies something that has been happening for some time.
With those thoughts, Madam Speaker, I have very little to add other than to repeat my counsel to government: please be aware of the potential for this situation to have a negative outcome.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her introduction of this amendment bill. I do not have any particular gripe about the bill; although I should say in the second reading speech copy circulated to members - which was probably only a typing error - it said: ‘the Henderson government also announced bill start’. I suspect they meant Buildstart. I hope you are not bringing legislation in to increase the number of bills people have to pay ...
Ms Lawrie: No, it was a typo.
Mr WOOD: That is okay, thank you.
The reason I have some concerns - and they are not meant to be negative concerns from the point of view that helping people to buy a house is a bad thing. I believe it is a good thing. However, there is a time when we need to review whether the processes we are putting in place are doing what they are meant to do. In other words, we are encouraging people to apply for a grant to help them buy a home.
Much of the reading I have been doing of late revolves around a number of writers in various papers - financial or just the daily papers from the south - and comments from people on websites. As you know, some people will comment on those particular articles. There is a belief by quite a few people that the home loan grant has increased the price of housing, especially where there is a tight market, because people know there are people who are going to apply for their house and they are in the price bracket where many of the first homeowners are trying to move into. It is quite easy to say: ‘The government has bumped up the First Home Owner Grant to $14 000; we can just put that little $14 000 on top of the price of our home’. It is quite interesting to see what some of the southern commentators have been saying about that.
I read an article by a writer in the Sydney Morning Herald who stated exactly that; that the Labor government, when it was in opposition, when it held a forum on this particular matter, and came to the agreement that it was bumping up the prices of houses. It would be good for the government to come to this parliament to say: ‘We have reviewed this program and this is the findings of that program’. In other words, it would be good to say: ‘All right, we have had this program in place for X number of years; we have researched the price of housing at that stage. Was there some sort of connection between us introducing the new First Home Owner Grant and the price of houses at that stage?’ Was there a connection, as has been asked by a number of people?
It is not saying that the First Home Owner Grant does not have some benefits, but it is no good if that benefit is wiped out by an increase, at the same time, in the price of the houses that these people are trying to buy. Some people are saying prices for land are now starting to flatten, and it may be a good time to take it off because, if a house price drops by about 3.5%, you have covered the savings that the government would give in a First Home Owner Grant. There could be some sense there. However, if we let the market take its place at the moment, the savings of even a small reduction in the price of a house might be equivalent to the grant you are giving people to encourage them to buy their first home.
I also believe that we need to be careful at this stage. I mentioned the other day, when the minister made a statement about HomeNorth, in relation to bumping up how much money one could now obtain to get a loan to buy a house whether, at this stage of the economic climate when jobs are becoming a little shaky, we should be encouraging people to enter the market and go into debt when it is not necessarily a good idea unless they are pretty sure of their employment prospects over the next umpteen years. We are now finding that the length of time it takes for a person to pay off their house is much longer than in days gone by. Therefore, people are at risk of losing their house over a longer period. It is much harder for people to pay off these loans. If we have a period where people have some doubts about whether they have a job, is it wise that we should be pushing people into higher and higher debt?
I will read from an article by Stuart J Barnett, who wrote in The Courier Mail on 29 April this year:
In those two paragraphs, I am highlighting two of the areas that the government needs to consider when they are getting people to move into debt. We need to ensure that people are aware of some of the difficulties they could have in a period of recession.
How do we avoid that? Most people would like to buy their own house. It really boils down that we are not going to provide Territory residents land at a cheap enough price to avoid getting into such debt. It is very hard for young people to find a house and a block of land today, regardless of whether the government is offering its HomeNorth program, as it is simply too expensive. If you have a $420 000 house, which is the maximum loan from HomeNorth, I presume you need a 10% deposit. How many young people have a …
A member: Two percent.
Mr WOOD: I presume you need a deposit of 10%, although it can be subsidised via the scheme?
Ms Lawrie: No, 2%.
Mr WOOD: Two percent? My argument is that if you were not eligible for the HomeNorth scheme, you would require a higher deposit for the bank. $42 000 is a substantial amount of money. The government gives relief via its First Home Owner Grant scheme but if people want to buy a house today they have to find $42 000 and that is a fairly large deposit to find.
Because the scheme that the government is putting forward can, basically, cover the cost of the deposit, one of the arguments is we are encouraging people to get into debt that they really could not normally afford. If they could not save up the deposit, and needed a subsidy to get them that deposit, are they good enough savers to pay the mortgage over a number of years for that priced house?
We have to push this concept of producing more land - and land at a much more reasonable price. If land was $100 000, you can build a reasonable house for another $200 000, which makes up to $300 000. That is still a lot of money to pay back. It is the land that is the real killer because of (1) the availability of land, and (2) the price of land. While land is divvied out in short bursts, the price of land will stay high; simply, the demand for land is higher than the supply, and land will always be high in price. That is exactly what some private developers in the rural area do if they have a large block of land. They know they can get 200 blocks of land from that large parcel of land. There is no way they are going to sell the 200 blocks in one hit. They will sell them in 50 lots, to ensure that those 50 blocks get the maximum price.
The government should not be too worried about that; it should be looking at opening up more land thereby creating more competition. Even though they say that the market could be affected for those people who have put their hard-earned cash into buying land and houses, even a small drop - a 10% drop in the price of houses and land - is still far more than what people would have paid three years ago.
Rural land went up 100% in one hit; from around $100 000 and, in 12 months, it hit around $200 000. Some people who lost a little in their land sales would still have made quite a considerable gain from the land they purchased. I am not sure that we should put too much emphasis on the market all the time because, in the end, it is government's role to ensure those people in the lower wage bracket have an opportunity to have a start in life. It may not be the flashest house they build there, but at least it is a house.
The way we can do that is by producing more land at a cheaper price. I have said publicly, and the Minister for Planning and Lands knows that there is an application at the moment for land in the forestry area of Howard Springs. A number of developers have put forward a proposal. I only know what those proposals are in a general sense, but they are putting forward a scheme which will encourage first homeowners to buy 1 ha and 2 ha blocks at a reasonable price. The idea is to encourage people to get into the market, build a home, and to get people on to the land.
There are many benefits if the government can do that. We talk about an economy that could be slowing down. If the government can get these people on to the land, they will build a house and that keeps the builders going. They will buy a stove, a fridge, and a washing machine. They will buy a bed and whatever else they need – they will put up a fence, etcetera. By getting people on to the land, you will keep the economy ticking over and that is good.
You will be keeping places like Howard Springs alive. We have a school that is low on numbers partly because of the middle school group, also because there are not as many young families in the immediate area as there used to be. There are plenty of young families in the rural area, but some of the old areas have now become very expensive. I live in Howard Springs. Last year, I saw a 2 ha block on Whitewood Road that sold for around $385 000. I believe a house on Whitewood Road recently sold for over $1m. So, you are starting to move into land prices that are not conducive to young people being able to afford to live in the area. That impacts on things like schools. We need to ensure there are opportunities for young people to move into these areas and avail themselves of the facilities that are already there.
I am not against a First Home Owner Grant. I know why this bill is being debated today. I just believe there may be a time when the government has to rethink whether this program is doing what it should; or whether we should let the market forces take place, because there are certainly signs out there that the market is levelling at least. If the market drops by a small percentage, it would cover the grant you are encouraging people to take up to move into their own home.
Having a review of this grant would establish whether it has been an advantage to those people moving into their first home, or whether they are buying the home with the grant attached to it because the seller could see them coming and added that $14 000 on to the cost of the home. That is what some people are saying down south. It has been mentioned here before. I say to the minister: give some consideration to review whether this program is doing what it is intended to do, because that would find out whether it is achieving your goals, and it is not just something that looks good but does not really achieve what it was meant to do.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I support the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill as presented by the Treasurer.
This government wants every Territorian to have access to housing appropriate to their needs. Through a range of programs, we are helping Territorians rent and purchase property throughout the Northern Territory. This bill should be supported by the opposition. It is an important part of building the Territory. Our housing market needs to provide choice for our workforce; a workforce that is highly mobile when compared to other jurisdictions. We need to encourage industry to provide more places to buy and rent, and we need to help Territorians buy their own home.
Not all Territorians are ready to buy; some need a helping hand. That is why the Henderson government has increased funding to Territory Housing by 61% since 2001 – that was until yesterday. In handing down Budget 2009-10, my colleague, the Treasurer, has increased this investment in housing by 92% over the current financial year. I thank her for recognising the need in the community and making the right investment for our future.
We have witnessed a huge boom in the private property market. This is great for existing homeowners, but is a real issue for those wanting to buy. Growth in property prices has pushed affordability out of reach for some Territorians, and that is why this grant and this government’s housing initiatives are so important for our future. We need to have a property market that supports a sound investment for purchasers, but also allows homebuyers to get into home ownership.
Our property market must support key workers, and this grant is an important part of our home ownership strategy. The government needs to do what it can to support first homeowners. By encouraging workers to purchase in the Territory, we are stabilising our workforce and keeping skilled workers in the Territory.
We are committed to delivering new housing and new land releases. When releasing new land, the Henderson government will deliver 15% of new lots in large-scale subdivisions for affordable and public housing initiatives; new places to help people into their first home or back on their feet through social housing. Through this program we are creating more opportunities for first homeowners to purchase and use the grant. For example, 16 units at Emery Avenue in Palmerston are to be sold by ballot in the coming months. Over $1.2m is being spent to upgrade these units, including security fencing, shade sails for car parks, new tiling, painting, air conditioning, and landscaping. The units will be sold on a ballot system and eligibility criteria will ensure only low- to middle-income householders, who do not currently own a property, will have the opportunity to purchase one of these units. Expressions of interest for the ballot have been available since February this year and 40 expressions of interest for Emery Avenue have been lodged so far.
Larapinta in Alice Springs is an area that is currently being marketed as Ridges Estate, with 39 blocks currently being developed as part of Larapinta Stage 2. Six are being set aside for first homeowners. The lots are being sold as house and land packages and the properties will be able to access the First Home Owner Grant we are currently debating.
The First Home Owner Grant helps Territorians get started in the housing market. This product, along with this government’s latest housing affordability initiative, Homestart NT, will make a real difference to Territory families. Yesterday, I reported to the House that the new Homestart NT initiative is focused directly on helping low- to middle-income earners become homeowners. Homestart NT comes into effect on 1 June this year. It is built on the strong track record of HomeNorth, which helped 1100 Territorians become first homeowners. Reflecting the current property market, Homestart NT offers income thresholds and property purchase price caps that allows access to about 40% of the property market for low- to middle-income earners without investing more than 30% of their income.
I support the First Home Owner Grant initiative; an additional $7000 boost is welcome. This initiative is not just about Territorians looking to buy. It also has a positive flow-on effect into the building industry. This legislation facilitates the doubling of the existing $7000 First Home Owner Grant, taking the full grant to $14 000. It also provides a stimulus for building, with the grant increasing to $21 000 for first homeowners investing in building or purchasing existing homes.
We need more housing stock in the Territory. I support grants or initiatives that drive our local construction industry to put more stock in the marketplace.
Along with this government’s Buildstart initiative, which supplemented the first homeowner package by opening up grants of $14 000 to existing homeowners, a further stimulus to our construction industry, as part of Housing the Territory, we outlined a 20-year land release strategy and the expansion of the Land Development Corporation’s role to oversee residential and affordable housing developments, including working with the private sector on innovative and affordable housing developments.
We want to do everything we can to help locals take advantage of these grants and become homeowners in the Territory. This grant is absolutely vital and offers help that low- to middle-income earners need to get a start. Over the last week, with the announcement of Homestart NT, there has been a great deal of interest from friends of mine. Queries through the department have indicated that the Homestart program is very well geared to getting people over that line. We know people are trapped in the rental market. Homestart is delivering, and the First Home Owner Grant legislation will help those people as well. Every little bit helps to get over that line, to move those people out of public housing or out of rental properties now, will take the pressure off many areas within the sector.
Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, and congratulate the Treasurer for bringing it forward.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Port Darwin and Nelson, and the Minister for Housing for contributing to debate today on the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill. The amending bill is about getting Territorians into their first home and giving a stimulus to our housing construction sector - a win/win. It is appropriate that we are debating this legislation on the day after the budget. The budget delivered $1.3bn in infrastructure and investment that creates some 2500 jobs and, importantly as the Housing Minister said, includes $390m to increase and improve our housing stock
It is a budget that allocates $108.6m to expanded land release and associated community infrastructure, including $20m to continue accelerated land release in Palmerston. It is a budget that maintains a very generous first homebuyers stamp duty concession with a threshold of $385 000, a saving of some $15 000 from where the threshold was set a couple of years ago. It is a budget that introduced a completely revised home purchase entry scheme, Homestart NT, to get more people into their own homes.
I believe it goes to the heart of the debate we have heard in the Chamber today, with genuine concerns raised by members about being cautious and not overstretching people in tough economic times, particularly when they can perhaps take advantage of low interest rates, be overstretched and enter into a mortgage when they do not have the financial capacity and wherewithal to meet those mortgage repayments.
This goes to the heart of why Homestart NT has been such a carefully constructed leg up scheme for those low- to middle-income earners. Treasury did much work around the model with the department of Housing to identify what would be the appropriate entry level amount into the marketplace, and what percentage you strike at. I note the CLP said today they would have a scheme that would give access to 49% of the marketplace. What would be a good percentage there? Also, how do you provide for those income caps so that people are not overextending themselves by having more than 30% of their income going to their mortgage repayments? We struck a very cautious approach to that, wanting to maximise opportunities for Territorians yet, at the same time, not encouraging Territorians to dangerously overextend themselves at a time when there are tough economic conditions. We also know that low interest rate loans are attractive.
Everyone is assessed by TIO staff when they apply for Homestart NT. It is a thorough assessment. I know many people in my electorate who have gone through the HomeNorth process for assessments, and those home loan assessors at TIO carefully consider the critical issue of whether these people can afford the mortgage repayments. Bear in mind that we have a 2% deposit, so on a $420 000 house it is very affordable.
It was never designed to replace the main financial institutions’ lending. We did not want to go into the middle and upper marketplace with Homestart NT. Let the financial institutions be in that competitive marketplace, and let people shop around. However, Homestart NT is for those low- to middle-income earners who are not the attractive potential homeowners for the competitive financial institutions. That is why it is structured with a cap around income, and why it is also structured with a cap around a price point at which you can buy into the marketplace, which is 40%.
The precursors to Homestart NT show that these schemes can be effective in giving people a leg up into the marketplace - people who otherwise are not attractive for mortgages with those financial institutions. Since we revamped HomeNorth, we have seen some 1100 people enter the marketplace. In those figures were many single, young Territorians - the people the member for Nelson talked about; those young tradies who have a job and want to get into the marketplace and own their first unit – we saw a strong pick up and entry into the marketplace through HomeNorth.
Part of what we did in getting rid of HomeNorth and creating Homestart NT was to weight the system towards families, which is why we have the scale of gross household income caps or thresholds, based on the number of people in the household. We are not discerning that a household - a family - has to be mum and dad and three kids. A family can be mum and five kids, which is a six-person household. We are providing for the mix of families we know are in our community, the mix of people in those low- to middle-income status areas, and providing a real leg up, particularly for families. Whilst HomeNorth was working for the young singles, Homestart NT will work for those young singles too – and we wanted the scheme to work for families, too.
Careful economic analysis and construction went into the Homestart NT scheme, looking at what we call the 40:30 ratio; accessing 40% of the marketplace but not using more than 30% of the gross household income on mortgage repayments, which is absolutely at the affordable price point in home mortgage repayments. I congratulate the Treasury staff and the department of Housing staff who worked tirelessly on Homestart NT with me and the Housing Minister.
I recognise there is support for assistance through the First Home Owner Boost grant. The First Home Owner Grant has been around for a long time now, and this is a ramped up version from the Commonwealth, putting those incentives in, particularly for the construction element. However, we have seen a very strong response to the Rudd government’s ramped up First Home Owner Grant announcements which we administer on their behalf through this legislation and our Commissioner for Revenue. We have seen a very strong response to that. We have seen, up to 30 April this year - the latest figures I have at hand - 670 Territorians have received the boost assistance to purchase their first home – 670 Territorians have captured the Rudd stimulus through this First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill.
I am delighted to know that there are 670 Territorians who have seized this opportunity as a leg up into their first home ownership in the Territory. It is an example of how, if you make some adjustments in tough times, you really do pass those benefits on to the individual and the battler. Congratulations to those 670 Territorians who have made the most of the First Home Owners Grant and became homeowners. I know how it is, changing your life to go from renting to owning - through a mortgage - your own home, and what a significant shift that can be in your life cycle.
The Northern Territory government looked at what the Commonwealth was doing in the First Home Owner Grant, and we swiftly responded to a potential flattening in our construction sector, particularly the need in the residential rental market in the Territory. We constructed a scheme specifically to target to that need directly. We are the only jurisdiction which did that. We are the only jurisdiction which responded in that way. We created the Territory’s Buildstart regime, which was designed to complement the federal government’s boost. We have provided a $14 000 incentive to other homebuyers - not first homebuyers, other homebuyers or investors - to buy or build new homes.
This is at a time when we really wanted to see those investors returning to the marketplace. We saw interest rates coming down. Investors had fled the marketplace because of the high interest rates under the Howard government - we had something like 13 consecutive interest rate rises in a row ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They fled the marketplace because of the high interest rates under the Howard government - 13 rate rises in a row. We saw interest rates coming down under the Labor government. Under Rudd, we are seeing some affordability back in the interest rate burden on families in paying for their mortgages. I know there are those who are living tough, who have families, and are looking at that interest rate payment. Every percentage point down they are saying: ‘Hallelujah, that noose around my neck is loosening significantly thanks to those interest rate cuts’.
We saw the environment of opportunity in the residential market with the lowering interest rates under Labor entice investors back into the construction marketplace to boost the residential stimulus in the Territory. Buildstart is a very carefully constructed package, not just for houses but also for unit developments.
You can talk about the number of residential house blocks, but you can seriously ignore the thousands and thousands of unit developments occurring in and around Darwin where there is literally a suburb plus of unit developments. The member for Port Darwin has seen the boom in Port Darwin in unit developments and what that has done in terms of population. You can put many people in a very small geographic area through unit developments. Therefore, we constructed the package for not just the new single house on a residential block; we also targeted the rental investor opportunity in units as well. That was why Buildstart was constructed with the $14 000 incentive to other homebuyers or investors to buy or build new homes.
I can report there has been a very strong and positive industry response to Buildstart; builders love it. Some have said to me: ‘I love Buildstart. I am promoting Buildstart. I am selling off the back of Buildstart. Thank you for that’. Developers have said: ‘It has really helped us in purchases off-the-plan, thank you for that’. It has come at very important time because we saw a tightening in the number of pre-sales the banks were requiring for unit developments. It is a perfect product in the right place, at the right time, to deliver the right product for the consumer and boosting rental opportunities for Territorians. We knew we had a rental squeeze occurring as a result of strong economic growth and strong population growth and a booming Territory economy.
We have had an impressive response to Buildstart; we have had some 196 applications. I know the guys are working hard in Treasury to process those applications. They are working really hard, and I thank them for that effort. It has been a great response from Treasury officials to get through those applications. We have had 96 approved or paid to date - 96 new homes, purchasing off-the-plan for new units, construction, jobs in construction, and rental opportunities. There are rental opportunities in the Territory coming our way as a direct response to an initiative by this Labor government with the most important timing. No one else has done this; we were the only ones who came up with Buildstart, tailored it directly to the needs of the Territory market, and what a great response we have had.
The First Home Owner Grant boost, in conjunction with Buildstart, has helped to stimulate our economic activity. That is supporting jobs in construction and related industries, as well delivering more houses for first homeowners and those needing to rent. This is helping Territory investors with investments properties. We are offering a $14 000 incentive to not delay building until next year, build this year. Buildstart has been a fantastic program.
The Territory government has also redesigned Homestart NT to follow this package of making housing affordable and a leg up into housing. We are very careful in that 40:30 split, with 40% of access into the Territory’s properties in the main centres, and 30% of household income in repayments. We set regional caps in recognition of the price point differences across the regions rather than having a ‘one size fits all’ which distorts markets in the regional centres. We are very careful not to distort the existing marketplace. If you set your price point too high, which the CLP said they would today - 49% - you distort house prices and push them up. There would be some bad news for people trying to purchase if 49% of the marketplace was in the package.
In relation to land release, the $108.6m in Budget 2009-10 provides for extra land and extra community infrastructure, which is great, because you cannot release land without also providing the community infrastructure to support it. This represents 3000 blocks in Johnston, Mitchell and Zuccoli; land at Bellamack and Johnston will be released by the end of the year, and Bellamack will provide around 650 blocks – 15% of which will be reserved for first homebuyers and public housing.
The first stage, comprising 234 blocks, has already been approved by the Development Consent Authority and the blocks are expected to be available by the end of this year. The headworks are valued at $5.7m, and were started in November of last year. Wolpers Grahl, a local construction firm, has that contract; they did the great roadworks at the front of Darwin Middle School. They are now doing more work on the Bellamack headworks: the power supply, rising main and sewer and water main. The works are going to ramp up again because the water table is drying out enough to allow them to install the pumps, station chamber and piping.
I have been on-site and the workers love these government tenders. They rolled from one major government tender project to another so they were not unemployed. A job over here for government infrastructure; a job in Bellamack now, with government infrastructure spending. It is good news all around because it is the headworks necessary to release land to provide for more housing opportunities, and jobs for our construction workers and local companies. Wolpers Grahl – I went to school with one of the workers. It is great result. The headworks are expected to be complete by the end of the year. I have met the guys. They are very experienced and know what they are doing. I will take their word on that. The development will occur concurrently with the headworks.
Regarding the blocks available in Johnston, we have a contract out for headworks at the moment, which closes on 13 May. This contract will include new roads to Johnston and the construction of power, water and sewer mains. In addition, land release continues in the greater Darwin area. We have 280 blocks in Lyons, Muirhead, and Parap scheduled for release in 2010 …
Mr Wood: What price for an average block in Lyons? You had a chance to develop it and, now, we have overpriced land. You have not planned it.
Ms LAWRIE: The really good thing about Muirhead is, as Planning minister, I have been very focused on ensuring there is a component of affordable and social housing enshrined in Muirhead as well. I saw an opportunity to approach Muirhead differently to Lyons. The Defence Housing Association has been very good in negotiations with the government to enshrine affordable and social housing at Muirhead. I wanted to have that mix of public housing in the northern suburbs because it is a massive lot turn-off - about 1000 lots at Muirhead. There is a real opportunity for the government to have affordable and social housing; but it has been a very careful …
Mr Wood: It is a southern subdivision in a tropical climate.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I always enjoy listening to the member for Nelson when he speaks, but I would like to hear the member for Karama.
Mr Wood: I just could not resist. Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, Standing Order 51. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. Member for Nelson, take the time to have a meeting with the Defence Housing Association, talk to them about the design elements of the houses they have put into Lyons. You will hear from them that they want to see a more tropical, contemporary design for Muirhead; not just in the houses but in the orientation of the streets, the blocks, and where you build on the block.
You can cast your stones and say it was not done the way you would have done it, but I challenge people to have a conversation with Defence Housing about how they are seeking to provide affordable, tropical, good-quality housing for our hard-working Defence personnel in Darwin, at Muirhead. I am looking forward to that subdivision as I have been involved in discussions about the detail of it, which provides much more informed advice.
Muirhead, as I said, is about 1000 blocks which we will see released in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; a significant release of land. We recognise the pressing need to regularly release land in a way which improves affordability but, at the same time, does not flood the market. This is particularly important in these volatile economic times as we are seeing happen in the markets in southern Australia.
This is a debate on the First Home Owner Grant boost scheme which is, basically, an administrative amendment providing for the Commonwealth’s changes to the scheme. It is retrospective to provide for those payments that have been made. I have circulated a committee stage amendment. It comes at the request of the Commonwealth in regard to providing for special reasons that could be argued with the Commissioner for Revenue to allow longer periods to complete the building work, or complete a contract. The request came from the Commonwealth after the legislation was put forward. Madam Speaker, we will need to move into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I propose amendment schedule No 12 of the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 30).
The specific changes are to the proposed new section 13D(4) by replacing the reference to section 13D(2) or (3) with a reference to section 13D(1) to (3). Section 13D sets out eligibility requirements for the Commonwealth’s additional First Home Owner Boost grant which the states and territories are administering on behalf of the Commonwealth. This section requires that homes built under comprehensive building contracts, or by owner/builders, are to be completed within 18 months after the building work is started; and off-the-plan purchases must be completed by 31 December 2010.
Section 13D(4) provides the Commissioner of Territory Revenue with the power to allow a longer period for starting or completing building work or completing a contract, provided there are special reasons to do so. Examples of where this may occur include when completion of the building works is delayed by a natural disaster or fire, or where an owner/builder is hospitalised for a significant period of time due to ill health. The proposed minor amendment extends the commissioner's power to allow a longer period applied to an off-the-plan contract, as well as a home built under a building contract or by an owner/builder. This change has come about by a direction from the Commonwealth and was advised after the introduction of this bill.
I commend this amendment to honourable members.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I am raising specific concerns in relation to the amendment as proposed by the Treasurer.
Whilst we are in the committee stages, I invite the Treasurer to comment on the observation mentioned in the second reading speech. Without breaching standing orders, she may not have been aware of those comments. However, I ask her to take this opportunity in relation to the specific caution I signalled about young families taking on loans in low interest environments. If those interest rates should change, they will carry an exposure which is not entirely different to what happened in the sub-prime environment in the United States. Those young families could find themselves in a situation where they are carrying a loan with a low income by virtue of the fact they are taking advantage of what I consider to be a very generous package. If the interest rates should change, there is potential peril that these young families on low incomes may face. I am aware these things are still means tested to a degree. The situation is now changing to the point where entry into this marketplace is more than a leg up - it takes the form of a subsidy.
I am concerned if interest rates suddenly go up and wages do not follow, many of these young families who have taken advantage of these opportunities will suddenly find themselves cursed because these subsidies have had the effect of driving up the price in the marketplace. People have been borrowing to their capacity to repay, rather than within the natural capacity of their own income. Whilst do-able in a low interest environment, let us say, for argument’s sake, there was a sudden spurt of growth in four or five years time which pushed interest rates up to 10%, we will suddenly see many of these young families exposed.
I seek the Treasurer's observations in relation to that, to see if the government has considered a fall-back position if young families taking advantage of these proposals suddenly find themselves in a situation where they cannot afford to meet their debts.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I did respond directly to the questions and musings of the member for Port Darwin in my closing speech. I know that, at one stage, he was involved in Chamber business and discussions, so he might not have heard my response. I specifically talked about the care taken in construction of the Homestart NT scheme because we did not want to see young families overextend themselves. Whilst we want to afford those leg ups into the marketplace, we do not want a situation where they are overextended, particularly in an environment of low interest rates where you have a greater risk of interest rates, at some stage, heading upwards.
We very deliberately constructed Homestart NT on a 40:30 split - 40% access into the marketplace, 30% income capacity to repay. It was very carefully constructed. We are not –apart from Homestart NT, of course – in the broader home loans marketplace. Each financial lender and institution will apply its own assessment to the home loan applicant's ability to meet those repayments through that process. It is very rigorous.
We have seen in the actions of our financial institutions in Australia that they are well regulated federally. As a consequence of that strong regulation - and the Prime Minister is speaking more and more about the need to look at the regulatory environment in our nation, and how financial institutions in the global context, can take a leaf out of our book, look at our regulations and at how that oversight occurs.
Do I have confidence in assessments? Yes, I have, because of the regulatory environment in which they occur. Where is the NT government in this scenario? We are in this marginally; that is, we have the Buildstart scheme which entices investors into the construction area where there are some very attractive benefits in negative gearing, and the like, in investment properties, and access to all sorts of beneficial scenarios. They will have their own financial advice as to whether they should invest in additional properties. Of course, the government is not going to provide that financial advice.
We look at what we provide in the scheme. Homestart NT is the government’s initiative, and we very carefully put those income thresholds into the scheme. We very carefully placed those price caps in the scheme, particularly so low- to middle-income earners - who do not necessarily have the financial wherewithal you normally see in the middle- to higher-income brackets - are not overextended and stretched. That is where the government is in that space.
This is a broader debate than the legislation here. This is enabling legislation to provide for the additional payments that the Commonwealth announced in the First Home Owner Boost scheme. I am not going to be enticed into pretending that I will be the financial advisor for anyone who seeks a home loan, whatever their personal circumstances may be. That is clearly not for the Treasurer. The Treasurer should be, and is, providing this enabling legislation to ensure Territorians, like every other Australian, can access the benefits flowing from the Commonwealth through the First Home Owner Boost scheme. We talked about the 670 Territorians who have put their hand up and said: ‘Thank you, I am going to be able to own my first home as a result of this particular boost’. The boost will not last forever ...
Mr Elferink: Be flat out getting through the next month, by the looks of it.
Ms LAWRIE: It will not last forever. Buildstart will not last forever, and Territorians have responded to that opportunity. The First Home Owner Boost is the right product for the right time to provide the right economic stimulus in the housing market. Buildstart is the right product for the right time. Feedback from the broad catchment of financial lenders, financial advisors, first homebuyers, owner/builders, and builders, has all been very positive.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Regarding my specific question, the 40:30 split arrangement is the only vehicle that you have used in dealing with the issue I have raised, and the rest is up to the banks? Do I understand that correctly; it is the banks that make these determinations?
Ms LAWRIE: You do not understand. You did not listen. You did not listen the first time and you did not listen the second time. I talked about the regulatory environment in Australia as well. I did talk about …
Mr ELFERINK: I am aware. I spoke about the APRA guidelines at some length, Treasurer. I am just asking you a question; I am not having a crack at you. I am trying to inform myself so I understand these things better. Buckets of derision are not going to make you a better person. I am asking you these questions for information. Can you …
Ms LAWRIE: I took you through the entire picture.
Mr Elferink: Sorry?
Ms LAWRIE: I just took you through the entire picture.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but, I am just going for a little more detail. Is that a problem, or would you just …
Ms LAWRIE: Do you have a specific question to ask?
Mr ELFERINK: Explain to me in detail the 40:30 arrangement - in detail.
Ms LAWRIE: I have explained it, and the Minister for Housing has explained it. I will talk about it again. The 40:30 …
Mr ELFERINK: You do not understand it; that is the problem. I want it explained.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting! The Treasurer is endeavouring to answer your question.
Ms LAWRIE: I knew this was about his grandstanding; I can sniff it out a mile away these days. The stench wafts from the CLP and comes across this Chamber. You can smell it a mile away.
The 40:30 is about making it affordable; ensuring that low- to middle-income earners do not overextend themselves – they access 40% of the marketplace, with no more than 30% of income going to repayments. It is as simple as that.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one other observation. I find it curious that during her second reading reply, the Treasurer said that the take-up rate was huge; this is a great boost and all those sorts of things with huge numbers of people involved. When you ask them specific questions, I find it curious that the language now changes to a marginal tinkering around the edges of the real estate market. It is either one or the other. People are either hugely involved in this program, or it is marginal tinkering. You cannot have it both ways. I have nothing more to add.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on some matters raised in the debate. I know it was a broad-scale debate and it covered a range of issues. One of those issues was Lyons, and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The third reading debate goes to the bill. Lyons is not in the bill. It was a second reading debate.
Madam SPEAKER: There must be no new material, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I was not going to introduce any new material. My comments relate to what the minister was saying as part of this debate. I would not have thought I was introducing any new material.
Madam SPEAKER: It has to be specifically about the bill, member for Nelson. I will let you go on and we will see what happens.
Mr WOOD: The minister spoke about the wonderful lifestyle the new subdivision at Lyons had brought to people who live in that area. If the minister looked at that area carefully and compared it with, for instance, the houses in Tiwi, on the other side of Henbury Avenue, she would see a tropical lifestyle compared with a southern lifestyle. There is very little room. We have new subdivisions now which are very expensive ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am happy to have the debate about lifestyle and Lyons versus Tiwi anytime. However, we need to get some rigour back into debate in this Chamber regarding third reading speeches. I caution that third reading speeches go to the legislation. Let us have the debate anytime on Territory lifestyle - anytime.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson did not introduce the issue of Lyons, the Treasurer did.
Ms Lawrie: Actually, he did.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, it is the third reading speech. It must relate directly to the bill before us and must not introduce any new material. If it is about the bill, you may continue.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am a little confused. I understand what you are saying, in the sense that we are debating this bill and there was a fairly broad approach to the debate in what was put forward. How do you draw the line between what was being debated - raised by the minister - and what is directly affecting the bill? I am not sure.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I make the comment that you could have raised those things in committee, or you could have raised them in your second reading speech, but not in the third reading speech. The third reading speech specifically relates to the bill, which is why it is a very short period of time.
Mr WOOD: I will remove the issue of Lyons being not what I call a typical tropical subdivision, but I would like to comment on the minister speaking about protecting the market. I hark back to what I was saying: it is a pity that in this debate there is a tendency for the government to be more concerned about the market and less concerned about the battlers.
They are happy for people to go into high debt - and the reason we need high debt is because the price of land is extraordinarily high. In figures I saw from the member for Brennan, we are looking at $230 000 for a block of land.
Now, we are putting out a system called the HomeNorth system to encourage people …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The legislation is enabling legislation to provide for the increase in the First Home Owner Grant provided by the Commonwealth, administered by the Northern Territory through the Commissioner of Revenues. The subject was broadly debated through the second reading speech and carried across a very diverse range of topics, all of which the member for Nelson participated in.
This is a third reading speech on the First Home Owner Boost. It is a discussion about whether the payment should occur, relevant to third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please be very specific towards the bill, thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the government has this requirement for a First Home Owner Grant is because land has become so expensive, and people cannot afford to get into the market and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister announced the First Home Owner Boost grant not because there was a shortage of land, but to stimulate economy activity.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Nelson, can you please speak to the bill or resume your seat.
Mr WOOD: I was speaking to the bill in relation to the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill which relates to First Home Owner Grants. I am saying that part of the need for this to occur is because people cannot afford to buy land at present prices; they need assistance from the government to buy it. They need assistance because the price of land is too high.
I am saying that is the reason the government needs these schemes. Instead of being concerned about reducing the price of land by increasing the amount of land available or by bringing in special ways of opening up land for development, it is more concerned about the market and not losing the value of the market, than allowing people to purchase land without this assistance they need ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just could not be bothered.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Nelson.
Ms LAWRIE: I know this is getting repetitive; third reading speeches have a convention.
Mr WOOD: I have finished, Madam Speaker. I could not be bothered.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Members’ Interests Committee’s first report to the Eleventh Assembly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and that the recommendations of the report be adopted.
This report, which will be circulated to members - and I believe members would be aware of the content of it - recommends changes to the forms used by members for registrable interest, as well as the procedure for inspection of the records. The forms and procedures contained in this report have been circulated to all members of the Assembly and agreed to by the government and the opposition.
I welcome this report, Madam Speaker. The government will be supporting it, and I am sure the opposition will be supporting it also …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Or I trust they will ...
Mr Elferink: Is there not a dissenting report on this …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: No, this is the Register of Interests. We will get to the other one after this. We will have a debate on this. The pro forma that was proposed was circulated. I hope it will be adopted by this Assembly. It was circulated to all members and it is very closely based on the form which is used by federal members.
Basically, it has been agreed that the Clerk must:
1. keep a register of the interests disclosed under the act;
One of the very important responsibilities we have as members is to be open and transparent about what interests we may have and, when we are aware of them, what interests our spouse or partner might have or, indeed, what interests our children may have. We also need to be quite transparent about any gifts or donations we receive directly as members of this place. We need to also be aware of potential conflicts of interests of organisations we might be members of. It is quite all right to advocate for different organisations but, sometimes, there are conflicts of interest that arise.
The pro forma was circulated to all members and no adverse comments came back. There is some wisdom within the explanatory notes which says:
It is not only about the letter of the form, it is also about the spirit. Of course, this parliament has had a register for some time, and all members know their obligations regarding the current form. However, the form now being introduced and, hopefully, accepted by all members of this Assembly, goes beyond what we have had before.
I ask members to bear in mind that there is a need to include, under all headings, interest to the extent members are aware of them, of the members spouse, including de facto partner - and there is a definition of partners that is part of the attachment - and any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support. This register has been coming forward for some time.
When I was previously on the Standing Orders Committee there was much debate about the independence of someone’s spouse and how it would be an intrusion on, I suppose, the freedom or privacy of a spouse for a member to say: ‘What interests do you have? I need to write them down on this form’. What we have struck here, and what we have seen in precedent in the federal parliament, is there are some members who respond well about interests they are aware of regarding their spouse’s interest. To some degree, each individual member will make that decision themselves about their spouse’s interests and what they are aware of, and respect the privacy of their spouse. However, it is the responsibility of each individual member.
Declaring shareholding in public and private companies is currently very important, and will remain so. Family and business trusts, and real estate, including the location or area and the purpose for which it is owned, are also an important aspect of this register. There is interest in what real estate is owned by a member, and that should be included in the register. Registered directorships of companies, obviously, are very important. There are also partnerships, including the nature and interests and the activity of the partnerships. Also included is liability, including the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned. I was interested to read one section:
I do not think any members here would be in that situation, but it is something that is part of the Register of Members' Interests.
Under No 9, we are required to declare the nature of any other assets, excluding household and personal effects, each valued at over $7500: motor vehicles for personal use need not be included; collections need not be included; and items which might be listed under more specific headings, for example, investments, gifts received etcetera - need not be included. Private life insurance policies should be included, but parliamentary superannuation entitlements under state or Commonwealth schemes need not be included. As a general rule of thumb, items under $7500 in value may not require inclusion under this heading unless they are of a nature which might be sensitive to implications of a conflict of interest.
Importantly, No 10 covers the nature of any other substantial sources of income. Without going over old ground, there were assertions in previous Assemblies that some members were making substantial money outside the Assembly. It is important for the public to be aware …
Mr Elferink: It is still happening now.
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Mr Elferink: It is still happening now.
Dr BURNS: Well, the public should be aware of the nature of any other substantial source of income. That is in the interest of transparency.
Gifts requiring registration is under No 11. Gifts valued at more than $750 received from official sources, or more than $300 received from other than official sources, provided that a gift received by a member, a member’s spouse or dependent children is from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity, need not be registered unless the member judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may seem to exist. Once again, the responsibility lies with the member to exert personal judgment and not intrude on the privacy of their family unless the member feels there is an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Any sponsored travel or hospitality received where the value exceeds $300 - we have seen instances in the national media about that, and there have probably been instances on both sides of politics, to be fair, where that has occurred - it is very important for people to declare sponsored travel, and it is our responsibility to do so.
No 13 is membership of any organisation where a conflict of interest with a member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. This is a very broad regulation but, once again, it is a judgment call. We are all part of organisations. I am a member of five school councils in my electorate. We are all members of school councils. Sometimes, I am an ex-officio member. We advocate for our school councils. I believe it is our job, as local members, to do that.
Sometimes we may be members of clubs, or there is a potential for a membership of clubs, and we need to be very careful. I will not go into specifics, but someone asked me to be the patron of a particular sporting organisation, however, there are issues to do with that and I felt it was better that I should not step into that space ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, do not give us the teaser and then pull back. Come on, tell us the whole truth.
Dr BURNS: No, I am just telling you that we need to exercise judgment in this. I have been the patron of the vintage car club, the Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club NT, for a number of years and remain proudly so. I have advocated for them from time to time. However, that advocacy has been in black and white to various ministers of Transport about issues to do with their registration. That is the job of a local member. However, when there are issues to do with property or with grants from government, we need to be very careful regarding our membership of groups where that might arise as a conflict.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very good report and I hope the opposition will accept it. As I said, it has been modelled on the Commonwealth Register of Members’ Interests. It was interesting in the committee - and I compliment the Clerk on this - that the Clerk was able to show us examples of how different members of the Commonwealth parliament address different issues or different categories, and how different members felt obliged to register certain interests where others had a different approach - all within the member’s own duties as a member, and responsibilities as a member.
As the member for Port Darwin said, we have a responsibility to ourselves and to this parliament. We need to exercise due care and transparency. We live and die, as the member for Port Darwin said, by what we do and say in this place but, also to some extent - and I include myself in this - on what we register in our Register of Members’ Interests. We are all aware that there are sets of eyes that continually go over this Register of Members’ Interests – the media and others, the general public, those with a political interest. Changes in our register are noted and people go over it and try to draw connections - sometimes non-existent ones. The Register of Members’ Interests is a very important element of this Assembly. I commend this report to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am seeking advice. Are we expected to debate this today?
Dr Burns: Just this one and, then, I will …
Mr ELFERINK: No. There is obviously a communication breakdown. I was advised there was going to be only one report. It was not the impression I got last night. Anyway, I am not going to go into it. This matter has been circulated. Although I was not expecting this particular report from the Standing Orders Committee, it has been circulated and my instinct is to have it adjourned because I have not read this report. Whilst I am aware of what is in it by virtue of the fact the issues in it have been circulated, in a more sober environment I would be arguing that this is the first time I have seen this report. I have not yet had an opportunity to examine it. I will take it on trust that what is in it is what was circulated.
It is surprising that we find ourselves having to debate a report, and have the government expectation that we debate it out to its completion, when members in this Chamber have not had an opportunity to read the final report. It may well be different - we do not know - to what was circulated earlier. We have to trust the government that what was circulated is what is contained in this report. It goes to the heart of the way we do business in this place.
Whilst I accept there was a genuine misunderstanding as to the number of reports to be tabled today, I do not accept, at the outset, that government can reasonably expect to drop the report on the Table at 5.30 pm and have members speak about it fully by 5.40 pm. That is, essentially, what is occurring in this place. I hope and trust the government that what has been agreed to is contained in this report. Mind you, I reserve the right, if there is a difference between what was circulated and what is in this, to criticise government if a change has occurred.
From all practical points of view, every member is now going to be subjected to a set of rules which are contained in this report - not the circulated paper, but in this report. Only 10 minutes ago, the minister was moving that the report be printed. What that means is that we get to look at the report and have it made available to members on this side of the House. What is involved now is trust. I have checked with our members on the Standing Orders Committee and they indicate there were no major issues after the circulation. However, it does not change the fact that I have not had sufficient time to read what is in this document.
It is part of the problem I have with the processes of this place; this sort of thing continually occurs. I would be pleased if we were able to take these documents, peruse them in a reasonable fashion with proper time available to us and come back to discuss these things. If we start to allow these things to occur, before you know it, legislation will come into this place, legislative instruments will be dropped on the table, and we are suddenly told we have to debate them. That is, perhaps, an extreme example, but this sort of conduct is all too common now in this House.
I know the government anticipates, in this instance, there is some type of communication, and we get the nod from the members in the committee that it is all sweetness and light. However, I have not seen this report in its final form, and I have not had an opportunity to read it. Consequently, I am concerned about this departure from the normal process. If this was to happen in a debate and if we were required to debate a tabling report where there was an issue of dispute between the two sides of the House, then that would be a matter for grave concern.
Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst I understand the government’s anxiety to have this matter debated, I am concerned and express my concern, yet again, that I am being asked to sign up for something I have not read. You would not expect a person in a contractual environment to have a contract dropped in front of them and for them to sign it without having had, at least, the opportunity to peruse it in a reasonable fashion. Such an opportunity has not been afforded on this occasion. Perhaps, through the grace of the Leader of Government Business, if I were to move that this matter be adjourned, or if I was to move that I could complete my comments at a later date so that matter is adjourned, maybe he would like to indicate that to me at this point ...
Dr Burns: Member for Port Darwin, we are constrained by the fact that is a motion that appointed this House to having this report and …
Mr ELFERINK: I take that as a no. Is that a no? You want to debate it now?
Dr Burns: I would like to get some advice from the Clerk about this, as it is my understanding that a motion was passed in this House in relation to this report coming into the House for passage during these sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: Take some advice.
Dr Burns: Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a couple of things I can say here. First, I have been assured by the Clerk that the actual register and the pro forma of the register have not been altered from the one circulated to all members of this Assembly. However, in the spirit of flexibility, I am more than happy - well, not more than happy, but I can accept the member for Port Darwin wants more time to consider this and he wants to continue his comments at a later date, then he can.
However, this matter has been hanging around now almost since I was on the Standing Orders Committee the first time; we are probably looking at about five years. I do not know whether another month is going to make all that much difference.
We were required to bring this report into this Assembly but, if you feel very strongly about it, member for Port Darwin, I am willing to agree, from government’s side, that you be allowed to continue your remarks at a later date, so that you can better peruse this report. There was certainly no intention on the part of government to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes but, if you feel that way, I am more than happy for someone else to get up and adjourn debate.
Mr ELFERINK: In the rules of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that will be recorded as the world’s longest interjection, I suspect. However, I acknowledge and thank the Leader of Government Business for his latitude in relation to this. I am sure he understands our position. I am not alleging any impropriety but, as a matter of course, I thank him.
In accordance with the Leader of Government Business, I move that I be allowed to continue my comments at a later date.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Mr Wood: Madam Deputy Speaker, can I speak on what has been tabled?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, could you pause, please. We have actually …
Mr Wood: I thought the member was only asking to speak at a later date.
Mr Elferink: It had the effect of adjourning the debate.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the Standing Orders Committee’s second report to the Eleventh Assembly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and the recommendations of the report adopted.
This report makes recommendations on general business and changes to standing orders to include gender neutral language.
First, I will briefly address the recommendation about gender neutral language. The recommendation in this report is that, at the next reprint of the standing orders, gender neutral language be included. This is a non-controversial recommendation and I trust that the opposition will be supporting this. The government supports it.
On this particular issue, there was scrutiny of the gender neutral language. I and other members of the committee read through this very carefully, and vetted it. It is a step in the right direction. It is a nuts-and-bolts step in gender neutral language being used in standing orders.
The other part of the Standing Orders Committee Report to the Eleventh Assembly also recommends Standing Order 93, Order and Precedence for Government Business, not be amended. The CLP members of the Standing Orders Committee have provided a dissenting report, and I am sure they will be speaking to that. There has been a fair amount of discussion on this in the House recently, and we are all aware of the opposition’s position on this. The government’s position is that the current General Business practice in our Assembly works well. The issues of General Business are not to do with a lack of opportunities, but to do with the management of the time available. The government has already announced we will have three extra sitting days per year, and this will increase the current General Business Days.
The Standing Orders Committee has looked at the General Business practices of other Australian parliaments and has taken on board the alternate views on General Business Days. There are a variety of arrangements across the country for General Business Days. Many Assemblies around Australia have more total time allocated to general or private members’ business; however, most of these parliaments have a larger membership than the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. On a per-member basis, the Northern Territory Assembly comes in higher than all but two Australian jurisdictions, with 10 minutes per sitting week for non-government members. Apart from General Business Days, non-government members have ample opportunities to raise business. On an average sitting day, non-government members have Question Time, MPIs, censure motions, and adjournments at their disposal. As well as this, the opposition runs an entire day of General Business which provides a tremendous opportunity to run an effective and integrated agenda.
Nonetheless, whether organising Government or General Business, the government and opposition, respectively, have the responsibility to manage their business effectively and efficiently to achieve the desired results. The government has been elected to govern, and we believe that the current arrangements allow a good balance between the government’s legislative program, while also providing considerable opportunities for non-government members to have their say.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this report and thank the Assembly staff who have worked on it. The opposition has a dissenting report and I am sure they will speak to that. However, I make it clear at the outset of this debate, that government has a position on this. We will be voting on this report, and government’s position is very clear in relation to it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): You have to be kidding! Madam Deputy Speaker, the opening statement of this minister and Leader of Government Business, was this is non-controversial - that is what he said. I am flicking through a report I have never seen, and I find a dissenting report, despite this minister saying it is a non-controversial document.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I was alluding to the first part of the report, and the term of reference for the committee which referred to gender neutral language. I was very clear about that. I was also very clear that there was a dissenting report about General Business from the CLP members. There are a number of issues in here, one of which relates to gender neutral language …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If he feels he is aggrieved, I am sure he will have an opportunity to make a personal explanation. The point of order should be to a relevant standing order. I wish he would describe it to me, and to you.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please pause. Leader of Government Business, if you wish to approach with a personal explanation at a later time, you may do so.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Described as non-controversial - and even if I accept what he said, the fact is, I have not seen this document yet, and nor has any other person in this House, other than the members of the committee. I have just been told I am not going to get an opportunity to read it; I have to vote on what is in this today. That goes to the very heart of what we are talking about.
I was informed last night by the Government Whip that there would be no opportunity, and the matter was expected to be debated today. That is the way this information comes to members of this House - as a fait accompli. This is a House of debate, and I am not going to revisit all of the dreadful things that this government has done to shut down as much as it possibly can without being described as tyrants and totalitarian oriented people in this House in its functions and its jobs. However, to demand that we vote on a document that has not been available to us to read until less than five minutes ago is absolutely reprehensible.
For the Leader of Government Business to signal otherwise - and the interesting part is he understood the argument I put in relation to the debate immediately prior to this, and he understood the logic of that argument, so he acquiesced to my request because he understood the reasonableness of the request.
Then, I saw the Treasurer have a chat - a quiet chat behind the ear of the Leader of Government Business. What was that chat about, Madam Deputy Speaker? I will bet you London to a brick it was about this, and the fact that the same grace, good judgment, and honour shown by the Leader of Government Business would not be extended in the following debate. Where did that instruction come from? Was it the Chief Minister who still wants to turn this House - this precious place of freedom, one of the few places where we can express ourselves - into nothing more than a glossy brochure upon which he can paint his face? Is this place going to be nothing more than the Chief Minister’s podium from which he can launch his media releases?
Does this place mean so little in how we govern ourselves that we cannot even be granted the opportunity to speak on documents we have not read, because it does not suit this government for us to talk about these things? They come in here and, for the fleeting second, like a cockroach caught in the daylight when a rock is moved, they suddenly realise they have to be in the daylight at that time. Everything else they do is like a cockroach; they have to scuttle under the nearest rock. By forcing these things through, they see daylight for so much less time. That is what is happening to democracy in the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they used to rail against the injustices perpetrated against them in opposition. However, if those injustices were a candle, what is occurring from this government is the equivalent of a lighthouse. This government, which claims to be the champion of openness and honesty, comes in here and says: ‘This is the way we are going to do business’. It is like the parliament should be seen as some sort of supermodel, and this government is nothing more than the adipose tissue growing on the underarms of that supermodel. It changes the nature of what has happened.
I am not going to get angry. I am beyond anger. I am going to appeal to everyone who has a sensible brain in their head in this House to ask themselves: is it fair? Is it reasonable that we should be expected to vote and talk on a document we have not had the opportunity to read? Any reasonable person would know that it is not fair or reasonable. This is the activity of a government which sees thuggery as its primary vehicle to doing its job.
This document, I presume, is the one that truncates our adjournment debates. This document is the one supposed to bring order to this House, but just continues to rain disorder. This document contains a dissenting report - that much I was able to determine as I flipped through it ...
Mr Tollner: Have a read of the dissenting report.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. I have not had time to read the dissenting report in this document, member for Fong Lim. That is the challenge before this House today. This government just wheels into this place and sees it as nothing more than a platform to launch its own policies. If they leave something sitting on the Notice Paper for debate - what happens? - they just leave it sitting there and, then, they pull it off anyhow.
It is fascinating to watch this occur. Never has this depth been plumbed in the Northern Territory. When the CLP was accused of being arrogant and reckless with the rights of parliamentarians, they never truncated adjournment debates. Those adjournment debates were available for 15 minutes at a time. The critics of the CLP were legion in criticising their undemocratic practices. Where are those critics now? Many of them are sitting on that side of the House, and their abuse of these systems is profound.
We were warned. I was given the heads up that we were going to be forced to debate this matter today. How can I possibly stand here and debate anything? The level of contempt this government has for the due processes available in this House is astonishing. They are more than happy to ram stuff through, gag debates, move stuff off Notice Papers, and ask members to sign up on principle alone.
I advise this House that I cannot support the passage or the noting of this document because I do not know what is in it. I may have heard about what might be in it, but I do not know what is in this document because I have seen it for the first time only a few minutes ago.
I, in good conscience and in my duty to reasonableness, must object to what is going on in this place. I will not sign up to a document I have not read. I would not buy a car on those terms, I would not buy a house on those terms and I am not buying this government’s rubbish on those terms.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the report, the committee has met and discussed several issues, and considered the report tabled today to make recommendations on two of them: that (1) Standing Order 93, Order and Precedence of Business, not be amended; and (2) in the next reprint of the standing orders gender neutral language be included.
Gender neutrality means I can still call you Madam Deputy Speaker but when the standing orders are reprinted, all pronouns within the standing orders will change from something like ‘he shall’ to ‘the Speaker shall’ - essentially, they will be gender neutral. It is not a change to the standing orders, just a change to how they are written. Those are good, sensible changes. I believe it is also sensible not to do a further reprint of the standing orders with those gender neutral changes in them until necessary - until the standing orders change fundamentally.
The committee also looked at a reference from the opposition about the programming of General Business Day. It is an important point to make: this is a reference from the opposition. We, on the committee, understood that those issues were being brought in on the basis of having come from the opposition, when we were discussing these issues. They had met, and we took it on good faith that the people we were talking to were representing the interests of their members.
I thank the member for Nelson who took the time to make an appearance before the committee.
The Leader of Government Business has covered some of the issues considered in reaching the committee’s recommendation that Standing Order 93 not be amended. Basically, there were three central points we thought were important in deciding to leave Standing Order 93 as it is:
The General Business Day provides an opportunity for the opposition to manage an entire day, just as the government does. The government has to be disciplined in managing its business to ensure we get done what we need.
The member for Karama, as the former Leader of Government Business, and the member for Johnston, as the current Leader of Government Business, take their role seriously, as they should. They are responsible for making sure Government Business stays on track during sittings.
When time is managed and the opposition is disciplined, the current arrangements for the General Business Day do work; I believe they work well. In fact, I believe we do it better than other jurisdictions, because the members opposite have an opportunity to manage an entire day of parliament. They have a chance to behave as government for a sitting day.
As part of our consideration of this issue, the Standing Orders Committee did look at the General Business practices of other Australian parliaments. As the Leader of Government Business highlighted, there are a variety of ways in which parliaments conduct their General Business Days.
Our Assembly is quite different to other states and territories. Some other states have a unicameral system, but they all have a larger number of politicians than we do. Twenty-five members allow us to conduct debate in a much more efficient fashion than other parliaments. Not only do we conduct business, especially when disciplined, in a more efficient manner than other states and territories, as the Leader of Government Business noted, but on a per member basis the Northern Territory Assembly comes in higher than all but two Australian jurisdictions, with 10 minutes per sitting week for non-government members when it comes to General Business Day time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this report, and I thank the Assembly staff who worked on it.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I inform the House of some of the issues we considered. When the government notified the Chamber of the review into the operations of the Chamber and set down meetings for the Standing Orders Committee to undertake this review and hear the voices from all sides, the opposition took this approach very seriously, and took the government at their word of being genuine.
However, since that time, the government, led by the member for Karama, referred sitting days to the Standing Orders Committee along with the issue of the number of sitting days. However, government failed to wait for the processes of the Standing Orders Committee to be completed before introducing procedural motions into parliament.
What could have, and should have, been a bipartisan approach to Chamber operations did not occur. In the partisan approach to Chamber operations - that is the modus operandi of this government - these were not considered and the government has ploughed on with its own agenda.
It could not have been clearer in respect to the issue of General Business. The Legislative Assembly undertook a collation of the operations of General Business from a number of other Australian jurisdictions, and also New Zealand.
The evidence that this parliament is the worst in respect to non-ministerial initiation and, consequently, transparency and accountability of government is without question. It appears that, with the exception of Victoria, all jurisdictions have adopted rules in relation to General Business that provides much greater transparency of government and governing than the Northern Territory.
In relation to this report, I want to echo the words of the member for Port Darwin: there has been no time for my colleagues in the opposition to peruse this document and ensure it is exactly what they want; that all has been said in relation to dissenting reports; and that our side have expressed their views.
The opposition submitted that the proposal be between 2 pm and 6 pm, four hours on Monday of each sitting week, or two hours every sitting period. I note, and was grateful that Mr Gerry Wood, the member for Nelson, came and gave a lengthy and very interesting presentation to the committee. I was very impressed with the amount of work and effort Mr Wood put into that particular presentation ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I remind you that members are to be referred to by their electorate, and not their name.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make sure I do that.
The member for Nelson gave a very lengthy and good presentation and I was very impressed with the effort he went to in presenting it, and with the preparation of it. The member for Nelson submitted that there be three hours on each Wednesday of a sitting week, and supported the current procedure of General Business items being considered in the order of which notice of the item is given to the Assembly, and did not allocate a time proposition to Independent members. Opposition members of the committee proposed four hours per sitting week, retaining the current system of items being placed under General Business in the order of which notice is given. The government members agreed to something quite different.
Members of the parliament in the Northern Territory have had an opportunity of one General Business sitting day, with an effective eight hours every 12 sitting days. I recall the Chief Minister making a stand on providing this House three extra days of sittings. It appears to me that those opposite are in Disneyland, and we are actually in a fantasy world trying to create an impression, on one hand, and giving and taking on the other. This is exactly what has happened.
I refer to what the member for Fannie Bay just said: ‘We have given three extra days sittings so there is more time’. If one does the mathematics, when we used to have 33 days in this House, an average day, if you take from 10 am until 12 noon, from 2 pm until 6 pm and, on average, even 6.45 pm, after the dinner break through to midnight, that is 11.25 hours per day. If you multiply that by 33 days, that gives you 371 hours and 15 minutes. Now we actually finish a little earlier in the House: take it from start at 10 am, and finish at 12 noon, we do our committee stuff and we go from 2 pm through to 10 pm, that gives us 10 hours a day. If you multiply that by 36, it gives you 360 hours per year. So, on average, with what we used to have with 33 days, if you take 360 from 371, we lose roughly 11 hours and 25 minutes per year in sitting time. The claim that we have three extra days and more time is incorrect if one does the maths and works on the average of what we used to sit.
I am quoting from the report:
I refer to the report. In our dissenting report, we noted that, in the Northern Territory, we have the equivalent of two-and-two-thirds days out of 33 days, across 11 weeks each year, or 22 hours of General Business. On a percentage term, that is about 8% of available time. I refer to Appendix A of the report just tabled. Western Australia, in their Legislative Assembly, have an average of their General Business of 13% of the available time. In Queensland, it is 12% of the available time. In the Tasmanian House of Assembly, it is 14%. In the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, it is 14%. In the South Australian House of Assembly, it is 14%. The list goes on and there are a few more but, suffice to say, when you compare the Northern Territory at 8% and others anywhere between 12% and 14%, we lag, sadly, behind.
I note the member for Fannie Bay also raised another issue and said they are bigger parliaments. This is an average of percentage of time. If you look at the actual time these other parliaments sit, quite often it is far greater time than we sit.
There is a third point that the report makes; the government does not feel there are sufficient safeguards to protect the future interests of Independent members and possible minor party members. It appears to me that, if that was a problem, we are, on that particular point, trying to protect all contingencies that may happen in the future. I suggest that, if it became an issue in the future, they are the issues that could be addressed by this House at that time.
In summary, to achieve a comparable amount of transparency, the Northern Territory should adopt a model that provides for three-and-a-half to four hours per sitting week, or at least set aside a minimum one day every seven sitting days for General Business. We feel the government has failed to adopt or even consider our recommendation in respect of this matter, and we offered a dissenting report stating our concerns.
Further, and importantly, the government has failed to articulate arguments which justify the continuation of the significantly lower amount of time provided for General Business in comparison to our peers. We can but only conclude from this that the government is only interested in looking like it wants to consult; however, the reality when tested is that Labor is not interested in any other stakeholder’s view, nor are they interested in anything that provides greater levels of accountability.
Madam Speaker, this is a shame. If there is anything which should operate in a bipartisan manner, it is the rules that govern the operation of this Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few things about this Standing Orders Committee report. As the member for Johnston said I was asked to comment on the changes being put forward by the Standing Orders Committee. I did that in the hope that there could be some changes.
Before I go to the details of that - perhaps I am getting old - I wonder why this could not be adjourned for the day and come back tomorrow to debate it. I do not know what the big deal is. I tried to read it and listen to the debate. However, for something like this that has been around a while, which is a topical issue, I wonder why we could not come back to it, even tomorrow, just so we had a chance to peruse the arguments for and against which were put forward in a measured time, rather than having to read it fairly quickly, with the risk of missing some of the issues raised by the committee.
I read fairly quickly, and I know the bottom line says that, basically, the government does not support changes to General Business Day, so I will keep my remarks to that. The reason I put forward the changes I thought would be good for this parliament, is that one of the problems with the 12 day gap between General Business Days is that material you might put forward on that day can be out of date by the time we are get around to having a debate on those issues.
I submitted three days a week as I used the Western Australian and the Tasmanian models; they are simple and straightforward: basically, three or three-and-a-half days a week for Tasmania, four days a week for Western Australia, or vice versa. It was simple. It meant that General Business could be continually, one might say, renewed. You did not have a big backlog as we have had before. The legislation or the motions put forward were current and they would be dealt with much quicker than under our existing system. That would be better for the running of parliament. That is why I supported the changes of having a more regular GBD. There would be fewer hours per day that we have at the moment, but more days would be available for General Business.
Another concern I have is how changes of the rules have limited or stymied the way we debate issues in this parliament. Having the 9 pm cut-off is a bad move. I understand there needs to be times when parliament has to be closed down for the night. As you know Madam Speaker, there have been times when debates have occurred and there has been a row over why debates now end at 9 pm. We did not have that problem before but we now have a problem because there is a set time in the evening when debates must finish.
The Standing Orders Committee, in rejecting these changes to GBD, has said it supports the changes the government has brought in relation to the way parliament operates at the moment. The government needs to review things that come to parliament such as legislation, and look at the practicalities. The philosophy behind all these changes might have been to see that parliament did not sit too late at night. In theory, we can get back at a reasonable hour. However, the practicality is that we now have confines on MPIs. An MPI could start at 8.55 pm and, in theory, under standing orders, go for two hours. It cannot now. Government could manipulate the system and drag on debate in relation to say, a statement, and take it right up to 8.55 pm, because they did not like what the MPI was related to. If they could restrict the amount of debate, that would be a good tactic. That was very difficult for government to do before. That has not helped debate and transparency of material we discuss.
It is the same for adjournment debates. We only have five minutes to deal with matters which require more time. I have seen a number of people lately read their adjournment debates at a million miles an hour simply to get through them in that time. That is not good for parliament. When people speak, they should put a little of their heart and soul into what they are talking about, rather than just go parrot fashion so we can fit our speech within the five minutes.
I would prefer this debate to be adjourned, even if only until tomorrow. To be honest with you, it would have been good manners. It is the work of a Standing Orders Committee. They put much effort and time into it. They would expect members of parliament to respond to it in a reasoned manner - whether they support it is irrelevant. That is what the public would expect us to do. Even though the public might not be concerned about this particular document, they expect us to deal with matters that come before us in a proper and serious manner.
I am not sure whether one supports the tabling of this document, but the motion, I think, was whether it be printed. I have no have a problem with it being printed, but I probably would have a problem with the results of the committee, what they actually …
Madam SPEAKER: It has already been printed, that is why you have a copy. It is a motion to agree or disagree, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Oh, it has been printed, thank you, Madam Speaker. If the motion is about whether we support what the committee has put forward, then I do not agree, simply because it is not what I put forward to the committee, so it would be pretty silly for me to agree with it.
I hope the government will consider taking into account some of those practical issues - do not get too bogged down in the philosophical - of how parliament actually runs. The classic example is the cut-off of debate at 9 pm, which can be used for political purposes, and it also ends up being silly. For instance, you could have an important debate, in theory, on Thursday night and the next sittings might not be for six weeks. So you have to come back in six weeks to finish the debate. There needs to be a bit more flexibility in the way we operate. I hope that this debate might jog the government into rethinking where it is going with these changes.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have listened to this debate so far, and I have to agree with the member for Port Darwin’s concerns. The government comes in here and slides this onto the agenda and expects everyone to stand at attention and say ‘Yes sir’. It is a ridiculous situation. I have read the dissenting report. It seems to me the CLP members on the Standing Orders Committee took the view there should be a bipartisan approach to how business is run for the better operation of the parliament as a whole; that we all have an interest in ensuring this parliament functions well, and that all views should be taken into account.
I understand, from reading the dissenting report, that the member for Karama referred matters to the committee - such things as sitting times, etcetera. However, she could not wait. She had to rush into the parliament and legislate away - completely ignored the committee. She completely ignored the body that determines, in a bipartisan way - as indicated by our members’ dissenting report. I imagine the member for Nelson would try to operate in a bipartisan manner too, being interested …
Mr Wood: Tripartisan.
Mr TOLLNER: Or tripartisan. Basically, we all agreed that we should make this parliament work as best we can. Obviously, we are going to have heated debates in here from time to time, and everyone understands that; that is part of a robust democracy. It is one of the beauties of Australia that we can get into parliament and go hammer and tongs, express our points of view loudly and with conviction, and come to a particular view and create legislation and laws which are good for all people.
It seems to me this committee has been fobbed off. The committee was not even given the opportunity to table their report before legislation was put in front of the parliament. What it shows, I believe, is a complete disregard by the government for accountability, for any form of transparency. The Leader of Government Business, and his predecessor, the member for Karama, use every opportunity they possibly can to drown out any dissent or any debate.
We see now, as we did the other night, MPIs being pushed off the agenda because debates run slightly longer than expected, and 9 pm comes around - and we cannot sit any later than 9 pm, can we, member for Karama? - because we all get a little tired, and you cannot function when you are a little tired …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is trying to make a disparaging reference to me in contravention of standing orders; that I get tired after 9 pm. He is a fool. I work here later than any member opposite. I can tell because mine is the last car in the car park.
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: You are a ratbag. Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Mine is the last car left in the car park.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Fong Lim withdraw the word 'ratbag'.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In calling a point of order, you need to understand what the standing order is.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you need to wait until I have called you before speaking. Was there something you wish to say?
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, the two points of order that have just been raised, you have to identify which standing order those points of order are coming under.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I withdraw that last comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the member for Karama knows she uses every opportunity she can to gag debate. She is trying to do it right now. It is no coincidence that members on this side sometimes refer to her as 'gag girl' because she is constantly trying to …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Once, again, offensive and unbecoming …
Mr Tollner: Oh, hang on!
Dr BURNS: Just grow up a little, member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: Hang on!
Dr BURNS: I ask him to withdraw the epithet 'gag girl' which has a lot of connotations. I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: I will just seek some advice. Treasurer, do you find the expression offensive?
Ms LAWRIE: I believe most women would, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I gladly withdraw that comment. We are talking here about gender neutral language as well. This is political correctness gone absolutely mad. You cannot make comments that draw attention to the member for Karama now because she gets offended - and the overly-sensitive Leader of Government Business.
This place is quickly becoming an absolute joke, getting rid of things that are not on the Notice Paper. Some of us wanted to talk about the police. The Chief Minister made a statement about police and some of us wanted to talk about that but, no, it is just thrown off the Notice Paper.
Matters of public importance, in most parliaments, happen straight after Question Time but not here. They are pushed back until after 9 pm. Well, blow me down! We cannot talk about something that might be a matter of public importance in this place. The way the Speaker is so quick to dismiss the media out of here after Question Time so we cannot have the place ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, here he goes.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, do you realise that is a reflection on the Speaker? That is part of our standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER: No, I did not realise that was a reflection. I withdraw the comments, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to apologise as well, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, we get offended so easily in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw from the Chamber, please, for one hour.
Mr Tollner: My point, exactly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to see the member for Fong Lim being quite disrespectful. It encapsulates, to some degree, some of the worst aspects of the behaviour of this opposition since they have come into this Chamber after the election in 2008. It is one thing to be fired up with enthusiasm to challenge the government, but it is another thing to denigrate the Speaker. I believe this has been a trend all the way through since that time from certain members - not all - and it is quite disappointing. It is quite abhorrent and I ask members on the other side to reflect.
You talk often about law and order in our society and, yet, at a very basic level, you ignore even the niceties of just being polite, being respectful in what you do. I do not think that serves you very well at all. The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, has integrity. I know he was brought up with manners and respect, and I ask and implore him to talk to some of his members about their behaviour.
I could go to the report and the issue at hand here. As I said before, the government will not be accepting the dissenting report.
I listened to the member for Port Darwin who, essentially, put forward to this House that he had not had a chance to read the report and, in particular, he had not had an opportunity to ascertain whether the pro forma contained in that report was unaltered from the one circulated to all members. I said before in the debate over the Register of Members’ Interests, that I have been assured by the Clerk of this Assembly - himself an honourable, truthful man - that it was the same pro forma. Out of deference to the member for Port Darwin - knowing that it is quite a complex form and the guidelines that accompany it are quite complex – who wanted to avail himself of an opportunity to read through that report and each and every one of the explanatory attachments at the end to satisfy himself that nothing had been changed and he was satisfied, I said during that debate - I know I am alluding to an earlier debate - that the pro forma was circulated to all members in this Assembly and not one adverse comment was received by the Standing Orders Committee about that pro forma. In the spirit of trying to accommodate the member for Port Darwin, I agreed that debate could be adjourned and come back here another time.
This report is different in every degree. It is very simple. Government has said in this report there will be no changes to standing orders in regard to the General Business Day. It is quite simple. We have a number of committees that report to this parliament. We have had committees on weeds, and on statehood. We have had various committees that are quite complex, which have had many hearings and put forward many views. It is appropriate, in those cases, that the report is tabled and there is time for every member to digest that report - because they have never really seen it or heard about it before - and be in a position to debate it.
This Standing Orders Committee report is quite different. How is it different? It was undertaken by members of the Standing Orders Committee that their respective members would go back to their party rooms - whether it be the opposition party room or the Caucus on this side - canvass the ideas, and bring them back to the Standing Orders Committee. The government’s position is quite clear: we will not be accepting these changes to standing orders. What happens in the party room of members opposite is up to them.
I implore you to consider that, to some degree, the work of committees within this parliament really depends on the representatives who are on these committees communicating with their party rooms, bringing back and incorporating the view of your party room into the report. For someone to come in here and pretend they have absolutely no idea of what is in this report is totally ludicrous, and beyond comprehension.
The member for Port Darwin talks about people getting angry and upset. Well, I am a little upset at the attitude and the stunt that has been pulled here by the member for Port Darwin. He can come in here and he can say and do anything. To me, the issues are very clear. Government will not be agreeing to this change in standing orders. Why? Because we believe a discrete day of General Business for opposition allows opposition, as my colleague said, to be like government. You dress up in suits and you come in here - you want to be government by suits, and government by committee.
When it comes to General Business Day, however, I suggest this opposition has been found wanting in the way they order their business. The member for Nelson himself alluded to the fact that they are absolutely chock-a-block with motions in the first GBD about committees and all of the rest of it. They have not ordered their General Business well. Everyone knows that. I believe they know that themselves. We will put that down to enthusiasm in those very first meetings of this new Assembly.
I implore the opposition to be more efficient in the way they manage their own affairs on the General Business Day, just as government has to be efficient, and attempts to be efficient, in the way we order our business. No one is perfect. I am not pretending that all the business that the government brings forward is wholly efficient. We can learn, and we can improve. I am saying that is the same for the opposition.
Another point very clearly made in the report was the opposition’s proposal about the number of hours per sitting week they wanted to see in General Business. Beyond that, however, there were no details.
In a similar Assembly, the Tasmanian Assembly, the Lower House, which has 25 members, with their GBD, they allocate, on week one, 3.30 pm to 4.45 pm for the Liberals; 4.45 pm to 5.30 pm for the Tasmanian Greens; and 5.30 pm to 6 pm for the Australian Labor Party. What we see in General Business elsewhere, that has not been alluded to or really detailed by members opposite, is that there is a place for government members in General Business times in other jurisdictions. Not only that, there is a specific time allocated for minor parties such as the Greens or the Independents in the case of this parliament.
Currently, our Independent member, the member for Nelson, is concerned he might be pushed off the Notice Paper, which is quite within the realms of possibility given the way our Notice Paper is ordered is the way that notice is actually given. He could have a situation where every opposition member puts two or three items on the General Business Notice Paper, and he is right down the list. In any sitting week, under the proposal put forward by the opposition, if there was not a degree of cooperation, he could be pushed off the list. That was my concern when I mentioned safeguarding the future interests of Independents and minor parties in this parliament.
There was not much detail put forward by the opposition regarding their General Business Day. General Business is a very important day. We also believe, as I said previously, it is an opportunity for opposition members to propose bills, to move them within the cadence of more or less a normal sitting day. In other words, instead of truncating debate which would have to happen under the proposal put forward by the opposition, there is time to develop an argument, debate it, and wrap it up.
The member for Nelson enjoys debate. I believe he is a very good debater in this House. He offers his points of view on a whole range of issues, and I welcome that. The member for Nelson is a very hard-working and essential part of this parliament. I see the way he likes to develop an argument and see it through - whether it is his bill or someone else’s. That would be truncated under the proposal put forward by the opposition.
To some extent, we are unique; we operate on a different system. I believe it is a good system because it gives the opposition the chance of a whole sitting day to bring matters forward to the Assembly. When you consider other jurisdictions in Australia, the South Australian Assembly allows three-and-a-half hours per week for General Business or private member’s bills. If you average that out across the Assembly of 47 members, those Assemblies receive an average of less than four-and-a-half minutes per member in a sitting week. That is the scenario there; whereas members here can come in on one particular day.
Queensland parliament, which is much larger than the Northern Territory Assembly with 89 members, allows any member who is not a minister to introduce General Business. That includes not only opposition members but also government members. With four hours a week allowed for private members’ business, this allows, on average, each member of the Assembly three minutes and 20 seconds per sitting week. The individual time limit for private members’ statements is two minutes. Matters of public importance in the Queensland Assembly are limited to one hour in total.
Madam Speaker, there was mention of MPIs, and the member for Fong Lim alluded that his matter of public importance relating to public housing dropped off the Notice Paper last week. Why did it drop off the Notice Paper? Because the opposition decided to have a censure. That is your right; that is your privilege; that is what oppositions do. There should have been more conversation with members on the opposition side about whether they would put that MPI on this morning if they are going to have a censure this afternoon after Question Time. There needs to be more efficiency on the opposition side in relation to matters.
The New South Wales Assembly, which is larger again with 93 members, allocates three hours and 15 minutes per week to General Business. The time allocated to General Business in the New South Wales Assembly includes business introduced by government, as well as time allowed for ministers to respond to private members’ statements. On average, a member in the New South Wales Assembly has little more than two minutes per week in which to discuss General Business.
I have already talked about the Tasmanian Assembly which allows three-and-a-half hours per week for General Business. However, only one hour and 15 minutes is allowed for opposition members to speak. This allows for a relatively higher average of less than 11 minutes per member per sitting week. The Tasmanian opposition is allowed just one hour per week to discuss two MPIs. So, there is restriction in these parliaments.
Each parliament has its own rules and has evolved its own methods and framework for General Business. However, there are offsets. It is wrong to think that one has three hours, one has three-and-a-half hours because, within each parliament, General Business has certain rules and, in most of them, government members and even ministers in some cases, are allowed to participate in debate.
At the very opposite end of the scale, we have the Victorian Assembly which does not allow any time at all for General Business.
Madam Speaker, to wrap up, this report has been published. Government’s position is clear and very simple: we will not be supporting any changes to the standing orders regarding General Business. That is what is recommended in our report.
I know the opposition members have a different view. That is their right. I have outlined the government’s position on this. I will say again, for the benefit of the member for Port Darwin, yes, I did give some latitude regarding the Register of Members’ Interest on the basis of what you have put forward here today, and because I understood you had not had an opportunity to scrutinise it to see whether it was exactly the same form that had been circulated to all members of this Assembly, despite the fact that I had questioned the Clerk on this issue and he had assured me there was absolutely no change.
Nonetheless, I did recognise the complexity of that pro forma, and I have given the member for Port Darwin the opportunity to scrutinise it and recommence his remarks at a later date. I hope it is sooner rather than later, because this has been going on for years - from the time I was on the Standing Orders Committee many years ago, as a backbencher. We need to conclude that matter, but I did take on board what the member for Port Darwin said.
To reiterate government’s position: we will not be accepting changes to the standing orders in relation General Business. I reiterate that it calls into question the operation of committees within this parliament when you have representatives of the opposition given the task - I am sorry about the redundancy - of going back to their party room - this is not about privilege because this is what the committee tasks each side to do - and come back to the Standing Orders Committee with their position ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: If you are saying that your party room has not discussed this, one wonders about the functionality of your members. If your party room has discussed it, one wonders about your position, member for Port Darwin. In that spirit of what you have done here today, I am saying very clearly that the government will be not accepting changes to standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 8
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Mr Chandler
Dr Burns Mr Elferink
Mr Gunner Mr Giles
Mr Hampton Mr Mills
Mr Henderson Ms Purick
Mr Knight Mr Styles
Ms Lawrie Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr McCarthy
Ms McCarthy
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
On Tuesday, 5 May, Cazalys Palmerston Club hosted a Daytona race challenge. Daytona is a coin-operated video racing game that many Territorians enjoy playing. Several machines can be linked so friends can play each other. The aim of the race challenge hosted by Cazalys was to promote the V8 Supercar race in Darwin. Cazalys will run a series of heats, culminating in a final on Thursday, 18 June at 9.30 pm.
Cazalys invited eight people to participate in the challenge on Tuesday which launched the competition. The first participants were Ben Simpson from the Hidden Valley Drags Association …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Orders 41A is quite prescriptive: ‘At 9 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays …’. What is today? Wednesday. The standing order is quite prescriptive in …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Clerk, please stop the clock in relation to the Chief Minister’s adjournment speech.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that standing orders are quite prescriptive in relation to when we adjourn at 9 pm. It is now 6.50 pm. Can you tell me why we have stepped outside standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: Or it is when a minister moves that the House adjourns. I will get some further advice.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not there, Madam Speaker, if you are looking for it. Is it 42?
Madam SPEAKER: Standing Order 42. Thank you. Resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those participants in Cazalys V8 Supercar Challenge were Ben Simpson from the Hidden Valley Drags Association; Simon Passmore, the District Manager, Brown-Forman; Matt Evans, Territory Manager, Brown-Forman; Ray Norman, President of Cazalys Palmerston Club; Murray Davis, High Performance Manager NT Thunder; Noel Fahey, General Manager Cazalys Palmerston Club; and James Burke of my Palmerston Office.
Cazalys donated $2000 to go to the charity of choice of that winner. I am pleased to advise the Assembly that James Burke emerged the winner of the event. James nominated the Brahminy Foundation as his charity. Members of the Assembly should know that Allan Brahminy works miracles at his camp where he helps young people to get back on the rails. The work of his team recently featured on A Current Affair.
Last week, the Brahminy Foundation held its inaugural Friends of Brahminy Foundation meeting at the Mandorah pub last Friday. Allan felt it was extremely important for the inaugural meeting to be held in the Territory, despite having organised similar and larger events in Melbourne and Sydney. I am told that when young people complete Allan’s program, he asks them to complete a questionnaire about their experiences. Consistently, in the top five comments, the children and young adults that Allan helps cite the friendliness and willingness of Territorians not to prejudge them as major positive experiences.
I congratulate Allan and his staff at the Brahminy Foundation on the work they do. It is nothing short of brilliant. I have met with Allan on a number of occasions. The Minister for Children and Families and I met with Allan recently to talk about the work the Brahminy Foundation does at one of the youth camps that this government funds. The minister also visited Brahminy’s facilities at Batchelor a couple of weeks ago. Allan has a passion for working with disadvantaged kids who are on the wrong side of the track - either formally being referred to his camp within the system by the police, the courts, or by parents. He believes in the capability of every child to go from the wrong side of the tracks back to the right side of the tracks. He does a fantastic job, and I am sure that $2000 will go a long way to help with running that facility.
I wish them all the best on their fundraising events interstate. I commend Cazalys on its continued willingness to get involved in the community and for putting up the $2000 prize. I understand that Ms Hannah Rostron at Cazalys was instrumental in getting this marketing idea off the ground. Well done to Hannah as well.
The new suburb of Lyons is really going ahead in leaps and bounds with more houses being built every day. It is fast becoming a fabulous community, and the team at the Lyons Centre are giving residents plenty of opportunities to join in the fun. At the end of March, there was a gathering of Lyons residents to celebrate neighbour day. All residents were invited to attend, and a huge barbecue was planned and a jumping castle organised. It was an afternoon of fun and laughter and I am pleased to hear that another neighbourhood day is planned for Lyons in June. For Sharon Fiest and Geoff Smith; it was great to get there to meet with the new residents in Lyons who are moving in on a daily basis.
On Thursday, 2 April, Holy Spirit School held its 2009 Harmony Day celebrations. I attended the launch of the school’s paving project that has been supported by the Northern Territory government. The celebrations were well attended with many parents there to hear the school choir sing and see students presenting dances from Australia and around the world. There was a colourful parade with students dressed in national costumes of the country their parents or they were born in. During the celebrations, the children talked about and showed the symbols they created to reflect their understanding of Harmony Day.
The Principal of Holy Spirit, Bernadette Morriss, said the school was creating symbols, special spaces and gardens to develop a sacred space where identity, values, and visions can be reflected in an outdoor space the students can enjoy and use as education artefacts in their learning programs. Congratulations to Bernadette and all of the teachers at Holy Spirit School. It is a great school in my electorate and always a pleasure to visit and see what the teachers and the kids are up to.
Looking out on that assembly hall at Holy Spirit, it reminds us that Darwin is the united nations. It was great to be there and I congratulate everyone involved with Harmony Day at Holy Spirit School.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, a few days ago, we had the unseemly sight of a government, having left too many items of business sitting on the Notice Paper too long, having to withdraw those items from the Notice Paper because they said they were out of date.
There were several items on the Notice Paper that could be brought on right now. It is 7 pm. According to standing orders, this parliament shuts down at 9 pm, an absurdly early hour in any instance. However, it is now 6.58 pm and we find ourselves in adjournment debates, after government gagged debate. Why did they gag debate? Presumably, because they thought they had business to get on with. But, no, it seems that by 6.58 pm this government has run out of steam.
I can understand that we work 36 days a year - goodness gracious, I can well understand running out of steam by 7 pm. However, why would you have the unseemly sight of a government withdrawing from the Notice Paper because they have been sitting on the Notice Paper for too long and there is too much other business on the Notice Paper? Yet, a few days later, they waltz into this place and adjourn debate at 7 pm, when there are still items sitting on the Notice Paper they could bring forth in business.
Is this government now so tired that it cannot come into this place and debate issues that concern Northern Territorians? We have, yet again, for the 20th or 25th time since the last election, seen another gag motion in this House. For the people who are listening to this broadcast, a gag motion is when someone in government stands up and says: ‘We do not want to have this debate anymore and we move that this debate stop’. Then we have a nice little debate on it, and the government numbers crush the life out of free speech in the Northern Territory.
The argument came from the Leader of Government Business that they have their business arranged in an orderly fashion. If that were true they would not withdraw items from the Notice Paper, which have been sitting there for six months. They would be taking advantage of the two hours left in this parliamentary sitting day to discuss things like the cash for containers scheme or the Auditor-General’s February 2009 report to the Legislative Assembly, which still remain undebated. There are some pretty serious matters that the Auditor-General raised in that report. Am I allowed to talk about it now? No, I am not.
This government has used, as its most common tool of stifling debate, the gag motion; it is by far the most common vote taken in this House. We had the unseemly business of a government saying to this Chamber this evening: ‘Here is a report; this is the first time you have seen it. Guess what? You now have to go and debate the sucker out despite of the fact you have not had an opportunity to read it’. If we object to that, we have a situation where the objection is gagged by a motion of this House and this government.
Whilst the Leader of Government Business runs the defence of: ‘You said your representatives on the committee said they would go to the party room’, the difference is that what we talk about in the party room and see in the party room may not be the document that we see for the first time - first time ever - two minutes before we are supposed to vote on it. It is the way that these people conduct themselves. The Leader of Government Business said: ‘No, the Clerk assures me it is the same form’. The Clerk is not tabling this document; it is the government that is tabling this document. It is the Leader of Government Business who is tabling this document. Based on past conduct, why should we trust him? If he really wants to communicate with us and have these documents debated out in any fashion that is fair, then give us the document the night before - just hand it to us, slide it across the table. But, for God’s sake, just because we have discussed something in the party room and agreed or disagreed to it, does not mean that we know what is in the report.
To ask us to debate a report which we have not seen remains banal in the extreme. The abusive process continues and goes on and on. I remember the maiden speeches of so many hopeful, starry-eyed ALP members about being involved in a wonderful democracy. I wonder if they choke on those words now.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1978 I made my first visit to Indonesia. I had been blessed by my parents who gave me a ticket to visit Bali, and that was in the very early days. From that time on I recognised, as many Australians were to recognise, that Australia is not a part of Europe but is a part of Asia, and began a journey of discovery and learning of our near neighbour, Indonesia.
Since that time, I have made many visits to Indonesia and developed many friendships, and began to understand the culture. I took efforts to learn the language and studied in West Timor at the University of Nusa Cendana. I have organised exchange students, and sporting and cultural exchanges in the region. I have worked in Java and taught many students as full fee-paying students in my early days in education in Western Australia, and maintained long friendships to this day, over many years, with young men who now run businesses throughout Java, and in Bali.
One of the reasons I came to the Northern Territory was that it had developed a high profile in its recognition and engagement with Indonesia. In 1989, I made the decision, with my young family, to come to Darwin. The first friends we made here, the first point of contact, was the Minchin family, a family we had met in Indonesia after spending some time in Java. They were the first family we met from Darwin, and they were the ones to welcome us. One of the reasons I came to the Northern Territory with my family was because of my family’s association and interest in Indonesia principally. That interest has continued to this day.
It was with some sadness I learned that Garuda has made a decision after 30 years, three decades, to withdraw its service from the Northern Territory. That decision must prompt a serious rethink of our engagement with the region; a reassessment of our policy, efforts, and exactly what our plan and vision is for the region.
In learning of that decision, I registered with all the work that had gone on before, there has been a significant change in the way we think and speak about our near neighbour. To see that decision, I saw much more than just an airline making a decision; I saw a change in the circumstances and the relationship between the Northern Territory particularly, which led the nation, and Indonesia.
It is for that reason I made contact with the State Minister for State Enterprises in Indonesia to make my wishes known; that I appreciate the work of Garuda and if there is anything possible that can be done from our side in Australia to help reconnect and re-engage, because we must have what was, until Garuda made that decision, the last Asian airline servicing the Northern Territory. Once we referred to ourselves as the gateway to Asia; now, with the last Asian airline having made a decision to depart the Northern Territory, it makes the gateway to Asia - slogan, position, vision, plan, dream - so much more remote.
After having my discussion with Mr Djalil, I was very pleased that the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade also made contact with Mr Djalil. It is very important to recognise that engagement at this level within the region is highly valued from the Indonesian point of view; that it be done on a bipartisan arrangement. I understand that the minister has indicated a plan to visit Jakarta. I advise that I also, two weeks ago, made consideration to put space in my diary so I could go to Jakarta at the first opportunity. I hope that minister Burns will allow any engagement on this matter to be conducted in a bipartisan manner, because the region recognises and values that approach. In fact, my understanding is that the Indonesian section, particularly Garuda - and from the minister in Jakarta most specifically - would welcome a bipartisanship approach to this. It is for that reason I …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on 23 April, I was pleased to attend a gathering at the Arnhem Squadron depot in Nhulunbuy to meet with members of NORFORCE’s Arnhem Squadron and the Defence Reserve Support Unit. I met newly-arrived Commanding Officer for Arnhem Squadron, Major Denis Davy, who was doing a fine job and was responsible for leading a squadron which undertakes foot, vehicle and water patrols in the region, with 70% of the squadron made up of Indigenous people.
The evening was a chance for local employers to understand how the Australian Defence Reserve Support Program works for recruits and employers, and the benefits that it delivers. It was also a great opportunity to meet with recently-posted and current soldiers and officers of Arnhem Squadron, including reservists from Yirrkala and the communities of Numbulwar and Ramingining, who had been in the area for a week as part of special training exercises.
I met, for the first time, Yirrkala-based Sergeant Tommy Munyarryun, who joined Arnhem Squadron 16 years ago and is the highest ranking Indigenous solder in the Northern Territory, and a recipient of the Long Service Medal, an Australian Defence Force medal. He can justifiably be proud of his record and achievements, and he serves as an excellent role model for all service men and women. Tommy told me that the previous day they had visited Yirrkala to see schoolchildren, to talk to them about the work of the squadron, the role of NORFORCE, and the importance of Anzac Day. This was followed with a well-received display of soldier’s equipment and watercraft at the Yirrkala boat ramp. Tommy, a father of four himself, said how much he enjoyed engaging with the children and their teachers and, by all accounts, the visit and the display was well received.
Members of Arnhem Squadron were in full force on Anzac Day, along with Naval cadets from the training ship Melville Bay, as well as local war veterans. The Dawn Service at the yacht club attracted more than 200 people. We met under darkened, clouded skies and, on commencement of the service at 5.45 am, the rain bucketed down. Barely a soul moved, and I am sure there was not a single person who thought the inconvenience of a downpour was anything compared with what Australian, New Zealand and other soldiers had faced in the ill-fated landing at Gallipoli.
The 11 am Memorial Service for Anzac Day was similarly well attended with Cubs and Scouts present. In keeping with the former MLA Syd Stirling’s practice, I was pleased to lay not a wreath at this service, but two books with war as the central theme. They are now on the shelves at Nhulunbuy Community Library.
I wish to acknowledge returned serviceman, Mo Mackay, who has worked tirelessly in organising Nhulunbuy Anzac Day services for more than 10 years, and this year for the last time in Gove as he departs later this year. Alongside Mo in the organising, as always, was Ivor Alexander, who always does a brilliant job. Thanks also to Father Barry Hansen, who looks after a reading and prayers at the services and has done so for many years. High school student, Amy Fullard, is also to be congratulated for her beautiful singing of the National Anthem, and equally moving was the rendition of the New Zealand National Anthem from the local Kiwi choir, sung in English first and then Maori.
I also briefly mention an excellent initiative of local community radio station 8EAR Gove FM, Music with Sting, which they launched in March with good support from the office of the East Arnhem Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as local businesses. Gove FM has launched the Think Local, Buy Local, Be Local campaign, which advocates for and promotes local businesses, and keeping locals in jobs by asking people to shop locally and support local businesses. Consumers have the opportunity to regularly win $50 vouchers when they shop at participating businesses, and our local paper, the Arafura Times, regularly reports on how the campaign is travelling, the initiatives of local businesses, and the winners of the shopping vouchers.
As the local member for Nhulunbuy, I am pleased to be a supporter of this campaign, and one which goes hand in hand with and complements the Northern Territory government’s Buy Territory, Territory Jobs First campaign which was launched earlier this year.
I especially acknowledge Gove FM’s station administrator, Churyl Shepherd, who developed the concept; Rob, their technician, who has produced the advertisements and liaised with business operators and consumers; and Nathan Frick, a volunteer at Gove FM, who has produced the fantastic graphic design work and website. Nathan Frick was also acknowledged by the Minister for Young Territorians as the Young Territorian of the Year. Nathan also hosted the opening of their Monday night show, The Panel, on which I was a guest on their inaugural night on 13 March, where we discussed the current economic situation and the importance of shopping locally and keeping Goveites and Territorians in jobs. They are a fantastic example of a volunteer organisation in our community.
On that note, I also acknowledge the many volunteer groups, not only in my electorate of Nhulunbuy but around the Territory, acknowledging that next week, from 11 to 17 May is National Volunteer Week. In my electorate and my community, we could not survive without them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I place on the record what I believe to be a fairly new proposal to this House. I will be guided if that is not the case. My support is for the concept of introducing electronic petitions for use within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
At the present time, petitions in this House are guided by Standing Orders, specifically 97 to 100A inclusive. In reading through the provisions of Standing Order 97, paragraphs (a) to (m), restrictions are enshrined in those paragraphs as to the style, content, how a petition should be signed, and how they are to be presented to the House. In effect, petitions under the current guidelines must be in writing, in a printed form that is written or typed by petitioners with their names, addresses, and signatures detailed. I respectfully suggest that it is time for this Assembly to move into the 21st century as far as the updated use of the Internet for staying in touch with Territorians.
In an environment where we allow live audio broadcast of proceedings, which will move towards live video broadcast as well, it seems that an old paper-based system for petitions needs to be updated. The practice of using e-petitions in parliament is not unprecedented. The Queensland parliament now has e-petitions available on its official website, and the federal government is presently, as I understand it, conducting a study on e-petitions with a view to introducing this concept into its practices.
The Northern Territory is comprised of vast tracts of land, with little or nothing in between populated areas. There are numerous remote communities and cattle stations spread right across the Northern Territory. Everyone who lives in those places deserves – no, they actually have the right - to have their voices heard in this parliament. In the case of those people having access to petitions that are designed to tell this government what they think about issues that are important to them, they should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they live so remotely.
For that reason, I propose that this parliament explore this issue. I advise the House what has prompted this idea from people in the remote regions: it is the abysmal way this government has treated people of the bush by the withdrawal of aeromedical services to the Katherine region.
The people of regional Northern Territory are not happy. They wish for their voices to be heard, and a petition is one way for this to occur. In fact, in the vein of how this government continues to gag debate in this House, petitions may well become the only way for people - you remember the people, do you not, members on the other side of the House? - who elected you and put you into this position to have their say.
In the near future, I will be asking for this matter to be considered as a means by which remote Territorians can have access to this parliament, given we are now in a position of changes to standing orders which have, effectively, cut out half of the Northern Territory population from having words uttered on their behalf in this House.
This should not be considered to be a contentious issue. It is simply a proposal I will be putting forward to better facilitate having those voices heard in this parliament. It is difficult for people, as you would understand, to get to towns or communities to sign petitions on issues which they believe are important to the Northern Territory. I hope this would be viewed with bipartisan support. It is not a contentious issue but allows for the free flow of information from the people of the Northern Territory into the parliament of the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, I express my thanks to the midwives of the Northern Territory. Yesterday, 5 May, was International Midwives Day and is the time when we convey our appreciation for the support midwives provide for a woman’s care before, during, and after childbirth, and to acknowledge the excellent work of all our midwives in the Territory.
Providing high-quality maternal and child health care has been a priority of this government since coming into office. This care is vital to giving our kids a good start in life and preventing many of the long-term chronic diseases that affect so many Territorians. Midwives play a critical role in improving the health outcome for mothers and babies, making the generational change we need to close the gap on Aboriginal life expectancy outcomes.
The 2009 Northern Territory Johnsons Baby Midwife of the Year has been awarded to Wendy Hillas. Wendy was nominated by the father of a baby she delivered as part of her work with the Community Midwifery Practice. Wendy has worked as a midwife for 12 years, in the Northern Territory for nine of these years. Colleagues have described Wendy as inspiring immediate confidence, warm, caring, clinically excellent and, in summary, simply awesome. They agree she is a very worthy recipient of the award. I extend my congratulations to Wendy Hillas for being the Johnsons Baby Northern Territory Midwife of the Year on International Midwives Day 2009.
I respond to some of the comments made by the member for Katherine. I am really disappointed because the member for Katherine chooses to ignore the facts about the aeromedical service in Katherine, and keeps saying that the government has withdrawn the aeromedical service from Katherine - which is absolutely untrue. The aeromedical service from Katherine has not been withdrawn. The company, for safety reasons, suspended night flights in and out of Katherine because of the problem with wallabies, which was highlighted when two F18s hit two wallabies during night take-offs resulting in $500 000 worth of damage for each plane. This made the Defence department in Canberra take notice of the problem, despite the arguments we had presented before, and it is acting quickly to upgrade the facility by installing a new fence, and taking measures to eliminate the plague of wallabies in Katherine.
Pearl Aviation, the company that provides aeromedical services, made the conscious decision, in order to protect its pilots, its airplane, and the people who fly with their pilots - the doctors, nurses and the people who have to be evacuated - not to fly at night time. The government took the exceptional measure to contract another company that has a fully-equipped aeromedical helicopter that can provide the night medical evacuation.
A number of people in Katherine say that the wallaby situation is just a smokescreen for the government to save money. Well, you had better speak to the pilot to see if they hit a smokescreen wallaby, to find out if it is true or not. In addition to that, the government has paid $2m extra for the provision of the helicopters.
I am disappointed with the member for Katherine because he knows the truth, but he chooses to mislead his constituency for his own political reasons. Aeromedical services have not been withdrawn from Katherine; the night service has been suspended because of wallabies. An additional, fully-equipped aeromedical helicopter has been provided for medical evacuation during the night from Katherine. The medical evacuation service will be returning to Katherine following the completion of the fence and the elimination of the wallabies.
If we want to play political games, I am all for it, but there is not much point to try to scare people in Katherine, or anywhere else, with a claim that a very important service had been withdrawn when it has not been withdrawn and has been supported with other services which provide exactly the same medical evacuation service when it is needed.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory government, through the Department of Sport and Recreation, recognises the great benefits to our community of a healthy lifestyle and wellbeing that are achieved through sport and recreation.
The Northern Territory May Day long weekend saw a myriad of sports and recreational events take place, including the Top End Rodeo Circuit Incorporated May Day rodeo for 2009. The Top End Rodeo Circuit Incorporated runs its May Day rodeo to both promote the sport and raise important funds to continue their rodeo schools for important junior sport development. In addition to a sound policy of promotion and development, the members compete to win championship buckles in their respective events, and to become a Northern Territory champion, allowing them the chance to contest the Australian national finals each year.
In recognition of the important NT government sponsorship provided to the event, the Top End Rodeo Circuit Incorporated committee invited the Hon Rob Knight, member for Daly, to participate in a celebrity bull ride at the famous Robbie Robbins Reserve in Darwin. In true Territory style, the Hon Rob Knight accepted the challenge to ride a contract rodeo bull for eight seconds at the Top End Rodeo Circuits Incorporated May Day rodeo on 2 May 2009.
As Russell O’Donnell, the 2008 Northern Territory Bull Riding Champion from Tennant Creek, provided instruction for the MLA on the important techniques of the exhilarating sport, the announcer alerted the crowd to the pending celebrity ride as part of the opening ceremony for the rodeo. The announcement of a celebrity immediately attracted a flurry of young women to the back yards, in addition to an enthusiastic cohort of budding young bull riders all vying to rub shoulders with the mystery rider, obviously perceived as a notable rodeo champion.
The atmosphere was electric behind the chutes as the throng of spirited young enthusiasts jostled for vantage points to make contact with the celebrity bull rider. Yet, aspirations and admiration turned to shock and horror as the rodeo devotees witnessed their hero horizontal on the first aid stretcher, in a comic try-for-size sketch, while being photographed by his parliamentary colleague, the member for Nelson, who performed a stand-up comedy routine to entertain the crowd.
There was movement at the rodeo, as the word then went around that the champ was but a mere politician. Alas, as the ladies left and returned to the grandstand bidding their farewell to our courageous MLA, the hardened rodeo cowboys moved in to take their place and witness what their local member of parliament could produce. And produce he did. With the cowboy loading on to a 800 kg monster, the chute gate was opened and an outrageously experienced rodeo bull used the well-known 1960 surfing manoeuvre, being a drop knee turn, to completely offset the rider who precariously commenced his unceremonious exit into the well after two seconds as the wiry old bovine tightened the turn back on himself, completing a circle around our MLA cowboy, now crashing into the arena dirt.
Never fear, the rodeo’s guardian angels, the rodeo clowns, quickly moved in to immediately deflect the thundering beast off his path of retribution to a more acceptable track through the arena return gate and on to the security of his back yard solitude in wait for his next victim.
The celebrity bull ride by the member for Daly was truly a spectacular event. As the crowd celebrated this courageous moment in sport, a vibration spread through the place representing a healthy respect for a local politician whose support for community events spoke far louder than words in that real Territorian can-do attitude.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak about the weekend past with the Katherine Music Muster. I took the journey to Katherine and spent some time at the Katherine Music Muster. Some of the acts on the weekend were Amber Lawrence, Harmony James, The Junes, Whisky Creek, Warren H Williams, and Billy Bridge.
In my eyes, the young lady, Amber Lawrence, towards of the end of night, was one of the most exciting acts. She had the crowd going and showed a little of that new country flare which is quite interesting compared to some older days through the Slim Dusty days – a little like that of Warren H Williams.
No matter how it was portrayed, all the people who were involved with the Katherine Music Muster had a fantastic time. The people who come to these events go there to have fun, and that is what they did for the entire night. The fantastic crowd definitely enjoyed themselves. There were young and old all over the place, and it was great to see such a diverse age category of people enjoying this event. It goes to show that Shirley Canning, who organised the event, did a fantastic job, along with many of her committee people.
The following day, we went to Timber Creek where the Big Horse Creek Barra Classic competition was on. We spent some time fishing and enjoyed ourselves with 190-odd competitors. My colleague, the member for Katherine, spoke of this yesterday. It was a fantastic event where people came from both sides of the border and had a great time. Young Ben compered the event and had a lot of fun; he certainly had a lot of fun with the member for Katherine and me when we got up to speak.
It is good to see young people nowadays are getting involved in committees that run not only these major events, but at the smaller places. When you see some of the sporting groups throughout the Territory, you see many younger people back in them again. It is not left to the older people anymore, that I saw as I grew up. It is great to see so many of those young people putting their hat into the ring per se - maybe not like the member for Daly who literally put his hat and his whole body into the ring. I have to give it to the member for Daly; that was a brilliant move. I would have loved to see that. It is events like that the young people need to get involved in. It is those volunteers who are springing up throughout the Territory that will keep it a great place to visit and enjoy.
Obviously, the House knows that much of my passion revolves around motor sports. If it was not for those young people who are now involved, there would not be sporting events like Drifting, which occurred a few weeks ago at Hidden Valley. It is good to see that some young people can turn their focus from their illegal habits on the street and get involved in a club, and do their part so they can enjoy their sport.
I encourage anyone who is involved, or is thinking about getting involved, in a sport that they have passion for, to throw their hat in the ring and have a go, because everyone’s input makes the job of running one of these committees so much easier. The people involved get so much more fun and enjoyment out of the sport if they know that they helped set it up. Whether they helped set up a barbecue, or set up and take the gate takings, or whatever it may be, it is important. I urge anyone who is considering volunteering to get out there, do the best you can, and your work will be well appreciated by everyone.
Most events we go to, you hear people recognising that and saying: ‘We would like to thank all the volunteers’. So, to the young people, get out there and volunteer; everyone else, get out there, have a great time in life, stay active and stay healthy.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, Yolngu leader, Rraywala was a Mildjingi man born around 1905. Upon his death, he was buried in Darwin, on 20 February 1965, in Marrara cemetery. Rraywala and his wife, Burrmilikili, a Marrangu woman, are survived by two of their four children, a son, Burinyila, and a daughter, Myall. Rraywala belonged to the Welangarr clan, whose country centres on an important sacred waterhole at a place called Garrinyal near the mouth of the Glyde River.
Rraywala is perhaps most famous as ‘Raiwalla’, friend and companion to the Melbourne anthropologist, Donald Thomson, during most of Thompson’s travels across Arnhem Land between 1935 and 1937. Rraywala gained them safe passage through hostile and unknown country, an extraordinary feat, even for an Aboriginal man at that time, befitting Donald Thomson’s description of him as ‘a man amongst men’.
Rraywala was the only enlisted soldier in the Northern Territory Special Reconnaissance Unit set up in 1942 by the then Squadron Leader, Donald Thomson. Donald Thomson recommended Rraywala for a military award for his service. This honour was never afforded Rraywala, and his contribution and that of others in the NTSRU, towards the defence of Australia remains largely unknown or disregarded.
Rraywala spent many years living between Milingimbi mission and the mainland, and worked closely with missionaries and outsiders throughout his life. Rraywala also worked as a labourer at the mission and worked to build the airstrip and the timber church. He gained notoriety with the instigation of a ‘New Deal’ policy that demanded workers being paid for their labours; and was famous also for his success growing vegetables at Gaartji on the mainland.
Rraywala was one of the few Yolngu known to fight to improve conditions for people in Arnhem Land. In the 1950s, Rraywala and his family lived at Cobourg Peninsula and in Darwin, during which time he worked in the timber industry. By the 1960s, Rraywala and his wife lived in Darwin and, in 1963, were afforded full citizenship status.
I acknowledge: the Thomson family, for their trip to the Northern Territory on the weekend; the Ramingining, Milingimbi and Gapuwiyak peoples; Lindy Allen and Louise Hamby from the Museum of Victoria, from the Research School of Humanities at the Australian National University, for providing a gathering on Sunday for the memorial service for Rraywala. It was clear, to those present - in particular, NORFORCE and all the people who had heard about this man - through the pictures and the collection of Donald Thomson, that he made a significant contribution to the protection of the Australian coastline in his work as a soldier.
One of the things that came from that memorial service on Sunday was an agreement between the Lord Mayor of the Darwin City Council, members of the Northern Land Council, families from Arnhem Land, Louise and Lindy, who are involved with the ANU, and many others, that there has to be a far greater recognition of the role of Indigenous service men and women, in particular in the Northern Territory. I look forward to working with those groups and individuals in ensuring that, when we come to celebrate many events in Australia’s history, we acknowledge the part that these people have played in our history. Many of them have not been acknowledged, and our own Australian history shows they were made to feel very unwelcome.
For young Territorians, we should all stand proud to see that men and women, black and white, stood together in the protection of this country during many different stages in wars.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I inform the House of my involvement in one of Australia’s most influential regional leadership programs. In January 2008, while serving in the Northern Territory Police Force, I applied for a scholarship to take part in a unique opportunity with other rural and regional leaders in the Australian Rural Leadership Program.
The ARLP, as it is known, is run by the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation, which is a not-for-profit organisation, incorporated in 1992 as a public company limited by guarantee. Established in 1992, to respond to the backdrop of emerging challenges for rural, regional and remote Australia, it is primarily funded by corporate sponsorship in the form of scholarships provided by a range of rural industries, industry bodies, state and federal governments, and research and development corporations.
The bulk of the cost of this program is provided by sponsors - in this case $50 000 provided by my sponsor. In addition to that, I contribute $4400 of my own money. I have been very fortunate in this case to be sponsored for this program by Rural Press Limited. Selection for this program is very competitive. In the past, the foundation received numerous applications and interviewed a short list of some 70 applicants for approximately 35 or so positions for each program. It is a part-time course of 60 days conducted over 20 months. There are five sessions, involving a combination of discussions, presentations, workshops, debates, and visits in various states and territories. One further session is held overseas and, this year, it will be held in India.
The foundation receives requests regularly from governments, industry, think tanks, and others to facilitate the involvement of its network of graduates in policy development and strategic thinking on issues such as environmental sustainability, water management, community development, and structural change.
I am thrilled to be part of this program and, as you can see, it provides very important opportunities. I am committed to fulfilling my contract to complete the program. The Territory is very much a regional location in the eyes of southerners, and it is of the utmost importance I keep working to ensure the Territory’s interests are kept at the forefront of the program. I commenced this prior to being pre-selected and elected. Had the government gone its full term, as it said it would, I would have completed this program prior to the election due in 2009.
Recently, the Chief Minister wrote a letter to my constituents. In that letter he stated I had recently missed some time in parliament because I went on a course. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope I have demonstrated to both the House and yourself that this is not just any ordinary course. This is a fabulous opportunity for someone in the Territory to represent the Territory’s interests and to ensure these interests are at the forefront of a group of eminent people across the country who have the country’s regional, rural and remote interests at heart.
Anyone who knows me will understand my commitment. I have a history of being a very committed person. I am committed to my children, my partner, and was committed to my role as a school-based police officer in the community. I have made a commitment to the sponsor; I said I would complete the program. If people listened to what I have said about this program and understand my commitment, they will know that commitment now extends to the people of Sanderson, whom I proudly represent.
I will ensure their interests are well and truly represented in this House. I made that commitment to them, and I intend to keep that commitment.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
NT Operations Grant to Wagait Shire
NT Operations Grant to Wagait Shire
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 143 petitioners praying that the 2009-10 allocation of the Northern Territory Operations Grants for the Wagait Shire be no less than the previous year’s allocation. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectfully showeth:
- Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:
- And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Public Housing Stimulus
Public Housing Stimulus
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the roll-out of a significant investment program to improve public housing across the Territory. Yesterday, the government announced a record investment in Housing in Budget 2009-10 - $390m has been committed. That is up $187m, or a 92% increase, from the previous year. It is a funding commitment focused on housing the Territory: more land to grow, more places to buy, more places to rent at an affordable price, and new public housing.
These housing projects will create 355 jobs across the construction sector, creating Territory jobs in one of our key industries. Importantly, they will deliver more housing options for Territorians, helping build the Territory by making it easier for Territorians to own their own home. Public housing is an important option for many Territorians.
This government is investing strategically in public housing to meet the areas of most demand, and Budget 2009-10 increases funding of $10m for Bellamack seniors village, and $9.4m to build new and upgrade existing public housing. We are working with the Commonwealth government to get jobs created in projects quickly and more effectively.
The federal Labor government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan commits $65bn across the nation to build 20 000 homes and refurbish around 2500 social housing dwellings. To date, the Territory has received $4.1m to upgrade 175 existing public housing properties. We are not standing still; we are getting work out the door to protect Territory jobs and to support our housing and construction industry.
I am pleased to report that $2.35m will be allocated to put 47 vacant properties back into use for Territory families across Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. Internal upgrades such as kitchen repairs and replacements have already been carried out in 23 properties. Tenders are being awarded now for the installation of solar hot water units, roof repairs and replacements, creating real opportunities for Territory businesses. A total of $650 000 has actually been spent and subbies across the Territory have received this work which they are very thankful for in these difficult times.
A further $7.1m has been received from the stimulus package to create 20 new public housing homes, houses, duplexes and units in Darwin’s northern suburbs, two new duplexes in the rural area of Humpty Doo, units in Palmerston, and new homes in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. $6.2m is committed in Budget 2009-10 to complete these works. Tenders have been called to construct three houses in Central Australia, and one in the northern suburbs. Tenders close soon and I look forward to seeing construction get under way as soon as possible.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: It may be a joke to the other side, but these projects will deliver new and improved homes for Territory families and, at the same time, protect jobs.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. Yes, there is money allocated in the budget but it is all about allocation when, really, it should be about outcomes; what is actually happening on the ground. There are no new land releases to build houses. We have the Bellamack situation which is not on track. It will be unlikely there will be any land released there this year. There are also problems across the board with public housing. We know we have tenant problems with a huge amount of unpaid rent, and nothing is happening in regard to that. We also know that we have huge property maintenance issues in regard to public housing.
Let us look at Alice Springs in regard to land for housing. Alice Springs only had 12 more rateable properties last year – only 12. There will be possibly 80 blocks released in Mt John, but only 40 of those will come online in the next 12 months. Alice Springs needs 100 blocks to survive in regard to the growth of that town. They, too, suffer from what Darwin suffers; that is, high rents and high land prices. That is contributing to people leaving the town because (1) they cannot get housing, whether it be private housing or public housing, and (2) if they can source something then the rents are far too high. Therefore, Alice Springs also has a problem securing and holding people in that town, such as tradespeople - and these are the people who would be used in some of the remote communities building houses. There are issues across the board; it is not just the Darwin and urban areas. Alice Springs also suffers from this government’s appalling track record in regard to public housing and their policies.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments about public housing. I believe the facts speak for themselves; we are going backwards in relation to public housing. If you look at the wait times – and this is just off your own web page – five years is required to get a one-bedroom non-pensioner flat in Alice Springs - five years waiting, 59 months. For a three-bedroom home in Alice Springs there is a four-year wait, 49 months. In Darwin and Casuarina, it is approximately three years for a one-bedroom home and, for a three-bedroom home it is 50 months - and it goes on and on. In Nhulunbuy, to get a one-bedroom home it will take 74 months. You will nearly become a pensioner by then and, of course, you cannot get a pensioner one-bedroom home in Nhulunbuy.
The waiting times for people who wish to move into public housing is terrible. I have had contact with older people who have wanted to have accommodation outside a retirement village or something like that, who have, perhaps, lived at Batchelor or Adelaide River and had to come into town looking for a one-bedroom unit. It is extremely difficult for them to find accommodation. They have had to stay with other people simply because the waiting times are too great.
Madam Speaker, the proof of the pudding is in the waiting times, and the proof of the pudding shows that the government has failed when it comes to public housing in the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I will just comment on the member for Nelson’s topic. The wait times are concerning, but the sad reality is that we are better off than any other jurisdiction ...
Mr Elferink: You sold off the stock.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: It is a national issue and we try very hard. The nation building stimulus package was all about addressing that - $6.4bn for social housing across Australia. The other side of this House voted it down. It voted down repairs and maintenance, more social housing, seniors villages - everything in that stimulus package. They voted down jobs as well. The stimulus package was about doing two things – getting more social housing and maintaining jobs in the biggest financial crisis in 75 years - and the other side of this House voted against that.
Sport and Active Recreation Policy – Issues Paper
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I inform the House of the release of an issues paper and progress of the Northern Territory Sport and Active Recreation Policy.
The formulation of the first ever Sport and Active Recreation Policy will be the Territory government’s blueprint for the future as we continue to build on our successes. As we know, Territorians love their sport, whether it is participating or being a spectator – as I was at the Masters Games. It is part of our great Territory lifestyle and we want to ensure that every Territorian has the opportunity to participate in their chosen sport.
On 3 April, I launched the Sport and Active Recreation Policy discussion program, which will give Territorians the opportunity to play a part in formulating this policy. The launch included the release of a dedicated website, which includes information such as a document Towards a Sport and Active Recreation Policy: An Issues Paper.
The policy program has now progressed into Phase 2, consultation and engagement. A private consultation firm has been appointed to assist the process of gathering public feedback regarding the policy’s development and content. The public consultation program and approach will include face-to-face meetings, online survey responses, online comments, and written submissions, and will give all stakeholders the chance to have their say on the future directions of this important policy.
Face-to-face meetings will commence on 27 April 2009, and will continue through until 19 June 2009. Northern Territory government agencies, the Australian government, and local government agencies, will also be formally consulted. Community stakeholder workshops commence this week in Darwin. Regional and remote consultations will take place from 11 May 2009 to 18 June 2009, commencing in Katherine and concluding in Tennant Creek. Stakeholder and community workshops will take place across the Northern Territory and include workshops in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek Alice Springs, Nguiu on the Tiwi Islands, Warrawi, Goulbourn Islands, Nhulunbuy, Yuendumu and Papunya. Face-to-face discussions will occur with the elected members of seven of the eight shire councils.
The consultations will seek feedback in relation to overarching issues, sport and recreation in communities; sport and recreation pathways; sport and recreation and environment; and sport and recreation events. Overarching areas relate to key issues that impact on the industry sector as a whole. This includes collaborative sport and recreation partnerships that maximise outcomes, define the role of the government, and provide a Northern Territory perspective to the national sport and active recreation agenda.
Key focus areas consist of four topics. These are: communities, relating to the people involved in sport and active recreation industries, users and providers; pathways, referring to the avenues for entering the sporting environment through grassroots on to elite sport - that is, active recreation to high performance competitions; the environment, relating to facilities and surroundings where people participate in sport and active recreation; and events relating to the Northern Territory government’s sporting events’ initiatives such as the AFL matches, NBL matches, the Australian Rugby League matches, and cricket matches, etcetera.
The local government framework, made up of shire and municipal councils, will be approached to gain regional feedback. The municipal and shire councils have been sent information packs advising them of the program and inviting their input, either through face-to-face meetings, post or via the online facilities.
Contact has been made with the relevant national sporting organisations and an invitation extended to them to submit feedback on the Northern Territory government’s policy development. In addition to the national sporting organisations, contact has been made with the Territory-based sporting and recreational peak organisations, and invitations extended to them to submit feedback or attend workshops. The Australian government agencies are also being invited to provide feedback into the policy via face-to-face meetings, online and or postal submissions.
To date, 11 online submissions and numerous phone calls requesting information have been received. Independent consultants are responsible for organising and managing public workshops and meetings with the department’s direction and assistance. The first draft Sport and Active Recreation Policy will be released for public feedback in July 2009, with the final policy document being scheduled for release in September 2009.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Territorians to get involved and have their say on this important initiative.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for releasing the document. I have read that document and it is not bad. Well done on putting something out.
I hope you will personally get out there and speak with these people and visit as many places as you can because, unfortunately - and this is not detracting from you, Madam Speaker - too many times, the consultation period has not involved the minister. I believe you have the ability to get out there and do that. Get out there and see these people. That is what I have been doing for the past nine months. I understand what some of the needs are for people, and that is why we have been listening to them. Make sure you do the same.
Do not make the mistakes that some of your other colleagues have, because it is really important. We need to ensure that young kids and Territory people enjoy the lifestyle that they are used to. They need to keep active and ensure that they keep a healthy lifestyle. That is one of the ways to do it; by keeping our sporting groups and associations running properly, and our facilities up to the best standard possible in the economic times we have. There is nothing wrong with questioning people on what they need. I hope you go out and do that because I am sure you are going to find some very interesting answers, as I have. There is much work out there. There is also much promise. We have some fantastic sporting personalities in the Territory and I am sure they will come to the forefront and say what they need to say.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. It is difficult not to be a little cynical because we did, in the last Assembly of parliament, have a sport and recreation committee which, unfortunately, was cut off by an early election.
The reason I raise that is because the last thing I want to see is not only duplication but, also, wearing people out in some of these communities. I know they get sick and tired of people visiting these communities and asking the same questions and nothing happens. I am interested to see whether there were any results that came out of the sport and recreation committee that do not need to be duplicated in this new survey. People get very cynical about what this is all about. Last time, it did not really come up with much. It was cut off because of an early election, and we did not hear much more about it after that.
The wrong message is being sent out in this budget in relation to the government talking about elite sports people. According to the budget papers there will be 29 fewer NTIS athlete scholarship holders this year. I am interested to know why that is happening because that seems to be sending out a message that we are cutting back on the possibilities for elite sports people in the Northern Territory to achieve more than just being local athletes, and succeed more in the wider sports arena.
From a very parochial point of view, if I asked how much money the government was going to put into the Freds Pass sporting and recreation facility in the Northern Territory this year, I would say it was pretty well zero. Considering that it is one of the biggest sporting and recreation facilities in the Northern Territory, it is very disappointing that year in, year out, it gets very little funding. If we really believe in helping young people, and that sport is an important part of our community then, sometimes, the government has to put some money into that facility - not just to rely on funding through voluntary work or them occasionally getting a little money through a community grant, but putting some real money into places like Freds Pass to make it a worthwhile facility.
Mr HAMPTON (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Drysdale and Nelson for their comments. Member for Drysdale, I have been out and about since becoming Sports minister, and also in my time as the local member for Stuart with a large electorate. I am fully aware of that, and I will be attending as many of those workshops as I can.
Member for Nelson, you have raised some very good points. Regarding the Sport and Youth Committee, I was the chair of that before the last election. I did instruct my department to look at the report that was tabled to parliament, and consider some of the important things that were picked up by that group during the last parliament.
In terms of the NTIS scholarships, I am happy to look at that and get back to you. I take that question on notice. Regarding the Freds Pass sporting facilities, we have an annual sporting facilities grant and I encourage it to apply for that. We have put extra money into that, and there is $30m in this budget that supports sporting bodies and events.
Backpacker Tourism Market
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I update the House on the current state of the backpacker market within the Northern Territory tourism sector. As we have found on many occasions over the years, backpackers continue to show strong resilience in times of trouble, and 2008 was no different.
Last week, the Northern Territory hosted the Backpacker’s Conference as part of the Australian Tourism Export Council Symposium. Tourism NT was congratulated at the event for its dedication and innovation in marketing to this segment. This is an important and resilient market, supported by the fact that we do have jobs still available in the Territory, such as fruit picking, bar work, casual retail roles - a whole range of them.
Backpackers spend more than double that of other international visitors. They stay more than two-and-a-half times longer and spend just over one third of their time visiting regional areas. To grow our share of the backpacker market, Tourism NT released its Backpacker Development Plan in May 2006, which provides the framework for the industry to work cooperatively to position the Northern Territory as a competitive backpacker destination and identify opportunities to ensure the continual growth of the sector.
The plan coined the term ‘experiential backpacker’, implemented a range of strategies that embrace new and emerging technology, and focused on mutually beneficial partnerships. One example highlighted was ensuring Tourism NT provided interesting content on social websites like YouTube and flicka.com.
I am pleased to advise our efforts have paid off. In 2008, over 92 000 backpackers visited the Territory and contributed $54m to our local economy. The Northern Territory attracts up to 17% of all backpackers to Australia, and has recorded exceptional growth in 2008; the number of backpackers increased by 7% compared to the rest of Australia which experienced a 1.2% decline. Backpacker visitor nights increased by more than 33% and backpackers stayed, on average, eight nights in the Northern Territory. Approximately 320 Territorians are employed by visitor hostels and many more jobs are supported through the money backpackers spend across the Territory.
In 2008, backpackers, as I said, spent $54m in the Territory and, wherever they spend money, that means jobs for Territorians. The survey of tourist accommodation reported that last year the visitor hostel sector in the Northern Territory saw guest nights occupied increased by 12.1% to 582 000 nights, and accommodation takings were up 22.9% to $15.2m.
Many tourism operators and local businesses rely on young, independent travellers, which is why the government is supporting these businesses by promoting the Territory directly to UK backpackers. I know that you were part of that on your visit to the UK just recently, Madam Speaker.
In March this year, Tourism NT launched a new promotion with gapyear.com which is designed to help independent travellers plan their trip to Australia and, in particular, the Northern Territory. The gapyear.com site is one of the world’s leading sources of independent travel advice with over two million unique users each year. We produce two guides to the Territory for gapyear.com: one is dedicated to Kakadu, and the second is for travel experiences across the whole Territory. Gap year is a long held tradition in the UK and, despite the global economic downturn, it is holding. Evidence suggests that travelling for these young people is more attractive than the doom and gloom and rain surrounding the current financial climate in the UK. More competitive flights in and out of the Territory also encourage backpackers to use the Top End as the entry point to Australia.
Madam Speaker, our strong economic situation is also encouraging many repeat visitors. Confidence in the market for both Alice Springs and Darwin is strong. Adventure Tours Australia recorded their best summer ever with a 10% increase on bookings ex Alice Springs in 2008 compared to 2007, and the next quarter is also looking very healthy. Melaleuca on Mitchell in Darwin also reported a busy first quarter and solid forward bookings. All things considered, the future of the backpacker market in the Northern Territory remains very positive.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for updating the House on the contribution that backpackers make to the Territory tourism industry. I welcome the experiential backpacker section that was put on by ATEC at its recent symposium in Darwin. You wonder what sort of an experiential program it would be for backpackers coming through Darwin, and through the Territory. They arrive in Darwin, they go out, they might get glassed in a nightclub, or beaten up on the street. Then, they have the wonderful opportunity to travel down the track, experience the drunkenness, violence, and bad language that occurs in all our regional towns.
What a shame it is that we do not have a government which is prepared to act on crime, because crime is probably the biggest deterrent for tourists in the Territory. One of the things most tourists comment on when they come to the Territory is the fact that there is a high level of crime, drunkenness, and antisocial behaviour. A very sad situation, indeed.
I go back to the fact that the minister mentioned the ATEC Symposium. It was good to see that he was there for the opening of it, but very disappointing that not one single member of the government decided to turn up to the ATEC dinner. Bearing in mind that all of the big tour operators around the country - people who bring tourists into the Territory - were all there, it would not have cost the Territory government a cent to send a minister along to do a little networking amongst that group. But, sadly, there was not a minister to be seen, let alone the Tourism Minister or the Chief Minister. I understand they were both a couple of hundred yards away with comrades, at a May Day dinner celebration. Good on you, fellas, but it is just a shame that you do not take more time with our tourism industry, mixing with those people who send tourists to the Territory. It is a great shame, and the Territory tourism industry is suffering because of your indifference to them ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Ling, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I cannot really thank the member for his response. He was there at the opening of the ATEC Symposium, he heard me talk passionately about what a privilege it is to be the Tourism Minister in the Northern Territory, to be a politician in the Northern Territory, and be a part of our great Northern Territory and see its assets - both natural and people. I am very passionate about this.
I am very disappointed to hear the member for Fong Lim talk it down. That is all he could do when he was confronted with a positive outlook, particularly amongst the backpacker market that I presented here today. All he can do is be negative, and that is not being much of an ambassador for the Northern Territory.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Neil Bell – Former Member for Macdonnell
Mr Neil Bell – Former Member for Macdonnell
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the former member for Macdonnell, Mr Neil Bell. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Leader of Opposition’s Response to Budget 2009-10
Leader of Opposition’s Response to Budget 2009-10
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that at 11 am during government business, I will call on the Leader of the Opposition to deliver the opposition’s response to the budget. The member speaking at that time will be asked to continue their remarks at a later hour.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Two Bills Through All Stages
Pass Two Bills Through All Stages
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Appropriation (2009-2010) Bill 2009, (Serial 41), and Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40):
- (a) having one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings; the committee’s reports stage; and the third readings of the bills together; and
Madam Speaker, I provided the second reading for these bills yesterday and I tabled them yesterday as well.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I notice the bills are being taken together and I understand the motion. I am not going to raise an issue about it, but it shows the lack of communication from that side of the House to this side of the House that these motions, as a matter of course, are being brought in and then we are not being offered an explanation beyond ‘I tabled something yesterday’.
I ask members opposite to be mindful that, for the purposes of making this House run more smoothly, when they start to bring in motions like this - and they gave notice of it yesterday - that there is at least an explanation as to why they are binding these bills together. I understand it, in this instance. However, the levels of communications could be improved so that we can make these bills’ transition and move through the House more smoothly. We would not want a situation where something like an Appropriation Bill was being brought into this House, as has happened in the recent past, without the reason for that Appropriation Bill being properly explained.
Motion agreed to.
REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 43)
PENALTY UNITS BILL
(Serial 44)
______________________
Suspension of Standing Orders
Pass Two Bills through All Stages
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills entitled Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 43), and Penalty Units Bill 2009 (Serial 44):
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second reading, the committee’s report stage; and the third readings of the bill together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the committee of the whole.
While I understand why the government wants to do this - and on this occasion we will not resist it because of the length of speeches that apply to the passage of bills - it nevertheless behoves this government to explain why it is doing this.
She introduced this motion for us to now debate the suspension of standing orders to enable them to do this, but she introduced the motion and sat down. There is no explanation at all attached to why the motion is being asked for in this House. I and other members now have to second guess what the Treasurer is actually asking us to do.
I suspect what has happened is the government wants this motion up so it can hear these two bills together, so it does not have to debate twice the charges and fees it is increasing and levelling on Territorians. These will include fees such as the costs of the penalty units, as well as other fees and charges which will be incorporated into this legislation.
If the government wants me to stop standing up when it tries to bring these procedural motions on, and debating these procedural motions, then the best way to do it is to walk around to this side of the House, well in advance, and give notice of what is going on. This House does not have a trap in every corner so that we can squeeze through this way, or squeeze through that way. If explanations are brought on in a timely fashion before we walk into this House, then you will find that this House will work much more smoothly.
Madam Speaker, I understand what the government is doing. I know that it does not want to talk about the increased fees and charges twice. Without having seen the bills, I suspect there will be sufficient time to deal with the fees and charges issue in one debate, which is why we will not be resisting this motion. But, my goodness gracious me, Madam Speaker, a little communication goes a long way.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for agreeing to treat these bills as cognate bills. It is quite standard practice within this House to treat bills as cognate bills, particularly when they are complementary, when they have a theme, as these bills have in budget measures. In no way is government seeking to fetter debate on these particular bills, and members will be free to speak to these bills. There is no plan to fetter debate. This is fairly normal practice where cognate bills come into this House. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
_____________________
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill puts in place a package of revenue measures announced as part of the 2009-10 Budget. This bill proposes amendments to the First Home Owner Grant Act, Stamp Duty Act, and Taxation Administration Act.
I will now address the changes proposed in the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill in more detail. The key proposals of the bill include changes to landholder stamp duty to counter an avoidance scheme and to address inequities existing in the current legislation by imposing landholder stamp duty on the takeover of companies and unit trusts that are listed on the Stock Exchange, including imposing stamp duty on mergers; changes to the stamp duty legislation so that a purchaser can nominate a related person prior to settlement to receive property without double stamp duty consequences; and changes to the eligibility criteria of the First Home Owner Grant and Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession so that these home incentives are subject to a value cap.
The stamp duty legislation has had landholder stamp duty provisions in place since 1988. These provisions generally provide for the same stamp duty outcome to occur, whether a person acquires ownership of land directly or, in the alternative, indirectly by the transfer of shares in a landholding company or units in a landholding unit trust. This ensures that the direct and indirect transfer of land is treated consistently.
The bill introduces a number of changes from 6 May 2009 to landholder stamp duty addressing a number of inequities existing in the current legislation, and to counter an avoidance scheme. The changes to landholder stamp duty will result in the takeover of listed corporations and unit trusts being subject to landholder stamp duty where an interest of 90% or more is acquired. The threshold for all other unit trusts will be revised to be the same as for unlisted companies; that is, landholder stamp duty will apply where an interest of 50% or more is acquired, rather than the current level of 20% or more. These amendments are consistent with legislation existing in Western Australia.
The bill also imposes stamp duty on mergers, including the merger of listed entities. Generally, where one or more entities merge into a single entity, whether an existing entity or a new entity, duty is payable on the value of the dutiable property of the entities that merge into the new or existing entity. Where there is a merger, and the merging entities continue to exist, such as when BHP and Billiton merged, duty will be imposed on 50% of the dutiable property of each of the merging entities. Where the entities are listed entities, duty will be imposed on 50% of the entities’ landholdings, notwithstanding the normal 90% acquisition threshold.
The bill also addresses a stamp duty avoidance scheme that enables a person to obtain control over the landholding entity without obtaining any entitlement to the property of the entity on its winding-up. As such, a person can take control of a landholding entity and gain indirect ownership of the land while avoiding paying landholder stamp duty. This avoidance scheme has already been used at least once in the Territory and, if the legislation is not amended to close this loophole, it is possible that this practice could become more widespread, potentially costing the Territory significant lost revenue.
The proposed anti-avoidance amendments do not jeopardise ordinary business transactions because there are no commercial reasons for framing a transaction in this manner other than to avoid stamp duty.
The bill also allows a listed unit trust to ‘top hat’ a new parent entity without landholder stamp duty consequences from 1 July 2009. This means that restructuring property trusts and stapled securities by imposing a new head trust can occur without stamp duty consequences. This treatment aligns the Northern Territory with other jurisdictions and allows the exchange of stapled securities to be more competitive.
Often, a person enters into an agreement to purchase property and later decides - or gets legal or accounting advice - that the transfer of the property should go to a related person such as the person’s family company. In these circumstances, provided the purchaser and the transferee are related and no consideration passes, the bill allows the original purchaser to be substituted with a related person without double duty consequences. This ensures that taxpayers are treated fairly, and also reduces red tape for taxpayers and compliance costs for government.
In relation to the First Home Owner Grant and Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession, the bill limits eligibility to these incentives to situations where the home being purchased has a value of $750 000 or less. The $750 000 value cap is about 1.7 times the median house price in Darwin for the December quarter 2008, and is consistent with the first homeowner grant caps in New South Wales and Western Australia. A first homeowner grant cap also applies in Queensland.
Where vacant land is purchased for the purpose of building a first home, it is proposed that the eligibility for the Stamp Duty First Home Owner Concession be limited to situations where the value of land is no more than $385 000. This is the current concession level.
These measures will improve the targeting of homeowner assistance and are proposed to commence following the expiry of the Commonwealth’s First Home Owner Boost Scheme, which is expected to be 30 June 2009.
I now address the other measures in the bill which, unless otherwise indicated, commence on 1 July 2009. The bill also includes a number of stamp duty exemptions for individuals, business and non-profit organisations. First, the bill exempts non-motorised trailers and caravans from motor vehicle registration stamp duty. This will provide savings to Territorians purchasing a caravan or trailer weighing no more than 4.5 t. The measure also ensures that Territory trailer and caravan dealers maintain competitiveness with other jurisdictions which provide similar stamp duty exemptions.
Second, the bill extends existing stamp duty exemptions for public benevolent institutions, religious institutions, public hospitals and schools so that the exemptions are also available to organisations with a sole or dominant purpose that is benevolent, charitable, philanthropic or patriotic. The measure provides stamp duty savings to the non-profit organisations in respect of lease, conveyance and motor vehicle registration stamp duty. The exemption in relation to lease and conveyance duty will remain conditional on the property not being used for commercial or profit-making activities, or in competition with other businesses. Similar exemptions are provided in other jurisdictions and under the harmonised payroll tax legislation.
Third, the bill exempts First Home Saver Accounts from life insurance duty with retrospective effect from 1 October 2008. This aligns with the commencement date of the Commonwealth First Home Saver Account Scheme.
Fourth, the bill exempts leases in retirement villages from stamp duty that would otherwise be imposed on the up-front premiums, to reduce costs to pensioners and seniors. The bill also removes the stamp duty exemption for residential leases, as this exemption is now redundant following the abolition of stamp duty on rent for leases.
The bill will also reduce red tape for taxpayers and conveyancers, as it removes the requirement to lodge cancelled agreements, unless a sub-sale of the property has occurred. This removes the technical requirement to lodge a cancelled agreement, and for the Commissioner of Territory Revenue to remit the duty payable under that agreement.
The final change in the Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill is a technical amendment to the Taxation Administration Act clarifying that a statutory charge can be placed on land subject to a pre-existing 1 January 2008 landholder transaction. This measure is consistent with the intention of our act and the manner in which the legislation operated prior to 1 January 2008.
I now turn to the Penalty Units Bill. The Penalty Units Act allows for monetary penalties for offences to be expressed in penalty units. Expressing penalties in penalty units allows for across-the-board adjustment of financial penalties. This ensures that there is a simple way of maintaining the real value of penalties. Penalties cease to have a significant deterrent or punishment effect if inflation is not accounted for. The act does not currently set out a process for changing the value of a penalty unit so that it maintains real value. This means that the value can only be changed by new legislation that changes the value.
In 2002, legislation changed the value of a penalty unit from $100, as set out in 1999, to $110. The consumer price index (the CPI) for Darwin, was used as the basis for determining the change in the value of the money and, therefore, the applicable value of a penalty unit. The value of a penalty unit has not been reviewed since then.
The first purpose of this bill is to increase the value of one penalty unit from $110 to $130. This figure is based on the CPI for 2002 and 2008. The Commonwealth and other Australian states and territories, except for South Australia, use penalty units. These are periodically adjusted. The value of one penalty unit varies between states and territories from $50 to $120.
The Penalty Units Bill additionally allows for a review of the value of a penalty unit in accordance with a CPI calculation to be applied at the start of each financial year. Tasmania and Victoria also provide a legislative mechanism for automatic annual review. The review mechanism will take effect from 1 July 2010, and will only result in changes to the value of a penalty unit if the value yielded by the CPI calculation was equal to, or greater than, a $1 increase to the penalty unit value since its previous review.
The Administrator may then prescribe that amount as the new penalty unit value by regulation, to take effect from a time after the notification of the regulation in the Gazette. It would be expected that the regulation would identify a date sufficiently in the future to ensure that adequate notice is given to law enforcement agencies responsible for penalties. The bill provides that, where the value of a penalty unit is increased by regulation, the increase does not apply to penalties for offences committed prior to the regulation taking effect.
Based on advice from Parliamentary Counsel, the Penalty Units Bill provides for the repeal of the current Penalties Act and replacement by a new act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to the honourable members, and table the explanatory statements to accompany the bills.
Debate adjourned.
PAYROLL TAX BILL
(Serial 42)
(Serial 42)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
As part of a national project to reduce payroll tax compliance costs for businesses, the government introduced amendments to the payroll tax legislation last year that harmonised the Territory’s legislation with the other states in eight key areas from the 1 July 2008. Consistent with the government’s announcement at the time, this bill further harmonises the Territory’s payroll tax laws by putting in place a new Payroll Tax Act that is almost identical to the payroll tax legislation in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, and is consistent with payroll tax legislation in Queensland. South Australia has also announced that it will move to fully harmonise its payroll tax legislation from the 1 July 2009.
The new Payroll Tax Act streamlines administration for all businesses that operate in the Territory, and provides further red tape reductions for businesses that operate in more than one jurisdiction. This is particularly important for the Territory, as around 83% of its registered payroll tax employers also employ interstate. In addition to compliance costs savings, the new Payroll Tax Act is expected to save Territory businesses a further $1.3m in payroll tax in 2009-10. Taken with the harmonisation measures introduced last year, this is a total tax reduction of $3m.
The new Payroll Tax Act introduces the following new major practises and policies. In relation to contractors, the new Payroll Tax Act contains provisions to provide clear rules for the taxation of payments made to contractors that predominantly provide labour services. The current payroll tax legislation does not contain similar provisions but, instead, relies on the common law employment test to determine whether a worker is an employee. The common law employment test can be difficult for businesses to apply in order to accurately asses their liability when they engage contractors. The new provisions seek to provide a clear set of rules to aid employers in this respect. The introduction of these provisions has the benefit of being consistent with almost all jurisdictions in providing greater legislative guidance to employers that engage contractors. The introduction of these provisions does not expand the base, as the common law employment test currently applies so that any contractors these provisions apply to are already taxed within the payroll tax base as common law employees.
The new Payroll Tax Act also extends existing payroll tax exemption for wages paid by religious institutions and public benevolent institutions, so it is also available to non-profit organisations that have a sole or dominant purpose that is a charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose. This is consistent with similar concessions in the income tax field. This exemption remains conditioned on the wages being paid to a person who is ‘exclusively engaged’ in work of a religious, charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic nature.
In addition, the new Payroll Tax Act introduces payroll tax exemptions for wages that are maternity or adoption leave for a maximum period of 14 weeks of wages, and for wages paid to employees participating in voluntary work for bushfires or emergency relief.
The new Payroll Tax Act does not impose payroll tax on wages paid by an employment agent in certain circumstances where those wages would be exempt if paid directly by the client; that is, it allows an employment agent to treat wages paid to an employee as exempt when services are provided to an entity such as a charity that would normally be exempt from payroll tax. The new legislation is fairer because, otherwise, the exempt entity would bear the cost of the payroll tax when it is passed on by the employment agent.
Other features of the new Payroll Tax Act have not been covered, as they are broadly similar to the operation of the current payroll tax legislation. Further details about the bill are set out in the accompanying explanatory statement.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 2/3 Wagaman Primary School students accompanied by Mrs Donna Kimm, Mrs Joan Motter and Mrs Raylee Parker. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome
Members: Hear, hear!
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 29)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome the students from Wagaman Primary School today. It is great to see you here enjoying parliament.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In 2003, this government created the Land Development Corporation as a commercially oriented land agency, with the primary aim of providing strategic industrial land associated with the port, rail, oil and gas industry. The success of the organisation in delivering appropriate land for industry is evidenced by the volume of large-scale development occurring at the Darwin Business Park and surrounding areas. Today, we see an impressive array of businesses operating, and new businesses becoming established at the business park, with the total value of development already exceeding $200m.
The Land Development Corporation currently owns and manages over 100 ha of strategic industrial land at the business park, and administers another 208 ha of Crown land at East Arm, with an unimproved capital value in excess of $120m.
The current year’s capital works program for the corporation exceeds $20m, which will deliver nearly 20 large parcels of industrial land in the next stage of the Darwin Business Park. It will also deliver services to the common user area near the Darwin Port Corporation gates at East Arm. These developments, as well as others planned, provide support for major industrial activities, and cement the role of the Land Development Corporation as a central player in the strategic growth of Darwin as an industrial hub.
Building on the success of the Land Development Corporation as a land developer and, as part of the Chief Minister’s recently announced measures to address the critical shortage of accommodation in Darwin, the Northern Territory government has decided to expand the role of the Land Development Corporation to undertake the development of residential land and affordable housing projects in urban areas. It is no secret that the accommodation situation in Darwin, like other cities in Australia, has reached a critical stage where business and government workers are having difficulty finding appropriate affordable accommodation.
Every other state and territory has a land development agency which is tasked with delivering residential land and, more recently, with the delivery of affordable housing. All the land agencies are not only commercially oriented operations paying dividends back to government, but are also providers of solutions and innovations in the delivery of land estates and housing. Most of the interstate agencies also deliver a full array of government land requirements such as subdivisions, land sales, leases and licences over a wide range of residential and commercial accommodation, as well as community facilities and infrastructure in whole urban precincts.
For example, in Western Australia, the LandCorp has developed many residential estates, providing the full spectrum of housing developments. Some of these include shopping precincts, transport hubs, and are often undertaken in joint ventures or partnerships with private entities. Notably, the Land Development Corporation has a strong focus on delivering large scale industrial land, as well as residential solutions for key workers in the fast developing areas of the north-west. The South Australian Land Management Corporation delivers all government land estates, owns the state land bank around Adelaide, and has a focus on the delivery of affordable housing. The New South Wales Landcom Corporation and the Queensland Urban Land Development Authority both develop whole urban precincts. The New South Wales Landcom’s design guideline for buildings and streetscapes is currently being reviewed by the Northern Territory Land Development Corporation to develop a set of standards for its landscaping and street designs.
The interstate land development agencies are also increasingly focused on providing sustainable development solutions. As a result, there are continuing innovations in water sensitivity and environmental design of developments being delivered. A range of sites are being developed around the country by these agencies and, if members visit Adelaide, they should take time to see Lochiel Park, Mawson Lakes and New Port Adelaide to appreciate the innovations in new environmental and sensitive design, and redevelopment of past industrialised areas.
Likewise, developments by VicUrban have made it a leader in developing housing solutions with the environment, transport and technology at the forefront of its new residential developments. It has recently undertaken a six-star environment development called Aurora at Epping North, with rear loading housing lots providing aesthetic streetscapes and pedestrian safe areas for families.
The Australian Capital Territory, or ACT, is a jurisdiction most close in size and rate of growth to the Northern Territory. Members might be interested to know that the ACT Land Development Agency is responsible for a significant proportion of that Territory’s revenue, with returns to the ACT of just over $390m last year. Unlike other states and the Northern Territory, the ACT land agency does not have the option of dealing in freehold land, but has developed a number of lease options for developers including an innovative affordable housing program called OwnPlace. OwnPlace not only delivers the land and financial arrangement, but the completed house with carpet and curtains installed.
The Northern Territory’s Land Development Corporation has developed a close working relationship with all the other jurisdictions, and is fortunate to have a board of highly-qualified people experienced in delivering residential and industrial estates.
The board consists of Mr Steve Margetic, Managing Director of Sitzlers, the Chair; Ms Margaret Michaels from Clayton Utz, the Deputy Chair; Mr Philip Duval, Director of Reality Solutions Australia, in Adelaide; Mr Marek Petrovs, director of several companies and the founder of the annual interstate government land agency forum, and the Chief Executive of the Department of Business and Employment.
This combination of networks and experience means our Land Development Corporation is well placed to take on the expanded role in delivering residential solutions for Territorians. With its highly experienced board and strong interstate connections, the Northern Territory is well placed to take the best of residential models developed interstate and apply them here.
The current functions and powers of the Land Development Corporation restrict the corporation to dealing only in industrial land. In order for the Land Development Corporation to take on residential development, its power and functions need to be broadened. In light of this, I announce today the Land Development Corporation Amendment Bill 2009.
The bill aims to expand the role of the Land Development Corporation and the amendments required to do this are not substantial. The changes are intended to ensure the Land Development Corporation can avail itself of the commercial development opportunities experienced in other jurisdictions, and best serve the Northern Territory’s residential and industrial requirements.
Apart from the obvious inclusion of the residential description, the amendments provide for development of facilities associated with the amenity of urban development, the ability to enter into joint ventures and partnerships, as well as being able to borrow or raise money. In order to achieve this, it is proposed to repeal section 6 of the existing act, and replace it with the new section 6, specifically allowing the Land Development Corporation to engage in development, management and promotion of land for residential and or industrial business.
This section will also allow the corporation to provide services, facilities and general assistance in relation to commercial, recreational, and heritage and environmental conservation activities. Examples of developments might include multilevel residential development with offices or shops at the ground level, or precincts with childcare or community facilities such as a swimming pool.
The intent is to allow the Land Development Corporation to engage in its primary development areas and to provide appropriately mixed development.
Madam Speaker, I will pause there as it is 11 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, minister, I ask you to resume your seat. As previously advised, we will call the Leader of the Opposition on the Appropriation Bill.
Debate suspended.
APPROPRIATION (2009-2010) BILL
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from 5 May 2009.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, if, during the times of plenty, you make no preparation for lean times, you have failed. Labor has made no preparation. It has saddled future generations with an enormous debt and diminished capacity to create the wealth needed to repay that debt. It is true that, without a progressive vision, the people indeed suffer. After eight years, Territory families will reap the consequences of a failure to develop courageous, comprehensive and coherent plans.
This Labor government has squandered the bounty on self-promotion and a short-term political fix. $1.2bn of unexpected, un-budgeted GST payments have been squandered. The Labor Party has completely failed to build the security and diversity necessary to ensure the Territory economy is resilient to the pressures and fluctuations of the world economy.
Not only did those opposite fail to reduce debt, they failed to put in place a contingency plan to ensure the Territory’s economic stability through the bad times. The Treasurer likes to claim good economic management ‘does not happen by accident’. I could not agree more, but her claim to being a good economic manager is, in fact, in tatters. Labor’s economic stewardship has placed a $26 000 debt on the head of every man, woman and child in the Territory. This is an increase of almost $10 000 per head in debt since Labor first came to office. It is a disgrace that we will see, by the end of the term, the Territory in debt to the tune of $6bn.
By way of comparison, Victoria also brought down its budget yesterday. Victoria will have to repay a debt of $31bn by 2012; that amounts to $6000 per head of population. How did we get to the staggering figure of $26 000 for every man, woman and child?
To paraphrase the Treasurer, massive debts ‘do not happen by accident’. Just consider the financial year 2007-08. That year, Labor pocketed $330m in unexpected revenue. What did Labor do with that windfall? It spent it. Which is exactly what it did with all its unexpected revenue - the whole $1.2bn of it. Had Labor kept to its budgets and used the unexpected windfalls to retire debt, Territorians would be saving $70m a year in interest payments; $70m this year, next year, the year after - and on and on. We would have had another budget surplus this financial year - not the first of what promises to be a long line of deficits.
Let us take a moment and look at the electricity network – a casualty of the government’s failure to look forward beyond its own interests. State and territory governments’ principal task is to deliver services, in particular, essential services. Power and Water’s ‘do not fix it until it breaks down’ maintenance regime put an essential service at risk, and it has cost Territorians dearly. Not only were thousands of homes left without power time and time again, the resulting repair bill ran into tens of millions of dollars. All of this could have been avoided with basic preventative maintenance. Power and Water could not deliver because the government froze its maintenance budget, at the same time helping itself to $80m in dividends. If this is not a monumental failure, then what is? When electricity infrastructure is allowed to degrade to such a level that Australians are forced to buy generators because their First World government can only provide a Third World service - that is real failure.
Then there is Blacktip, a project that has been delayed so long that we have a $71 000 a day diesel bill to run the Top End electricity supply. This is not only expensive, but also environmentally irresponsible, especially when this government failed to negotiate any downstream supply of LNG from ConocoPhillips. With the Territory public in one of the best placed jurisdictions to take advantage of solar energy, this government has, with the exception of a small trial in Alice Springs, largely funded by the federal government, neglected its responsibility to develop and invest in solar energy.
What about infrastructure projects the Territory so desperately needs? For eight years - eight years - it has sat idle while it could have been investing in the future. It could have put in place the necessary works to begin development of a heavy industry precinct – but no work on that front. If it turns up, the government will stick it in the harbour. The Chief Minister’s performance in planning for infrastructure projects is, in fact, so dismal that a couple of overtaking lanes are now considered ‘major transport infrastructure projects’.
What was the centrepiece of yesterday’s budget? A $1.3bn spend on infrastructure. While the government can continue to headline record infrastructure spending, the reality is that, each year, we continue to see projects delayed, money left unspent, and communities like those on the Daly left isolated due to an abject failure to fulfil budget commitments.
In 2008-09, this government had projects worth $220m in the infrastructure pool of revoted works - that world of budget announcements that are promised but never arrive. Come budget time, it announced, just like this year, a record spend - $870m. But, what did we get? $355m. Where did the rest go? The Tiger Brennan Drive extension, Stage 2, due for commencement in July 2008, was $89m of that, and it still has not started. There was the $48m for the SIHIP program, and $35m at East Arm port - Commonwealth money, and Territory plans, but no outcomes for Territorians.
Let us not forget the work at Power and Water: promises of $51m for the Manton Dam upgrade, and $35m for the Larrakeyah outfall closure; a $1bn commitment for ailing infrastructure - but no achievements or results. The government demonstrates, time and time again, that it makes promises on infrastructure but never delivers.
In 2009-10, we hear of a record $1.3bn of commitments, but what do we see? We see the pool of uncompleted projects swell to $485m at the beginning of the financial year. We see $113m for Indigenous housing, but no houses built. We see $116m of Commonwealth infrastructure spending on primary schools, but nothing from the Territory government. While this government rules a $1.3bn program, in reality, it spent half of that - some $653m with the Commonwealth providing the bulk. It is riding on the coattails of historic, federal surpluses and GST revenue streams. These are the facts.
It puts the rest up on the never-never, to be revoted again and again - just like the Daly River bridge - or left off entirely like the Tennant Creek sobering-up shelter. What happens when the Commonwealth says: ‘Sorry, too late’? What then? The government promises new ideas and delivers nothing.
Territorians are sick of it, and today I announce the Country Liberals’ firm commitment to the development of a heavy industry precinct. We would immediately put down $30m for the development of a heavy industry precinct. The time for delays must end.
Let us look at this government’s performance on health. Next year the Health budget will exceed $1bn. The Health Minister sees this as a great achievement. To my mind, reasonable waiting times in emergency departments, or reduced waiting lists for elective surgery would represent an achievement. No chance of that, of course. Worried mums will still wait 12 hours in emergency with sick kids in their arms. Pensioners will still be told to hobble around for another year while waiting for a hip replacement. Nurses will still be forced into working dangerously long shifts, and the Territory will suffer extremely high and very expensive staff attrition rates. The $1bn Health budget will fall short of actually improving the measurable health services on the ground for the average Territorian.
We must be very serious about preventative health and primary health care. Improving the basic health of Territorians across the board will go a long way to reducing the burden on our acute services. This should be the government’s priority, rather than throwing money hand over fist just to look good and as though they are working hard. One clear example is we have smoking rates around 30% in the Territory, one-third, some 10 to 15 percentage points higher than the national average and, yet, little has happened. The government’s solution? To ban smoking outside RDH - I was there the other day; that ban does not appear to be working – and, off in the dim, dark future, to ban smoking in pubs and clubs. We must be serious about preventative health.
Our efforts in primary health care have, so far, been too little and very poorly targeted. It is called the Health department, but it really should be called the sickness department - you only need its resources when you are sick. It would follow the line of argument that an ever-increasing health budget means a sicker and needier population. I announce today that the Country Liberals stand by our commitment to green and lifestyle prescriptions.
I would also implement a number of direct actions in respect to driving down the rate of smoking in the Territory, including a rebate for quit smoking and education campaigns, thereby reducing the burden on our acute health system. A similar model must be applied to alcohol, an area of the Health budget that has, in fact, been slashed - shame! If 10 people were diverted from alcohol abuse at an earlier point - just 10 - and they did not require dialysis, the department would save around $700 000 per year just on those 10 alone. I am talking about changing people’s behaviour early to free up health resources and improve their quality of life. Prevention is better than cure. This measure will see the Country Liberals invest an initial $250 000 in this action.
However, the problems with health are serious and systemic. At the moment, hospital health funding is undertaken by a block funding model; that is what we funded last year plus costs and plus new initiatives, minus efficiencies. This is not practical and is very shortsighted. The Territory government has no long- or, for that matter, medium-term model for hospital funding. It does not attempt to anticipate what the needs are going to be or what action needs to be taken now to save money into the future.
I announce today that a Country Liberal government will invest $900 000 to set a new direction for Health funding. This new direction will involve a three-stage process. The first stage is the diagnostic stage. There is already a large body of work undertaken. We will take the last 10 years or so of this work and undertake a diagnostic analysis to gain an understanding of exactly where we are at now. This will see an investment of $100 000 to bring this together. Alongside this, we will invest in a comprehensive, demographic projection study and, following that, a comprehensive health care future needs study. These will form part of the second stage of our health care action plan.
The second stage is understanding the unknown, and we will invest $300 000 to engage the professional services of someone like Access Economics, working closely with organisations such as the AMA and experts like Steven Duckett, to ensure we have all the information we need to put in place an effective short-, medium- and long-term funding model and identify our future health needs. When we have this data, we will invest in the implementation stage. I announce $600 000 for the development of an appropriate funding model for Territory hospitals, and to map out a pathway for both primary and acute care needs. This total investment of $900 000 is money that should have been spent a long time ago. This is not about cutting health funding, it is about putting the funding where it is needed and making sure it works for those who need it.
We have two very clear examples of what happens when we do not: Gove obstetrics and Alice Springs thoracic surgical capacity. The situation in Gove was something that the Health department knew was coming for a very long time. The government was simply not willing to spend the money to do what was needed before it reached crisis point. Now, it is offering the equivalent of $2000 per day for a doctor. That translates to around $700 000 per year. Clearly, that is not sustainable.
Then there is Alice Springs which is sitting on the cusp of disaster. There is one thoracic surgeon in Alice, Dr Jacob, and while he is a fine man carrying an enormous load, where will we be if something happens to him or if he chooses to move on? Our second largest hospital would have no thoracic surgical capacity.
While the Treasurer and the Health Minister want to celebrate additional monies going into Health in this budget they are sitting on a time bomb. I want to see a little more common sense. There are many good GPs who are trained and would be more than happy to operate as surgical GPs. They are unable due to the cost of ongoing training and insurance. Why could we not, for those regional and remote GPs, install a system to cover their insurance costs, or part of them and, at the same time, offer transport and training costs back to Darwin? This has to be less expensive than $700 000 for a single obstetrics GP in Gove.
However, those on the other side are not looking to face the reality that they have failed Territorians when it comes to health care - they have failed the Territory Health system. Yesterday’s announcement of more money will leave Territorians with more problems and costs, eating up those extra dollars quicker than they hit the table.
Once we have a model, we will ensure that the funding required is provided and that our hospitals are efficient and effective in their service delivery. Critically, though, we will need to be able to map out our primary health care needs and, in so doing, manage a process that will improve health outcomes for all Territorians and, ultimately, save the Territory money on acute care into the future.
Much has been written since the 1999 Productivity Commission report, warning how much of state and territory budgets would be taken up by health care if we do not change our approach to primary health care.
Another serious problem is housing affordability. The budget has seen yet another reworking of HomeNorth. It is destined for the same outcome as the first two overhauls that were going to save this scheme. Let us go back and look at the media releases. Those opposite are, yet again, tinkering at the edges rather than addressing the root cause of the problem. It is a bit like a teenager cleaning their room by shoving everything under the bed or in the cupboard. Its new saviour to HomeNorth is headed for failure because it is poorly constructed and planned. It is also destined to failure because the underlying problem of supply has not been addressed.
Let us go back to 2007 when the Treasurer announced the Bellamack housing estate – Bellamight, a housing estate that has not yet been lot surveyed; a housing estate that is supposed to turn off 230 lots this year and still does not have a signed contract; and, curiously, a development contract was awarded outside the Territory despite very capable and attractive offers being made by locals. So much for the ‘buy Territory’ strategy of this government. Revamping HomeNorth and introducing Buildstart will always be inadequate when massive land shortage has seen the value of vacant land increase by 100% in Palmerston just in the past three years. Surely, it is time for the member for Karama to concede failure. It is time to end the bottleneck.
I announce today the Country Liberals’ recommitment to two things: first, the creation of the Territory housing land corporation and, second, a fundamental overhaul of HomeNorth. The Territory housing land corporation will partner all future land developments, taking the frustration away from businesses, cutting the time required and the cost of doing business in the Territory. Not only will it assist in expediting land release to get supply and demand pressures in balance, it will also be required to report openly to the public on the performance of related Territory departments to drag the inefficiencies out of the departments.
Those opposite seem to have forgotten that the growth and development of the Territory is driven by the private sector – small and large businesses across the Territory. Loading up that engine room with more regulation, red tape, and hurdles drags that potential down. Simply saying you will bring down red tape does not cut it. We have seen far too many years of that promise going unmet. A loan of $25m will be provided to the Territory housing land corporation to begin its operations, and it will be tasked with providing real low-cost housing to those who need it and, along the way, improve the affordability of housing for those who would like to build a home in the Territory.
Our overhaul of HomeNorth is not like the tinkering we have, yet again, seen provided by this Labor government - tinkering that has and will continue to see very little real improvement. A Mills-led Country Liberals’ government will open up HomeNorth. We will allow up to 49% of property purchase equity to be held by HomeNorth, and loans for this arrangement to be sought from any financial institution. This will allow homemakers to enter the market and, over time, buy more of their equity as they can afford to do so.
However, my reforms of HomeNorth will not take effect until the first blocks of land in Bellamack are turned off. We must meet the demand and supply pressures at the same time. These two changes will have a direct impact on housing in the Territory and will provide, over the course of the next decade, stability to the market pressures; get more people into their own homes, and clean up the operations of the government so that businesses can operate efficiently and effectively. A public reporting of departmental operations through the THLC will impact all departments and this will bring reality to the statement of cutting through the unnecessary red tape.
My colleague, the member for Braitling, has spoken much about the hub-and-spoke model for funding and the operation of Aboriginal services in the Territory. This model will take the Territory forward and address a very real and growing problem that we have closed our eyes to for a very long time. I know that those opposite, and past members of the Country Liberal Party, were not the best at addressing this issue. For them, as I suspect with the federal government of both persuasions, it was a problem that was just too big to handle. It was a problem that looked unsolvable.
I will not sit back and do nothing while another generation of Aboriginal kids gets lost in the system of welfare, abuse and alcoholism resulting in a lifetime revolving through the justice system. A Country Liberals’ government would implement the hub-and-spoke model. We will nominate 15 centres that will provide services, and we will expect the federal government to pull its end. We will board children in the hubs each week and then return them home each weekend. They will get an education and access to health services and understand that there is more to life; that they have an opportunity to understand and respect their culture and grow and develop their culture, while being a part of the broader community and making a contribution on equal terms. More - much more - will be said about this in the coming months.
I put this question to the Aboriginal members opposite. To those members I say, through you Madam Speaker: will you stand by and watch the budgeted education standards for Aboriginal kids lowered? Almost every single measure has been lowered in respect to standards required, some by as much as half. How can it be acceptable to have an expectation that 76% of Aboriginal kids in Year 5 will not meet the most basic standard for reading? How is it that the Treasurer and the Chief Minister can bring forward a budget that projects just 24% of these kids can pass a basic reading test - just 24%? Those on the other side have given up on these kids. It is a sad and tragic day, and all those opposite should be ashamed of their support for this.
When you scrape off the political hype and spin, the reality is, sadly, they have no answers. When you go below the first layer there is nothing; those opposite are bereft of solutions and have simply given up. The answer from those opposite is not to deal with the issue in any substantive way but to lower - to lower - the bar of expectation. What a disgrace! For all the hope and promise of Territory Labor, there is nothing but deep disappointment, particularly in the quarters of those who expected and hoped. I cannot understand how the Indigenous members can hold their heads up when they are part of this degradation of standards in education. We are going backwards not forwards, and that is a fact. I say to those Indigenous members opposite: find your courage, dig deep and stop this from happening. Please do not let another generation of those kids get lost in welfarism, abuse, crime and, eventually, an early death seeing so much of their potential left unfulfilled. We will need to find ways to support people to stand on their own two feet and, in so doing, culture is also strengthened and developed. Letting kids go through a system where 76% are not expected – no expectation to be able to read to an absolute basic standard in Year 5 - Madam Speaker, I am speechless.
On this side, we have been clear about the fact that we want to move forward with a joint office. We want to break up the areas of responsibility. We want to have in place a council of Aboriginal elders to ensure cultural recognition and development. We have made our commitment to addressing the problems in Aboriginal affairs and in the communities, and we have the courage to implement these plans. The problems that are generated in these communities affect all of us. We are all in this. It should never be forgotten that many of those opposite sat idle under the previous Chief Minister until national television exposed the abuse that exists in Aboriginal communities. The hub-and-spoke model approach, which my colleague, the member for Braitling, is so very passionate about, sets out a clear positive pathway forward, and I share his passion.
Law and order: no budget response can be complete without dealing with the issue of law and order. I have said much in the past about dealing with law and order. I stand by what I have said previously. There must be a comprehensive solution to this growing problem. It must come from the top and it must be strong and unwavering. A Mills-led Country Liberals’ government would immediately stop the process of the development of a new prison. I urge the government to do the same. You have the wrong approach.
Efforts must be directed toward breaking the cycle of poverty, welfare, and crime. I announce the Country Liberals’ support for the immediate establishment of low-security prison farms, the first in Katherine. People who go before a court and cannot read will go to the prison farm and learn to read. If they have no job skills, they will gain them and, during this period, they will repay their debt to society through hard work. In 2009-10, only 30% of eligible prisoners – only 30% - are estimated to participate in education and training courses. This is down from an estimated 50% participation in the 2008-09 Budget – a reduction of expectation in spite of all the hype. Over 69% of adult prisoners have been previously imprisoned. How can the government members keep a straight face when they talk about prisoner reform when they estimate only 30% of eligible prisoners will participate in education and training programs during their imprisonment? If those opposite think this will address recidivism rates, they must be dreaming.
Instead of spending $300m on a prison which the government’s own figures show will be full in a few years, it is time to take a commonsense approach. We also need to ensure that we have the right support at the other end of the Corrections system, so that the people with those skills get into work and really have a chance to turn their lives around. It is a hand up, not a hand-out approach that will be the hallmark of a Mills-led government. The investment in the prison farms will be immediate. It will be an immediate $30m.
I have also announced my support for graffiti cleanup teams. This will see $3.1m invested in partnership with local councils. If graffiti goes up, then it comes straight down.
We have identified significant waste from the government. We will cut that waste. We will also identify further savings through scrutiny during the budget process. We will save $5.8m by cutting the number of political spin doctors on the fifth floor, and $10m from media and advertising expenditure. We will also save $800 000 by closing the Chief Minister’s self-promotion offices in Palmerston and Katherine.
In closing, Madam Speaker, the changes that I have announced, including the change to Health funding, Aboriginal funding, Corrections funding, improving business/government relationships, and development of a heavy industry precinct, will see a faster return to surplus and a better footing for the future of the Northern Territory.
In respect to those opposite, I say: wake up! I fear that, after another three-and-a-bit years of Labor vandalism of the economy, it will take many of us many years to repair that damage. Families across the Territory, from the south to the north, and east to the west, face serious and complex social and economic challenges. These challenges cannot be met by a government that failed to manage in the time of plenty, made no provision for the lean times and offers, instead of leadership, excuses, spin and slogans.
Madam Speaker, in the best interests of Territory families, it is time for a change.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Postponement of Government Business
Postponement of Government Business
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that intervening business be postponed until after further consideration of the Appropriation Bill (2009-2010) (Serial 41); and Appropriation (Additional for 2008-2009) Bill 2009 (Serial 40), to enable me to continue debate on the budget.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business for his communication behind the Chamber to enable this motion to pass seamlessly.
Motion agreed to.
APPROPRIATION (2009-2010) BILL
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the budget-in-reply from the Leader of the Opposition. He did throw many ideas in the air, but the take-home message for me, as part of his reply was the way in which he almost studiously ignored the global financial crisis. He edged around that, he dipped his hat to it a little. At the end of the day, this is the biggest issue that is confronting not only this government, but governments around Australia and around the world: how to adapt and frame budgets, confronted with this savage economic crisis that is worldwide.
The government has put its point of view very clearly. It is prepared to go into deficit on a temporary basis. It is prepared to invest strongly and readily in infrastructure. It is prepared to curtail expenditure over the next five years so that we can come back into surplus once again. This government has delivered successive surplus budgets, and it is proud of that. What do we see on the other side? We see them quibbling about this government going into deficit. I have not picked up any adverse comment within the business community or other sizeable sections of our community in the Northern Territory about the government taking that particular step, because everyone recognises that these are extraordinary circumstances; our economy and jobs need to be protected.
There are only three options for an opposition that does not want to go into deficit in the current economic climate. One is to slash services, another is to slash jobs - and those two really go together - and the other one is to raise taxes. There are only three options because, as the Treasurer has pointed out, there has been a collapse in GST revenue that applies to the Territory. From memory, the Treasurer said it was somewhere around 65% or 66%, or it has decreased by a sizeable amount down to that amount. The Territory relies heavily on GST revenue.
In a time of serious international crisis, where unemployment for many Australians is a reality, the CLP would slash more jobs and cut more services, all with the aim of reducing the budget deficit. We believe that is unacceptable. They will slash jobs; we will protect them. They will cut services; we will bolster them. They attack, and will continue to attack, public servants; and we will work hard with our hard-working, dedicated public servants to improve the lives of Territorians. Ours is a budget with a fundamental goal to protect Territory jobs. In the Territory’s history, there has never been a tougher budget to frame, and I really commend the Treasurer for this. I believe the business community joins us in that commendation.
Around the world, people are facing the toughest economic times since the Great Depression. It is within this unprecedented economic climate that Budget 2009-10 has been framed. The global financial crisis has led to a global recession and, as growth slows, governments have a simple choice: they can act to stimulate the economy and protect jobs or they can do nothing. It is hard to divine what the CLP would do from their leader’s budget in-reply speech today. If I was a member opposite I would be very concerned about the lacklustre performance that has been put today.
In these tough times, our government has chosen to act. Budget 2009-10 will protect jobs and the livelihoods which support thousands of hard-working Territory families. Budget 2009-10 builds on a broad range of substantial outcomes since Labor first came to office in 2001. I have a list; I am going to go through some of the things like education and health, and other matters …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: … but before I do that, Madam Speaker …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The rabble opposite is interjecting. Standing Order 51. I am very interested in hearing what the Leader of Government Business has to say on the budget.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51, that:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. One shining example is in Budget Paper No 4, on page 5, if members would care to turn there. It relates to Tiger Brennan Drive - $89.5m in this budget, the tenders are on the way - this is happening.
This was a project that was bogged down for years when the previous federal government, under John Howard, was in power. They would not come to an agreement, not only with the Territory government, but also with other governments about funding of major road projects across Australia. Warren Truss was the minister at that time - this is how focused it was on having budget surpluses and not investing in our infrastructure – and he wrote to me on 21 December 2005 and said:
- The AusLink framework is based on a five-year construction and funding plan for each jurisdiction, and the funding level for every jurisdiction is now in place. Projects that are fully or partially funded by the Australian government, which incur cost increases, will have these increases met from within the state or territories’ fixed five-year plan. This can be done through identification of program savings or offsets against other AusLink funded projects.
What does that mean? Even if it was wholly and solely a Commonwealth project within a jurisdiction, the Commonwealth steadfastly refused to meet any cost escalations. Anyone who has been involved in project management or project development knows, particularly at that time, there were massive cost escalations. Steel was going up, bitumen was going up, oil prices were increasing, the cost of labour was going up, but Warren Truss put that position very clearly.
The member for Blain, and also the member for Fong Lim, as a federal member, could not effectively advocate with the federal government to come to those cost escalations - in this case it was a 50:50 cost escalation. The member for Solomon flirted with the idea …
Ms Lawrie: No, former.
Dr BURNS: Former member. He said on ABC radio on Tuesday, 29 August 2006, ‘I, for one, want to see their $25m …’ – this is the cost escalation money – ‘and if they have $25m to expend on the Tiger Brennan Drive, I will gladly go to Canberra and fight for more funds for the Tiger Brennan Drive extension’. That is what he said, but he did not do it; he flirted with the 50%. Why …
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: It was non-existent.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: It was always there, and it is there now …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: We have reached agreement with the Commonwealth government on Tiger Brennan and it is going ahead. The point I am making is that the …
Mr Tollner: You are a joke. You have cost taxpayers $80m-plus.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Fong Lim!
Dr BURNS: … previous federal government was so miserly and completely unapproachable in negotiations, that Tiger Brennan Drive extensions languished because it would not hold its end of the deal up, it would not consider …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister for Business knows that this government has cost the taxpayer $80m …
Ms Lawrie: Make a personal explanation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, it is not a point of order. Minister, continue.
Dr BURNS: At the end of the day the Tiger Brennan Drive …
Mr Tollner: At the end of the day, you have cost us a bomb …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms Lawrie: It is under construction.
Dr BURNS: … that will be delivered through the efforts of the Treasurer and Infrastructure minister, and her dealings with the federal government, means not only …
Ms Lawrie: It is under construction.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Karama continues to jump up and claim interfering when people are speaking, yet she continues to interject, as she did this morning during ministerial reports when the Chief Minister, the member for Johnston, and the member for Karama continually interjected. They call for …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, are you calling a point of order about the current situation?
Mr STYLES: Yes, I am, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, resume your seat.
Mr STYLES: The member for Karama continues to interject and I am trying to listen …
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Sanderson! I remind all honourable members of Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
I remind honourable members that I warned members last week about defiance of the Chair. The comments which I made last week stand for today and every other day of these sittings. Minister, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the end of the day, in terms of Tiger Brennan Drive, not only will we receive the extension to Tiger Brennan Drive, which was the original negotiation with the Commonwealth, but there will be grade separation at Roystonia Avenue, which the previous federal government steadfastly refused to negotiate; this means there will be a set of lights cut out. I am happy and in favour of cutting down the number of traffic lights.
There is one thing that this government is delivering on in spades. The former member for Solomon could not deliver it; the member for Blain could not prevail when they were in power, either.
There are other things in Budget Paper No 4. There is the accommodation for the radiation oncology unit; there are further extensions to the Palmerston Health hub, all being delivered by this government - things that members opposite could not deliver when they were in power or when they were in opposition and the Howard government was in power.
Some highlights in the budget. In education, we have implemented the largest education reform in the history of the Territory. This includes the construction of the Darwin Middle School, Palmerston Senior School, Katherine Middle School and substantial upgrades to Taminmin High School. Every teacher in the Territory is now provided with a laptop computer and we are assisting Territory families with the cost of getting their kids back to school with the $75 Back to School payment - all practical things.
There are 50% more people being trained in the Territory since 2001, and per capita, there are more Territorians in apprenticeships and traineeships than anywhere else in Australia.
In health, there is a $1bn budget and, instead of having consultancies and committees - I am not sure where the Leader of the Opposition was going in his budget speech; it did not include a hospital at Palmerston. That was conspicuously absent from his speech. That was another thing that my attention was drawn to.
We have had improvement in the life expectancy for Aboriginal women. Infant mortality has improved. Cervical cancer rates have declined by 61%, and anaemia in Aboriginal children has fallen from 50% to below 30%. It is a difficult area. I agreed with much of what the Opposition Leader had to say about preventative health and primary health care. However, that is something that is part and parcel of core business within our health system.
We need to work more to reduce smoking rates in the Territory, and I am very much in favour of that. There are partnerships and ways in which the department is working to achieve that goal.
There are an extra 127 hospital beds, 162 doctors and 523 more nurses, and elective surgery waiting lists have been cut by 31%. As part of all those extra hospital beds, a Rapid Admission Unit at the hospital is cutting admission times.
Law and order: we have increased the number of police by almost 340 - twice as many police per capita than the Australian average. These are very important things that this government has done.
Regarding employment, the Territory’s economic fundamentals in 2009 stand in stark contrast to the budget mess the government inherited from the CLP in 2001. Average trend total employment is a good example of CLP budget mismanagement. In 1999-2000 the trend was 2.27%, and in 2000-01 it was 1.4%. By comparison, under Labor’s job growth strategies the trend has risen to 5.35% in 2006-07 and 5.69% in 2007-08, defying the national trend.
There is much business confidence in the Northern Territory, and that is because this government has been fiscally responsible since coming to power. It has delivered surplus budgets, invested money into infrastructure, and invested money into services. What would happen under this mob? I believe Tiger Brennan Drive is a perfect example of their hoarder mentality - their inability to spend and invest on major programs that never get up under these conservative people. It takes a Labor government in Canberra to come to an agreement, and the Tiger Brennan Drive extension is happening. It never happened under the CLP.
The CLP members appear to be the only people on planet Earth who are unaware of the global financial crisis and the difficult times we face. In addition to this astounding ignorance, the CLP has proven, once again, its absolute incompetence. The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the budget process and the economy in the Northern Territory. Like other governments around the country and the world, the Henderson government has made a deliberate decision to go into deficit. We have done this to protect Territory jobs. The Leader of the Opposition is critical of this measured, pragmatic and appropriate response to the global financial crisis. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we do not go into a temporary deficit. It is clear how the CLP plan to avoid a deficit. They plan to slash thousands of Territory jobs ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: The Opposition Leader stated on the record in last year’s budget reply - and read it - the CLP will slash and burn $50m worth of jobs from the public service. Go and read it, it is there in black and white.
A member: Who said that?
Dr BURNS: The member for Blain.
Doctors, nurses, teachers, police, frontline staff we rely on across the Territory - how many would lose their jobs under the CLP plan?
He does not learn anything. One would have seen from Lawrence Springborg’s feeble attempts in the last election in Queensland, where he criticised the Labor government in Queensland for going into deficit, and talked in very non-specific terms about reducing the public service, and he got hammered. He got hammered; they expected to win in that election, but the electorate saw through it. I tag the member for Blain as the Lawrence Springborg of Territory politics. I believe you mob need to have a little think about that and see who is waiting in the wings who might do a better job for you.
Under this inept plan, I would like to know how many of our extra 340 police the CLP plan to get rid of. Which police station is he planning to close?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You have form on it. You froze recruitment for about three years. Which suburb will need to do without law and order under the CLP? To stay in surplus against the advice of economic experts would require the CLP to slash services and raise taxes. That is a simple equation; it is not a complex equation. That is a simple equation and you need to put facts and figures behind it, not talk about woolly diagnostic plans for health.
What you need to understand is that health is demand-driven. Everyone who walks through the doors at the Royal Darwin Hospital, the Gove District Hospital, Tennant Creek Hospital, Alice Springs Hospital, or Katherine Hospital needs to be seen. You cannot change demand. You must meet demand within our hospitals, and that demand is growing. That is a simple fact. You do not need a diagnostic study to do that and, in fact, much of the work the Leader of the Opposition talked about in his budget reply has already been done, both at Territory and Commonwealth levels, so he is, basically, reinventing the wheel. I am not sure where he is going with it, but it is nowhere strategic.
The CLP could also reach its surplus by cutting on infrastructure spending. Perhaps the CLP is planning on writing to parents at Dripstone High School to tell them that there will be no new science facility? Or maybe the CLP plan on scrapping the plans for a youth hub in Alice Springs? As the Treasurer has outlined, we will spend responsibly - $1.3bn worth of responsible spending to stimulate the economy and protect jobs in a record infrastructure budget. This means better roads, more residential and industrial land, and housing for those who need it most within our community. Which of these initiatives does the CLP plan to put on hold?
The CLP would cut government spending and condemn the Territory to higher unemployment and no growth, all because of their fiscal ideology inherited from Peter Costello and Malcolm Turnbull. They are blindly following it. They need to wake up. They need to see that they need to represent Territorians.
Within my portfolio responsibilities of Business, Tourism, Asian Relations, and Trade, the budget has been welcomed as an appropriate budget for the tough times we face. The tourism industry supports 17 000 jobs across the Territory, and Budget 2009-10 will protect these jobs. I have already made announcements about the appointment of an aviation director, greater support for tourism operators through accreditation assistance and enhancement of the Trade Support Scheme, and more funding being shifted into the domestic marketing activities; some $15m. I heard at the breakfast this morning people in the accommodation industry saying not only were their figures holding, but they were probably better year-on-year, so that is very positive.
The government is investing $42.5m in tourism; that is a 55% increase since 2001. We are also positioning the Territory to rebound quickly when the economic crisis eases and people start travelling from overseas again in large numbers, and also providing $400 000 for specialist advice for Territory tourism operators. The services may include business plan mentoring, suggestions for operational improvements, and we will ensure Territory businesses have the support to get through the tough times ahead. We will provide $90 000-worth of subsidies on tourism accreditation fees - very important for the industry. We have also made appointments within the aviation part of our operation and increased the budget by $270 000 to $1.57m to attract more flights into the Territory.
As Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, I am pleased to advise the House that Budget 2009-10 has provided enhancements to the Trade Support Scheme. Grants to attend trade shows and expos will be increased from 50% to 75% of the total cost. I will continue to ensure that we have strong trade links with our neighbours to the north. As I said to the House, I will be travelling to Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Japan after these sittings to bolster what we can do in our overseas representation. $300 000 is also part of the budget to provide Territory businesses with their export marketing objectives.
It also invests $28m to develop the Darwin Business Park, and there were very positive comments about that in the budget breakfast today. That is an investment which business likes and they are moving there in droves. It is a fantastic area, and I advise members of the opposition to get out there. It focuses on oil and gas support services; mining support services and maintenance; marine services and maintenance; transport and logistics; engineering; fabrication and assembly of buildings and equipment.
We are also expanding, as I said in my second reading speech, the function of the Land Development Corporation to get involved in the release of residential land.
The member for Port Darwin spoke in this House last week about, ‘woolly mammoths’ and ‘some excavator or archaeologist finding woolly mammoths encased in tar’. The only relics - and they are fiscal relics, fossilised from a past time - are the members opposite. They are the woolly mammoths; they are the fossils, because they cannot adapt to change. The cold, icy blast of economic change is roaring across the world. The world is in recession. The only people on this planet who do not recognise that the world is in recession are the members opposite.
The CLP could not manage in the good times; they flatlined growth and left us in deficit. Now, the Leader of the Opposition cannot even add up his major health plan figures. His three-point plan adds up to $1m, not $900 000. There will be holes in all their proposals. None of them have been through a Budget Cabinet process. They do not understand the advice that Cabinet gets from Treasury, which looks far and wide regarding the economic circumstances.
I commend Treasury and the Treasurer on this budget. It has been a very difficult budget and it is a budget that shows wisdom. It is going to be very interesting, as time progresses, to see the offerings by the opposition, particularly the ‘could not delivers’ from the member for Fong Lim when he was part of the Howard government some years ago. He promised big - Tiger Brennan, radiation oncology, after-hours medical service at Palmerston. He kept on announcing them in the media; I have all the clippings here. I do not have time to go through them. There is also his little brochure from the election where he said that some of these things had been delivered. They had not been delivered.
It has taken management by this government. Yes, in some cases it has taken longer than expected. However, regarding the radiation oncology unit, I have a very direct question for the member for Fong Lim: did he, during the 2007 federal election, know that the tender process had failed for the radiation oncology unit? He has never answered that question - not publicly or in any other way. He fumbled the ball when Cam Smith asked him at the hospital one time. I was there and I saw the look of distress on his face, which led me to conclude that he did know during that time that the tender process had failed under Abbott and his time as Health minister, but he was not game enough to ’fess up to Territorians that it had failed. I am interested to find out in his budget speech - no doubt he will touch on the radiation oncology unit - whether he knew, during that federal election campaign and prior to it, that the tender process had failed.
On a positive side, that building is going up. There is $2m in the budget to build accommodation for cancer sufferers, and this is coming together with services to be offered in 2009.
I commend the Treasurer on the budget. It has been a very difficult budget. She has shown a level head and a very strategic approach, and it stands the Territory in very good stead in these difficult economic times.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, is it the intention of the government to continue this after Question Time or are you wishing the debate to be adjourned?
Dr BURNS: We will continue after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
APPROPRIATION (2009-2010) BILL
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 41)
APPROPRIATION (ADDITIONAL FOR 2008-2009) BILL
(Serial 40)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support Budget 2009-10. Budget 2009-10 has been the toughest to frame in the Territory’s history, with the global recession and the collapse in GST revenue.
The cornerstone of Budget 2009-10 is protecting Territory jobs and, at this time, a focus on jobs is so important. On 31 October last year, as the financial crisis was unfolding, the Treasurer said in parliament:
- We will not be immune, but our current economic strength and sound financial position places us in a good position.
In the six months since, she has been proven correct. While unemployment has been increasing around the world and Australia, the Territory has stayed stable at around 4% this year. Similarly, with growth, we see other jurisdictions all heading into negative country while, despite some moderation, we still have positive growth figures and growth forecasts - forecasts that do not take the potential of INPEX into account.
These unemployment and growth figures are a remarkable result, but the Henderson government is not complacent. That is why Budget 2009-10 has such an emphasis on protecting Territory jobs and building the Territory. After six surpluses in a row, we are investing $1.3bn in infrastructure to protect Territory jobs. We made a deliberate decision to go into temporary deficit to protect Territory jobs in the toughest economic time Australia has faced in generations. Budget 2009-10 protects Territory jobs in the face of the global economic recession and collapsing GST revenues. The $1.3bn infrastructure spend is a 47% increase. For the government to make such a substantial commitment in a time of declining revenue is very brave. However, it is very important. It will create 2500 jobs and build the Territory for when the global economy rebounds.
There is record housing and land release funding, and the new Homestart NT will help Territory families buy their own home. There are increases in frontline services where we need them most - in Health, Education and Police. I will say more about the extra frontline staff in health soon. I make no apology for boosting public service staff in frontline services.
Budget 2009-10 has no public sector job cuts and no new taxes, but the government will make savings and concentrate on core business.
I turn to my portfolio area of Health. Despite declining revenues, I am delighted that, once again under the Henderson government, there is an increase in the Health budget continuing the precedent set when we first came to government. The budget for the Department of Health and Families in 2009-10 from all funding sources will be $1.05bn. This is an increase of 117% since 2001-02 under Labor’s governance.
The CLP has suggested that the government should have put a public service freeze in place in 2007. This would have been a disaster in Health. It also means that the CLP does not support the Commonwealth intervention, as it is the intervention that led to many of the positions we have put in Health.
On Tuesday, 5 May, the CLP said that if you are not a doctor or a nurse then it does not consider you provide a frontline service. This is an insult to the following professions: mental health workers; child protection workers; domestic violence workers; sexual assault counsellors; disability support workers; aged care workers; alcohol treatment workers; Aboriginal liaison officers; dentists; psychologists and psychiatrists; speech pathologists; occupational therapists; and radiographers. If we had followed the advice of the CLP and put a public service freeze in place, there would be 233 fewer dedicated health professionals at Royal Darwin Hospital.
I accept that the CLP does not agree with me on this, but I consider every one of the 1700 people who work at RDH as working on the front line, whether they are doctors, surgeons, nurses, hospital security, ward clerks, counsellors, cooks, or cleaners. Surgeons simply could not do their jobs without cleaners and, without cooks, that hospital would not operate. In their day-to-day operations, they all deal with the reality of providing a frontline service.
The CLP frequently attacks the policy people in the department, but these are the people who are so important in ensuring, for example, that the Territory is so well placed to respond to an outbreak such as swine flu, should it become a pandemic. Many of these people are among the best health experts in the country, and we are glad to have them here.
I turn to some of the specifics of the Health budget. In Budget 2009-10, Acute Services will receive an additional $30m in funding. This means that $602m will be provided for services in our five public hospitals and associated acute care services for all Territorians.
Every hospital receives an increase and has record funding. The Royal Darwin Hospital will receive $245m, up 118% since 2001; the Alice Springs Hospital will receive $118m, up 120% since 2001; $27m for Katherine District Hospital, up 90%; $19m for Gove District Hospital, up 71%; and $12m for Tennant Creek Hospital, an increase of 94% since 2001.
I am aware that the CLP has attacked the government for the increase at RDH, but I will not apologise for this. RDH provides services for all Territorians. More specialist and critical care services are provided at RDH, and that is where the increase in health costs occurs. The suggestion that we are ignoring the regions is wrong. $600m from our $1bn budget is expected to go to Indigenous-related health. Acute Services additional funding includes an additional $2m to provide improved aeromedical retrieval services to the Top End and, in particular, to the Katherine region. We will also invest a further $1m to provide a central coordination service for all aeromedical services across the Northern Territory.
As part of this government’s program to improve renal services to all Territorians, a further $1.7m will be provided to enhance services to clients in Central Australia. Construction of a new satellite renal facility in Tennant Creek will also commence in 2009-10 at an estimated cost of $2.4m. The government remains committed to its plan to address patients’ needs for renal services, with plans to construct and operate a further two facilities in future years.
As part of the federal government’s Specific Purpose Payments and National Partnership reforms, the department will receive additional funding to meet service demands and to target specific areas of concern. This funding source will specifically provide:
$145m under the new National Healthcare payment, an increase of 6% on 2008-09 funding, for improved acute care and public health services;
$1.25m to expand subacute care, including rehabilitation, geriatric, and Hospital in the Home services, with a further $2.6m planned in future years; and
Under the government’s Closing the Gap initiative, the department will receive an additional $77m over the five-year program. While most of these initiatives come within the community services area, there are some important initiatives within the Health outputs. In Budget 2009-10, the government will invest an additional $1.3m to extend programs targeting chronic disease, and an additional $500 000 to improve maternal and child health services.
In Budget 2009-10, this government has also made specific funding available to honour election commitments in both the Acute Care and Community Health outputs. These are:
$960 000 to improve ambulance services to Palmerston and surrounding areas;
$630 000 to establish cardiac services under the Heart Health Plan; and
$2m to provide services from the Palmerston Super Clinic, incorporating the urgent care after-hours services.
In the Community Health output, the department will commence a dental blitz to improve services to remote areas and to reduce the general service waiting lists. The government will provide one-off funding of $1.5m in 2009-10 for the blitz, and provide additional ongoing funding of $750 000 for 2010-11 to improve oral health service capacity.
The government has also approved an additional $22.2m for additional capital works programs. In addition to the Tennant Creek renal facility, the following programs will commence in 2009-10:
$4m to improve staff accommodation at Royal Darwin Hospital;
$4.5m for secure care facilities in Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospitals for youth and adults;
$7.3m to continue the Alice Springs Hospital rectification and essential works project; and
$2m for suitable accommodation facilities in Darwin for oncology patients and carers.
This year’s $1bn Health budget is a record, but I expect it to be even higher as the year progresses. In recent years, there have been increases to the Health budget as the year progressed. This financial year has been no exception, with around $98m in extra funding. The bulk of these funds, $68m, were from the Australian government and related to the intervention; more health services, dental services, ear health programs, and family support services in remote areas.
The Northern Territory government also completed significant enterprise bargaining agreements with nurses and dentists during the year, making our salary packages attractive and competitive with the rest of Australia. Additional revenue was allocated to the department to cover these EBAs.
In 2008-09, the department negotiated funding agreements with the Australian government to the value $267m. Many of these agreements were for one-off projects. In 2009-10, the Australian government funding for the department has reduced to $235m. The reduction in revenue from 2009-10 is reflected in reduced expenditure in some outputs where there is a high level of externally funded projects. It is expected that new agreements will be negotiated in the coming year to maintain service delivery in these programs.
I turn now to the Budget 2009-10 reply by the Leader of the Opposition. The CLP’s solution to the Territory’s health problems is to spend $900 000 on some studies. The government would spend that money on employing even more doctors and nurses. A $900 000 investment – the three stages actually add up to $1m. How can you trust them with a $1bn budget when they cannot work out funding for a simple project?
The next comment was about elective surgery. Labor’s effort with a blitz in 2007-08 has reduced the overall waiting list for elective surgery by 31%.
He talked about emergency department waiting times. We have implemented extensive measures to reduce demand on the emergency department. We opened the 24-bed Rapid Admission Unit, and we put in extra resources. We opened Ward 3B with 24 extra beds - the one that the CLP closed, and the Palmerston Super Clinic urgent care after-hours service.
The nursing workforce: the CLP had sacked 200 nurses. There is now a record of 1845 nurses. He talked about people leaving. The stability of the nursing workforce is at the highest level of 80%; four out of five nurses who worked here last year chose to stay and work with us. We reviewed the nursing hours per patient day model and levels of overtime at RDH and Alice Springs have been dramatically reduced in recent months.
The medical workforce: maternity services are currently provided at Gove Hospital through the provision of locum GP proceduralists. The Royal Darwin Hospital will commence training GPs, with the first trainees to complete the course in January 2010. The Labor government has provided numerous incentives through the Medical Officers (NTPS) Workplace Agreement 2008 to 2010, aimed at attracting doctors to work in remote locations. This includes a generous retention allowance paid annually, remote training study leave, and an annual professional training allowance. The current workplace agreement outlines significant increases in salary payable with the increased degree of remoteness that the doctor works.
Smoking: in the past the CLP has done nothing about smoking. We used to get the Dirty Ashtray Award year after year. We have now implemented a smoke-free policy in the department from 1 July, and we will support staff and the patients to give up smoking with Quit programs and nicotine replacement therapies.
Preventative health: the Leader of the Opposition was offering to invest $250 000. Labor has increased funding for preventative health measures by 89% since 2002. In 2007-08 alone, the government provided $91m for preventative health, because we believe that prevention is better than cure. We put the money where it has to be put. On a per-capita basis, the Territory spent three times more on preventative health than the rest of the country. Our investment in health is working.
They talk about outcomes. They ask: ‘What about the outcomes?’ I will give you some outcomes. The life expectancy for Aboriginal women has improved by three years. The infant mortality rate for Aboriginal children has improved by 35%. Anaemia in Aboriginal children living in remote communities has fallen from almost 50% in 1999 to the most recent report of below 30%. Cervical cancer rates have declined in Territory women by 61%. There has been an even more dramatic decline in mortality from cervical cancer, falling by 92% for Aboriginal women. These are real facts and figures. These are the changes we have made in the Northern Territory.
With a record $1bn budget I could talk about Health all day, but I want to get to my other portfolios because they are very important too.
The Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources will continue with a number of major projects thanks to continued funding in the budget. I will start with mining because it is such an important part of protecting Territory jobs.
One of the reasons we are weathering the global recession better than most is our continued ability to attract foreign investment in the mining industry. The Territory remains the only jurisdiction in Australia with a dedicated Chinese investment attraction strategy, part of our four-year Bringing Forward Discovery initiatives. I am pleased that this budget continues with this $14.4m program, allocating a further $3.8m this financial year. I will be going to China next week, as an important part of this initiative, to host further investment attraction seminars. Our previous seminars have led directly to investment in the Territory, like the recent investment in Arafura Resources.
The budget also continues the $2.4m allocation for the three-year drilling and geophysics initiative designed to increase the intensity of exploration drilling and geographic surveys in the Territory.
While I am on the subject of exploration, there is a provision in the budget of $900 000 for the development of new strategies to increase exploration access to Aboriginal land. One of my department’s important roles is ensuring that miners and explorers comply with Territory mining legislation. The $3.1m allocated in the budget will be used in policing compliance and ensuring that environmental best practice is upheld on all Territory mining sites because, as we found out with Mt Todd, this compliance did not happened under the CLP.
Further, in this time of global challenge, the 2009-10 Budget allocates $4.6m – money managed for the Commonwealth - for the Alice Springs Solar Cities renewable energy project. It also provides $3.7m of Commonwealth funding for rebates to undertake major renewable energy projects in three Indigenous communities.
In addition to the minerals and energy sectors, the Territory’s primary industries remain a vital part of our economic and social fabric. They underpin and support the absolutely vital activity of food production. I believe it is telling that, while other sectors of the economy expand and contract from time to time, our primary industries remain viable and still underpin much of the original prosperity of the Territory. This sector has been increasing in value over the last few years, recording a 16% increase in 2006-07 and a 7% increase worth $414m to the Territory’s economy in 2007-08. In this budget, primary industries will receive $37.5m.
As you are aware, the structure of this division has changed considerably as a result of the recent review, with the Executive Director and his support team now located at the Arid Zone Institute in Alice Springs.
Both the pastoral and the primary industry sectors of Primary Industry have been supported in this budget with $650 000 earmarked for research to improve the performance of breeder cattle. This funding will be used to identify the main drivers affecting cattle performance and develop practical systems to apply positive traits in the real world. The budget also allows $280 000 for research into native improved pastures; $990000 for hands-on research into improvement of pastoral management methods; and, importantly, a further $100 000 for the investigation of new markets for live cattle export.
Biosecurity has also been identified as an area requiring funding, with $200 000 allocated to implement the Plant Health Act and Livestock Act throughout the Territory; $1.95m for plant pathology and agricultural chemistry services; and $1.8m for veterinary laboratory services providing animal health testing for our livestock industries.
Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker, the pastoral industry is important to the Territory’s future, as there is potential for 100% growth in coming years.
We saw 295 000 head of Northern Territory cattle exported from Darwin in 2008, with a further 70 000 head of interstate cattle also coming through the Port of Darwin. The exact figure is not known, but it is estimated that a further 30 000 head of Northern Territory cattle were exported through the port of Wyndham in Western Australia. This figure was significantly higher than the previous year, and was the highest number of cattle exported from the Northern Territory for at least the last 10 years.
Our current live export market is focused primarily on the supply of cattle to Indonesia, which takes over 90% of cattle exports from the Northern Territory. These markets still retain a number of strong indicators that continue to provide evidence of a significantly increased demand over the longer term, despite the current short-term reduction due to the global financial crisis. However, in line with sound business practices, we are not putting all our eggs in one basket.
The current market development program into Vietnam is progressing well. The MOU signed in 2008 by the industry in the Northern Territory, represented by the NTCA and industry in Vietnam, and witnessed by the Northern Territory government - and I was there - underpins the provision of technical advice and assistance for the construction of feedlot and abattoir facilities, and training in animal nutrition and handling. A recent visit to Vietnam by the Northern Territory government and industry representatives inspected a feedlot which is currently under construction in Vietnam and due to be completed by July this year. This market development program is now moving to the commercial phase, and it is anticipated that commercial negotiation will begin for the supply of live cattle for August or September of this year.
Similarly, the Territory’s horticultural industries are dynamic, coming from $96m in 2005-06 to a 40% increase in 2006-07 of $134m. Horticulture continues to expand, driven by market niches resulting from a climate substantially different to other production areas in Australia. The budget delivers $5m for crops, forestry and agriculture research and extension, and associated diagnostic services.
The diversity of horticultural production is vast in the Territory. We produce substantial amounts of traditional fruits such as melon, mangoes, cucumber and citrus, but also less mainstream products such as Asian vegetables, rambutan, dragon fruit and other tropical fruits. Our nursery and garden industry is a significant employer, and turf production is increasing.
The horticulture industries are primarily driven by Dry Season production under irrigation and, because of this, access to water and improving irrigation efficiency in a sustainable way is of paramount importance. Indeed, the overall sustainability and production efficiency of the industry is improving through efficiencies driven by economic necessity and the demand of markets for clean, safe, and environmentally responsible food production.
It is not within my portfolio, but one of the best initiatives in the budget for the mining, primary industries and live cattle industries is the $322m for roads. Compare this to the $80m from 2001, and it is obvious that the combination of the Rudd and Henderson governments delivers much more for Territory roads than the CLP/Howard combination.
Members will be aware that the Territory has the highest level of boat ownership in the country. With more visitors than ever before dropping in a line, recreational fishing is of vital importance to the Territory. However, we know little about the actual recreational fishing take, and this is why my department commenced a two-year recreational fishing survey in April this year. The budget allocates $200 000 for the finalisation of this survey in 2009-10. The total cost of the survey is in excess of $400 000, with extensive planning undertaken during the 2008-09 year. Yes, it is a lengthy project, but one which will provide important information on numbers and species of fish being caught at various locations throughout the Territory. This investment into the acquisition of much-needed fishing data is another example of the government’s ongoing commitment to the sustainable and prudent management of our fisheries.
While on the subject of recreational fishing, the government has continued to fund the Amateur Fisherman's Association of the Northern Territory with $190 000 a year, enabling the association to continue to employ its executive officer and office assistant, and also administer a separate $10 000 small grant program for fishing clubs. Speaking of associations, the budget also provides funding of $180 000 for the Northern Territory Seafood Council to enable continued support of the commercial fishing sector, and $40 000 for the Northern Territory Guided Fishing Industry Association, an increasingly important industry sector.
The budget also provides funding of $2.6m for the sustainable management and research of the Northern Territory fisheries and aquatic resources. An additional $1.8m over three years is allocated for the management of sustainable utilisation of inshore resources through buy-back of commercial barramundi licences. Funding of $640 000 is also provided for the highly successful Indigenous Marine Ranger program.
The government continues its investment in fishing infrastructure, including $1m during 2009-10 for new or upgrade works to boat ramps across the Territory. Priority for works will be determined in liaison with AFANT. As a separate commitment, funding of $4m, commencing in 2009-10, is earmarked for the Palmerston boat ramp, including a security compound, floating pontoon, security lighting, and power and water to the ramp. We are supporting our fishing lifestyle.
I will conclude my response by touching on another very important component of our lifestyle – racing. As minister for Racing, I am very aware that our racing industry is about more than just lifestyle; it is about jobs. Budget 2009-10 protects Territory jobs in the racing and tourism industry. Directly and indirectly through tourism, the racing industry employs thousands of people and injects more than $100m into our economy each year. The Henderson government has a close working relationship with the racing industry and the Territory race clubs.
The industry is presently faced with significant challenges, and we have listened to those concerns and will act. The industry convinced government that, without an increase in funding, the Darwin Cup and Alice Springs Carnival would be threatened, and we were not prepared to let that happen. The government has acted to protect jobs and has provided additional funding for Thoroughbred Racing NT of over $2m in Budget 2009-10, with total funding now over $10m. As we know, these are tough times and this is a tough budget. It was not an easy decision, but the government provided this funding increase to protect Territory jobs.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Treasurer on this budget. This is a tough budget, but it is a budget that delivers. It is budget that protects Territory jobs, and builds the Territory.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to this Appropriation Bill, when I listened to the Treasurer, the Leader of Government Business and, now, the Minister for Health, they talk about the budget as though it exists in some sort of cocoon, which lasts 12 months. That is not what economic or fiscal planning is about.
Fiscal planning is about taking a broader view on how the world works. The inability of this government to achieve fiscal planning models is demonstrated in their own budget papers where they say that they are abandoning their fiscal strategy, yet again, in favour of a new strategy. That is not how fiscal planning should work. Fiscal planning works by picking a strategy which you stick to. If you go to the fiscal strategies of the 2001-02 Budget, the first full-year budget return by a Labor government in the Northern Territory, you will see that the fiscal plan identified in that budget was targeted primarily - or had a large focus - on savings and being able to make not only budgets balance, but to reduce debt.
It is interesting to contrast the period of the former Howard federal government with the performance of this government, because this government did carry debt, as did the federal government when the Howard years started. Some boom times started after the Howard years started. There was a recession in the late 1990s and leading up to 2001, amplified with the terror attacks in New York in September 2001. That had an effect on the world economy, in spite of the Chief Minister seeming to think it was all wine and roses; the fact is, it was not.
Nevertheless, two fiscal plans ran almost in parallel for some time. There was the federal government’s fiscal plan of debt reductions and savings to meet any growing superannuation liabilities, and there was the Territory government’s plan to incorporate debt reduction and deal with the growing superannuation liabilities. The federal government managed to not only wipe out a $90bn debt that they inherited, they actually ended up having about $40bn-worth of savings, including the creation of a future fund to deal with their growing and burgeoning superannuation liabilities into the future.
If you contrast that to the fiscal planning of this particular government, we saw a plan to reduce debt, and a plan to deal with the superannuation liability. At first blush, one could well be forgiven for believing this government did reduce some debt, because of the reduction on the general government’s balance sheet of the nett debt situation of the Northern Territory. However, underlying that are a couple of things we need to know.
One was the acknowledgement by the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, that the superannuation liability was a problem, and that the Conditions of Service Reserve, established by the former government, should be receiving more money. Second, there was a decision to spend less money on infrastructure. That is not just a wild allegation on my part. If you go to the mini-budget of November 2001, it quite clearly stated the intent of the government of the time, reinforced in this House by the then member for Stuart, Peter Toyne, that this government was going to focus less on infrastructure development and repairs and maintenance, and focus more on social outcomes. I have said before in this place that is their business, but they went down that path. That enabled them to step away from borrowings and we saw various pieces of infrastructure start to fail.
People in the northern suburbs of Darwin late last year had the pleasure of trying to turn their lights on and off, and keep their refrigerators running as a direct result of this government’s failure to bring their increasing income to bear on basics such as power stations, transmission lines, and substations.
Through this approach, what they have done each and every year is that they have received extra money - and they knew they were getting more, because you can see that in each budget paper’s projections into the future. Rather than use a slice of that extra to reduce debt - in fact, I argue they had the capacity to eliminate the nett debt situation in the Northern Territory - they chose to spend it, but not on infrastructure; in areas of recurrent expenditure rather than in areas of infrastructure support and development. There was some, but not as much as they could have done.
What happened in those years is that, despite their fiscal plan, they were not even able to maintain sufficient discipline in those years to bring that fiscal plan to bear on their own budgets. Every year, we saw the Treasurer’s Advance drained, and repeated trips to the Administrator so they could get more money out of the Central Holding Authority. That culminated in an increasingly pronounced spending habit over that time.
When you watched the way this government spent money, it was like watching a drug addict going back to its dealer every so often. Every time they spent money it was not enough, we …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I believe that is an objectionable simile. I believe the member can find another simile on this particular issue. You did not call him last night when he said that the Treasurer is like a banshee on speed – I think he used. He has very colourful language and I just ask him if he could curtail it a little, please.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask that you withdraw that, please, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I have not used a single word that is unparliamentary. I will live or die by what I say in this place, and it is not up to the Chair to censure, or in any way, vet what I say. If he has a problem he should put out a media release and say that ‘John Elferink said that the government is like a drug addict’. I am happy to have that debate.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I request that you seek advice from the Clerk on this particular issue.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, I will seek advice. Member for Port Darwin, the language you have used has been regarded as offensive and I ask you to withdraw.
Mr ELFERINK: Very well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the language. Alcoholics, from time to time, find themselves returning to their supplier in the local bottle shop to feed their continuing addiction to alcohol …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have already …
Mr ELFERINK: I have withdrawn it.
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin gets super sensitive …
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to rise to the debate, but the member for Port Darwin …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, your point of order. Order!
Dr BURNS: The member for Port Darwin gets super sensitive with allusions like this of a general nature on the other side, and I ask him to show some respect and withdraw.
Mr TOLLNER: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! There is only one person who is super sensitive, and that is the super sensitive minister for pointless points of order and interjections. All he is trying to do is put the member for Port Darwin off his track and divert him somewhere else. You cannot possibly allow this fellow to keep interjecting the way he is with meaningless and pointless points of order.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Fong Lim. I will confer with the Clerk once again. Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like an alcoholic returning to the bottle shop every day looking for that extra bottle of wine and that extra packet of cigarettes to feed their addictions, the Treasurer particularly, but this government as a whole, continue to turn to that bottle shop only to find that the bottle shop is fuller every time and, so, the addiction was adhered to with greater passion and zeal than ever. That is fine whilst the bottle shop continues to fill with liquor, but now the bottle shop is looking decidedly bare. This government is now stuck with a situation where they have to feed their addiction - and their addiction is spending, and spending at any costs.
I find it curious - and I have yet to have it explained by any member opposite - how they see their current environment, putting aside the fact that they have had an extra $1.2bn of unexpected money - not just increased income, but money they did not expect to get over that period - and have not squirrelled any of it away. They have spent it all. Looking now at this particular financial year, I am still curious as to why they need to borrow so much.
I note with some interest that the projected growth for this year, according to the Treasurer, is still in the order of 4%; the projected growth for the next financial year is still in the order of 2%. They are growth budgets and, yet, the government is saying we are expecting an environment of growth and we have to borrow to stave off - what? A recession in a growth environment? How does that make sense? If they have a growth environment, then why are they responding with a recession-based response? I found it very interesting that, although the Prime Minister has said a recession is likely, he has not called it yet. However, I noticed in yesterday’s budget speech, the Treasurer of the Northern Territory was happy to call it. I find it curious that she can call a recession in the Northern Territory when she is predicting growth rates in both financial years – the current and the next.
It is a surprising approach from the government to want to pump-prime an economy that continues, according to them, to still be growing. What they are arguing for is a pump-priming exercise because the economy needs it. If you are pump-priming an economy in this environment of growth, then I am asking what your economic rationale for that is. There may be an economic rationale, and it may be that our growth rates are predicated on government expenditure. If that is the case, fine, come in here and say it; but do not come in here and tell me there is a growth economy: ‘By the way, we now have to pump-prime the growth economy’. Nationally, there is a real potential for recession and it is starting to look like one but, gee whiz, it is an interesting argument being put forward.
I also turn to the issue raised in the Budget Papers in relation to education of Indigenous kids. There was something very interesting played out during Question Time in relation to this, and I am curious on how we deal with it, as members of parliament. The government has decided to lower the expectations for Indigenous service delivery in the bush. In other words, they had a set of benchmarks; they realised how difficult it was going to be to reach those benchmarks; so they have lowered the benchmarks. If there was ever an exercise in cynical politics it would have to be that. We no longer think that we can reach the benchmarks for the lofty standards we set for ourselves, so we are going to review them down so that the next time round we will be able to say we met our benchmarks. Well, that is fine if you happen to be the minister and the government of the day. ‘We have met our benchmarks’, they can say proudly as they beat their chest.
How does that fix the lack of education that three-quarters of the Indigenous kids in primary school will suffer from in the bush? Does it make them any more educated; that the government has met its lowered benchmarks? The difficult problem I have now is the one I referred to when I started talking about this in my reply; the response from the minister for Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory. I am now confronted with the issue that, should I have any critical comment to make in relation to education in the bush, I will be accused of using Aboriginal children as a political weapon. That is a very awkward situation to place anyone in because it then means I have a choice to make: I either back off from arguing for a better education for kids in the bush because I am scared of being accused of using these kids as a political shield, or I continue and suffer the allegation.
I can place the Minister for Indigenous Policy on notice, as well as every other parliamentarian in this place: I will not be afraid to raise the issues of Indigenous education in spite of any such allegations being levelled at me. The member for Macdonnell knows, from her experience with me over many years, that I am genuinely concerned about what has happened in Ntaria, Papunya, Mt Liebig, Kintore, and in all of those places. I do not believe it is constructive, when I and other members on this side of the House want to see some improvement and are critical of government policy, to simply allege that we are using these kids as a political tool.
If that is the allegation that government wants to make, then I encourage them to make it because we will continue arguing that the benchmark should not be lowered, and that the government should actually set its targets not because they are easy, but because they are hard. That is why you have to set benchmarks, not because in the next budgetary cycle you can say: ‘We have met our benchmarks, we have achieved these results. See, 2% of Aboriginal kids in the bush have gone to school this year’. If that is the benchmark you want, you can say: ‘We have exceeded it; we have 4% of Aboriginal kids in school this year. See, we exceeded our benchmark by 100%. Aren’t we good?’ In those circumstances, of course, you have still have 96% of Aboriginal kids not going to school.
Whilst it is an extreme example, that is, essentially, what is being argued. That would be the easy benchmark to reach. You can say: ‘Look, our goals have been successfully achieved; it was worth all the money’. No, Madam Speaker, benchmarks are not there simply because you can then issue a media release at the end of the financial year saying: ‘We have met our benchmarks’. Benchmarks are there to lift us, to ask us to raise our effort, to redouble our vigour towards achieving a result - not simply because we feel embarrassed that we have not been able achieve our ambitions in the way that we would like. If we are really suffering a failure as a result of not meeting the achievements that we set for ourselves, then it is time to revisit what we are doing. Do not change the benchmarks, change what we are doing. Change the way that we do education. Change what education means.
What the hell is the use of having an education in the bush if there is not a job at the end of it? Why even get healthy? What is the point of being healthy in Yuendumu when the unhealthy person sitting down on the verandah next to you has a lifestyle which is no worse or no better than yours? There has to be something else at the other end. There has to be a reason for health. We talk about the increase of life expectancy of Aboriginal women - good. Now what? Does that exist in its own right, or are Aboriginal women allowed to have a better life? I am told – I heard it in this parliament today - that 45:1 is the ratio of violence against Aboriginal women to non-Aboriginal women in our community – 45:1. They live longer so they can be beaten up? They live longer so their kids cannot get an education? Goodness gracious, there has to be a purpose. There has to be a reason for all of this stuff.
There is such a massive dislocation between an announcement for Health and Education, that I am not seeing the logic underpinning what the government is trying to do. I see their compassion. I certainly see their desire to do well. I genuinely believe that the Labor members of this parliament want to see improvements in all sorts of areas. I genuinely believe that their compassion, although somewhat misguided at times, is genuine. All I ask is: let us not lower our standards; let us redouble our efforts to meet the benchmarks that we set in the first instance. Surely, that is not such an unreasonable plea?
Should I express some frustration at the government’s policy and be accused of using Aboriginal children for the sake of political outcomes and winning political points is, frankly, a cynicism that I did not expect from the member for Macdonnell. I hope she reflects on that and my motives, the motives of members on this side of the House and, indeed, the motives of all members, before that assertion is levelled again. In any instance, that is consideration for the member for Macdonnell.
I also find curious - and I notice that this is now getting a run in the federal domain - the term ‘the temporary budget deficit’. Five years - dare I hear? - of a temporary budget deficit. By that definition, we have enjoyed a temporary budget surplus in recent times. I do not hear the government and the Treasurer of the Northern Territory talking about having a temporary budget surplus. This has been an achievement of their monumental skill as fiscal managers. I find it curious that they call themselves good fiscal managers, when members opposite, particularly the Treasurer - and I suppose I am guilty of it from time to time as well - interchange the words ‘budget’ and ‘economy’ as if they were the same thing.
There is a void of difference between the budget and the economy. The economy is something that no government in the Territory - or for that matter internationally - is something that governments have a huge amount of control over. There is some capacity to affect the economy with government policy but if you need any indication that governments do not have a control over the economy, have a look at what happened in the last few months.
The argument for government control over the economy can only be made in the most general terms. The policy of monetarism, which came into flavour in the late 1970s, early 1980s, is something that all Labor governments globally signed up to - including governments such as, eventually, the Russian Federation after they decided to pull the Soviet Union apart, England, and Australia. It was Paul Keating who shifted the economy of Australia away from the old centralised regime which was still being presided over by Malcolm Fraser. This might sound like a bizarre comment but, in some respects, Paul Keating was a much better Liberal Prime Minister of this country than Malcolm Fraser ever was.
Having said that, what was done well in Australia, and largely through the Howard years, was that they created prudential guidelines and regulations. The issue should not be, and will not be - now or ever at any point into the future - whether the economy should be completely centralised or completely deregulated. The question should be: to what degree do we regulate? That is the question that is confronted two jurisdictions on either side of the Pacific Ocean. One side of the Pacific Ocean went for a less regulated model; on the other side the Pacific Ocean, there was a slightly more regulated model; that was the one which introduced the APRA guidelines.
As a consequence, the direct exposure of Australian banks to the sub-prime marketplace was nominal at best. We hardly carried any sub-prime loans because the prudential regulators would not have allowed that toxic debt to build, particularly to those sorts of levels. I believe there was a tiny fraction of loans classified as sub-prime loans in Australia. That is not what happened in the United States. If they had had the APRA guidelines in place, it is unlikely - dare I say, impossible - for what happened in the United States to have played out in Australia, particularly the way these sub-prime loans were packaged up and sold off as ‘AAA-rated, you beaut, gold investments’ to superannuation funds around the world.
The Territory government does not have control of the Territory economy. A case in point is the doubling, halfway through the financial year, of the amount of value in mining royalties received by the Northern Territory government. What was that based on? It took me a while to figure it out. I asked the Treasurer if she knew why she was 100% wrong. She got upset, but she could not answer the question. I went back and read the budget papers again, more carefully, and I discovered a few lines about what was happening.
What was happening was described in a media report; any commodity sold out of Australia into the international marketplace, or sold out of the Northern Territory into the international marketplace, is sold in US dollars. It is not sold in Australian dollars. When you are doing your budget projection at the beginning of the financial year and your Australian dollar is on parity with US dollars, you calculate what your mining royalties will be. However, because the Territory government does not control the international marketplace, the international economy, the national economy or even the Territory economy, what happens is that all of a sudden, parity falls to one half and, as a result, as this money is changed back into Australian dollars and run through the books of the company, we get a much bigger slice of Australian dollars into our budget income. That is how vulnerable we are to fluctuations in the economy.
The government says they are great economic managers. What, they have some control over China’s consumption of steel? They set the Chinese economy? What do they do? Pick up the phone and ring up Hu Jintao and say: ‘Mate, you have to import some more steel; our mining royalties are looking a bit flat’? Errant nonsense!
The link between the economy and the Northern Territory budget is that the Northern Territory budget is a large slice of expenditure inside the Northern Territory. I am always mindful, though, that it is not the government itself which produces stuff. That is the stuff the private sector does. We do not manufacture stuff. We occasionally use our tax dollars in building infrastructure so that the private sector can continue to make stuff, dig stuff up out of the ground, grow stuff, and grow other stuff that we can eat in the form of meat for our hamburgers but, at the end of the day, the economy is supported by large and small organisations in vast numbers, such as small to medium enterprises. It is these organisations which are the heart and soul of our economy.
The government is arguing that through increased borrowings they can sustain jobs by using taxation dollars to support business; to build infrastructure and expand the size of service delivery. I said it the last time, and heard members on the opposite side of the House scoff in derision, but I will say it again: every borrowing you engage in now, whilst it helps to create a job on an infrastructure project, will be at the expense of jobs in the future. The logic goes like this: if we continue to borrow money at the rates that we are - if you include particularly what is being borrowed by the Power and Water Corporation - you will discover it will incur a debt and an interest payment. We then have to service that debt and interest payment. Whilst the debt repayments of the Northern Territory at the moment are somewhere between $300 000 and $350 000 on a daily basis, if we return to a high interest environment - let us say it goes back up to 10%, in a period of recovery - our interest repayments on the debts that the Treasurer is proposing will be in the order of $500 000, $600 000, $700000 per day. Those are amounts which could go to a job in the future.
However, we will not have that money available to build a school or to put extra police on the road, or even create jobs for administrative public servants who have to support those frontline public servants because we are paying off a debt costing us $0.5m a day to service. If you run up a debt …
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Port Darwin be given an extension of 10 minutes to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I thank honourable members. If you run up a debt to create jobs now you will be doing it at the expense of the capacity to create jobs in the future. Let me paint a scenario – I touched on Aboriginal affairs before – and say that we as a government - and when I say we, I am talking about a government formed by either side of the House in the future - find some mechanism to create jobs in remote communities through simple government expenditure. It may be through some system of PPPs, or whatever. All of a sudden, we turn to the kitty and ask ourselves if we can afford to spend the extra money to launch this program which would create 500 or 1000 jobs in the bush. If the answer to that question is no because we are too busy servicing a debt created when we were too busy creating jobs five years ago, then that will be an opportunity lost.
Whilst the government claims that they are the government interested in protecting jobs, they are interested in protecting jobs into what the Treasurer described as a growth environment. I still do not understand, the Treasurer has not yet explained - nor have I heard any other person explain - what element of the Territory’s current growth environment requires protection. Maybe they are aware of some information I am not but, the last time I checked, it is still a growth environment.
As far as budgets are concerned, this is a big spending budget; there is no doubt about it. All of their budgets have been big spending budgets and, up until now, they have been able to afford it. They claim the surpluses as some great fiscal achievement but those surpluses are a product of a source of income which exceeded their wildest expectations - and that is provable. All you have to do is look back through the budget projections and what actually happened when those projections were realised, and there were hundreds of millions of dollars worth of difference.
It is like watching the Treasurer fall into a swimming pool and then arguing that getting wet was a matter of good management. No, you just get wet when you fall into a swimming pool. Now that the tough times are here, this is when the mettle of a government is tested. The mettle of a government is tested by decisions they make. They claim this is a tough budget. This is a tough budget in one respect only, and that was the decision to drive us into debt into the future which has to be paid off - probably not by people who are sitting in this Chamber now, but some people in the future.
This government’s failure to contain its debt situation, particularly when you look at it its unfunded superannuation liabilities, represents an unmitigated disaster for the future of the Northern Territory. In spite of these times of great plenty, debt has increased, the unfunded superannuation liability rests over the future of the Northern Territory as the sword of Damocles; and there is no comfort in any of these numbers for Territorians into the future.
We have a superannuation bill which is going to suck hundreds of millions of dollars out of our budget every year for the next few decades. We are increasing our debt. Take a look at the non-financial public sector balance sheet and the projections into the future. They are taking us is to a debt to income ratio of 130% - almost precisely the same limit as was experienced in 2002 when the growth in the Northern Territory actually became recessive.
They claimed at the time that the government of the day was engaged in financial vandalism - what was it? - economic vandalism and what was happening was unsustainable. As I said last night, and say it again to this House, if what was happening in 2001 was financial or economic vandalism and was unsustainable, why are they now subscribing to precisely the same policies - exactly the same policies with exactly the same figure outcomes – plus or minus 1% - as in 2001, with the smoke and mirrors environment of surplus budgets and all those sorts of things, and ignoring the fact that they have been recipients and beneficiaries of a taxation system that they passionately and vehemently resisted?
It does not take a great deal of effort to go back through the Parliamentary Record to see the tirades of abuse that were laid upon the government of the day for introducing a goods and service tax - a tax which, ultimately, proved to be rivers of gold except for one thing; that those rivers of gold were predicated on a high national growth rate. Those rivers of gold came with a warning every time that they were processed by the Northern Territory Treasury, which was repeated in the last set of budget papers to reach this House. The warning was this: GST presents a risk. We are way too exposed to the GST environment and, unless you respond to that, you are going to be in trouble. That is, essentially, the warning from Treasury. Finally, the prophecy has come to bear; when the government has turned to the cupboard which they should have stocked up for these difficult times, they have found that the cupboard is empty.
Madam Speaker, the budget process is not about a year; the budget process is about year-in, year-out smart planning for the future. A failure to plan has now, as the old adage so oft expressed in other circles, proven to be true: a failure to plan is a plan to fail. This government has, sadly, through not taking advantage of the good economic times it has had available, now planned to fail.
Debate adjourned.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 29)
(Serial 29)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, I take up this second reading speech that I paused at 11 am to allow the Leader of the Opposition to give his budget reply.
The intent of this bill is to allow the Land Development Corporation to engage in its primary development areas and to provide appropriately mixed developments. Section 7 of the Land Development Corporation Act 2005 is proposed to be broadened to include provision for the Land Development Corporation to enter into joint ventures, partnerships, obtain funds via loans with the approval of the Treasurer, and to erect and construct recreational, transport, sporting and other community facilities associated with a residential or industrial development.
The ability to enter into joint ventures and partnerships is fundamental to a commercial operation, and to ensure that our private sector is able to be engaged in corporation developments. All other Land Development Corporations enter into joint ventures and deliver quality and timely developments without the unnecessary draw on the public purse. To successfully engage in joint ventures and partnerships, the bill also includes the new concepts of ‘co-development land’, ‘community amenities and facilities’, ‘corporation land’, and ‘residential developments’. These changes will ensure the Land Development Corporation is able to use a variety of means to develop the range of facilities and amenities required for the successful developments seen elsewhere in the country.
Members should also be aware that the Northern Territory Treasury is currently working with the Land Development Corporation to transition to a government business division as quickly as possible, thereby cementing the Land Development Corporation's commercial outlook for the agency into the future.
For the purposes of clarity, a new section 41A is proposed specifying that the Treasurer may delegate his or her powers under section 7(3) in relation to approving loans or borrowings by the Land Development Corporation.
In closing, members may ask why the Northern Territory Land Development Corporation is not assuming the complete land agency role undertaken by land corporations elsewhere in Australia. The answer is simple: the existing operation is simple and efficient and other areas of the government currently undertake some of the land delivery activities. We do not intend to duplicate resources.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 30)
(Serial 30)
Continued from 11 February 2009.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I indicate at the outset that the members on this side of the House will not be opposing this bill.
This bill, basically, is almost an administrative vehicle in its nature, to ratify and give legislative force, if you like, to the operation of the federal First Home Owner Grant, which has been operating for some time and, I believe, is due to expire at the end of this financial year. I am not sure of the exact date off the top of my head. However, there is nothing of any substance or concern within the bill.
Nevertheless, it does lend itself to some more general observations, which were indicated by the member for Goyder earlier today in another debate. It does deserve revisiting in this particular debate, because it is a debate which falls on all fours with the issue that was raised by the member for Goyder.
Essentially, the way the First Home Owner Grants are combined enables a fairly substantial grant to be made to first homeowners. The rationale for First Home Owner Grants nationally - in different jurisdictions as well as this jurisdiction – was to give first homeowners a leg up into the marketplace. However, we have to turn a cautionary eye to the value of these grants, because they do manifest themselves, when they become so generous, in a way which raises potential for concern.
I do not want to see, for one moment, people being deprived of the right and the capacity to live in their own homes. Anyone who has to pay rent in this jurisdiction, particularly in this city, will be fully aware of the extraordinary impost that rent is. Also, even in these times of low interest rates, anyone with a home loan has to pay vast amounts of money to simply service those loans for their own home.
I am somewhat concerned that if you encourage people into the marketplace by giving them a leg up to what can become, essentially, their deposit for a home, then they will be only asking themselves one particular question - the same question I asked myself when I bought my home: can I afford the repayments? That is generally the only question that is asked. An amount will be decided upon which can be spent which makes the payments affordable. Then, with that mindset, the borrower goes into the marketplace and says: ‘What can I afford?’ It turns out that they can afford more than they expected to be able to purchase if the leg up had not been available.
This becomes part of my concern. One, it translates into the houses in the marketplace becoming more expensive. You have people entering the marketplace with a particular leg up, and they are not asking themselves whether they can buy a $380 000 home; they will say: ‘I can afford to pay off a $420 000 home’. As a consequence, because they feel they have that new capacity, they will take that capacity into the marketplace, and the marketplace will respond by making houses more expensive, because there are more people in the marketplace who are prepared to pay that extra amount.
Further to that, the low interest environment that we currently have reinforces this capacity to pay off loans. Therefore, we have people on low incomes - often young people who have families, and often they are a one-income family, maybe two kids, the dog and an old Holden parked in the driveway – who buy their new home. It is a lovely home because they spent more than they expected, but they got more than they expected, or they entered the marketplace late, which means that the marketplace had been pushed up and that was the only place they could afford. As a consequence, there they are with their substantial leg up, their one income paying off this loan in a low-interest environment.
Pushing aside the leg up and just talking about that environment, what you have are people on low incomes paying off a loan on expensive homes who have received credit on a low-interest arrangement. If interest rates go up, it is trouble for them. If they lose their job, it is trouble for them. If the value of the house suddenly falls, it is trouble for them. If there are many people like this in the marketplace and the interest rates go up, the sudden default rate will mean you get a flood into the marketplace of that lower end of the marketplace. House prices start to drop and then people lose their investments.
Whilst I understand the logic of supporting a first homeowner with a grant, what is happening now is a situation not dissimilar in outcomes - not an intent and everything else like that, but in outcomes - as what happened in the United States to bring on the sub-prime marketplace. You have people on low incomes exposed to low interest rates in a marketplace where they are in houses they cannot afford. All it takes, the more that we interfere with that marketplace and with the money floating around in it is for one thing to change - the interest rates to change. Then, there will be a sudden flood of defaulting homes into the marketplace.
That is not a huge risk for Darwin. It would be in other jurisdictions; but not a huge risk in Darwin. It is interesting to draw the parallels between people who are now entering into the housing marketplace taking out loans they may not be able to afford in a high-interest environment - and I would hate to see our manipulation of the amount of money available for people to buy houses having a negative outcome, despite the very good intentions we have for putting these systems together.
Having made those observations, I urge the government to advance on these matters with great caution and care, and with a mind to the experience of other jurisdictions. However, as I said at the outset, we will not be opposing this bill because we understand it largely ratifies something that has been happening for some time.
With those thoughts, Madam Speaker, I have very little to add other than to repeat my counsel to government: please be aware of the potential for this situation to have a negative outcome.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her introduction of this amendment bill. I do not have any particular gripe about the bill; although I should say in the second reading speech copy circulated to members - which was probably only a typing error - it said: ‘the Henderson government also announced bill start’. I suspect they meant Buildstart. I hope you are not bringing legislation in to increase the number of bills people have to pay ...
Ms Lawrie: No, it was a typo.
Mr WOOD: That is okay, thank you.
The reason I have some concerns - and they are not meant to be negative concerns from the point of view that helping people to buy a house is a bad thing. I believe it is a good thing. However, there is a time when we need to review whether the processes we are putting in place are doing what they are meant to do. In other words, we are encouraging people to apply for a grant to help them buy a home.
Much of the reading I have been doing of late revolves around a number of writers in various papers - financial or just the daily papers from the south - and comments from people on websites. As you know, some people will comment on those particular articles. There is a belief by quite a few people that the home loan grant has increased the price of housing, especially where there is a tight market, because people know there are people who are going to apply for their house and they are in the price bracket where many of the first homeowners are trying to move into. It is quite easy to say: ‘The government has bumped up the First Home Owner Grant to $14 000; we can just put that little $14 000 on top of the price of our home’. It is quite interesting to see what some of the southern commentators have been saying about that.
I read an article by a writer in the Sydney Morning Herald who stated exactly that; that the Labor government, when it was in opposition, when it held a forum on this particular matter, and came to the agreement that it was bumping up the prices of houses. It would be good for the government to come to this parliament to say: ‘We have reviewed this program and this is the findings of that program’. In other words, it would be good to say: ‘All right, we have had this program in place for X number of years; we have researched the price of housing at that stage. Was there some sort of connection between us introducing the new First Home Owner Grant and the price of houses at that stage?’ Was there a connection, as has been asked by a number of people?
It is not saying that the First Home Owner Grant does not have some benefits, but it is no good if that benefit is wiped out by an increase, at the same time, in the price of the houses that these people are trying to buy. Some people are saying prices for land are now starting to flatten, and it may be a good time to take it off because, if a house price drops by about 3.5%, you have covered the savings that the government would give in a First Home Owner Grant. There could be some sense there. However, if we let the market take its place at the moment, the savings of even a small reduction in the price of a house might be equivalent to the grant you are giving people to encourage them to buy their first home.
I also believe that we need to be careful at this stage. I mentioned the other day, when the minister made a statement about HomeNorth, in relation to bumping up how much money one could now obtain to get a loan to buy a house whether, at this stage of the economic climate when jobs are becoming a little shaky, we should be encouraging people to enter the market and go into debt when it is not necessarily a good idea unless they are pretty sure of their employment prospects over the next umpteen years. We are now finding that the length of time it takes for a person to pay off their house is much longer than in days gone by. Therefore, people are at risk of losing their house over a longer period. It is much harder for people to pay off these loans. If we have a period where people have some doubts about whether they have a job, is it wise that we should be pushing people into higher and higher debt?
I will read from an article by Stuart J Barnett, who wrote in The Courier Mail on 29 April this year:
- … potential first homebuyers are as vulnerable to unemployment as the next person, but possibly not as vulnerable as those who have just bought their homes - given the high debt to income they have had to incur to buy a home, they are hardly going to be able to afford mortgage payments if they become unemployed.
- And for those getting it now it won’t take much of a drop to lose that grant amount - a $400 000 established property only has to fall 3.5% for that $14 000 to disappear.
In those two paragraphs, I am highlighting two of the areas that the government needs to consider when they are getting people to move into debt. We need to ensure that people are aware of some of the difficulties they could have in a period of recession.
How do we avoid that? Most people would like to buy their own house. It really boils down that we are not going to provide Territory residents land at a cheap enough price to avoid getting into such debt. It is very hard for young people to find a house and a block of land today, regardless of whether the government is offering its HomeNorth program, as it is simply too expensive. If you have a $420 000 house, which is the maximum loan from HomeNorth, I presume you need a 10% deposit. How many young people have a …
A member: Two percent.
Mr WOOD: I presume you need a deposit of 10%, although it can be subsidised via the scheme?
Ms Lawrie: No, 2%.
Mr WOOD: Two percent? My argument is that if you were not eligible for the HomeNorth scheme, you would require a higher deposit for the bank. $42 000 is a substantial amount of money. The government gives relief via its First Home Owner Grant scheme but if people want to buy a house today they have to find $42 000 and that is a fairly large deposit to find.
Because the scheme that the government is putting forward can, basically, cover the cost of the deposit, one of the arguments is we are encouraging people to get into debt that they really could not normally afford. If they could not save up the deposit, and needed a subsidy to get them that deposit, are they good enough savers to pay the mortgage over a number of years for that priced house?
We have to push this concept of producing more land - and land at a much more reasonable price. If land was $100 000, you can build a reasonable house for another $200 000, which makes up to $300 000. That is still a lot of money to pay back. It is the land that is the real killer because of (1) the availability of land, and (2) the price of land. While land is divvied out in short bursts, the price of land will stay high; simply, the demand for land is higher than the supply, and land will always be high in price. That is exactly what some private developers in the rural area do if they have a large block of land. They know they can get 200 blocks of land from that large parcel of land. There is no way they are going to sell the 200 blocks in one hit. They will sell them in 50 lots, to ensure that those 50 blocks get the maximum price.
The government should not be too worried about that; it should be looking at opening up more land thereby creating more competition. Even though they say that the market could be affected for those people who have put their hard-earned cash into buying land and houses, even a small drop - a 10% drop in the price of houses and land - is still far more than what people would have paid three years ago.
Rural land went up 100% in one hit; from around $100 000 and, in 12 months, it hit around $200 000. Some people who lost a little in their land sales would still have made quite a considerable gain from the land they purchased. I am not sure that we should put too much emphasis on the market all the time because, in the end, it is government's role to ensure those people in the lower wage bracket have an opportunity to have a start in life. It may not be the flashest house they build there, but at least it is a house.
The way we can do that is by producing more land at a cheaper price. I have said publicly, and the Minister for Planning and Lands knows that there is an application at the moment for land in the forestry area of Howard Springs. A number of developers have put forward a proposal. I only know what those proposals are in a general sense, but they are putting forward a scheme which will encourage first homeowners to buy 1 ha and 2 ha blocks at a reasonable price. The idea is to encourage people to get into the market, build a home, and to get people on to the land.
There are many benefits if the government can do that. We talk about an economy that could be slowing down. If the government can get these people on to the land, they will build a house and that keeps the builders going. They will buy a stove, a fridge, and a washing machine. They will buy a bed and whatever else they need – they will put up a fence, etcetera. By getting people on to the land, you will keep the economy ticking over and that is good.
You will be keeping places like Howard Springs alive. We have a school that is low on numbers partly because of the middle school group, also because there are not as many young families in the immediate area as there used to be. There are plenty of young families in the rural area, but some of the old areas have now become very expensive. I live in Howard Springs. Last year, I saw a 2 ha block on Whitewood Road that sold for around $385 000. I believe a house on Whitewood Road recently sold for over $1m. So, you are starting to move into land prices that are not conducive to young people being able to afford to live in the area. That impacts on things like schools. We need to ensure there are opportunities for young people to move into these areas and avail themselves of the facilities that are already there.
I am not against a First Home Owner Grant. I know why this bill is being debated today. I just believe there may be a time when the government has to rethink whether this program is doing what it should; or whether we should let the market forces take place, because there are certainly signs out there that the market is levelling at least. If the market drops by a small percentage, it would cover the grant you are encouraging people to take up to move into their own home.
Having a review of this grant would establish whether it has been an advantage to those people moving into their first home, or whether they are buying the home with the grant attached to it because the seller could see them coming and added that $14 000 on to the cost of the home. That is what some people are saying down south. It has been mentioned here before. I say to the minister: give some consideration to review whether this program is doing what it is intended to do, because that would find out whether it is achieving your goals, and it is not just something that looks good but does not really achieve what it was meant to do.
Mr KNIGHT (Housing): Madam Speaker, I support the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill as presented by the Treasurer.
This government wants every Territorian to have access to housing appropriate to their needs. Through a range of programs, we are helping Territorians rent and purchase property throughout the Northern Territory. This bill should be supported by the opposition. It is an important part of building the Territory. Our housing market needs to provide choice for our workforce; a workforce that is highly mobile when compared to other jurisdictions. We need to encourage industry to provide more places to buy and rent, and we need to help Territorians buy their own home.
Not all Territorians are ready to buy; some need a helping hand. That is why the Henderson government has increased funding to Territory Housing by 61% since 2001 – that was until yesterday. In handing down Budget 2009-10, my colleague, the Treasurer, has increased this investment in housing by 92% over the current financial year. I thank her for recognising the need in the community and making the right investment for our future.
We have witnessed a huge boom in the private property market. This is great for existing homeowners, but is a real issue for those wanting to buy. Growth in property prices has pushed affordability out of reach for some Territorians, and that is why this grant and this government’s housing initiatives are so important for our future. We need to have a property market that supports a sound investment for purchasers, but also allows homebuyers to get into home ownership.
Our property market must support key workers, and this grant is an important part of our home ownership strategy. The government needs to do what it can to support first homeowners. By encouraging workers to purchase in the Territory, we are stabilising our workforce and keeping skilled workers in the Territory.
We are committed to delivering new housing and new land releases. When releasing new land, the Henderson government will deliver 15% of new lots in large-scale subdivisions for affordable and public housing initiatives; new places to help people into their first home or back on their feet through social housing. Through this program we are creating more opportunities for first homeowners to purchase and use the grant. For example, 16 units at Emery Avenue in Palmerston are to be sold by ballot in the coming months. Over $1.2m is being spent to upgrade these units, including security fencing, shade sails for car parks, new tiling, painting, air conditioning, and landscaping. The units will be sold on a ballot system and eligibility criteria will ensure only low- to middle-income householders, who do not currently own a property, will have the opportunity to purchase one of these units. Expressions of interest for the ballot have been available since February this year and 40 expressions of interest for Emery Avenue have been lodged so far.
Larapinta in Alice Springs is an area that is currently being marketed as Ridges Estate, with 39 blocks currently being developed as part of Larapinta Stage 2. Six are being set aside for first homeowners. The lots are being sold as house and land packages and the properties will be able to access the First Home Owner Grant we are currently debating.
The First Home Owner Grant helps Territorians get started in the housing market. This product, along with this government’s latest housing affordability initiative, Homestart NT, will make a real difference to Territory families. Yesterday, I reported to the House that the new Homestart NT initiative is focused directly on helping low- to middle-income earners become homeowners. Homestart NT comes into effect on 1 June this year. It is built on the strong track record of HomeNorth, which helped 1100 Territorians become first homeowners. Reflecting the current property market, Homestart NT offers income thresholds and property purchase price caps that allows access to about 40% of the property market for low- to middle-income earners without investing more than 30% of their income.
I support the First Home Owner Grant initiative; an additional $7000 boost is welcome. This initiative is not just about Territorians looking to buy. It also has a positive flow-on effect into the building industry. This legislation facilitates the doubling of the existing $7000 First Home Owner Grant, taking the full grant to $14 000. It also provides a stimulus for building, with the grant increasing to $21 000 for first homeowners investing in building or purchasing existing homes.
We need more housing stock in the Territory. I support grants or initiatives that drive our local construction industry to put more stock in the marketplace.
Along with this government’s Buildstart initiative, which supplemented the first homeowner package by opening up grants of $14 000 to existing homeowners, a further stimulus to our construction industry, as part of Housing the Territory, we outlined a 20-year land release strategy and the expansion of the Land Development Corporation’s role to oversee residential and affordable housing developments, including working with the private sector on innovative and affordable housing developments.
We want to do everything we can to help locals take advantage of these grants and become homeowners in the Territory. This grant is absolutely vital and offers help that low- to middle-income earners need to get a start. Over the last week, with the announcement of Homestart NT, there has been a great deal of interest from friends of mine. Queries through the department have indicated that the Homestart program is very well geared to getting people over that line. We know people are trapped in the rental market. Homestart is delivering, and the First Home Owner Grant legislation will help those people as well. Every little bit helps to get over that line, to move those people out of public housing or out of rental properties now, will take the pressure off many areas within the sector.
Madam Speaker, I support this legislation, and congratulate the Treasurer for bringing it forward.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Port Darwin and Nelson, and the Minister for Housing for contributing to debate today on the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill. The amending bill is about getting Territorians into their first home and giving a stimulus to our housing construction sector - a win/win. It is appropriate that we are debating this legislation on the day after the budget. The budget delivered $1.3bn in infrastructure and investment that creates some 2500 jobs and, importantly as the Housing Minister said, includes $390m to increase and improve our housing stock
It is a budget that allocates $108.6m to expanded land release and associated community infrastructure, including $20m to continue accelerated land release in Palmerston. It is a budget that maintains a very generous first homebuyers stamp duty concession with a threshold of $385 000, a saving of some $15 000 from where the threshold was set a couple of years ago. It is a budget that introduced a completely revised home purchase entry scheme, Homestart NT, to get more people into their own homes.
I believe it goes to the heart of the debate we have heard in the Chamber today, with genuine concerns raised by members about being cautious and not overstretching people in tough economic times, particularly when they can perhaps take advantage of low interest rates, be overstretched and enter into a mortgage when they do not have the financial capacity and wherewithal to meet those mortgage repayments.
This goes to the heart of why Homestart NT has been such a carefully constructed leg up scheme for those low- to middle-income earners. Treasury did much work around the model with the department of Housing to identify what would be the appropriate entry level amount into the marketplace, and what percentage you strike at. I note the CLP said today they would have a scheme that would give access to 49% of the marketplace. What would be a good percentage there? Also, how do you provide for those income caps so that people are not overextending themselves by having more than 30% of their income going to their mortgage repayments? We struck a very cautious approach to that, wanting to maximise opportunities for Territorians yet, at the same time, not encouraging Territorians to dangerously overextend themselves at a time when there are tough economic conditions. We also know that low interest rate loans are attractive.
Everyone is assessed by TIO staff when they apply for Homestart NT. It is a thorough assessment. I know many people in my electorate who have gone through the HomeNorth process for assessments, and those home loan assessors at TIO carefully consider the critical issue of whether these people can afford the mortgage repayments. Bear in mind that we have a 2% deposit, so on a $420 000 house it is very affordable.
It was never designed to replace the main financial institutions’ lending. We did not want to go into the middle and upper marketplace with Homestart NT. Let the financial institutions be in that competitive marketplace, and let people shop around. However, Homestart NT is for those low- to middle-income earners who are not the attractive potential homeowners for the competitive financial institutions. That is why it is structured with a cap around income, and why it is also structured with a cap around a price point at which you can buy into the marketplace, which is 40%.
The precursors to Homestart NT show that these schemes can be effective in giving people a leg up into the marketplace - people who otherwise are not attractive for mortgages with those financial institutions. Since we revamped HomeNorth, we have seen some 1100 people enter the marketplace. In those figures were many single, young Territorians - the people the member for Nelson talked about; those young tradies who have a job and want to get into the marketplace and own their first unit – we saw a strong pick up and entry into the marketplace through HomeNorth.
Part of what we did in getting rid of HomeNorth and creating Homestart NT was to weight the system towards families, which is why we have the scale of gross household income caps or thresholds, based on the number of people in the household. We are not discerning that a household - a family - has to be mum and dad and three kids. A family can be mum and five kids, which is a six-person household. We are providing for the mix of families we know are in our community, the mix of people in those low- to middle-income status areas, and providing a real leg up, particularly for families. Whilst HomeNorth was working for the young singles, Homestart NT will work for those young singles too – and we wanted the scheme to work for families, too.
Careful economic analysis and construction went into the Homestart NT scheme, looking at what we call the 40:30 ratio; accessing 40% of the marketplace but not using more than 30% of the gross household income on mortgage repayments, which is absolutely at the affordable price point in home mortgage repayments. I congratulate the Treasury staff and the department of Housing staff who worked tirelessly on Homestart NT with me and the Housing Minister.
I recognise there is support for assistance through the First Home Owner Boost grant. The First Home Owner Grant has been around for a long time now, and this is a ramped up version from the Commonwealth, putting those incentives in, particularly for the construction element. However, we have seen a very strong response to the Rudd government’s ramped up First Home Owner Grant announcements which we administer on their behalf through this legislation and our Commissioner for Revenue. We have seen a very strong response to that. We have seen, up to 30 April this year - the latest figures I have at hand - 670 Territorians have received the boost assistance to purchase their first home – 670 Territorians have captured the Rudd stimulus through this First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill.
I am delighted to know that there are 670 Territorians who have seized this opportunity as a leg up into their first home ownership in the Territory. It is an example of how, if you make some adjustments in tough times, you really do pass those benefits on to the individual and the battler. Congratulations to those 670 Territorians who have made the most of the First Home Owners Grant and became homeowners. I know how it is, changing your life to go from renting to owning - through a mortgage - your own home, and what a significant shift that can be in your life cycle.
The Northern Territory government looked at what the Commonwealth was doing in the First Home Owner Grant, and we swiftly responded to a potential flattening in our construction sector, particularly the need in the residential rental market in the Territory. We constructed a scheme specifically to target to that need directly. We are the only jurisdiction which did that. We are the only jurisdiction which responded in that way. We created the Territory’s Buildstart regime, which was designed to complement the federal government’s boost. We have provided a $14 000 incentive to other homebuyers - not first homebuyers, other homebuyers or investors - to buy or build new homes.
This is at a time when we really wanted to see those investors returning to the marketplace. We saw interest rates coming down. Investors had fled the marketplace because of the high interest rates under the Howard government - we had something like 13 consecutive interest rate rises in a row ...
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They fled the marketplace because of the high interest rates under the Howard government - 13 rate rises in a row. We saw interest rates coming down under the Labor government. Under Rudd, we are seeing some affordability back in the interest rate burden on families in paying for their mortgages. I know there are those who are living tough, who have families, and are looking at that interest rate payment. Every percentage point down they are saying: ‘Hallelujah, that noose around my neck is loosening significantly thanks to those interest rate cuts’.
We saw the environment of opportunity in the residential market with the lowering interest rates under Labor entice investors back into the construction marketplace to boost the residential stimulus in the Territory. Buildstart is a very carefully constructed package, not just for houses but also for unit developments.
You can talk about the number of residential house blocks, but you can seriously ignore the thousands and thousands of unit developments occurring in and around Darwin where there is literally a suburb plus of unit developments. The member for Port Darwin has seen the boom in Port Darwin in unit developments and what that has done in terms of population. You can put many people in a very small geographic area through unit developments. Therefore, we constructed the package for not just the new single house on a residential block; we also targeted the rental investor opportunity in units as well. That was why Buildstart was constructed with the $14 000 incentive to other homebuyers or investors to buy or build new homes.
I can report there has been a very strong and positive industry response to Buildstart; builders love it. Some have said to me: ‘I love Buildstart. I am promoting Buildstart. I am selling off the back of Buildstart. Thank you for that’. Developers have said: ‘It has really helped us in purchases off-the-plan, thank you for that’. It has come at very important time because we saw a tightening in the number of pre-sales the banks were requiring for unit developments. It is a perfect product in the right place, at the right time, to deliver the right product for the consumer and boosting rental opportunities for Territorians. We knew we had a rental squeeze occurring as a result of strong economic growth and strong population growth and a booming Territory economy.
We have had an impressive response to Buildstart; we have had some 196 applications. I know the guys are working hard in Treasury to process those applications. They are working really hard, and I thank them for that effort. It has been a great response from Treasury officials to get through those applications. We have had 96 approved or paid to date - 96 new homes, purchasing off-the-plan for new units, construction, jobs in construction, and rental opportunities. There are rental opportunities in the Territory coming our way as a direct response to an initiative by this Labor government with the most important timing. No one else has done this; we were the only ones who came up with Buildstart, tailored it directly to the needs of the Territory market, and what a great response we have had.
The First Home Owner Grant boost, in conjunction with Buildstart, has helped to stimulate our economic activity. That is supporting jobs in construction and related industries, as well delivering more houses for first homeowners and those needing to rent. This is helping Territory investors with investments properties. We are offering a $14 000 incentive to not delay building until next year, build this year. Buildstart has been a fantastic program.
The Territory government has also redesigned Homestart NT to follow this package of making housing affordable and a leg up into housing. We are very careful in that 40:30 split, with 40% of access into the Territory’s properties in the main centres, and 30% of household income in repayments. We set regional caps in recognition of the price point differences across the regions rather than having a ‘one size fits all’ which distorts markets in the regional centres. We are very careful not to distort the existing marketplace. If you set your price point too high, which the CLP said they would today - 49% - you distort house prices and push them up. There would be some bad news for people trying to purchase if 49% of the marketplace was in the package.
In relation to land release, the $108.6m in Budget 2009-10 provides for extra land and extra community infrastructure, which is great, because you cannot release land without also providing the community infrastructure to support it. This represents 3000 blocks in Johnston, Mitchell and Zuccoli; land at Bellamack and Johnston will be released by the end of the year, and Bellamack will provide around 650 blocks – 15% of which will be reserved for first homebuyers and public housing.
The first stage, comprising 234 blocks, has already been approved by the Development Consent Authority and the blocks are expected to be available by the end of this year. The headworks are valued at $5.7m, and were started in November of last year. Wolpers Grahl, a local construction firm, has that contract; they did the great roadworks at the front of Darwin Middle School. They are now doing more work on the Bellamack headworks: the power supply, rising main and sewer and water main. The works are going to ramp up again because the water table is drying out enough to allow them to install the pumps, station chamber and piping.
I have been on-site and the workers love these government tenders. They rolled from one major government tender project to another so they were not unemployed. A job over here for government infrastructure; a job in Bellamack now, with government infrastructure spending. It is good news all around because it is the headworks necessary to release land to provide for more housing opportunities, and jobs for our construction workers and local companies. Wolpers Grahl – I went to school with one of the workers. It is great result. The headworks are expected to be complete by the end of the year. I have met the guys. They are very experienced and know what they are doing. I will take their word on that. The development will occur concurrently with the headworks.
Regarding the blocks available in Johnston, we have a contract out for headworks at the moment, which closes on 13 May. This contract will include new roads to Johnston and the construction of power, water and sewer mains. In addition, land release continues in the greater Darwin area. We have 280 blocks in Lyons, Muirhead, and Parap scheduled for release in 2010 …
Mr Wood: What price for an average block in Lyons? You had a chance to develop it and, now, we have overpriced land. You have not planned it.
Ms LAWRIE: The really good thing about Muirhead is, as Planning minister, I have been very focused on ensuring there is a component of affordable and social housing enshrined in Muirhead as well. I saw an opportunity to approach Muirhead differently to Lyons. The Defence Housing Association has been very good in negotiations with the government to enshrine affordable and social housing at Muirhead. I wanted to have that mix of public housing in the northern suburbs because it is a massive lot turn-off - about 1000 lots at Muirhead. There is a real opportunity for the government to have affordable and social housing; but it has been a very careful …
Mr Wood: It is a southern subdivision in a tropical climate.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I always enjoy listening to the member for Nelson when he speaks, but I would like to hear the member for Karama.
Mr Wood: I just could not resist. Sorry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, Standing Order 51. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. Member for Nelson, take the time to have a meeting with the Defence Housing Association, talk to them about the design elements of the houses they have put into Lyons. You will hear from them that they want to see a more tropical, contemporary design for Muirhead; not just in the houses but in the orientation of the streets, the blocks, and where you build on the block.
You can cast your stones and say it was not done the way you would have done it, but I challenge people to have a conversation with Defence Housing about how they are seeking to provide affordable, tropical, good-quality housing for our hard-working Defence personnel in Darwin, at Muirhead. I am looking forward to that subdivision as I have been involved in discussions about the detail of it, which provides much more informed advice.
Muirhead, as I said, is about 1000 blocks which we will see released in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; a significant release of land. We recognise the pressing need to regularly release land in a way which improves affordability but, at the same time, does not flood the market. This is particularly important in these volatile economic times as we are seeing happen in the markets in southern Australia.
This is a debate on the First Home Owner Grant boost scheme which is, basically, an administrative amendment providing for the Commonwealth’s changes to the scheme. It is retrospective to provide for those payments that have been made. I have circulated a committee stage amendment. It comes at the request of the Commonwealth in regard to providing for special reasons that could be argued with the Commissioner for Revenue to allow longer periods to complete the building work, or complete a contract. The request came from the Commonwealth after the legislation was put forward. Madam Speaker, we will need to move into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I propose amendment schedule No 12 of the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 30).
The specific changes are to the proposed new section 13D(4) by replacing the reference to section 13D(2) or (3) with a reference to section 13D(1) to (3). Section 13D sets out eligibility requirements for the Commonwealth’s additional First Home Owner Boost grant which the states and territories are administering on behalf of the Commonwealth. This section requires that homes built under comprehensive building contracts, or by owner/builders, are to be completed within 18 months after the building work is started; and off-the-plan purchases must be completed by 31 December 2010.
Section 13D(4) provides the Commissioner of Territory Revenue with the power to allow a longer period for starting or completing building work or completing a contract, provided there are special reasons to do so. Examples of where this may occur include when completion of the building works is delayed by a natural disaster or fire, or where an owner/builder is hospitalised for a significant period of time due to ill health. The proposed minor amendment extends the commissioner's power to allow a longer period applied to an off-the-plan contract, as well as a home built under a building contract or by an owner/builder. This change has come about by a direction from the Commonwealth and was advised after the introduction of this bill.
I commend this amendment to honourable members.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I am raising specific concerns in relation to the amendment as proposed by the Treasurer.
Whilst we are in the committee stages, I invite the Treasurer to comment on the observation mentioned in the second reading speech. Without breaching standing orders, she may not have been aware of those comments. However, I ask her to take this opportunity in relation to the specific caution I signalled about young families taking on loans in low interest environments. If those interest rates should change, they will carry an exposure which is not entirely different to what happened in the sub-prime environment in the United States. Those young families could find themselves in a situation where they are carrying a loan with a low income by virtue of the fact they are taking advantage of what I consider to be a very generous package. If the interest rates should change, there is potential peril that these young families on low incomes may face. I am aware these things are still means tested to a degree. The situation is now changing to the point where entry into this marketplace is more than a leg up - it takes the form of a subsidy.
I am concerned if interest rates suddenly go up and wages do not follow, many of these young families who have taken advantage of these opportunities will suddenly find themselves cursed because these subsidies have had the effect of driving up the price in the marketplace. People have been borrowing to their capacity to repay, rather than within the natural capacity of their own income. Whilst do-able in a low interest environment, let us say, for argument’s sake, there was a sudden spurt of growth in four or five years time which pushed interest rates up to 10%, we will suddenly see many of these young families exposed.
I seek the Treasurer's observations in relation to that, to see if the government has considered a fall-back position if young families taking advantage of these proposals suddenly find themselves in a situation where they cannot afford to meet their debts.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I did respond directly to the questions and musings of the member for Port Darwin in my closing speech. I know that, at one stage, he was involved in Chamber business and discussions, so he might not have heard my response. I specifically talked about the care taken in construction of the Homestart NT scheme because we did not want to see young families overextend themselves. Whilst we want to afford those leg ups into the marketplace, we do not want a situation where they are overextended, particularly in an environment of low interest rates where you have a greater risk of interest rates, at some stage, heading upwards.
We very deliberately constructed Homestart NT on a 40:30 split - 40% access into the marketplace, 30% income capacity to repay. It was very carefully constructed. We are not –apart from Homestart NT, of course – in the broader home loans marketplace. Each financial lender and institution will apply its own assessment to the home loan applicant's ability to meet those repayments through that process. It is very rigorous.
We have seen in the actions of our financial institutions in Australia that they are well regulated federally. As a consequence of that strong regulation - and the Prime Minister is speaking more and more about the need to look at the regulatory environment in our nation, and how financial institutions in the global context, can take a leaf out of our book, look at our regulations and at how that oversight occurs.
Do I have confidence in assessments? Yes, I have, because of the regulatory environment in which they occur. Where is the NT government in this scenario? We are in this marginally; that is, we have the Buildstart scheme which entices investors into the construction area where there are some very attractive benefits in negative gearing, and the like, in investment properties, and access to all sorts of beneficial scenarios. They will have their own financial advice as to whether they should invest in additional properties. Of course, the government is not going to provide that financial advice.
We look at what we provide in the scheme. Homestart NT is the government’s initiative, and we very carefully put those income thresholds into the scheme. We very carefully placed those price caps in the scheme, particularly so low- to middle-income earners - who do not necessarily have the financial wherewithal you normally see in the middle- to higher-income brackets - are not overextended and stretched. That is where the government is in that space.
This is a broader debate than the legislation here. This is enabling legislation to provide for the additional payments that the Commonwealth announced in the First Home Owner Boost scheme. I am not going to be enticed into pretending that I will be the financial advisor for anyone who seeks a home loan, whatever their personal circumstances may be. That is clearly not for the Treasurer. The Treasurer should be, and is, providing this enabling legislation to ensure Territorians, like every other Australian, can access the benefits flowing from the Commonwealth through the First Home Owner Boost scheme. We talked about the 670 Territorians who have put their hand up and said: ‘Thank you, I am going to be able to own my first home as a result of this particular boost’. The boost will not last forever ...
Mr Elferink: Be flat out getting through the next month, by the looks of it.
Ms LAWRIE: It will not last forever. Buildstart will not last forever, and Territorians have responded to that opportunity. The First Home Owner Boost is the right product for the right time to provide the right economic stimulus in the housing market. Buildstart is the right product for the right time. Feedback from the broad catchment of financial lenders, financial advisors, first homebuyers, owner/builders, and builders, has all been very positive.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Regarding my specific question, the 40:30 split arrangement is the only vehicle that you have used in dealing with the issue I have raised, and the rest is up to the banks? Do I understand that correctly; it is the banks that make these determinations?
Ms LAWRIE: You do not understand. You did not listen. You did not listen the first time and you did not listen the second time. I talked about the regulatory environment in Australia as well. I did talk about …
Mr ELFERINK: I am aware. I spoke about the APRA guidelines at some length, Treasurer. I am just asking you a question; I am not having a crack at you. I am trying to inform myself so I understand these things better. Buckets of derision are not going to make you a better person. I am asking you these questions for information. Can you …
Ms LAWRIE: I took you through the entire picture.
Mr Elferink: Sorry?
Ms LAWRIE: I just took you through the entire picture.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but, I am just going for a little more detail. Is that a problem, or would you just …
Ms LAWRIE: Do you have a specific question to ask?
Mr ELFERINK: Explain to me in detail the 40:30 arrangement - in detail.
Ms LAWRIE: I have explained it, and the Minister for Housing has explained it. I will talk about it again. The 40:30 …
Mr ELFERINK: You do not understand it; that is the problem. I want it explained.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting! The Treasurer is endeavouring to answer your question.
Ms LAWRIE: I knew this was about his grandstanding; I can sniff it out a mile away these days. The stench wafts from the CLP and comes across this Chamber. You can smell it a mile away.
The 40:30 is about making it affordable; ensuring that low- to middle-income earners do not overextend themselves – they access 40% of the marketplace, with no more than 30% of income going to repayments. It is as simple as that.
Mr ELFERINK: Just one other observation. I find it curious that during her second reading reply, the Treasurer said that the take-up rate was huge; this is a great boost and all those sorts of things with huge numbers of people involved. When you ask them specific questions, I find it curious that the language now changes to a marginal tinkering around the edges of the real estate market. It is either one or the other. People are either hugely involved in this program, or it is marginal tinkering. You cannot have it both ways. I have nothing more to add.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on some matters raised in the debate. I know it was a broad-scale debate and it covered a range of issues. One of those issues was Lyons, and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The third reading debate goes to the bill. Lyons is not in the bill. It was a second reading debate.
Madam SPEAKER: There must be no new material, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I was not going to introduce any new material. My comments relate to what the minister was saying as part of this debate. I would not have thought I was introducing any new material.
Madam SPEAKER: It has to be specifically about the bill, member for Nelson. I will let you go on and we will see what happens.
Mr WOOD: The minister spoke about the wonderful lifestyle the new subdivision at Lyons had brought to people who live in that area. If the minister looked at that area carefully and compared it with, for instance, the houses in Tiwi, on the other side of Henbury Avenue, she would see a tropical lifestyle compared with a southern lifestyle. There is very little room. We have new subdivisions now which are very expensive ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am happy to have the debate about lifestyle and Lyons versus Tiwi anytime. However, we need to get some rigour back into debate in this Chamber regarding third reading speeches. I caution that third reading speeches go to the legislation. Let us have the debate anytime on Territory lifestyle - anytime.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson did not introduce the issue of Lyons, the Treasurer did.
Ms Lawrie: Actually, he did.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, it is the third reading speech. It must relate directly to the bill before us and must not introduce any new material. If it is about the bill, you may continue.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am a little confused. I understand what you are saying, in the sense that we are debating this bill and there was a fairly broad approach to the debate in what was put forward. How do you draw the line between what was being debated - raised by the minister - and what is directly affecting the bill? I am not sure.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I make the comment that you could have raised those things in committee, or you could have raised them in your second reading speech, but not in the third reading speech. The third reading speech specifically relates to the bill, which is why it is a very short period of time.
Mr WOOD: I will remove the issue of Lyons being not what I call a typical tropical subdivision, but I would like to comment on the minister speaking about protecting the market. I hark back to what I was saying: it is a pity that in this debate there is a tendency for the government to be more concerned about the market and less concerned about the battlers.
They are happy for people to go into high debt - and the reason we need high debt is because the price of land is extraordinarily high. In figures I saw from the member for Brennan, we are looking at $230 000 for a block of land.
Now, we are putting out a system called the HomeNorth system to encourage people …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The legislation is enabling legislation to provide for the increase in the First Home Owner Grant provided by the Commonwealth, administered by the Northern Territory through the Commissioner of Revenues. The subject was broadly debated through the second reading speech and carried across a very diverse range of topics, all of which the member for Nelson participated in.
This is a third reading speech on the First Home Owner Boost. It is a discussion about whether the payment should occur, relevant to third reading.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please be very specific towards the bill, thank you.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the government has this requirement for a First Home Owner Grant is because land has become so expensive, and people cannot afford to get into the market and …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister announced the First Home Owner Boost grant not because there was a shortage of land, but to stimulate economy activity.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Nelson, can you please speak to the bill or resume your seat.
Mr WOOD: I was speaking to the bill in relation to the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill which relates to First Home Owner Grants. I am saying that part of the need for this to occur is because people cannot afford to buy land at present prices; they need assistance from the government to buy it. They need assistance because the price of land is too high.
I am saying that is the reason the government needs these schemes. Instead of being concerned about reducing the price of land by increasing the amount of land available or by bringing in special ways of opening up land for development, it is more concerned about the market and not losing the value of the market, than allowing people to purchase land without this assistance they need ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just could not be bothered.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Nelson.
Ms LAWRIE: I know this is getting repetitive; third reading speeches have a convention.
Mr WOOD: I have finished, Madam Speaker. I could not be bothered.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Members’ Interests Committee - First Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Members’ Interests Committee - First Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Members’ Interests Committee’s first report to the Eleventh Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper – Members’ Interests Committee - First Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Print Paper – Members’ Interests Committee - First Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper and Adopt Recommendations–Members’ Interests Committee - First Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Note Paper and Adopt Recommendations–Members’ Interests Committee - First Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and that the recommendations of the report be adopted.
This report, which will be circulated to members - and I believe members would be aware of the content of it - recommends changes to the forms used by members for registrable interest, as well as the procedure for inspection of the records. The forms and procedures contained in this report have been circulated to all members of the Assembly and agreed to by the government and the opposition.
I welcome this report, Madam Speaker. The government will be supporting it, and I am sure the opposition will be supporting it also …
A member interjecting.
Dr BURNS: Or I trust they will ...
Mr Elferink: Is there not a dissenting report on this …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: No, this is the Register of Interests. We will get to the other one after this. We will have a debate on this. The pro forma that was proposed was circulated. I hope it will be adopted by this Assembly. It was circulated to all members and it is very closely based on the form which is used by federal members.
Basically, it has been agreed that the Clerk must:
1. keep a register of the interests disclosed under the act;
One of the very important responsibilities we have as members is to be open and transparent about what interests we may have and, when we are aware of them, what interests our spouse or partner might have or, indeed, what interests our children may have. We also need to be quite transparent about any gifts or donations we receive directly as members of this place. We need to also be aware of potential conflicts of interests of organisations we might be members of. It is quite all right to advocate for different organisations but, sometimes, there are conflicts of interest that arise.
The pro forma was circulated to all members and no adverse comments came back. There is some wisdom within the explanatory notes which says:
- No form can cover all possible circumstances and Members should consequently bear in mind the purpose and spirit of the return in deciding which matters should be registered.
It is not only about the letter of the form, it is also about the spirit. Of course, this parliament has had a register for some time, and all members know their obligations regarding the current form. However, the form now being introduced and, hopefully, accepted by all members of this Assembly, goes beyond what we have had before.
I ask members to bear in mind that there is a need to include, under all headings, interest to the extent members are aware of them, of the members spouse, including de facto partner - and there is a definition of partners that is part of the attachment - and any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support. This register has been coming forward for some time.
When I was previously on the Standing Orders Committee there was much debate about the independence of someone’s spouse and how it would be an intrusion on, I suppose, the freedom or privacy of a spouse for a member to say: ‘What interests do you have? I need to write them down on this form’. What we have struck here, and what we have seen in precedent in the federal parliament, is there are some members who respond well about interests they are aware of regarding their spouse’s interest. To some degree, each individual member will make that decision themselves about their spouse’s interests and what they are aware of, and respect the privacy of their spouse. However, it is the responsibility of each individual member.
Declaring shareholding in public and private companies is currently very important, and will remain so. Family and business trusts, and real estate, including the location or area and the purpose for which it is owned, are also an important aspect of this register. There is interest in what real estate is owned by a member, and that should be included in the register. Registered directorships of companies, obviously, are very important. There are also partnerships, including the nature and interests and the activity of the partnerships. Also included is liability, including the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned. I was interested to read one section:
- Liabilities incurred on a credit card need not be disclosed unless the credit card has been used to obtain a cash advance in excess of $5000 and the advance is outstanding for a period in excess of 60 days.
I do not think any members here would be in that situation, but it is something that is part of the Register of Members' Interests.
Under No 9, we are required to declare the nature of any other assets, excluding household and personal effects, each valued at over $7500: motor vehicles for personal use need not be included; collections need not be included; and items which might be listed under more specific headings, for example, investments, gifts received etcetera - need not be included. Private life insurance policies should be included, but parliamentary superannuation entitlements under state or Commonwealth schemes need not be included. As a general rule of thumb, items under $7500 in value may not require inclusion under this heading unless they are of a nature which might be sensitive to implications of a conflict of interest.
Importantly, No 10 covers the nature of any other substantial sources of income. Without going over old ground, there were assertions in previous Assemblies that some members were making substantial money outside the Assembly. It is important for the public to be aware …
Mr Elferink: It is still happening now.
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Mr Elferink: It is still happening now.
Dr BURNS: Well, the public should be aware of the nature of any other substantial source of income. That is in the interest of transparency.
Gifts requiring registration is under No 11. Gifts valued at more than $750 received from official sources, or more than $300 received from other than official sources, provided that a gift received by a member, a member’s spouse or dependent children is from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity, need not be registered unless the member judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may seem to exist. Once again, the responsibility lies with the member to exert personal judgment and not intrude on the privacy of their family unless the member feels there is an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Any sponsored travel or hospitality received where the value exceeds $300 - we have seen instances in the national media about that, and there have probably been instances on both sides of politics, to be fair, where that has occurred - it is very important for people to declare sponsored travel, and it is our responsibility to do so.
No 13 is membership of any organisation where a conflict of interest with a member’s public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. This is a very broad regulation but, once again, it is a judgment call. We are all part of organisations. I am a member of five school councils in my electorate. We are all members of school councils. Sometimes, I am an ex-officio member. We advocate for our school councils. I believe it is our job, as local members, to do that.
Sometimes we may be members of clubs, or there is a potential for a membership of clubs, and we need to be very careful. I will not go into specifics, but someone asked me to be the patron of a particular sporting organisation, however, there are issues to do with that and I felt it was better that I should not step into that space ...
Mr Elferink: Oh, do not give us the teaser and then pull back. Come on, tell us the whole truth.
Dr BURNS: No, I am just telling you that we need to exercise judgment in this. I have been the patron of the vintage car club, the Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Club NT, for a number of years and remain proudly so. I have advocated for them from time to time. However, that advocacy has been in black and white to various ministers of Transport about issues to do with their registration. That is the job of a local member. However, when there are issues to do with property or with grants from government, we need to be very careful regarding our membership of groups where that might arise as a conflict.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very good report and I hope the opposition will accept it. As I said, it has been modelled on the Commonwealth Register of Members’ Interests. It was interesting in the committee - and I compliment the Clerk on this - that the Clerk was able to show us examples of how different members of the Commonwealth parliament address different issues or different categories, and how different members felt obliged to register certain interests where others had a different approach - all within the member’s own duties as a member, and responsibilities as a member.
As the member for Port Darwin said, we have a responsibility to ourselves and to this parliament. We need to exercise due care and transparency. We live and die, as the member for Port Darwin said, by what we do and say in this place but, also to some extent - and I include myself in this - on what we register in our Register of Members’ Interests. We are all aware that there are sets of eyes that continually go over this Register of Members’ Interests – the media and others, the general public, those with a political interest. Changes in our register are noted and people go over it and try to draw connections - sometimes non-existent ones. The Register of Members’ Interests is a very important element of this Assembly. I commend this report to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am seeking advice. Are we expected to debate this today?
Dr Burns: Just this one and, then, I will …
Mr ELFERINK: No. There is obviously a communication breakdown. I was advised there was going to be only one report. It was not the impression I got last night. Anyway, I am not going to go into it. This matter has been circulated. Although I was not expecting this particular report from the Standing Orders Committee, it has been circulated and my instinct is to have it adjourned because I have not read this report. Whilst I am aware of what is in it by virtue of the fact the issues in it have been circulated, in a more sober environment I would be arguing that this is the first time I have seen this report. I have not yet had an opportunity to examine it. I will take it on trust that what is in it is what was circulated.
It is surprising that we find ourselves having to debate a report, and have the government expectation that we debate it out to its completion, when members in this Chamber have not had an opportunity to read the final report. It may well be different - we do not know - to what was circulated earlier. We have to trust the government that what was circulated is what is contained in this report. It goes to the heart of the way we do business in this place.
Whilst I accept there was a genuine misunderstanding as to the number of reports to be tabled today, I do not accept, at the outset, that government can reasonably expect to drop the report on the Table at 5.30 pm and have members speak about it fully by 5.40 pm. That is, essentially, what is occurring in this place. I hope and trust the government that what has been agreed to is contained in this report. Mind you, I reserve the right, if there is a difference between what was circulated and what is in this, to criticise government if a change has occurred.
From all practical points of view, every member is now going to be subjected to a set of rules which are contained in this report - not the circulated paper, but in this report. Only 10 minutes ago, the minister was moving that the report be printed. What that means is that we get to look at the report and have it made available to members on this side of the House. What is involved now is trust. I have checked with our members on the Standing Orders Committee and they indicate there were no major issues after the circulation. However, it does not change the fact that I have not had sufficient time to read what is in this document.
It is part of the problem I have with the processes of this place; this sort of thing continually occurs. I would be pleased if we were able to take these documents, peruse them in a reasonable fashion with proper time available to us and come back to discuss these things. If we start to allow these things to occur, before you know it, legislation will come into this place, legislative instruments will be dropped on the table, and we are suddenly told we have to debate them. That is, perhaps, an extreme example, but this sort of conduct is all too common now in this House.
I know the government anticipates, in this instance, there is some type of communication, and we get the nod from the members in the committee that it is all sweetness and light. However, I have not seen this report in its final form, and I have not had an opportunity to read it. Consequently, I am concerned about this departure from the normal process. If this was to happen in a debate and if we were required to debate a tabling report where there was an issue of dispute between the two sides of the House, then that would be a matter for grave concern.
Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst I understand the government’s anxiety to have this matter debated, I am concerned and express my concern, yet again, that I am being asked to sign up for something I have not read. You would not expect a person in a contractual environment to have a contract dropped in front of them and for them to sign it without having had, at least, the opportunity to peruse it in a reasonable fashion. Such an opportunity has not been afforded on this occasion. Perhaps, through the grace of the Leader of Government Business, if I were to move that this matter be adjourned, or if I was to move that I could complete my comments at a later date so that matter is adjourned, maybe he would like to indicate that to me at this point ...
Dr Burns: Member for Port Darwin, we are constrained by the fact that is a motion that appointed this House to having this report and …
Mr ELFERINK: I take that as a no. Is that a no? You want to debate it now?
Dr Burns: I would like to get some advice from the Clerk about this, as it is my understanding that a motion was passed in this House in relation to this report coming into the House for passage during these sittings.
Mr ELFERINK: Take some advice.
Dr Burns: Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a couple of things I can say here. First, I have been assured by the Clerk that the actual register and the pro forma of the register have not been altered from the one circulated to all members of this Assembly. However, in the spirit of flexibility, I am more than happy - well, not more than happy, but I can accept the member for Port Darwin wants more time to consider this and he wants to continue his comments at a later date, then he can.
However, this matter has been hanging around now almost since I was on the Standing Orders Committee the first time; we are probably looking at about five years. I do not know whether another month is going to make all that much difference.
We were required to bring this report into this Assembly but, if you feel very strongly about it, member for Port Darwin, I am willing to agree, from government’s side, that you be allowed to continue your remarks at a later date, so that you can better peruse this report. There was certainly no intention on the part of government to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes but, if you feel that way, I am more than happy for someone else to get up and adjourn debate.
Mr ELFERINK: In the rules of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that will be recorded as the world’s longest interjection, I suspect. However, I acknowledge and thank the Leader of Government Business for his latitude in relation to this. I am sure he understands our position. I am not alleging any impropriety but, as a matter of course, I thank him.
In accordance with the Leader of Government Business, I move that I be allowed to continue my comments at a later date.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Mr Wood: Madam Deputy Speaker, can I speak on what has been tabled?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, could you pause, please. We have actually …
Mr Wood: I thought the member was only asking to speak at a later date.
Mr Elferink: It had the effect of adjourning the debate.
TABLED PAPER
Standing Orders Committee - Second Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Standing Orders Committee - Second Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I table the Standing Orders Committee’s second report to the Eleventh Assembly.
MOTION
Print Paper – Standing Orders Committee - Second Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Print Paper – Standing Orders Committee - Second Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper and Adopt Recommendations - Standing Orders Committee - Second Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Note Paper and Adopt Recommendations - Standing Orders Committee - Second Report to the Eleventh Assembly
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and the recommendations of the report adopted.
This report makes recommendations on general business and changes to standing orders to include gender neutral language.
First, I will briefly address the recommendation about gender neutral language. The recommendation in this report is that, at the next reprint of the standing orders, gender neutral language be included. This is a non-controversial recommendation and I trust that the opposition will be supporting this. The government supports it.
On this particular issue, there was scrutiny of the gender neutral language. I and other members of the committee read through this very carefully, and vetted it. It is a step in the right direction. It is a nuts-and-bolts step in gender neutral language being used in standing orders.
The other part of the Standing Orders Committee Report to the Eleventh Assembly also recommends Standing Order 93, Order and Precedence for Government Business, not be amended. The CLP members of the Standing Orders Committee have provided a dissenting report, and I am sure they will be speaking to that. There has been a fair amount of discussion on this in the House recently, and we are all aware of the opposition’s position on this. The government’s position is that the current General Business practice in our Assembly works well. The issues of General Business are not to do with a lack of opportunities, but to do with the management of the time available. The government has already announced we will have three extra sitting days per year, and this will increase the current General Business Days.
The Standing Orders Committee has looked at the General Business practices of other Australian parliaments and has taken on board the alternate views on General Business Days. There are a variety of arrangements across the country for General Business Days. Many Assemblies around Australia have more total time allocated to general or private members’ business; however, most of these parliaments have a larger membership than the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. On a per-member basis, the Northern Territory Assembly comes in higher than all but two Australian jurisdictions, with 10 minutes per sitting week for non-government members. Apart from General Business Days, non-government members have ample opportunities to raise business. On an average sitting day, non-government members have Question Time, MPIs, censure motions, and adjournments at their disposal. As well as this, the opposition runs an entire day of General Business which provides a tremendous opportunity to run an effective and integrated agenda.
Nonetheless, whether organising Government or General Business, the government and opposition, respectively, have the responsibility to manage their business effectively and efficiently to achieve the desired results. The government has been elected to govern, and we believe that the current arrangements allow a good balance between the government’s legislative program, while also providing considerable opportunities for non-government members to have their say.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this report and thank the Assembly staff who have worked on it. The opposition has a dissenting report and I am sure they will speak to that. However, I make it clear at the outset of this debate, that government has a position on this. We will be voting on this report, and government’s position is very clear in relation to it.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): You have to be kidding! Madam Deputy Speaker, the opening statement of this minister and Leader of Government Business, was this is non-controversial - that is what he said. I am flicking through a report I have never seen, and I find a dissenting report, despite this minister saying it is a non-controversial document.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I was alluding to the first part of the report, and the term of reference for the committee which referred to gender neutral language. I was very clear about that. I was also very clear that there was a dissenting report about General Business from the CLP members. There are a number of issues in here, one of which relates to gender neutral language …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! If he feels he is aggrieved, I am sure he will have an opportunity to make a personal explanation. The point of order should be to a relevant standing order. I wish he would describe it to me, and to you.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please pause. Leader of Government Business, if you wish to approach with a personal explanation at a later time, you may do so.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Described as non-controversial - and even if I accept what he said, the fact is, I have not seen this document yet, and nor has any other person in this House, other than the members of the committee. I have just been told I am not going to get an opportunity to read it; I have to vote on what is in this today. That goes to the very heart of what we are talking about.
I was informed last night by the Government Whip that there would be no opportunity, and the matter was expected to be debated today. That is the way this information comes to members of this House - as a fait accompli. This is a House of debate, and I am not going to revisit all of the dreadful things that this government has done to shut down as much as it possibly can without being described as tyrants and totalitarian oriented people in this House in its functions and its jobs. However, to demand that we vote on a document that has not been available to us to read until less than five minutes ago is absolutely reprehensible.
For the Leader of Government Business to signal otherwise - and the interesting part is he understood the argument I put in relation to the debate immediately prior to this, and he understood the logic of that argument, so he acquiesced to my request because he understood the reasonableness of the request.
Then, I saw the Treasurer have a chat - a quiet chat behind the ear of the Leader of Government Business. What was that chat about, Madam Deputy Speaker? I will bet you London to a brick it was about this, and the fact that the same grace, good judgment, and honour shown by the Leader of Government Business would not be extended in the following debate. Where did that instruction come from? Was it the Chief Minister who still wants to turn this House - this precious place of freedom, one of the few places where we can express ourselves - into nothing more than a glossy brochure upon which he can paint his face? Is this place going to be nothing more than the Chief Minister’s podium from which he can launch his media releases?
Does this place mean so little in how we govern ourselves that we cannot even be granted the opportunity to speak on documents we have not read, because it does not suit this government for us to talk about these things? They come in here and, for the fleeting second, like a cockroach caught in the daylight when a rock is moved, they suddenly realise they have to be in the daylight at that time. Everything else they do is like a cockroach; they have to scuttle under the nearest rock. By forcing these things through, they see daylight for so much less time. That is what is happening to democracy in the Territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they used to rail against the injustices perpetrated against them in opposition. However, if those injustices were a candle, what is occurring from this government is the equivalent of a lighthouse. This government, which claims to be the champion of openness and honesty, comes in here and says: ‘This is the way we are going to do business’. It is like the parliament should be seen as some sort of supermodel, and this government is nothing more than the adipose tissue growing on the underarms of that supermodel. It changes the nature of what has happened.
I am not going to get angry. I am beyond anger. I am going to appeal to everyone who has a sensible brain in their head in this House to ask themselves: is it fair? Is it reasonable that we should be expected to vote and talk on a document we have not had the opportunity to read? Any reasonable person would know that it is not fair or reasonable. This is the activity of a government which sees thuggery as its primary vehicle to doing its job.
This document, I presume, is the one that truncates our adjournment debates. This document is the one supposed to bring order to this House, but just continues to rain disorder. This document contains a dissenting report - that much I was able to determine as I flipped through it ...
Mr Tollner: Have a read of the dissenting report.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection. I have not had time to read the dissenting report in this document, member for Fong Lim. That is the challenge before this House today. This government just wheels into this place and sees it as nothing more than a platform to launch its own policies. If they leave something sitting on the Notice Paper for debate - what happens? - they just leave it sitting there and, then, they pull it off anyhow.
It is fascinating to watch this occur. Never has this depth been plumbed in the Northern Territory. When the CLP was accused of being arrogant and reckless with the rights of parliamentarians, they never truncated adjournment debates. Those adjournment debates were available for 15 minutes at a time. The critics of the CLP were legion in criticising their undemocratic practices. Where are those critics now? Many of them are sitting on that side of the House, and their abuse of these systems is profound.
We were warned. I was given the heads up that we were going to be forced to debate this matter today. How can I possibly stand here and debate anything? The level of contempt this government has for the due processes available in this House is astonishing. They are more than happy to ram stuff through, gag debates, move stuff off Notice Papers, and ask members to sign up on principle alone.
I advise this House that I cannot support the passage or the noting of this document because I do not know what is in it. I may have heard about what might be in it, but I do not know what is in this document because I have seen it for the first time only a few minutes ago.
I, in good conscience and in my duty to reasonableness, must object to what is going on in this place. I will not sign up to a document I have not read. I would not buy a car on those terms, I would not buy a house on those terms and I am not buying this government’s rubbish on those terms.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the report, the committee has met and discussed several issues, and considered the report tabled today to make recommendations on two of them: that (1) Standing Order 93, Order and Precedence of Business, not be amended; and (2) in the next reprint of the standing orders gender neutral language be included.
Gender neutrality means I can still call you Madam Deputy Speaker but when the standing orders are reprinted, all pronouns within the standing orders will change from something like ‘he shall’ to ‘the Speaker shall’ - essentially, they will be gender neutral. It is not a change to the standing orders, just a change to how they are written. Those are good, sensible changes. I believe it is also sensible not to do a further reprint of the standing orders with those gender neutral changes in them until necessary - until the standing orders change fundamentally.
The committee also looked at a reference from the opposition about the programming of General Business Day. It is an important point to make: this is a reference from the opposition. We, on the committee, understood that those issues were being brought in on the basis of having come from the opposition, when we were discussing these issues. They had met, and we took it on good faith that the people we were talking to were representing the interests of their members.
I thank the member for Nelson who took the time to make an appearance before the committee.
The Leader of Government Business has covered some of the issues considered in reaching the committee’s recommendation that Standing Order 93 not be amended. Basically, there were three central points we thought were important in deciding to leave Standing Order 93 as it is:
- (1) that we have just increased the number of days we sit. We now sit an extra three days a year. That does mean further scrutiny from the opposition; extra Question Times; more time for debate in this House. Extra sitting days also means extra General Business Days;
- (2) that we need to have a good balance between seeing government business, our legislative program, proceed - and that is the core business of this Assembly - and ensure we get the balance right between Government Business and General Business. At the moment, I do think we have that balance right; and
- (3) it is important for the Standing Orders Committee, in making these recommendations, to also consider the future interests of members, especially future Independent members or minor parties, possibly, in the future.
The General Business Day provides an opportunity for the opposition to manage an entire day, just as the government does. The government has to be disciplined in managing its business to ensure we get done what we need.
The member for Karama, as the former Leader of Government Business, and the member for Johnston, as the current Leader of Government Business, take their role seriously, as they should. They are responsible for making sure Government Business stays on track during sittings.
When time is managed and the opposition is disciplined, the current arrangements for the General Business Day do work; I believe they work well. In fact, I believe we do it better than other jurisdictions, because the members opposite have an opportunity to manage an entire day of parliament. They have a chance to behave as government for a sitting day.
As part of our consideration of this issue, the Standing Orders Committee did look at the General Business practices of other Australian parliaments. As the Leader of Government Business highlighted, there are a variety of ways in which parliaments conduct their General Business Days.
Our Assembly is quite different to other states and territories. Some other states have a unicameral system, but they all have a larger number of politicians than we do. Twenty-five members allow us to conduct debate in a much more efficient fashion than other parliaments. Not only do we conduct business, especially when disciplined, in a more efficient manner than other states and territories, as the Leader of Government Business noted, but on a per member basis the Northern Territory Assembly comes in higher than all but two Australian jurisdictions, with 10 minutes per sitting week for non-government members when it comes to General Business Day time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this report, and I thank the Assembly staff who worked on it.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I inform the House of some of the issues we considered. When the government notified the Chamber of the review into the operations of the Chamber and set down meetings for the Standing Orders Committee to undertake this review and hear the voices from all sides, the opposition took this approach very seriously, and took the government at their word of being genuine.
However, since that time, the government, led by the member for Karama, referred sitting days to the Standing Orders Committee along with the issue of the number of sitting days. However, government failed to wait for the processes of the Standing Orders Committee to be completed before introducing procedural motions into parliament.
What could have, and should have, been a bipartisan approach to Chamber operations did not occur. In the partisan approach to Chamber operations - that is the modus operandi of this government - these were not considered and the government has ploughed on with its own agenda.
It could not have been clearer in respect to the issue of General Business. The Legislative Assembly undertook a collation of the operations of General Business from a number of other Australian jurisdictions, and also New Zealand.
The evidence that this parliament is the worst in respect to non-ministerial initiation and, consequently, transparency and accountability of government is without question. It appears that, with the exception of Victoria, all jurisdictions have adopted rules in relation to General Business that provides much greater transparency of government and governing than the Northern Territory.
In relation to this report, I want to echo the words of the member for Port Darwin: there has been no time for my colleagues in the opposition to peruse this document and ensure it is exactly what they want; that all has been said in relation to dissenting reports; and that our side have expressed their views.
The opposition submitted that the proposal be between 2 pm and 6 pm, four hours on Monday of each sitting week, or two hours every sitting period. I note, and was grateful that Mr Gerry Wood, the member for Nelson, came and gave a lengthy and very interesting presentation to the committee. I was very impressed with the amount of work and effort Mr Wood put into that particular presentation ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, I remind you that members are to be referred to by their electorate, and not their name.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make sure I do that.
The member for Nelson gave a very lengthy and good presentation and I was very impressed with the effort he went to in presenting it, and with the preparation of it. The member for Nelson submitted that there be three hours on each Wednesday of a sitting week, and supported the current procedure of General Business items being considered in the order of which notice of the item is given to the Assembly, and did not allocate a time proposition to Independent members. Opposition members of the committee proposed four hours per sitting week, retaining the current system of items being placed under General Business in the order of which notice is given. The government members agreed to something quite different.
Members of the parliament in the Northern Territory have had an opportunity of one General Business sitting day, with an effective eight hours every 12 sitting days. I recall the Chief Minister making a stand on providing this House three extra days of sittings. It appears to me that those opposite are in Disneyland, and we are actually in a fantasy world trying to create an impression, on one hand, and giving and taking on the other. This is exactly what has happened.
I refer to what the member for Fannie Bay just said: ‘We have given three extra days sittings so there is more time’. If one does the mathematics, when we used to have 33 days in this House, an average day, if you take from 10 am until 12 noon, from 2 pm until 6 pm and, on average, even 6.45 pm, after the dinner break through to midnight, that is 11.25 hours per day. If you multiply that by 33 days, that gives you 371 hours and 15 minutes. Now we actually finish a little earlier in the House: take it from start at 10 am, and finish at 12 noon, we do our committee stuff and we go from 2 pm through to 10 pm, that gives us 10 hours a day. If you multiply that by 36, it gives you 360 hours per year. So, on average, with what we used to have with 33 days, if you take 360 from 371, we lose roughly 11 hours and 25 minutes per year in sitting time. The claim that we have three extra days and more time is incorrect if one does the maths and works on the average of what we used to sit.
I am quoting from the report:
- The government believed that the current arrangements allow a good balance between the government’s legislative program and … the discussion of General Business ...
I refer to the report. In our dissenting report, we noted that, in the Northern Territory, we have the equivalent of two-and-two-thirds days out of 33 days, across 11 weeks each year, or 22 hours of General Business. On a percentage term, that is about 8% of available time. I refer to Appendix A of the report just tabled. Western Australia, in their Legislative Assembly, have an average of their General Business of 13% of the available time. In Queensland, it is 12% of the available time. In the Tasmanian House of Assembly, it is 14%. In the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, it is 14%. In the South Australian House of Assembly, it is 14%. The list goes on and there are a few more but, suffice to say, when you compare the Northern Territory at 8% and others anywhere between 12% and 14%, we lag, sadly, behind.
I note the member for Fannie Bay also raised another issue and said they are bigger parliaments. This is an average of percentage of time. If you look at the actual time these other parliaments sit, quite often it is far greater time than we sit.
There is a third point that the report makes; the government does not feel there are sufficient safeguards to protect the future interests of Independent members and possible minor party members. It appears to me that, if that was a problem, we are, on that particular point, trying to protect all contingencies that may happen in the future. I suggest that, if it became an issue in the future, they are the issues that could be addressed by this House at that time.
In summary, to achieve a comparable amount of transparency, the Northern Territory should adopt a model that provides for three-and-a-half to four hours per sitting week, or at least set aside a minimum one day every seven sitting days for General Business. We feel the government has failed to adopt or even consider our recommendation in respect of this matter, and we offered a dissenting report stating our concerns.
Further, and importantly, the government has failed to articulate arguments which justify the continuation of the significantly lower amount of time provided for General Business in comparison to our peers. We can but only conclude from this that the government is only interested in looking like it wants to consult; however, the reality when tested is that Labor is not interested in any other stakeholder’s view, nor are they interested in anything that provides greater levels of accountability.
Madam Speaker, this is a shame. If there is anything which should operate in a bipartisan manner, it is the rules that govern the operation of this Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few things about this Standing Orders Committee report. As the member for Johnston said I was asked to comment on the changes being put forward by the Standing Orders Committee. I did that in the hope that there could be some changes.
Before I go to the details of that - perhaps I am getting old - I wonder why this could not be adjourned for the day and come back tomorrow to debate it. I do not know what the big deal is. I tried to read it and listen to the debate. However, for something like this that has been around a while, which is a topical issue, I wonder why we could not come back to it, even tomorrow, just so we had a chance to peruse the arguments for and against which were put forward in a measured time, rather than having to read it fairly quickly, with the risk of missing some of the issues raised by the committee.
I read fairly quickly, and I know the bottom line says that, basically, the government does not support changes to General Business Day, so I will keep my remarks to that. The reason I put forward the changes I thought would be good for this parliament, is that one of the problems with the 12 day gap between General Business Days is that material you might put forward on that day can be out of date by the time we are get around to having a debate on those issues.
I submitted three days a week as I used the Western Australian and the Tasmanian models; they are simple and straightforward: basically, three or three-and-a-half days a week for Tasmania, four days a week for Western Australia, or vice versa. It was simple. It meant that General Business could be continually, one might say, renewed. You did not have a big backlog as we have had before. The legislation or the motions put forward were current and they would be dealt with much quicker than under our existing system. That would be better for the running of parliament. That is why I supported the changes of having a more regular GBD. There would be fewer hours per day that we have at the moment, but more days would be available for General Business.
Another concern I have is how changes of the rules have limited or stymied the way we debate issues in this parliament. Having the 9 pm cut-off is a bad move. I understand there needs to be times when parliament has to be closed down for the night. As you know Madam Speaker, there have been times when debates have occurred and there has been a row over why debates now end at 9 pm. We did not have that problem before but we now have a problem because there is a set time in the evening when debates must finish.
The Standing Orders Committee, in rejecting these changes to GBD, has said it supports the changes the government has brought in relation to the way parliament operates at the moment. The government needs to review things that come to parliament such as legislation, and look at the practicalities. The philosophy behind all these changes might have been to see that parliament did not sit too late at night. In theory, we can get back at a reasonable hour. However, the practicality is that we now have confines on MPIs. An MPI could start at 8.55 pm and, in theory, under standing orders, go for two hours. It cannot now. Government could manipulate the system and drag on debate in relation to say, a statement, and take it right up to 8.55 pm, because they did not like what the MPI was related to. If they could restrict the amount of debate, that would be a good tactic. That was very difficult for government to do before. That has not helped debate and transparency of material we discuss.
It is the same for adjournment debates. We only have five minutes to deal with matters which require more time. I have seen a number of people lately read their adjournment debates at a million miles an hour simply to get through them in that time. That is not good for parliament. When people speak, they should put a little of their heart and soul into what they are talking about, rather than just go parrot fashion so we can fit our speech within the five minutes.
I would prefer this debate to be adjourned, even if only until tomorrow. To be honest with you, it would have been good manners. It is the work of a Standing Orders Committee. They put much effort and time into it. They would expect members of parliament to respond to it in a reasoned manner - whether they support it is irrelevant. That is what the public would expect us to do. Even though the public might not be concerned about this particular document, they expect us to deal with matters that come before us in a proper and serious manner.
I am not sure whether one supports the tabling of this document, but the motion, I think, was whether it be printed. I have no have a problem with it being printed, but I probably would have a problem with the results of the committee, what they actually …
Madam SPEAKER: It has already been printed, that is why you have a copy. It is a motion to agree or disagree, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Oh, it has been printed, thank you, Madam Speaker. If the motion is about whether we support what the committee has put forward, then I do not agree, simply because it is not what I put forward to the committee, so it would be pretty silly for me to agree with it.
I hope the government will consider taking into account some of those practical issues - do not get too bogged down in the philosophical - of how parliament actually runs. The classic example is the cut-off of debate at 9 pm, which can be used for political purposes, and it also ends up being silly. For instance, you could have an important debate, in theory, on Thursday night and the next sittings might not be for six weeks. So you have to come back in six weeks to finish the debate. There needs to be a bit more flexibility in the way we operate. I hope that this debate might jog the government into rethinking where it is going with these changes.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I have listened to this debate so far, and I have to agree with the member for Port Darwin’s concerns. The government comes in here and slides this onto the agenda and expects everyone to stand at attention and say ‘Yes sir’. It is a ridiculous situation. I have read the dissenting report. It seems to me the CLP members on the Standing Orders Committee took the view there should be a bipartisan approach to how business is run for the better operation of the parliament as a whole; that we all have an interest in ensuring this parliament functions well, and that all views should be taken into account.
I understand, from reading the dissenting report, that the member for Karama referred matters to the committee - such things as sitting times, etcetera. However, she could not wait. She had to rush into the parliament and legislate away - completely ignored the committee. She completely ignored the body that determines, in a bipartisan way - as indicated by our members’ dissenting report. I imagine the member for Nelson would try to operate in a bipartisan manner too, being interested …
Mr Wood: Tripartisan.
Mr TOLLNER: Or tripartisan. Basically, we all agreed that we should make this parliament work as best we can. Obviously, we are going to have heated debates in here from time to time, and everyone understands that; that is part of a robust democracy. It is one of the beauties of Australia that we can get into parliament and go hammer and tongs, express our points of view loudly and with conviction, and come to a particular view and create legislation and laws which are good for all people.
It seems to me this committee has been fobbed off. The committee was not even given the opportunity to table their report before legislation was put in front of the parliament. What it shows, I believe, is a complete disregard by the government for accountability, for any form of transparency. The Leader of Government Business, and his predecessor, the member for Karama, use every opportunity they possibly can to drown out any dissent or any debate.
We see now, as we did the other night, MPIs being pushed off the agenda because debates run slightly longer than expected, and 9 pm comes around - and we cannot sit any later than 9 pm, can we, member for Karama? - because we all get a little tired, and you cannot function when you are a little tired …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Fong Lim is trying to make a disparaging reference to me in contravention of standing orders; that I get tired after 9 pm. He is a fool. I work here later than any member opposite. I can tell because mine is the last car in the car park.
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: You are a ratbag. Sit down.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Mine is the last car left in the car park.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Fong Lim withdraw the word 'ratbag'.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! In calling a point of order, you need to understand what the standing order is.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, you need to wait until I have called you before speaking. Was there something you wish to say?
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, the two points of order that have just been raised, you have to identify which standing order those points of order are coming under.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I withdraw that last comment.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the member for Karama knows she uses every opportunity she can to gag debate. She is trying to do it right now. It is no coincidence that members on this side sometimes refer to her as 'gag girl' because she is constantly trying to …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Once, again, offensive and unbecoming …
Mr Tollner: Oh, hang on!
Dr BURNS: Just grow up a little, member for Fong Lim …
Mr Tollner: Hang on!
Dr BURNS: I ask him to withdraw the epithet 'gag girl' which has a lot of connotations. I ask him to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: I will just seek some advice. Treasurer, do you find the expression offensive?
Ms LAWRIE: I believe most women would, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I gladly withdraw that comment. We are talking here about gender neutral language as well. This is political correctness gone absolutely mad. You cannot make comments that draw attention to the member for Karama now because she gets offended - and the overly-sensitive Leader of Government Business.
This place is quickly becoming an absolute joke, getting rid of things that are not on the Notice Paper. Some of us wanted to talk about the police. The Chief Minister made a statement about police and some of us wanted to talk about that but, no, it is just thrown off the Notice Paper.
Matters of public importance, in most parliaments, happen straight after Question Time but not here. They are pushed back until after 9 pm. Well, blow me down! We cannot talk about something that might be a matter of public importance in this place. The way the Speaker is so quick to dismiss the media out of here after Question Time so we cannot have the place ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, here he goes.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please resume your seat. Member for Fong Lim, do you realise that is a reflection on the Speaker? That is part of our standing orders.
Mr TOLLNER: No, I did not realise that was a reflection. I withdraw the comments, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I ask you to apologise as well, thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, we get offended so easily in this place.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw from the Chamber, please, for one hour.
Mr Tollner: My point, exactly.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is disappointing to see the member for Fong Lim being quite disrespectful. It encapsulates, to some degree, some of the worst aspects of the behaviour of this opposition since they have come into this Chamber after the election in 2008. It is one thing to be fired up with enthusiasm to challenge the government, but it is another thing to denigrate the Speaker. I believe this has been a trend all the way through since that time from certain members - not all - and it is quite disappointing. It is quite abhorrent and I ask members on the other side to reflect.
You talk often about law and order in our society and, yet, at a very basic level, you ignore even the niceties of just being polite, being respectful in what you do. I do not think that serves you very well at all. The Leader of the Opposition, I believe, has integrity. I know he was brought up with manners and respect, and I ask and implore him to talk to some of his members about their behaviour.
I could go to the report and the issue at hand here. As I said before, the government will not be accepting the dissenting report.
I listened to the member for Port Darwin who, essentially, put forward to this House that he had not had a chance to read the report and, in particular, he had not had an opportunity to ascertain whether the pro forma contained in that report was unaltered from the one circulated to all members. I said before in the debate over the Register of Members’ Interests, that I have been assured by the Clerk of this Assembly - himself an honourable, truthful man - that it was the same pro forma. Out of deference to the member for Port Darwin - knowing that it is quite a complex form and the guidelines that accompany it are quite complex – who wanted to avail himself of an opportunity to read through that report and each and every one of the explanatory attachments at the end to satisfy himself that nothing had been changed and he was satisfied, I said during that debate - I know I am alluding to an earlier debate - that the pro forma was circulated to all members in this Assembly and not one adverse comment was received by the Standing Orders Committee about that pro forma. In the spirit of trying to accommodate the member for Port Darwin, I agreed that debate could be adjourned and come back here another time.
This report is different in every degree. It is very simple. Government has said in this report there will be no changes to standing orders in regard to the General Business Day. It is quite simple. We have a number of committees that report to this parliament. We have had committees on weeds, and on statehood. We have had various committees that are quite complex, which have had many hearings and put forward many views. It is appropriate, in those cases, that the report is tabled and there is time for every member to digest that report - because they have never really seen it or heard about it before - and be in a position to debate it.
This Standing Orders Committee report is quite different. How is it different? It was undertaken by members of the Standing Orders Committee that their respective members would go back to their party rooms - whether it be the opposition party room or the Caucus on this side - canvass the ideas, and bring them back to the Standing Orders Committee. The government’s position is quite clear: we will not be accepting these changes to standing orders. What happens in the party room of members opposite is up to them.
I implore you to consider that, to some degree, the work of committees within this parliament really depends on the representatives who are on these committees communicating with their party rooms, bringing back and incorporating the view of your party room into the report. For someone to come in here and pretend they have absolutely no idea of what is in this report is totally ludicrous, and beyond comprehension.
The member for Port Darwin talks about people getting angry and upset. Well, I am a little upset at the attitude and the stunt that has been pulled here by the member for Port Darwin. He can come in here and he can say and do anything. To me, the issues are very clear. Government will not be agreeing to this change in standing orders. Why? Because we believe a discrete day of General Business for opposition allows opposition, as my colleague said, to be like government. You dress up in suits and you come in here - you want to be government by suits, and government by committee.
When it comes to General Business Day, however, I suggest this opposition has been found wanting in the way they order their business. The member for Nelson himself alluded to the fact that they are absolutely chock-a-block with motions in the first GBD about committees and all of the rest of it. They have not ordered their General Business well. Everyone knows that. I believe they know that themselves. We will put that down to enthusiasm in those very first meetings of this new Assembly.
I implore the opposition to be more efficient in the way they manage their own affairs on the General Business Day, just as government has to be efficient, and attempts to be efficient, in the way we order our business. No one is perfect. I am not pretending that all the business that the government brings forward is wholly efficient. We can learn, and we can improve. I am saying that is the same for the opposition.
Another point very clearly made in the report was the opposition’s proposal about the number of hours per sitting week they wanted to see in General Business. Beyond that, however, there were no details.
In a similar Assembly, the Tasmanian Assembly, the Lower House, which has 25 members, with their GBD, they allocate, on week one, 3.30 pm to 4.45 pm for the Liberals; 4.45 pm to 5.30 pm for the Tasmanian Greens; and 5.30 pm to 6 pm for the Australian Labor Party. What we see in General Business elsewhere, that has not been alluded to or really detailed by members opposite, is that there is a place for government members in General Business times in other jurisdictions. Not only that, there is a specific time allocated for minor parties such as the Greens or the Independents in the case of this parliament.
Currently, our Independent member, the member for Nelson, is concerned he might be pushed off the Notice Paper, which is quite within the realms of possibility given the way our Notice Paper is ordered is the way that notice is actually given. He could have a situation where every opposition member puts two or three items on the General Business Notice Paper, and he is right down the list. In any sitting week, under the proposal put forward by the opposition, if there was not a degree of cooperation, he could be pushed off the list. That was my concern when I mentioned safeguarding the future interests of Independents and minor parties in this parliament.
There was not much detail put forward by the opposition regarding their General Business Day. General Business is a very important day. We also believe, as I said previously, it is an opportunity for opposition members to propose bills, to move them within the cadence of more or less a normal sitting day. In other words, instead of truncating debate which would have to happen under the proposal put forward by the opposition, there is time to develop an argument, debate it, and wrap it up.
The member for Nelson enjoys debate. I believe he is a very good debater in this House. He offers his points of view on a whole range of issues, and I welcome that. The member for Nelson is a very hard-working and essential part of this parliament. I see the way he likes to develop an argument and see it through - whether it is his bill or someone else’s. That would be truncated under the proposal put forward by the opposition.
To some extent, we are unique; we operate on a different system. I believe it is a good system because it gives the opposition the chance of a whole sitting day to bring matters forward to the Assembly. When you consider other jurisdictions in Australia, the South Australian Assembly allows three-and-a-half hours per week for General Business or private member’s bills. If you average that out across the Assembly of 47 members, those Assemblies receive an average of less than four-and-a-half minutes per member in a sitting week. That is the scenario there; whereas members here can come in on one particular day.
Queensland parliament, which is much larger than the Northern Territory Assembly with 89 members, allows any member who is not a minister to introduce General Business. That includes not only opposition members but also government members. With four hours a week allowed for private members’ business, this allows, on average, each member of the Assembly three minutes and 20 seconds per sitting week. The individual time limit for private members’ statements is two minutes. Matters of public importance in the Queensland Assembly are limited to one hour in total.
Madam Speaker, there was mention of MPIs, and the member for Fong Lim alluded that his matter of public importance relating to public housing dropped off the Notice Paper last week. Why did it drop off the Notice Paper? Because the opposition decided to have a censure. That is your right; that is your privilege; that is what oppositions do. There should have been more conversation with members on the opposition side about whether they would put that MPI on this morning if they are going to have a censure this afternoon after Question Time. There needs to be more efficiency on the opposition side in relation to matters.
The New South Wales Assembly, which is larger again with 93 members, allocates three hours and 15 minutes per week to General Business. The time allocated to General Business in the New South Wales Assembly includes business introduced by government, as well as time allowed for ministers to respond to private members’ statements. On average, a member in the New South Wales Assembly has little more than two minutes per week in which to discuss General Business.
I have already talked about the Tasmanian Assembly which allows three-and-a-half hours per week for General Business. However, only one hour and 15 minutes is allowed for opposition members to speak. This allows for a relatively higher average of less than 11 minutes per member per sitting week. The Tasmanian opposition is allowed just one hour per week to discuss two MPIs. So, there is restriction in these parliaments.
Each parliament has its own rules and has evolved its own methods and framework for General Business. However, there are offsets. It is wrong to think that one has three hours, one has three-and-a-half hours because, within each parliament, General Business has certain rules and, in most of them, government members and even ministers in some cases, are allowed to participate in debate.
At the very opposite end of the scale, we have the Victorian Assembly which does not allow any time at all for General Business.
Madam Speaker, to wrap up, this report has been published. Government’s position is clear and very simple: we will not be supporting any changes to the standing orders regarding General Business. That is what is recommended in our report.
I know the opposition members have a different view. That is their right. I have outlined the government’s position on this. I will say again, for the benefit of the member for Port Darwin, yes, I did give some latitude regarding the Register of Members’ Interest on the basis of what you have put forward here today, and because I understood you had not had an opportunity to scrutinise it to see whether it was exactly the same form that had been circulated to all members of this Assembly, despite the fact that I had questioned the Clerk on this issue and he had assured me there was absolutely no change.
Nonetheless, I did recognise the complexity of that pro forma, and I have given the member for Port Darwin the opportunity to scrutinise it and recommence his remarks at a later date. I hope it is sooner rather than later, because this has been going on for years - from the time I was on the Standing Orders Committee many years ago, as a backbencher. We need to conclude that matter, but I did take on board what the member for Port Darwin said.
To reiterate government’s position: we will not be accepting changes to the standing orders in relation General Business. I reiterate that it calls into question the operation of committees within this parliament when you have representatives of the opposition given the task - I am sorry about the redundancy - of going back to their party room - this is not about privilege because this is what the committee tasks each side to do - and come back to the Standing Orders Committee with their position ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: If you are saying that your party room has not discussed this, one wonders about the functionality of your members. If your party room has discussed it, one wonders about your position, member for Port Darwin. In that spirit of what you have done here today, I am saying very clearly that the government will be not accepting changes to standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the motion be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 8
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Mr Chandler
Dr Burns Mr Elferink
Mr Gunner Mr Giles
Mr Hampton Mr Mills
Mr Henderson Ms Purick
Mr Knight Mr Styles
Ms Lawrie Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr McCarthy
Ms McCarthy
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
On Tuesday, 5 May, Cazalys Palmerston Club hosted a Daytona race challenge. Daytona is a coin-operated video racing game that many Territorians enjoy playing. Several machines can be linked so friends can play each other. The aim of the race challenge hosted by Cazalys was to promote the V8 Supercar race in Darwin. Cazalys will run a series of heats, culminating in a final on Thursday, 18 June at 9.30 pm.
Cazalys invited eight people to participate in the challenge on Tuesday which launched the competition. The first participants were Ben Simpson from the Hidden Valley Drags Association …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Orders 41A is quite prescriptive: ‘At 9 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays …’. What is today? Wednesday. The standing order is quite prescriptive in …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Clerk, please stop the clock in relation to the Chief Minister’s adjournment speech.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that standing orders are quite prescriptive in relation to when we adjourn at 9 pm. It is now 6.50 pm. Can you tell me why we have stepped outside standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: Or it is when a minister moves that the House adjourns. I will get some further advice.
Mr ELFERINK: It is not there, Madam Speaker, if you are looking for it. Is it 42?
Madam SPEAKER: Standing Order 42. Thank you. Resume your seat.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those participants in Cazalys V8 Supercar Challenge were Ben Simpson from the Hidden Valley Drags Association; Simon Passmore, the District Manager, Brown-Forman; Matt Evans, Territory Manager, Brown-Forman; Ray Norman, President of Cazalys Palmerston Club; Murray Davis, High Performance Manager NT Thunder; Noel Fahey, General Manager Cazalys Palmerston Club; and James Burke of my Palmerston Office.
Cazalys donated $2000 to go to the charity of choice of that winner. I am pleased to advise the Assembly that James Burke emerged the winner of the event. James nominated the Brahminy Foundation as his charity. Members of the Assembly should know that Allan Brahminy works miracles at his camp where he helps young people to get back on the rails. The work of his team recently featured on A Current Affair.
Last week, the Brahminy Foundation held its inaugural Friends of Brahminy Foundation meeting at the Mandorah pub last Friday. Allan felt it was extremely important for the inaugural meeting to be held in the Territory, despite having organised similar and larger events in Melbourne and Sydney. I am told that when young people complete Allan’s program, he asks them to complete a questionnaire about their experiences. Consistently, in the top five comments, the children and young adults that Allan helps cite the friendliness and willingness of Territorians not to prejudge them as major positive experiences.
I congratulate Allan and his staff at the Brahminy Foundation on the work they do. It is nothing short of brilliant. I have met with Allan on a number of occasions. The Minister for Children and Families and I met with Allan recently to talk about the work the Brahminy Foundation does at one of the youth camps that this government funds. The minister also visited Brahminy’s facilities at Batchelor a couple of weeks ago. Allan has a passion for working with disadvantaged kids who are on the wrong side of the track - either formally being referred to his camp within the system by the police, the courts, or by parents. He believes in the capability of every child to go from the wrong side of the tracks back to the right side of the tracks. He does a fantastic job, and I am sure that $2000 will go a long way to help with running that facility.
I wish them all the best on their fundraising events interstate. I commend Cazalys on its continued willingness to get involved in the community and for putting up the $2000 prize. I understand that Ms Hannah Rostron at Cazalys was instrumental in getting this marketing idea off the ground. Well done to Hannah as well.
The new suburb of Lyons is really going ahead in leaps and bounds with more houses being built every day. It is fast becoming a fabulous community, and the team at the Lyons Centre are giving residents plenty of opportunities to join in the fun. At the end of March, there was a gathering of Lyons residents to celebrate neighbour day. All residents were invited to attend, and a huge barbecue was planned and a jumping castle organised. It was an afternoon of fun and laughter and I am pleased to hear that another neighbourhood day is planned for Lyons in June. For Sharon Fiest and Geoff Smith; it was great to get there to meet with the new residents in Lyons who are moving in on a daily basis.
On Thursday, 2 April, Holy Spirit School held its 2009 Harmony Day celebrations. I attended the launch of the school’s paving project that has been supported by the Northern Territory government. The celebrations were well attended with many parents there to hear the school choir sing and see students presenting dances from Australia and around the world. There was a colourful parade with students dressed in national costumes of the country their parents or they were born in. During the celebrations, the children talked about and showed the symbols they created to reflect their understanding of Harmony Day.
The Principal of Holy Spirit, Bernadette Morriss, said the school was creating symbols, special spaces and gardens to develop a sacred space where identity, values, and visions can be reflected in an outdoor space the students can enjoy and use as education artefacts in their learning programs. Congratulations to Bernadette and all of the teachers at Holy Spirit School. It is a great school in my electorate and always a pleasure to visit and see what the teachers and the kids are up to.
Looking out on that assembly hall at Holy Spirit, it reminds us that Darwin is the united nations. It was great to be there and I congratulate everyone involved with Harmony Day at Holy Spirit School.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, a few days ago, we had the unseemly sight of a government, having left too many items of business sitting on the Notice Paper too long, having to withdraw those items from the Notice Paper because they said they were out of date.
There were several items on the Notice Paper that could be brought on right now. It is 7 pm. According to standing orders, this parliament shuts down at 9 pm, an absurdly early hour in any instance. However, it is now 6.58 pm and we find ourselves in adjournment debates, after government gagged debate. Why did they gag debate? Presumably, because they thought they had business to get on with. But, no, it seems that by 6.58 pm this government has run out of steam.
I can understand that we work 36 days a year - goodness gracious, I can well understand running out of steam by 7 pm. However, why would you have the unseemly sight of a government withdrawing from the Notice Paper because they have been sitting on the Notice Paper for too long and there is too much other business on the Notice Paper? Yet, a few days later, they waltz into this place and adjourn debate at 7 pm, when there are still items sitting on the Notice Paper they could bring forth in business.
Is this government now so tired that it cannot come into this place and debate issues that concern Northern Territorians? We have, yet again, for the 20th or 25th time since the last election, seen another gag motion in this House. For the people who are listening to this broadcast, a gag motion is when someone in government stands up and says: ‘We do not want to have this debate anymore and we move that this debate stop’. Then we have a nice little debate on it, and the government numbers crush the life out of free speech in the Northern Territory.
The argument came from the Leader of Government Business that they have their business arranged in an orderly fashion. If that were true they would not withdraw items from the Notice Paper, which have been sitting there for six months. They would be taking advantage of the two hours left in this parliamentary sitting day to discuss things like the cash for containers scheme or the Auditor-General’s February 2009 report to the Legislative Assembly, which still remain undebated. There are some pretty serious matters that the Auditor-General raised in that report. Am I allowed to talk about it now? No, I am not.
This government has used, as its most common tool of stifling debate, the gag motion; it is by far the most common vote taken in this House. We had the unseemly business of a government saying to this Chamber this evening: ‘Here is a report; this is the first time you have seen it. Guess what? You now have to go and debate the sucker out despite of the fact you have not had an opportunity to read it’. If we object to that, we have a situation where the objection is gagged by a motion of this House and this government.
Whilst the Leader of Government Business runs the defence of: ‘You said your representatives on the committee said they would go to the party room’, the difference is that what we talk about in the party room and see in the party room may not be the document that we see for the first time - first time ever - two minutes before we are supposed to vote on it. It is the way that these people conduct themselves. The Leader of Government Business said: ‘No, the Clerk assures me it is the same form’. The Clerk is not tabling this document; it is the government that is tabling this document. It is the Leader of Government Business who is tabling this document. Based on past conduct, why should we trust him? If he really wants to communicate with us and have these documents debated out in any fashion that is fair, then give us the document the night before - just hand it to us, slide it across the table. But, for God’s sake, just because we have discussed something in the party room and agreed or disagreed to it, does not mean that we know what is in the report.
To ask us to debate a report which we have not seen remains banal in the extreme. The abusive process continues and goes on and on. I remember the maiden speeches of so many hopeful, starry-eyed ALP members about being involved in a wonderful democracy. I wonder if they choke on those words now.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1978 I made my first visit to Indonesia. I had been blessed by my parents who gave me a ticket to visit Bali, and that was in the very early days. From that time on I recognised, as many Australians were to recognise, that Australia is not a part of Europe but is a part of Asia, and began a journey of discovery and learning of our near neighbour, Indonesia.
Since that time, I have made many visits to Indonesia and developed many friendships, and began to understand the culture. I took efforts to learn the language and studied in West Timor at the University of Nusa Cendana. I have organised exchange students, and sporting and cultural exchanges in the region. I have worked in Java and taught many students as full fee-paying students in my early days in education in Western Australia, and maintained long friendships to this day, over many years, with young men who now run businesses throughout Java, and in Bali.
One of the reasons I came to the Northern Territory was that it had developed a high profile in its recognition and engagement with Indonesia. In 1989, I made the decision, with my young family, to come to Darwin. The first friends we made here, the first point of contact, was the Minchin family, a family we had met in Indonesia after spending some time in Java. They were the first family we met from Darwin, and they were the ones to welcome us. One of the reasons I came to the Northern Territory with my family was because of my family’s association and interest in Indonesia principally. That interest has continued to this day.
It was with some sadness I learned that Garuda has made a decision after 30 years, three decades, to withdraw its service from the Northern Territory. That decision must prompt a serious rethink of our engagement with the region; a reassessment of our policy, efforts, and exactly what our plan and vision is for the region.
In learning of that decision, I registered with all the work that had gone on before, there has been a significant change in the way we think and speak about our near neighbour. To see that decision, I saw much more than just an airline making a decision; I saw a change in the circumstances and the relationship between the Northern Territory particularly, which led the nation, and Indonesia.
It is for that reason I made contact with the State Minister for State Enterprises in Indonesia to make my wishes known; that I appreciate the work of Garuda and if there is anything possible that can be done from our side in Australia to help reconnect and re-engage, because we must have what was, until Garuda made that decision, the last Asian airline servicing the Northern Territory. Once we referred to ourselves as the gateway to Asia; now, with the last Asian airline having made a decision to depart the Northern Territory, it makes the gateway to Asia - slogan, position, vision, plan, dream - so much more remote.
After having my discussion with Mr Djalil, I was very pleased that the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade also made contact with Mr Djalil. It is very important to recognise that engagement at this level within the region is highly valued from the Indonesian point of view; that it be done on a bipartisan arrangement. I understand that the minister has indicated a plan to visit Jakarta. I advise that I also, two weeks ago, made consideration to put space in my diary so I could go to Jakarta at the first opportunity. I hope that minister Burns will allow any engagement on this matter to be conducted in a bipartisan manner, because the region recognises and values that approach. In fact, my understanding is that the Indonesian section, particularly Garuda - and from the minister in Jakarta most specifically - would welcome a bipartisanship approach to this. It is for that reason I …
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, on 23 April, I was pleased to attend a gathering at the Arnhem Squadron depot in Nhulunbuy to meet with members of NORFORCE’s Arnhem Squadron and the Defence Reserve Support Unit. I met newly-arrived Commanding Officer for Arnhem Squadron, Major Denis Davy, who was doing a fine job and was responsible for leading a squadron which undertakes foot, vehicle and water patrols in the region, with 70% of the squadron made up of Indigenous people.
The evening was a chance for local employers to understand how the Australian Defence Reserve Support Program works for recruits and employers, and the benefits that it delivers. It was also a great opportunity to meet with recently-posted and current soldiers and officers of Arnhem Squadron, including reservists from Yirrkala and the communities of Numbulwar and Ramingining, who had been in the area for a week as part of special training exercises.
I met, for the first time, Yirrkala-based Sergeant Tommy Munyarryun, who joined Arnhem Squadron 16 years ago and is the highest ranking Indigenous solder in the Northern Territory, and a recipient of the Long Service Medal, an Australian Defence Force medal. He can justifiably be proud of his record and achievements, and he serves as an excellent role model for all service men and women. Tommy told me that the previous day they had visited Yirrkala to see schoolchildren, to talk to them about the work of the squadron, the role of NORFORCE, and the importance of Anzac Day. This was followed with a well-received display of soldier’s equipment and watercraft at the Yirrkala boat ramp. Tommy, a father of four himself, said how much he enjoyed engaging with the children and their teachers and, by all accounts, the visit and the display was well received.
Members of Arnhem Squadron were in full force on Anzac Day, along with Naval cadets from the training ship Melville Bay, as well as local war veterans. The Dawn Service at the yacht club attracted more than 200 people. We met under darkened, clouded skies and, on commencement of the service at 5.45 am, the rain bucketed down. Barely a soul moved, and I am sure there was not a single person who thought the inconvenience of a downpour was anything compared with what Australian, New Zealand and other soldiers had faced in the ill-fated landing at Gallipoli.
The 11 am Memorial Service for Anzac Day was similarly well attended with Cubs and Scouts present. In keeping with the former MLA Syd Stirling’s practice, I was pleased to lay not a wreath at this service, but two books with war as the central theme. They are now on the shelves at Nhulunbuy Community Library.
I wish to acknowledge returned serviceman, Mo Mackay, who has worked tirelessly in organising Nhulunbuy Anzac Day services for more than 10 years, and this year for the last time in Gove as he departs later this year. Alongside Mo in the organising, as always, was Ivor Alexander, who always does a brilliant job. Thanks also to Father Barry Hansen, who looks after a reading and prayers at the services and has done so for many years. High school student, Amy Fullard, is also to be congratulated for her beautiful singing of the National Anthem, and equally moving was the rendition of the New Zealand National Anthem from the local Kiwi choir, sung in English first and then Maori.
I also briefly mention an excellent initiative of local community radio station 8EAR Gove FM, Music with Sting, which they launched in March with good support from the office of the East Arnhem Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as local businesses. Gove FM has launched the Think Local, Buy Local, Be Local campaign, which advocates for and promotes local businesses, and keeping locals in jobs by asking people to shop locally and support local businesses. Consumers have the opportunity to regularly win $50 vouchers when they shop at participating businesses, and our local paper, the Arafura Times, regularly reports on how the campaign is travelling, the initiatives of local businesses, and the winners of the shopping vouchers.
As the local member for Nhulunbuy, I am pleased to be a supporter of this campaign, and one which goes hand in hand with and complements the Northern Territory government’s Buy Territory, Territory Jobs First campaign which was launched earlier this year.
I especially acknowledge Gove FM’s station administrator, Churyl Shepherd, who developed the concept; Rob, their technician, who has produced the advertisements and liaised with business operators and consumers; and Nathan Frick, a volunteer at Gove FM, who has produced the fantastic graphic design work and website. Nathan Frick was also acknowledged by the Minister for Young Territorians as the Young Territorian of the Year. Nathan also hosted the opening of their Monday night show, The Panel, on which I was a guest on their inaugural night on 13 March, where we discussed the current economic situation and the importance of shopping locally and keeping Goveites and Territorians in jobs. They are a fantastic example of a volunteer organisation in our community.
On that note, I also acknowledge the many volunteer groups, not only in my electorate of Nhulunbuy but around the Territory, acknowledging that next week, from 11 to 17 May is National Volunteer Week. In my electorate and my community, we could not survive without them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I place on the record what I believe to be a fairly new proposal to this House. I will be guided if that is not the case. My support is for the concept of introducing electronic petitions for use within the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
At the present time, petitions in this House are guided by Standing Orders, specifically 97 to 100A inclusive. In reading through the provisions of Standing Order 97, paragraphs (a) to (m), restrictions are enshrined in those paragraphs as to the style, content, how a petition should be signed, and how they are to be presented to the House. In effect, petitions under the current guidelines must be in writing, in a printed form that is written or typed by petitioners with their names, addresses, and signatures detailed. I respectfully suggest that it is time for this Assembly to move into the 21st century as far as the updated use of the Internet for staying in touch with Territorians.
In an environment where we allow live audio broadcast of proceedings, which will move towards live video broadcast as well, it seems that an old paper-based system for petitions needs to be updated. The practice of using e-petitions in parliament is not unprecedented. The Queensland parliament now has e-petitions available on its official website, and the federal government is presently, as I understand it, conducting a study on e-petitions with a view to introducing this concept into its practices.
The Northern Territory is comprised of vast tracts of land, with little or nothing in between populated areas. There are numerous remote communities and cattle stations spread right across the Northern Territory. Everyone who lives in those places deserves – no, they actually have the right - to have their voices heard in this parliament. In the case of those people having access to petitions that are designed to tell this government what they think about issues that are important to them, they should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they live so remotely.
For that reason, I propose that this parliament explore this issue. I advise the House what has prompted this idea from people in the remote regions: it is the abysmal way this government has treated people of the bush by the withdrawal of aeromedical services to the Katherine region.
The people of regional Northern Territory are not happy. They wish for their voices to be heard, and a petition is one way for this to occur. In fact, in the vein of how this government continues to gag debate in this House, petitions may well become the only way for people - you remember the people, do you not, members on the other side of the House? - who elected you and put you into this position to have their say.
In the near future, I will be asking for this matter to be considered as a means by which remote Territorians can have access to this parliament, given we are now in a position of changes to standing orders which have, effectively, cut out half of the Northern Territory population from having words uttered on their behalf in this House.
This should not be considered to be a contentious issue. It is simply a proposal I will be putting forward to better facilitate having those voices heard in this parliament. It is difficult for people, as you would understand, to get to towns or communities to sign petitions on issues which they believe are important to the Northern Territory. I hope this would be viewed with bipartisan support. It is not a contentious issue but allows for the free flow of information from the people of the Northern Territory into the parliament of the Northern Territory.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, I express my thanks to the midwives of the Northern Territory. Yesterday, 5 May, was International Midwives Day and is the time when we convey our appreciation for the support midwives provide for a woman’s care before, during, and after childbirth, and to acknowledge the excellent work of all our midwives in the Territory.
Providing high-quality maternal and child health care has been a priority of this government since coming into office. This care is vital to giving our kids a good start in life and preventing many of the long-term chronic diseases that affect so many Territorians. Midwives play a critical role in improving the health outcome for mothers and babies, making the generational change we need to close the gap on Aboriginal life expectancy outcomes.
The 2009 Northern Territory Johnsons Baby Midwife of the Year has been awarded to Wendy Hillas. Wendy was nominated by the father of a baby she delivered as part of her work with the Community Midwifery Practice. Wendy has worked as a midwife for 12 years, in the Northern Territory for nine of these years. Colleagues have described Wendy as inspiring immediate confidence, warm, caring, clinically excellent and, in summary, simply awesome. They agree she is a very worthy recipient of the award. I extend my congratulations to Wendy Hillas for being the Johnsons Baby Northern Territory Midwife of the Year on International Midwives Day 2009.
I respond to some of the comments made by the member for Katherine. I am really disappointed because the member for Katherine chooses to ignore the facts about the aeromedical service in Katherine, and keeps saying that the government has withdrawn the aeromedical service from Katherine - which is absolutely untrue. The aeromedical service from Katherine has not been withdrawn. The company, for safety reasons, suspended night flights in and out of Katherine because of the problem with wallabies, which was highlighted when two F18s hit two wallabies during night take-offs resulting in $500 000 worth of damage for each plane. This made the Defence department in Canberra take notice of the problem, despite the arguments we had presented before, and it is acting quickly to upgrade the facility by installing a new fence, and taking measures to eliminate the plague of wallabies in Katherine.
Pearl Aviation, the company that provides aeromedical services, made the conscious decision, in order to protect its pilots, its airplane, and the people who fly with their pilots - the doctors, nurses and the people who have to be evacuated - not to fly at night time. The government took the exceptional measure to contract another company that has a fully-equipped aeromedical helicopter that can provide the night medical evacuation.
A number of people in Katherine say that the wallaby situation is just a smokescreen for the government to save money. Well, you had better speak to the pilot to see if they hit a smokescreen wallaby, to find out if it is true or not. In addition to that, the government has paid $2m extra for the provision of the helicopters.
I am disappointed with the member for Katherine because he knows the truth, but he chooses to mislead his constituency for his own political reasons. Aeromedical services have not been withdrawn from Katherine; the night service has been suspended because of wallabies. An additional, fully-equipped aeromedical helicopter has been provided for medical evacuation during the night from Katherine. The medical evacuation service will be returning to Katherine following the completion of the fence and the elimination of the wallabies.
If we want to play political games, I am all for it, but there is not much point to try to scare people in Katherine, or anywhere else, with a claim that a very important service had been withdrawn when it has not been withdrawn and has been supported with other services which provide exactly the same medical evacuation service when it is needed.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory government, through the Department of Sport and Recreation, recognises the great benefits to our community of a healthy lifestyle and wellbeing that are achieved through sport and recreation.
The Northern Territory May Day long weekend saw a myriad of sports and recreational events take place, including the Top End Rodeo Circuit Incorporated May Day rodeo for 2009. The Top End Rodeo Circuit Incorporated runs its May Day rodeo to both promote the sport and raise important funds to continue their rodeo schools for important junior sport development. In addition to a sound policy of promotion and development, the members compete to win championship buckles in their respective events, and to become a Northern Territory champion, allowing them the chance to contest the Australian national finals each year.
In recognition of the important NT government sponsorship provided to the event, the Top End Rodeo Circuit Incorporated committee invited the Hon Rob Knight, member for Daly, to participate in a celebrity bull ride at the famous Robbie Robbins Reserve in Darwin. In true Territory style, the Hon Rob Knight accepted the challenge to ride a contract rodeo bull for eight seconds at the Top End Rodeo Circuits Incorporated May Day rodeo on 2 May 2009.
As Russell O’Donnell, the 2008 Northern Territory Bull Riding Champion from Tennant Creek, provided instruction for the MLA on the important techniques of the exhilarating sport, the announcer alerted the crowd to the pending celebrity ride as part of the opening ceremony for the rodeo. The announcement of a celebrity immediately attracted a flurry of young women to the back yards, in addition to an enthusiastic cohort of budding young bull riders all vying to rub shoulders with the mystery rider, obviously perceived as a notable rodeo champion.
The atmosphere was electric behind the chutes as the throng of spirited young enthusiasts jostled for vantage points to make contact with the celebrity bull rider. Yet, aspirations and admiration turned to shock and horror as the rodeo devotees witnessed their hero horizontal on the first aid stretcher, in a comic try-for-size sketch, while being photographed by his parliamentary colleague, the member for Nelson, who performed a stand-up comedy routine to entertain the crowd.
There was movement at the rodeo, as the word then went around that the champ was but a mere politician. Alas, as the ladies left and returned to the grandstand bidding their farewell to our courageous MLA, the hardened rodeo cowboys moved in to take their place and witness what their local member of parliament could produce. And produce he did. With the cowboy loading on to a 800 kg monster, the chute gate was opened and an outrageously experienced rodeo bull used the well-known 1960 surfing manoeuvre, being a drop knee turn, to completely offset the rider who precariously commenced his unceremonious exit into the well after two seconds as the wiry old bovine tightened the turn back on himself, completing a circle around our MLA cowboy, now crashing into the arena dirt.
Never fear, the rodeo’s guardian angels, the rodeo clowns, quickly moved in to immediately deflect the thundering beast off his path of retribution to a more acceptable track through the arena return gate and on to the security of his back yard solitude in wait for his next victim.
The celebrity bull ride by the member for Daly was truly a spectacular event. As the crowd celebrated this courageous moment in sport, a vibration spread through the place representing a healthy respect for a local politician whose support for community events spoke far louder than words in that real Territorian can-do attitude.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak about the weekend past with the Katherine Music Muster. I took the journey to Katherine and spent some time at the Katherine Music Muster. Some of the acts on the weekend were Amber Lawrence, Harmony James, The Junes, Whisky Creek, Warren H Williams, and Billy Bridge.
In my eyes, the young lady, Amber Lawrence, towards of the end of night, was one of the most exciting acts. She had the crowd going and showed a little of that new country flare which is quite interesting compared to some older days through the Slim Dusty days – a little like that of Warren H Williams.
No matter how it was portrayed, all the people who were involved with the Katherine Music Muster had a fantastic time. The people who come to these events go there to have fun, and that is what they did for the entire night. The fantastic crowd definitely enjoyed themselves. There were young and old all over the place, and it was great to see such a diverse age category of people enjoying this event. It goes to show that Shirley Canning, who organised the event, did a fantastic job, along with many of her committee people.
The following day, we went to Timber Creek where the Big Horse Creek Barra Classic competition was on. We spent some time fishing and enjoyed ourselves with 190-odd competitors. My colleague, the member for Katherine, spoke of this yesterday. It was a fantastic event where people came from both sides of the border and had a great time. Young Ben compered the event and had a lot of fun; he certainly had a lot of fun with the member for Katherine and me when we got up to speak.
It is good to see young people nowadays are getting involved in committees that run not only these major events, but at the smaller places. When you see some of the sporting groups throughout the Territory, you see many younger people back in them again. It is not left to the older people anymore, that I saw as I grew up. It is great to see so many of those young people putting their hat into the ring per se - maybe not like the member for Daly who literally put his hat and his whole body into the ring. I have to give it to the member for Daly; that was a brilliant move. I would have loved to see that. It is events like that the young people need to get involved in. It is those volunteers who are springing up throughout the Territory that will keep it a great place to visit and enjoy.
Obviously, the House knows that much of my passion revolves around motor sports. If it was not for those young people who are now involved, there would not be sporting events like Drifting, which occurred a few weeks ago at Hidden Valley. It is good to see that some young people can turn their focus from their illegal habits on the street and get involved in a club, and do their part so they can enjoy their sport.
I encourage anyone who is involved, or is thinking about getting involved, in a sport that they have passion for, to throw their hat in the ring and have a go, because everyone’s input makes the job of running one of these committees so much easier. The people involved get so much more fun and enjoyment out of the sport if they know that they helped set it up. Whether they helped set up a barbecue, or set up and take the gate takings, or whatever it may be, it is important. I urge anyone who is considering volunteering to get out there, do the best you can, and your work will be well appreciated by everyone.
Most events we go to, you hear people recognising that and saying: ‘We would like to thank all the volunteers’. So, to the young people, get out there and volunteer; everyone else, get out there, have a great time in life, stay active and stay healthy.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, Yolngu leader, Rraywala was a Mildjingi man born around 1905. Upon his death, he was buried in Darwin, on 20 February 1965, in Marrara cemetery. Rraywala and his wife, Burrmilikili, a Marrangu woman, are survived by two of their four children, a son, Burinyila, and a daughter, Myall. Rraywala belonged to the Welangarr clan, whose country centres on an important sacred waterhole at a place called Garrinyal near the mouth of the Glyde River.
Rraywala is perhaps most famous as ‘Raiwalla’, friend and companion to the Melbourne anthropologist, Donald Thomson, during most of Thompson’s travels across Arnhem Land between 1935 and 1937. Rraywala gained them safe passage through hostile and unknown country, an extraordinary feat, even for an Aboriginal man at that time, befitting Donald Thomson’s description of him as ‘a man amongst men’.
Rraywala was the only enlisted soldier in the Northern Territory Special Reconnaissance Unit set up in 1942 by the then Squadron Leader, Donald Thomson. Donald Thomson recommended Rraywala for a military award for his service. This honour was never afforded Rraywala, and his contribution and that of others in the NTSRU, towards the defence of Australia remains largely unknown or disregarded.
Rraywala spent many years living between Milingimbi mission and the mainland, and worked closely with missionaries and outsiders throughout his life. Rraywala also worked as a labourer at the mission and worked to build the airstrip and the timber church. He gained notoriety with the instigation of a ‘New Deal’ policy that demanded workers being paid for their labours; and was famous also for his success growing vegetables at Gaartji on the mainland.
Rraywala was one of the few Yolngu known to fight to improve conditions for people in Arnhem Land. In the 1950s, Rraywala and his family lived at Cobourg Peninsula and in Darwin, during which time he worked in the timber industry. By the 1960s, Rraywala and his wife lived in Darwin and, in 1963, were afforded full citizenship status.
I acknowledge: the Thomson family, for their trip to the Northern Territory on the weekend; the Ramingining, Milingimbi and Gapuwiyak peoples; Lindy Allen and Louise Hamby from the Museum of Victoria, from the Research School of Humanities at the Australian National University, for providing a gathering on Sunday for the memorial service for Rraywala. It was clear, to those present - in particular, NORFORCE and all the people who had heard about this man - through the pictures and the collection of Donald Thomson, that he made a significant contribution to the protection of the Australian coastline in his work as a soldier.
One of the things that came from that memorial service on Sunday was an agreement between the Lord Mayor of the Darwin City Council, members of the Northern Land Council, families from Arnhem Land, Louise and Lindy, who are involved with the ANU, and many others, that there has to be a far greater recognition of the role of Indigenous service men and women, in particular in the Northern Territory. I look forward to working with those groups and individuals in ensuring that, when we come to celebrate many events in Australia’s history, we acknowledge the part that these people have played in our history. Many of them have not been acknowledged, and our own Australian history shows they were made to feel very unwelcome.
For young Territorians, we should all stand proud to see that men and women, black and white, stood together in the protection of this country during many different stages in wars.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I inform the House of my involvement in one of Australia’s most influential regional leadership programs. In January 2008, while serving in the Northern Territory Police Force, I applied for a scholarship to take part in a unique opportunity with other rural and regional leaders in the Australian Rural Leadership Program.
The ARLP, as it is known, is run by the Australian Rural Leadership Foundation, which is a not-for-profit organisation, incorporated in 1992 as a public company limited by guarantee. Established in 1992, to respond to the backdrop of emerging challenges for rural, regional and remote Australia, it is primarily funded by corporate sponsorship in the form of scholarships provided by a range of rural industries, industry bodies, state and federal governments, and research and development corporations.
The bulk of the cost of this program is provided by sponsors - in this case $50 000 provided by my sponsor. In addition to that, I contribute $4400 of my own money. I have been very fortunate in this case to be sponsored for this program by Rural Press Limited. Selection for this program is very competitive. In the past, the foundation received numerous applications and interviewed a short list of some 70 applicants for approximately 35 or so positions for each program. It is a part-time course of 60 days conducted over 20 months. There are five sessions, involving a combination of discussions, presentations, workshops, debates, and visits in various states and territories. One further session is held overseas and, this year, it will be held in India.
The foundation receives requests regularly from governments, industry, think tanks, and others to facilitate the involvement of its network of graduates in policy development and strategic thinking on issues such as environmental sustainability, water management, community development, and structural change.
I am thrilled to be part of this program and, as you can see, it provides very important opportunities. I am committed to fulfilling my contract to complete the program. The Territory is very much a regional location in the eyes of southerners, and it is of the utmost importance I keep working to ensure the Territory’s interests are kept at the forefront of the program. I commenced this prior to being pre-selected and elected. Had the government gone its full term, as it said it would, I would have completed this program prior to the election due in 2009.
Recently, the Chief Minister wrote a letter to my constituents. In that letter he stated I had recently missed some time in parliament because I went on a course. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope I have demonstrated to both the House and yourself that this is not just any ordinary course. This is a fabulous opportunity for someone in the Territory to represent the Territory’s interests and to ensure these interests are at the forefront of a group of eminent people across the country who have the country’s regional, rural and remote interests at heart.
Anyone who knows me will understand my commitment. I have a history of being a very committed person. I am committed to my children, my partner, and was committed to my role as a school-based police officer in the community. I have made a commitment to the sponsor; I said I would complete the program. If people listened to what I have said about this program and understand my commitment, they will know that commitment now extends to the people of Sanderson, whom I proudly represent.
I will ensure their interests are well and truly represented in this House. I made that commitment to them, and I intend to keep that commitment.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016